Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?

Posted on 7 November 2017 by John Abraham

What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?

A lot. At least that’s what I learned after reading a very recent paper out in the journal Global Climate Change. The article, “Ocean acidification alters zooplankton communities and increases top-down pressure of a cubazoan predator,” was authored by an international team of scientists – the paper looks at impacts of climate change on life in the world’s oceans.

I recall attending a horse-pulling contest as a child. The announcer at the event said something strange that stuck with me all these years. He said that two horses pulling a load at the same time are more effective than if the two horses pulled separately and their loads were added. That is, something about two horses working together made them greater than the sum of their parts. This study is a lot like those horses.

To begin, ocean acidification refers to the changing pH of ocean waters. As humans emit more greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide in particular) into the atmosphere, the chemistry of the oceans change. The effect is that the creatures living in the oceans are experiencing an environmental change that is separate from changing temperatures due to global warming. Scientists want to know how these changes will affect creatures, in particular because the biodiversity in the oceans is so very important to us as humans.

There has been some reporting on studies of calcifying organisms and their susceptibility to changing chemistry in the oceans. For instance, echinoderms, molluscs, corals, and crustaceans have been studied in laboratories and in situ. The studies show that acidification reduces development and survival. Acidification can alter the way these creatures make and maintain their shells.

But the authors of this new study point out that there are many other non-calcifying organisms that may also be impacted by acidification. Even for these creatures, acidification has been shown to have deleterious effects that result in reduced survival, reduced reproductivity, and reduced size.

So how does ocean acidification affect these non-calcifying creatures? One hypothesis is that the new chemistry of the ocean changes these creatures’ metabolism. Upsetting the metabolism means they are less efficient at using caloric resources within their bodies. 

During this study, the authors utilized a very common zooplankton called calanoids. Calanoids make up approximately 80% of the zookplanton by mass. Consequently, they are very important. The authors also identified a predator of the calanoids - the “box jellyfish”. The fancy (scientific) word for box jellyfish is “cubozoa.” The authors wanted to know how changes to water pH affected the survival of the calanoids in the presence of a predator (the cubozoan). 

After bringing both creatures together into carefully designed tanks, the authors waited and watched. In some tanks, they just changed the ocean chemistry and did not introduce the predators. In other tanks, they introduced predators but kept the ocean chemistry fixed. In a third group of tanks, they both changed chemistry and introduced the predator. And then of course, they had control tanks with no chemistry changes or predators.

What they found was really interesting. While both changes to chemistry and introduction of predators affected the populations of calanoids, the simultaneous actions of acidification and predators was greater than the individual actions. So, we see the analogy with the horses.

Why are the combined effects of these two changes more potent? The authors give clues. If, for instance, a more acidic ocean reduces the metabolic efficiency of the creatures, then they will have less energy to escape predators. In fact, these calanoid creatures are known to escape predators by making a jump or a series of jumps. Consequently, in non-altered water, only about 1% of hunting tries are successful. But, in altered water, with less energy for the calanoids, perhaps more jellyfish hunts end in a meal. 

Click here to read the rest

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 34:

  1. Thanks for this excellent piece. For those who want to read further on jellyfish, they might start with the cleverly named "Spineless."

    0 0
  2. Another thing that jelly fish teach us is that we have destroyed our population of sea turtles (who eat jelly fish).  We continue to destroy them by not protecting their nesting sites and by letting plastic bags enter the oceans which they mistake for jelly fish.  The jelly fish then hoover up the larvae of all our commercial species which have a planktonic stage (virtually all of them).  Unless we smarten up and set aside more and more of our Exclusive Economic Zones as strictly no fishing areas, eliminate plastic bags and protect turtle nesting sites, we better get used to eating jelly fish.

    0 0
  3. As a chemist, I'd like to comment the author's statement: "As humans emit more greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, in particular) into the atmosphere, the chemistry of ocean change". At first, it's necessary to clarify that in IPCC list of greenhouse gases only CO2 can dissolve in water and change its acidity (not CH4, N2O, CFCs, etc.). So, the question is: how can the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to impact on the ocean acidity?

