The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw an interesting program last night on the Science Channel where they mentioned the Fall of the worlds first Mega City of, Mesopotamia in ancient Iraq.

Brilliant people that developed so many things back at 4000 BC.
There end sent the world into a sort of dark ages for 1000's of years. Many of there technologies where not reinvented for almost 3000 Years.

The cause of there downfall:
Redirecting River water to Irrigate there great city worked wonders and allowed the Mega city to form. That same water left vast amounts of Salts and Minerals in the Fields that it Irrigated, until the soil became so contaminated that nothing could grow.

The Parallel:
They knew it was happening, but chose to do nothing until people where starving and the city went into chaos. I am sure they had a few MCarey's saying that nothing was wrong, it's just a natural cycle of crop failure, just scarifies's a few Goats and Hippies and all will be well.


I
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7728717#post7728717 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
A layman reading the piece would have visions of battery acid flowing through the oceans.

Exactly what I was trying to get across to Randy.

Everyone else,

MCary never said "nothing" was going on and I have never said CO2 levels are not rising. Stop putting words in our mouths (or posts). Think of something smart to say and rebut. Don't try to invalidate what Mike and I say by twisting the words we have posted here.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7728424#post7728424 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Increased CO2 and Global warming will result in longer growing seasons and lusher foilage in some areas. Global climate change will not cause drought, it will move drought from one area to another. Increased flooding that was predicted has not occured. So that's really not an issue. So why no stories of the possible expansion of rain forrests caused by global warming?

Mike
Increased CO2 also makes plants less nutritious (becasue they grow faster) and disturbs the ecological composition of an area. Some plants are better able to use the increased CO2 and grow faster than other plants, so the balance is thrown off and may decrease biodiversity.

Global climate change can cause drought, because if the planet heats up, the soil releases its moisture more readily. Rain forests will also see more stress. A major problem right now is the fragmentation of the RF, and the increased perimeter of the forests expose more of the forest to drier air which tends to slowly 'erode' the forest, not encourage it to grow.
 
Increased CO2 also makes plants less nutritious (becasue they grow faster) and disturbs the ecological composition of an area. Some plants are better able to use the increased CO2 and grow faster than other plants, so the balance is thrown off and may decrease biodiversity.

Anything to back that up?

Just admit that you did not understand the pH scale. There is no shame in that.

I have a masters in Biochem. But I'll let you explain it to me. What is pH? Can you convert 8.2 pH into pKa?

How much more corrosive is 6 normal HCL than distilled water stated as a percentage?

What does corrosive mean? Isn't 8.2 pH seawater more corrosive to iron and steel than 6.0 pH freshwater?

If corals do not corrode at all at 8.2 and 8.1 is 30% more corrosive, then what is 30% of zero?

hmmmmmmm....

Mike
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7728717#post7728717 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I did not say the figure was wrong, I said it was sensational. By using the percentage being its a large number you can hype the story. A layman reading the piece would have visions of battery acid flowing through the oceans. It was clearly meant to stir emotions and sell papers not to further understanding of science.
T

Exactly! That is also why they selected the term "corrosive". Aside from being completely incorrect in the usage of the term, the term istself is highly emotional. The correct way to make the statement would have been, "corals and shelled sea creatures face an uncertain future in oceans made less alkaline by the industrial emissions that fuel global warming, a government report warned Wednesday." But "less alkaline" does not sound as bad as "corrosive" now does it?


I guess if you want ed to skew the statement a little to the left you could use "more acidic", and I wouldnt have too much of a problem with it as it tis at least technically correct.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7729259#post7729259 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I have a masters in Biochem. But I'll let you explain it to me. What is pH? Can you convert 8.2 pH into pKa?

How much more corrosive is 6 normal HCL than distilled water stated as a percentage?

What does corrosive mean? Isn't 8.2 pH seawater more corrosive to iron and steel than 6.0 pH freshwater?

If corals do not corrode at all at 8.2 and 8.1 is 30% more corrosive, then what is 30% of zero?

hmmmmmmm....

Mike

I could answer those questions, but I might as well stick my foot in a bear trap than respond at this point. If I make one tiny error the jaws will close. :lol:

Obviously, for some reason you have constructed a big straw man around the word "corrosive" making it seem that "corals corroding" is what is at issue here.

I like you. If you come to Santa Cruz I'll buy you a beer.
I've learned a lot about science communication ( a very important skill for a PhD to have) from this thread.
 
Last edited:

If the pH drops from 8.2 to 8.1, the solution is becoming more NUETRAL, not more CORROSIVE. If the goverment report cannot use a scientific term correctly, how much can we trust the data?


