Arguments
Ocean acidification: Coming soon
Posted on 30 June 2011 by Doug Mackie
On Friday we will begin posting, twice weekly on Tuesdays and Fridays, an 18-part series on ocean acidification (OA).
Our goal is to provide you, our gentle readers, with the background you need to understand the chemical and physical processes behind OA. This will allow you to better understand a field that the rest of the world is waking up to and also to evaluate the commentary on the web. We were motivated to write these posts by the increasing number of comments – here and elsewhere – that are based on misconceptions about OA.
The posts require only high school science. However, this is deceptive, as some concepts and applications of ‘simple’ science can challenge 2nd and 3rd year university students. And that is probably why so much of the little that is written is based upon misconceptions.
Topics of the posts are given below:
OA is not OK. How calcium carbonate is made.
Thermodynamic duo. When is a chemical equation valid?
Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home. Why CaCO3 is easy to make.
The f-word: pH. What is pH?
Reservoir dogs. Ocean carbon distribution, reservoir sizes.
Always take the weathering. How carbonate species get into the ocean.
Le Chatelier. Why it is not good enough for ocean acidification
170 to 1. What happens when we add acid to seawater?
Henry the 8th I am. How CO2 gets into the ocean.
Is the ocean blowing bubbles? Why the ocean is not a source of the CO2.
Did we do it? Yes we did! Where is the CO2?
Christmas present: Modern observations of pH change.
Polymorphs: The son of Poseidon. Introduction to aragonite and calcite.
Going down. How pH changes with depth.
No accounting for taste. Balancing equations to get solubility product.
Omega. Saturation index.
Pumping currents. How carbon gets from the surface into the deep ocean.
Been this way before. What the past means for understanding today.
The posts are written by Doug Mackie, Christina McGraw, and Keith Hunter.
OA is my number one reason why geo-engineering from space (decreasing solar gain and allowing increased CO2 emissions) would be total foolishness.
Mainstream science to the rescue!
The ocean is alkaline with a PH slightly over 8.0, and co2 reduces the alkalinity.
Basic chemistry.
On a side note, it's only 'basic chemistry' until the pH drops through 7.0!
:)
Out of curiosity, where are the University of Otago and Clark University located?
Climate Change Makes Some Chemicals More Toxic to Aquatic Life
The blog is about a new paper published in the journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management.
Acidification doesn't mean acidic. Basic chemistry.
"You can't have an alkaline condition and an acid condition at the same time. It is physically impossible unless you know of a change in the laws?"
That's true but it's irrelevant. You can't have something cold and hot at the same time either, but you can certainly heat something that is cold to make it a little less cold.
please do not continue debating the terminology, it adds really nothing to the science of ocean acidification/decreasing pH/dealkalinization/whatever. And above all, this pseudo-scientific argument is an old and boring way to try to hijack the discussion. Please let people discuss the science.
You do make me laugh! If I am on the south pole and travel north, I am northbound, even though I haven't left the southern hemisphere. For northbound read 'acidification'.
University of Otago
Clark University
I do know my OA but I don't yet know how to fix a link in a published post.
I look forward to this series. Are you paying attention, Lomborg? (Probably not.)
OA, all by itself, may have devastating impacts on human activity - here's a quote from an FAO briefing paper[pdf] for the COP15 conference:
Fish (including shellfish) provides essential nutrition for 3 billion people and at least 50% of animal protein and minerals to 400 million people in the poorest countries.
Over 500 millon people in developing countries depend, directly or indirectly, on fisheries and aquaculture for their livelihoods.
Not to mention the monetary value - the NOAA indicates that commercial fisheries in the US alone were worth $3.9 billion in 2009. FAO numbers put just the international trade in fishery produce at ~$85 billion per year.
Looking forward to the series.
Of course "decreasing pH = becoming more acidic = acidification." New people may bring up the question as time goes on. Instead of deleting, how about adding "Moderator Response: decreasing pH = becoming more acidic = acidification" when needed, and deleting or editing any excessive replies?
I think there is a need for more research on this issue, and if it is to come in time to influence policymakers who currently believe HFO's are a solution to the HFC problem, the need is rather urgent, but any insights from experts in OA would be of great interest at this year's Montreal Protocol discussions.
Obviously, the numbers may not exist to show how much each component contributes, but just a designation of what is there, if not how much, would be useful.
[ -snip-]
You're welcome to delete anything you want, but when you delete on-topic material of general interest from individuals reasonably well informed on the topic, you diminish the quality of what remains. I'll leave the rest up to you.
For reasons known only to the gods of the Internet, I haven't been able to register here in my full name. Readers interested in ocean acidification can probably find my comments elsewhere via Google, or visit Judy Curry's blog for some of them.
Fred Moolten
[DB] Fred, there is a Fred Moolton ID already in the system with a comcast email address coming from the same geographic area as you. If that is you, try logging in under that name with the password you used for that. I just resent that info back to that email address in case you forgot.
[DB] Fred, I reset that account, so hopefully it will work for you.
As to the alkalinity/acidity/basic/ph issue, that has been so rehashed here over and over again as to become an Internet law of it's own, like Poe's Law or Godwin's Law. In this case we invoked the "Look! A Squirrel!" Law, as the only point in raising it was to derail the discussion of the OP.
Oh yes there are other impacts and we will get to them.
Excellent job.