    Simple calculations based on Henry constant for CO2 in pure water and H2CO3 dissociation constant show that change in CO2 partial pressure from 0.0003 to 0.0004 atm (that takes place in last 100 - 150 years) will decrease pH by 0.06. Indeed, this difference will be negligibly small because the solubility CO2 in saline water is less than in pure water, and ocean water contains carbonate-hydrocarbonate and boric acid-borate buffer systems. The composition of ocean water and its acidity are examined in detail in the comprehensive work of the Europen Comission

    Estimation of pH in this work (p.26) gives the value of 8.1 (not acidic!). Of course, the local temporary acidification of ocean is possible, but it is caused not by CO2, but by SO2 and NO2 that are much more acidic than CO2.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [TD] See the multipart series "OA Not OK."

    [DB] Also, please see "Seawater Equilibria" and "The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption".

  4. Aleks:

    From the preface of your reference:

    "Ocean acidification is an undisputed fact. The ocean presently takes up one-fourth of the carbon CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from human activities. As this CO2 dissolves in the surface ocean, it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, increasing ocean acidity and shifting the partitioning of inorganic carbon species towards increased CO2 and dissolved inorganic carbon, and decreased concentration of carbonate ion. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, surface-ocean acidity has gone up by 30%. The current increase in ocean acidity is a hundred times faster than any previous natural change that has occurred over the last many millions of years. In the case of unabated CO2 emissions the level of ocean acidity will increase to three times the preindustrial level by the end of this century." (my emphasis)

    Chemists who actually work in this field think that ocean acidification is an important problem.  Your assertions are not scientificly based.  Next time try to find a reference that supports your position.

    0 0
  5. Aleks says ocean acidification from CO2 is "insignificant". The following is from NOAA:

    "Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years."

    Doesnt look very "insignificant" to me. Ph change also differs from Aleks calculation.

    The article has information on impacts currently on sea life including pteropods, coral, shellfish etc,  and also projected impacts. None of it looks "insignificant". Also detail on data collection etc.

    Relatively small changes can often have large repercussions. We see this as a constant feature in natural world and also technology.

    0 0
  6. Thanks for references. I'll try to discuss them. 1) In nigelj post: This article contains general statements without links to original works, mention of one (only!) possible reaction, and explanation of pH value at the beginner's level. 2) The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption. In this paper, the absorption of IR-radiation by CO2 is discussed, not the absorption of gas by water. 3) Seawater Equilibria. Here the total carbon dioxide molality of 1.65mmol/kg is given at a partial pressure of CO2 0.000387 bar. So, the Henry constant k= P/m = 0.235. This value is much greater than in NISTWebBook (0.031-0.035), so it seems to be doubtful.

    4) OA not OK. In these 18 articles many chemical processes and parameters are described, but not all. Hydrolysis reactions such as carbonate ion + H2O -> bicarbonate + OH- and the role of buffer systems (carbonate and borate) are not mentioned, the very important data on CO2 solubility in seawater at dfifferent temperatures are not given. In the part 4: "average ocean pH decreases from 8.25 to 8.14 after industrial revolution". The industrial revolution means not only increased emission of CO2 into atmosphere, but also emission of SO2 and NO2 during burning coal and some kinds of oil, development of chemical industry that produces gases much more acidic than CO2. So, "after the industrial revolution" does not mean "because of increase CO2 in atmosphere". Part 14 by Drug Mackie seems to be the most interesting, especially Fig.13. Value of pH near the the ocean surface is ~8.1 in Atlantic and ~7.8 in Pacific: how is this difference compatible with the idea of uniform distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere? And what about explanation of pH decrease by ~0.3 with depth? Which amount of CO2 can be produced by respiration? May be, it would be many times greater than all human produced emission into the atmosphere after industrial revolution.