You may not care for the choice of words selected by a news organization reporting on a scientific study, but I find corrosive to fit quite well. Calcium carbonate will completely dissolve at pH 7.0 and not at pH 8.2. If that is the way they use the term corrosive, rather than a different way describing corrosion to metals, it is good enough for me.

I did not say the figure was wrong, I said it was sensational. By using the percentage being its a large number you can hype the story. A layman reading the piece would have visions of battery acid flowing through the oceans. It was clearly meant to stir emotions and sell papers not to further understanding of science.

I'm sorry that you find the actual real number to be sensationalized. That seems like an awfully weak criticism. In fact, it might suggest that you have an agenda that the actual data didn't serve, and so it must be "ridiculous", if not inaccurate.

MCary never said "nothing" was going on and I have never said CO2 levels are not rising. Stop putting words in our mouths (or posts). Think of something smart to say and rebut. Don't try to invalidate what Mike and I say by twisting the words we have posted here.

Are you referring to me?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7729259#post7729259 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Anything to back that up?

Mike
There are better papers, but here are some available to everyone.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=164642
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=CO2PLANT.OSU
Simply do a google search for "CO2 plant diversity" and "CO2 plant nutrition"
Here's an article on the fact that increased CO2 might not even improve growth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

Regardless, there will be negative impacts on plant ecology. And that is just plant ecology, who knows what will happen to everything else.
 
I have a masters in Biochem. But I'll let you explain it to me. What is pH? Can you convert 8.2 pH into pKa?

How much more corrosive is 6 normal HCL than distilled water stated as a percentage?

What does corrosive mean? Isn't 8.2 pH seawater more corrosive to iron and steel than 6.0 pH freshwater?

If corals do not corrode at all at 8.2 and 8.1 is 30% more corrosive, then what is 30% of zero?


pH 7 is far more "corrosive" to coral skeletons than any pH above it. Above pH 8.2, coral skeletons will not dissolve at all.

pH is a measure of H+ in the water. pKa is a measure of the pH at which some particular acid is half protonated and half unprotonated.

The 30%, as I pointed out refers to the very well established calcium carbonate saturation index. I detail how it relates to calcium carbonate dissolution and deposition in many articles, including this one:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2002/chem.htm
 
Last edited:
Not a counter argument but a question. Is the rate of corrosion linear or logarithmic from 7.0 to 8.2?


Mike

PS Hippie, I'm not ignoring you. I just need time to read your articles and check their sources.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7727857#post7727857 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
I'm getting tired of weak examples (cat in oven, breed restrictions) etc. Please tell me you have something other than the fact that we know it gets hot in summer allows us to forecast a 1000 years into the future.

aks and you shall recieve, and sorry this is a bit lengthy, but it's fairly complex, and it's been a busy day in the lab.

this is from the paper that i linked earlier, sorry about referencing something from science, as most people don't have access to it. i will provide a few exerps for you guys though, specifically to address the climactic oscillations that are present at almost any temporal level you look at.

to help simplify things because i know it took me a long time to wrap my brain around isotopic theory (have to say theory because, like continental drift, it's just an idea that has been proven a few times, not reproduced in a lab)

so isotopes work as such: there are stable and instable isotopes of almost every atom. stable isotopes do not degrade into another element/and or isotope of the original element, unstable ones do. the common proxies for ice core/sediment core work are the isotopes of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon. oxygen 18(denoted as O18 or d18O,(d=delta)), deuterium (heavy hydrogen, dH, or 2H), and carbon 13 (13C, C13, or d13C).

these isotopes are found naturally in nature at a fraction of the "common" isotopes of the same elements. the common ones being those on the periodic table, i.e. oxygen 16, hydrogen (without a neutron), and carbon 12.

in seawater, there is a standard (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water, or VSMOW) that was collected from the middle of the atlantic. the previous SMOW was off the end of the Scripps pier in the 60's. The International Atomic Energy Agency decided that something more remote would probably be more homogeneous. as a result of the VSMOW, one can look at the O18 and dH of water anywhere on the planet and determine certain things from the numbers.

the numbers differ for a few reasons, such as: the stable isotopes such as O18 are heavier than the normal O16 and therefore require more energy to cause a change in phase. so if you have 10 molecules of h2o in the ocean and one of those has a dH, a different one has an 18O, and a third has one of each, the following will happen.
the normal 7 molecules will require X amount of energy to evaporate,
the one with a dH will require X+1,
the one with an 18O will require X+2,
and the one with both will require X+3.

these fractionation events as they are called, happen at known rates due to temp, DP, RH...etc. so from this we can determine where water came from. a rain drop in a place like santa barbara will have an 18O value of something like -8%, while a rain drop in Colorado could have a value more like -80%.