    0 0
  7. Michael sweet, please note that statements made in preface (especially, of collective works) are not always confirmed by real data reported by researchers. In the preface: 'As this CO2 dissolves in the surface ocean, it reacts with sea water to form carbonic acid". See p.20: Reaction of H2CO3 formation is slow, and '... the concentration  of carbonic acid is only about 1/1000 of concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide". Total carbon dioxide (H2CO3 + CO2(aq)) "at higher pHs ionises to form bicarbonate and carbonate ions". Hence, it will be slightly alkaline buffer solution that also contains hydroxyl ions with pH 8.1 (table 1.2, p.24).

    0 0
  8. Aleks @6,  sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are not causing ocean acidification because concentrations are massively lower than carbon dioxide as below.

    0 0
  9. Nigelj@8, please note that acidity is determined by the concentration of hydrogen ions only, not by molecules of substances. Properties of CO2, NO2, and SO2 that produce H+ in water solutions are quite different. a) CO2 has a relatively small solubility depending on partial pressure, temperature, and water salinity. At 25oC solubility in g/kg water is 1.5 for CO2, ~90 for SO2 . NO2 reacts with water forming HNO2 and HNO3 . b)The main forms of CO 2 are CO2 (aq) and H2CO3 , at that the first one prevails: amount of carbonic acid is about 1000 times less than total amount of dissolved CO2 (link in the post 6, p.20). SO2 and NO2 completely convert into corresponding acids, and sulfite and nitrite ions oxidize to sulfate and nitrate, so eventually we get strong acids H2SO4 and HNO3..
    I'd like to make comparative calculation. Let's pretend that above mentioned 1.5 g CO2 fell into the water only as a result of burning coal and found corresponding amounts of sulfur and nitrogen oxides (it's acceptable because crude oil also contains sulfur and nitrogen). The average content of C, N, and S in coal can be estimated from the data in the following link (pp. 117-118) as C 85, N 1,5, S 1 (mass.%).
    Assuming that the mole ratio of substances in the combustion products corresponds to the ratio C: N : S in the coal, it could be found that together 34 mmole CO2 (from 1.5g), 0.52 mmole NO2 and 0.15 mmole SO2 are formed. Because SO2 and NO2 convert completely to strong acids, total H+ amount would be 0.67 mmole (for H2SO4 only the first dissociation step is taken into account). Amount of H+ from carbonic acid could be found from its concentration (34 mmole/kg) and dissociation constant 4.3* 10-7. Even neglecting above mentioned note that H2CO3 concentration is many times less than total [CO2(aq)] , we find the value of H+ from CO 2 of 0.12 mmol. So, even very simplified calculation shows that SO2 and NO2 produce much more acidity than CO2 .
    Please note that your link is about composition of dry air while SO2 and NO2 almost completely absorbed by air moisture.

    0 0
  10. Aleks,

    Both NO2 and SO2 are consumed by bacteria in the environment so they do not accumulate like CO2 does.  In the 1950's and 60's (in the Western countries), large amounts of NO2 and SO2 caused acid rain.  This primarily affected the land because of the immense size of the ocean.  The West has reduced their acid pollution although China and India are currently adding a lot of those chemicals.  

    Since CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and stays essentially forever it has a much greater affect on the pH of the ocean.  If geoengineering by use of sulfate aerosols were attempted that would affect ocean pH.

    Read the series OA is not OK on SkS to get more information.

    0 0
  11. Aleks @9, I get that sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides reacts easily with water to produce strong acidity. But that doesnt prove anything by itself because you have to look at total quantities of the various gases surely.

    The issue to me is quantities of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are so incredibly small compared to CO2,that their overall affect on ocean acidity is likely to be totally insignificant. They have increased over time but no different in rate to CO2. Its total quantities that stand out.

    Clearly the climate science community  think CO2 is the prime suspect, and they do not just guess this stuff, and would have have calculated it.

    If you think differently, you need to show in simple terms total quantities of the various gases CO2, S02, etc in atmosphere, multiplied by acidity strength of each and taking account of how much of each gas turns to acid, and at what rate and so on. Such a thing would require considerable work.

    Im not a chemist, but to repeat its obvious the differences in quantities of CO2 against SO2 and N20  are so huge, so many orders of magnitude, that its hard for me to see SO2 and N2O having significant effect on oceans, unless its in some specific, limited location next to a coal fired power station or something.