it is from these known fractionation events that formulas can be derived that work for the whole globe. by reconstructing ice and sediment cores from around the globe, (these include Norther hemisphere cores like greenland, Antarctic cores like Vostok, and sediment cores from around the world courtesy of the Ocean Drilling Program, and the Deep Sea Drilling Program)

when the data is compiled, one can look back into the past climate and observe patterns and oscillations over time.

these three figures do just that:

Fig-1.jpg

Fig-2.jpg

Fig-3.jpg


notice in the last one they talk about aberrations and their role in the changing biosphere. look at the rate of change in temp during the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum. This is a 5-6 degree C rise in deep sea temperature over ~8-10ky. this rapid change should be noted, since the earth's temp is currently changing at an even faster rate, which can at least in part be attributed to anthropogenic sources.

for more info on rapid climate change, there is a book by James P. Kennett titled: Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis
it is a pretty good read and gives alternate theories as to these rapid climactic aberrations.

sorry for the long-winded post, but i hope this gives everyone some insight into the natural and anthropogenic sources for climate change.
 
I get your point, and I know there are lots of people trying to sensationalize the whole Eco problems, but there are a lot more people trying to down play them than exaggerate them and that is why I am very skeptical of statements that say "Don't Worry" Every day we delay doing something puts billions of dollars in Big Corps pockets and Governments around the world.

As an example you talk about acid rain and the fact that it's gone, could it be that it's not gone and that the run off of river water and rain over the oceans might be one of the contributing factors to a lower pH in the ocean. The point is something is making this happen at an accelerated rate and people need to stop debating it and start doing something. We as a species have been gradually conned by governments and big corporations. If you could go back in time to the 1970's and told people back then that in the 90's we would be paying for a bottle of Water, they would say you where cracked in the head. Yet we take this as a norm today. So many things have been gradually been excepted by society that just a few years ago people would think was Sci Fi Impossible, what will it be 20 years from now, cars coming standard with Oxygen tanks so you can breath non toxic air on your way to work, but oh the Japanese are already doing this.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7728424#post7728424 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Randy,

I am a science buff. I can't get enough of science, and history for that matter. I work in a science field so I understand method, standards, controls etc.
.
.
Remember acid rain? It was going to ruin the world. Increase oceans pH, dissolve monuments and buildings, kill freshwater fish and destroy crops. It was all over the front page of papers and covers of magazines. What happened? Well a ten year study was commisioned to study the effects of acid rain. The results, not a problem. No acid rain. No decrease in mountain lakes pH in the indudtrial areas of the East coast. The story was barely mentioned. Very small blurb on page six. Quietly went away. Where was the Time cover story "ACID RAIN, NOT A WORRY"

That's why I'm a little jaded. I like science and I feel cheated by the politicization and sensationalizing of it.

Mike
 
Not a counter argument but a question. Is the rate of corrosion linear or logarithmic from 7.0 to 8.2?


Neither. According to Frank Millero in "Chemical Oceanography" (perhaps the premier such text book), he quotes studies that show the dissolution of CaCO3 is guided by:

R (% per day) = 110(1-omega)^2.39

when omega (the saturation state of the CaCO3) is above 0.44,and

R (% per day) = 1318(1-omega)^7.27

when omega is less than 0.44.

The lower the pH, the smaller is omega. At pH 7, omega for aragonite is below 0.44, at pH 7.9, omega for aragonite is about 1.5, at pH 7.6, omega for aragonite is about 0.75, at pH 7.3 omega for aragonite is about 0.38.

Aragonite will not actually dissolve at pH above 7.9, but it is harder for corals to deposit CaCO3 as the pH drops even when above saturation. In local microenvironments (like under debris), or in enclosed spaces where the pH may be lower at night than in the open water, the pH may be lower and CaCO3 will dissolve.

Also, CaCO3 dissolves more rapidly in deeper water. In the modern oceans, that level (the lysocline) is presently a few thousand meters down. As the pH overall drops, that dissolution depth will rise.
 
Our oceans have a thing called the CCD or Carbonate compensation depth. This is the depth where calcium carbonate is dissolved or the rate of dissolution is greater than precipitation. It currently is about 4000M. Three things affect the CCD. Temperature, pressure and CO2. If the CO2 increases this depth with surely lessen. These deep water reefs and animals will probably be the first to be compromised. Possibly along with the interstitial animals that live in the carbonate based sand.

J
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7727904#post7727904 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Flobajob
This has shown that up until the past 150 years or so the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has been fairly constant, but recently it has started to rise alarmingly quickly. I don't think it is possible to attribute coincidence to the remarkable correlation between the industrial revolution and the rise in pollution associated with it, and the rising levels of CO2.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7728971#post7728971 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
MCarey's saying that nothing was wrong,

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7729803#post7729803 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
Are you referring to me?

No, not you, Randy. You bring valid points to the table without trying to undermine what we have said.
 