    0 0
  12. Plus of course what Michael Sweet says. All of this has to be factored into calculation as well. 

    0 0
  13. Michael sweet, thanks for interesting note about bacteria eating SO2 and NO2 (give a link, please). It's unclear yet, do bacteria eat these compounds in the air or in water solution? I can give the link about bacteria eating CO2:

    Let me recall once more that CO2 in atmosphere is not Hin solution, and small amounts of SO2 and NO2 produce in water solution  more acid than large amount of CO2. Both these statements are based on real facts and general principles of chemistry. I'd like to see in this discussion concrete objections to specific allegations.                                              About your link to OA is not OK. I have just commented these articles in post 6, and I would be glad to receive from you objections to my comments. 

    0 0
  14. aleks @13.

    While you are correct when you say "small amounts of SO2 and NO2 produce in water solution more acid than large amout(s) of CO2," is this relevant to the proverbial price of cheese if there are increasingly "large amount(s) of CO2" within today's oceans that are significantly increasing ocean acidity, while there is not a sign of even the beginings of the "amounts of SO2 and NO2" you talk of. Maybe I have missed something, but you do appear to be talking drivel. Oceans are suffering acidification (more +H) and the cause is indisputably due to rising atmospheric levels of CO2.

    0 0
  15. Aleks:

    Everyone who keeps an aquarium is familiar with the nitrogen cycle in water which converts ammonia into nitrogen gas via nitrate ion: NH3-->NO2- --> NO3- --> N2.  Sulfate SO4- also has a natural cycle.  You can easily Google this information.  It is not my job to look up commmon knowledge for you. 

    Harvards "superbug" is unable to convert all the CO2 in the atmosphere to energy as demonstrated by the Keeling curve's yearly increase.  This is an interesting press release but has no bearing on our conversation.

    You have made the assertion that NO2 and SO2 gas contribute to ocean acidification.  You have been refered to posts containing extensive literature citations that show the scientific consensus is that CO2 is causes ocean acidification. 

    Since you are making the claim that scienitsts are incorrect, it is your responsibility to provide data to support your claims.  Seat of the pants arguments unsupported by data or expertise do not count on this site.  It is not my responsibility to summarize the OA is not OK series for you here because you have not bothered to read it yet.

    I have a masters degree in Chemistry and have taught college level chemistry for the past ten years.  I am unimpressed by your claims of novel calculations.  Keep in mind that the chemists who did the experiments described in the OA is not OK series know much more about the acid/base buffer systems in the ocean than either you or I.  They know that the Ka of sulfuric acid is greater than the Ka of carbonic acid.   

    Your naive calculation of relative masses of emitted gasses from an unscrubbed smokestack does not convince anyone familiar with the chemistry.  Today I drove past a coal burning power plant.  There is a dry wall plant built next door that uses the calcium sulfate from the scrubber to make their dry wall.  How much did that sulfer contribute to ocean acidification compared to the CO2 they vented into the atmosphere?  While I drove my car emitted CO2 but no NO2 or SO2.  So much for your calculation.

    0 0
  16. I think that NO2 in the ocean is unlikely to contribute significantly to acidification. NO2 is a difficult nutrient to obtain, and is likely to be consumed immediately. Pelagi Bacter Ubique, possibly the most abundant species of all, favors base pairs A-T because they require less nitrogen. The daily struggle for nitrogen defines the entire life of an immense number of marine organisms. 

    0 0
  17. Aleks "and small amounts of SO2 and NO2 produce in water solution more acid than large amount of CO2"

    Yes in general, and interesting, but pretty non specific.

    Can you please define in quantities what you mean by small and large ammounts, and how this compares to actual real world ratio in oceans please. Otherwise you aren't demonstrating anything.

    Remember we are talking very small ammounts of SO2 and N20 in atmosphere and gigantic ammounts of CO2 in relative comparison, refer to link I posted. The difference is huge, many orders of magnitude, so even if SO2 and N20 etc are more acidic I doubt this is enough to counter volumes of CO2.