Could it be that it's the oceans which are leading to an increase in Atmospheric C02?
I have read many reports that the Co2 levels are higher over the oceans then on the land. Even in places like in California?
If that state is one of the leading worlds producers of Co2, then why are the Co2 levels higher in the middle of the Pacific then readings to the west of California in middle America?(which is down wind)
Could it be that the Oceans are burping up something from the distant past? (Like the La Brea Tar Pits) There sure are a lot of Megladon shark teeth world wide and they ate a lot of whales back in their day, where did all that CO2 go?
and why is the air seem to be purified when it travel over America?could it be that the American new growth forests are actually acting as Carbon sinks and locking in the Co2 coming into North America from the Pacific?
I mean if I clear cut my backyard and built a second house with the lumber, then replanted pine trees .......would this not actually help to sink CO2 more so then leaving my property as an untouched old growth Forrest?
Man made landscapes take in much more modern co2 then old growth forrests.
It has also been reported that one good sized California wild fire produces more C02 then ten years of Calif auto emmisions.(and mount St Hellen more Co2 then all the Co2 ever produced by America.)
Of the past 200 years of increasing atmospheric Co2 levels , only two years saw a decrease in those levels.
Those years occurred at a remarkable time in modern history.
It was during World War II !
What could it have been about that time in world events which would have led to a decrease the Co2 in the air world wide?
It sure seems like its more directly connected to the number of humans on the planet , then it is the number of autos.
 
Actauly there was one other year when Co2 levels decreased.
It was 1982.
That year was a record El Nino.
"El Nino " is when the normal Ocean water upwellings from deep in the Pacific Ocean stop.
Less up welling = less out gassing of Co2 from the ocean depts.
There is no reason to believe that fossil fuel combustion dropped significantly that year. ( bought my first SUV)
Also fishing in the worlds oceans may explain why the current uptrend in Co2 levels began sixty years before the industrial revolution.
If Man made Co2 is responsible for the current increase.
Then why did the increase begin in 1800?
CAUSE clearly must precede EFFECT. So, there had to be another source of CO2 to the atmosphere prior to 1860.
 
The ocean is a huge sink for CO2, not a source overall. In fact, it is mitigating the rise in atmospheric CO2 for that reason. In the textbook "Chemical Oceanography" by Frank Millero, he shows the CO2 budget, with 80 Gt carbon/y entering the ocean from the atmosphere.

Events happening in the ocean can impact how much is taken up in any given year or place. As the article that I posted shows, there are cyclic events and a general upward trend superimposed each other:

Large variations in pH are found over .apprx.50-yr cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atm. anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.
 
Here's a link to a recent study published in "Science" (July 2004) that discusses the amount of CO2 entering the oceans from the air:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5682/367

the abstract:

"Using inorganic carbon measurements from an international survey effort in the 1990s and a tracer-based separation technique, we estimate a global oceanic anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sink for the period from 1800 to 1994 of 118 ± 19 petagrams of carbon. The oceanic sink accounts for 48% of the total fossil-fuel and cement-manufacturing emissions, implying that the terrestrial biosphere was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere of about 39 ± 28 petagrams of carbon for this period. The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential. "
 
But is exhailing more then it is absorbing?
According to a study done at NOAA’s Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL):

“The North American land surface appears to be absorbing possibly as much as between 1 and 2 billion tons of carbon annually, or a sizeable fraction of global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning.” The research team obtained its data from 63 atmospheric sampling stations of the GLOBALVIEW database. GLOBALVIEW-CO2 is a compilation of high-quality atmospheric measurements of gases made by different laboratories, and is a product of the Cooperative Atmospheric Data Integration Project, coordinated by NOAA-CMDL. The researchers developed a three-dimensional grid of Earth to model the flow of carbon dioxide, and applied the GLOBALVIEW data to it. They expected to see the amount of atmospheric CO2 increase over North America, caused by the gas produced by the burning of fossil fuels. Instead, the model showed that for the period of time studied, carbon dioxide declined in the atmosphere across North America as the model’s winds moved from west to east. The decline of atmospheric CO2 indicates that the gas is being absorbed into the land mass.

The scientists are not sure what is causing the decline of carbon dioxide. They theorize that it is partly due to the regrowth of plants and vegetation on abandoned farmland and previously logged forests in North America. It may even be enhanced by human-induced nitrogen deposition, a diluted form of acid rain. Although the actual cause is unknown at the moment, the researchers believe that plants and soils are a major factor in CO2 absorption and will continue to exert considerable influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future.

A question that must arise from NOAA’s study is this one:

“Why does the air blowing from the west, from over the great Pacific ocean, contain a higher concentration of CO2 than the same air mass after it has passed over the human-developed terrestrial system in North America?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top