    Like others say published science shows C02 is causing ocean acidity and so duty is on you to prove it wrong in specific and precise detail, taking all things into account.

    Dont get me wrong. SO2 and nitrogen oxides must cause at least some ocean acidity. Ships might release some of these oxides. But  I just cant see how it would be the main factor.

    And the release of at least some S02 doesnt change the fact CO2 is contributing to ocean acidity.

    We should be reducing all these emissions S02, C02 etc as they all cause problems for natural environment. Isn't that the real point?

    0 0
  18. Comment #16 should read nitrogen is a difficult nutrient to obtain, not NO2.

    0 0
  19. nigelj @11, 17

    About comparison of quantities CO2, NO2, SO2 in atmosphere. Please, let me to recall once more that water acidity from CO2 depends not on its amount in atmosphere, but on concentration of dissolved CO2. This concentration is directly proportional to CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere (Henry law) and inversely proportional to water temperature (global warming decreases CO2 solubility). We know about increase of CO2 in atmosphere after industrial revolution, and we know that emission of SO2 and NO2 also increased significantly at the same time. 

    Your idea about comparison of amounts of different gases and their "acidity strengh" is interesting, but unrealizable, because amount of CO2 is relatively stable, while SO2 and NO2 are carried away from atmosphere by water. That's why is possible to compare effect of different gases on acidity by estimation of theie relative emission at fuel combustion (see post 6). Please note that SO2 and NO2 themselves have no "acidity strength": it differs for H2SO3 and H2SO4, for HNO2 and HNO3. 

    About your proposal (post 17) to demonstrate in quantities "what I mean by small and large amounts". I did such calculation in comment 9. Now I have the reliable link to value of the ratio [H2CO3]/[CO2] = 1.2*10-3

    Accounting for this value reduces amount of hydrogen ions fron CO2 found before about 30 times.  So, let's think about relative contribution of different gases to water acidity.

    Please note that in the last paragraph of post 11 and in post 17 you write N2O instead of NO2. Hope, It is a misprint. 

    0 0
  20. Aleks @19

    Yes I get partial pressures are the factor, but quantity must be important. Take the extreme hypothetical case of an atmosphere with just one molecule of SO2 in atmosphere and trillion molecules or more of CO2. Which will cause more acidity in oceans? I would have thought CO2.

    "Now I have the reliable link to value of the ratio [H2CO3]/[CO2] = 1.2*10-3"

    This is not comparison of CO2 against the other gases fully calculated comparing real world quantities of gases and partial pressures and all  the processes you mention. Neither does it consider all issues people have raised. The question is which is main cause of acidity in oceans, and this requires full pages of calculations and all data in way that is properly set out and verifiable and can be followed in systematic logical fashion, not quotes of bits and pieces  from chemistry textbooks presented in fragmented fashion through blog posts, giving me a headache.

    No disrespect meant, you take trouble to post details, and  have more chemistry expertise than me easily, but I am very, very perceptive and know from experiences I can spot nonsense reliably.

    "Please note that in the last paragraph of post 11 and in post 17 you write N2O instead of NO2. Hope, It is a misprint."

    Yeah a missprint. Ha ha!

    0 0
  21. Aleks:

    When I balance the equation of nitrate ions to nitrogen gas I get:

    10e- + 12H+ 2NO3- --> N2 + 6H2O

    Since bacteris convert nitrate to organic nitrogen, and eventually nitrogen gas, this means that for every nitric acid molecule that dissolves in the ocean it removes 5 atoms of H+.  That would cause the pH to go up and not down.  Sulfate ion also is reduces and consumes H+ wqhen it dissolves in the ocean.

    Please provide peer reviewed evidence that nitrate and sulfate dissolving in the ocean will cause the pH to drop and not rise as I have demonstrated.

    Since you have not provided any evidence to support your wild claims I do not need to provide any additional evidence to support my claims.

    0 0
  22. Aleks:

    According to your Wikipedia reference the Ka of H2CO3 is:

    2.5 x 10-4. (Ka does not have units)

    The apparent Ka of carbon dioxide when dissolved in water is :

    4.5 x 10-7. 

    The difference is caused by the fact that most of the carbon is CO2 and not H2CO3.

    In your calculation at 9 you used the value for the apparent Ka of CO2 and not the actual Ka of H2CO3.  That means your revised calculation at 19:

    "Accounting for this value reduces amount of hydrogen ions fron CO2 found before about 30 times."

    is incorrect.  In addition, the value would change by 300 times, not 30 times.  As you read more you are becoming less accurate in your calculations.  You were closer the first time.

    When you do not know what you are doing it is difficult to be scientifically convincing.  Perhaps it would be better to read the OA is not OK series and see if you can figure out the chemistry before you claim that all oceanographers do not know what they are doing.

    0 0
  23. The statement @19 that "we know about increase of CO2 in atmosphere after industrial revolution, and we know that emission of SO2 and NO2 also increased significantly at the same time," deserves critical assessment.

    We do indeed know that anthropogenic CO2 emissions (which are not balanced by absorption) are 100x bigger than natural ones. Increases in SO2 and NO2 are less widely known.

    However as the graph below shows, we can say for SO2 that annual anthropogenic SO2 emissions peaked at some 70Mt(S). These are not 100x the natural emissions which are estimated  by Fischer (2008) to be 100Mt(S). Thus peak man-made SO2 emissions did not even exceed the natural emissions.SO2 emissions

    The values for NO2 have not appeared so easily butfor NO & NO2 we can say that "Globally, quantities of nitrogen oxides produced naturally (by bacterial and volcanic action and lightning) far outweigh anthropogenic (man-made) emissions."

    0 0
  24. Aleks:

    On doing background reading on the topic of CO2 and ocean acidification I found this reference.  It appears to be classroom material written by someone who does research in this area.  

    It states:

    "At typical surface seawater pH of 8.2, the speciation between [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] is 0.5%, 89%, and 10.5%,"

    Looking back at your calculation at 9, you claim that 34 mmol of CO2 would yield 0.12 mmol of H+ ions.  At 19 you state that the .12 mmol is 30 times too high.

    The actual value of the mmol of H+ ions formed from 34 mmol of CO2 is about 37 mmol.  The calculations you base your argument on are off by approximately a factor of 9,000 or four orders of magnitude. 

    It appears that you used the properties of distilled water for your calculation and not the properties of the ocean.  Since we are discussing Ocean Acidification, you must use a pH of 8.2 in your calculation.  

    You have botched the calculation.  When done correctly it is clear that CO2 is the primary contributor.  We do not even have to consider that NO2 and SO2 are removed by the environment.  You would not receive a passing grade in my AP Chemistry class for this work. 

    When I tried to Google the contribution of NO2 and SO2 to ocean acidification I was unable to find any information, even in frequently asked questions.  The contribution of these ions must be insignificant or I would have found it.  You have provided no links to support your wild claims.

    Scientists have shown that your agument is based on flawed calculations and has no merit.

    0 0
  25. michael sweet @23,

    Concerning 'insignificance' of the issue raised by the commenter 'aleks', there is a polution issue identified with SO2 which extends to very local OA in regions where heavy shipping vent tanks used to scrub SO2 from their exhaust fumes. The rest of his OA blather is more vacuous than fumes.

    0 0
  26. It's too difficult to answer all comments at once. I'd like to invite my opponents to analyze together the data from two publications related to the main problem of our discussion: CO2 in the atmosphere and seawater acidity. Doug Mackle (OA is not OK, #14) shows a graph of pH versus depth in Pacific and Atlantic (Fig.13). In more recent article by Z.Ernest a.o. there is a similar graph pH vs. depth along with the graph of the dependence CO2 concentration (T CO2) in water on the depth (see below).

    Values of pH at water surface in both articles confirm the difference between Pacific and Atlantic. How to explain this difference if we assume that ocean acidity is determined by CO2 uniformly distributed in the atmosphere?

    Left and right graphs clearly show that significant difference between pH at zero depth in Atlantic and Pacific corresponds to almost equal values of T CO2 (how to explain?). It can be seen that increase of TCO2 from 2000 to 2350 (Pacific, depth from 0 to 500m) decreases pH from 7.82 to 7.3. So, increase in CO2 concentration by 17.5% leads to growth of [H+] of 3.3 times. The result can not be explained from the point of view of a chemist. I think that the analysis of these data allows to doubt the correctness of the theory that explains the ocean acidity only by the presence of CO2.

    0 0
  27. Aleks:

    Your post is off topic here.  You should post all your questions in OA is not OK #20.  I have posted a response to you there.  

    0 0
  28. Alex, my apologies. I didn't see your paragraph at end  in 9 on combustion products of coal and molar calculations, acidity calculations, etc, I was distracted by a problem in my house. However M Sweet has criticised it, and you haven't refuted his criticisms, so it looks to me that theres just not enough S02 and N02 to be significant.

    I will leave it there and not comment any more on this. I'm getting totally out of my depth on the chemistry, and leave it to you people. Thanks for interesting discussion.

    But M Sweet appears to know exactly what he is doing to me, and you should listen to him.

    0 0
  29. I apologize to the other opponents, but so far I'll only reply michael sweet (@15 and @24).

    @15. "Scientific consensus is that CO2 is causes ocean acidification". The correctness of the scientific theory is determined not by voting, but by how it corresponds to the facts. Your assertion that SO2 from coal burning power plants absorbs in scrubbers refers to particular cases and is refuted by the data given in @23 (thanks MA Rodger for interesting information). I'll only add that not only SO2 and NO2 are absorbed in scrubbers, but first of all CO2 (absorbent Ca(OH)2). That's why "dry wall plant" you saw is built not from CaSO4, but from CaCO3 with impurities of CaSO3, Ca SO4, Ca(NO2)2, and Ca(NO3)2. It's not a good building material.

    @24. "The actual value of the mmol of H+ ions formed from 34 mmol of CO2 is about 37 mmol". This is possible only if H2CO3 dissociates completely (??) as a monopritic acid and partly as a diprotic acid. It contradicts the facts established in chemistry.

    0 0
  30. Aleks, one final important point just for you to think about in terms of quantifying this issue as a whole.

    First to summarise, your basic proposition is SO2 and NO2 are dominant causes of ocean acidity more so than CO2. Internet and mainstream science all says CO2 is main cause, so you are on the back foot and need compelling argument. Given combustion products are mostly C02 this also means you have to precisely prove your case because at face value it looks like CO2 even although I take your point other gases are more acidic.

    So far I dont think you have proven your case.

    I think to prove your case you need by analogy a sort of bookeeping ledger approach. This is why I said before its more complex than you think, or just a case of molar concentrations. Let me explain.

    First calculate effects of burning coal, oil and gas regarding how much CO2 is produced by each, and calculate how much acidity this produces in oceans ( or strictly speaking change in ph). Your calculation on this 9 above seems in dispute.

    Then on other side of ledger you have to consider how much of combustion of coal, oil and gas is SO2 and NO2 and how much acidity this produces. So far you have only considered coal which has most sulphur compounds. you have to consider propertions of each fossil fuel humanity uses and quantities of SO2 and NO2 each produce and what it adds up to.

    Most SO2 and NO2 is washed out over land, with some blown offshore into harbours and some released from ships. So you have to find quantities / proportions and factor this in to work out what proportion gets into oceans as a whole. The smaller quantity getting into the oceans is obviously smaller and so offsets the strong acidity of these gases. Some of these compounds rained out over land will get into oceans through groundwater and rivers, but you have to quantify how much, and how much is neutralised along the way. The rate of groundwater flow is also extremely slow and is not going to be a significant factor.

    You also have to also factor in complex processes of effects of organic life interacting with these compounds as others have raised that reduce their effects.

    So far you havent done a lot of this and its hugely significant.

    This will give two final quantities to compare, acidity from CO2 compared to acidity from the combination of other gases (or rather effect on ph). Until you do this you have proven absolutely nothing to me.

    I dont know that its of great significance to humanity what the proportions are. They all come from burning fossil fuels anyway so it becomes pedantic.

    Regarding Michael Sweets comments on diffrent concentrations of C02 in different oceans being due to older water. I read this myself somewhere so he is right. So its a  complex issue, more than just looking at chemistry of specific molecules.  

    0 0
  31. Aleks:

    I have responded to you here.  Please respond there where the discussion is on topic.

    0 0
  32. Some remarks to the main problem of our discussion: effect of CO2 on ocean acidity. Let's analyze data that can be considered as a result of experimental verification of this effect. Doug Mackie [1] gives a graph (Fig. 13) of pH dependence on depth in Pacific and Atlantic ocean
    Similar (but not the same) data are given by Z.Ernest a.o. [2], this article also gives the values of CO2 concentration (T CO2, micromole/kg):
    Some of the data taken from these graphs for convenience are tabulated.
    Atlantic Pacific Depth, m pH TCO2 [2] pH TCO2 [2]
    0 8.1[1], ~8[2] ~ 2000 7.8[1], 7.82[2] ~2000
    500 7.9[1], 7.7[2] 2150 7.75[1], 7.3[2] 2350
    From these data it is clear that: a) Difference between the results of measurements of surface pH values in Atlantic and Pacific at approximately the same CO2 concentration is greater than the accepted decrease in pH of the World Ocean due to Industrial Revolution (0.1 – 0.15). b) CO2 concentration in the surface layer of both oceans is much less than value corresponding to maximum solubility (1.5 g/kg = 34 mmole/kg), tabulated values of TCO2 are in the range of 2 – 2.35 mmole/kg. c) An increase in the CO2 concentration by 7.5% (2000 -> 2150) leads to the decrease in the pH by 0.2, or increase in [H+] from 8 nmole/kg (pH 8.1) to 13 nmole/kg (pH 7.9): by 63%. Calculation from the data in the right column of the table leads to a much larger difference.
    It seems that these data do not confirm the theory of determining role of atmospheric CO2 in the change of ocean acidity.

    0 0
  33. Aleks:

    The solubility of CO2 in water dependant on both the temperature and the pressure of the CO2.  According to the engineering toolbox, at 15C and 1 atm pressure, approximately 2 gm of CO2 dissolve per kg of water.  Your figure of 1.5 g/kg is probably from 25C.

    You make two basic mistakes with using this temperature:

    1. The average temperature of the ocean is closer to 15C and not 25C.
    2. The pressure of CO2 above the ocean is not 1 atm, it is 4x10-4 atm.

    Since you do not know how to figure out the solubility of CO2 from a graph, why should I believe your claim that:

    " Calculation from the data in the right column of the table leads to a much larger difference.
    It seems that these data do not confirm the theory of determining role of atmospheric CO2 in the change of ocean acidity."

    You have made so many basic calculation errors that your calculations canot be trusted.

    Scientists have found that the tabulated data is completely consistant with theory that CO2 determines the pH of the ocean.  Keep in mind that other buffers exist in the ocean (especially boric acid) and you must consider these when you calcuate the pH change caused by adding more CO2.

    0 0
  34. Aleks, Michael Sweet, this published research appears to be what is very relevant. 

    "Impact of anthropogenic atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on ocean acidification and the inorganic carbon system"

    Scott C. Doney,*† Natalie Mahowald,‡ Ivan Lima,* Richard A. Feely,§ Fred T. Mackenzie,¶ Jean-Francois Lamarque,‖ and Phil J. Rasch‡

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Sep 11; 104(37): 14580–14585.
    Published online 2007 Sep 5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702218104
    PMCID: PMC1965482
    Environmental Sciences, Sustainability Science, Environmental Sciences


    On a global scale, the alterations in surface water chemistry from anthropogenic nitrogen and sulfur deposition are only a few percent of the ocean acidification and Δ[DIC] increases expected from the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2. However, impacts on seawater chemistry can be much more substantial in coastal waters, on the order of 10–50% or more of the anthropogenic CO2-driven changes near the major source regions and in marginal seas.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us