Saturday, February 22, 2014

Blegging re human ability to taste the change in ocean acidity

Ocean acidification  has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far.


My question - can we taste the difference? Might be an interesting factoid that we've altered the oceans so much that we can taste the difference, so imagine the effect on creatures whose biochemistry is dependent on that system.

I can't find the answer - anyone care to enlighten me? Please comment.

Reading around about acid manipulation in wine-making suggests this level of pH change is detectable to taste, but I'm not certain, and that's also starting at a very different level of acidity.

642 comments:

1 – 200 of 642   Newer›   Newest»
Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I'm pretty sure carbonate forming organisms can taste the difference and that's what counts. So the first ones not tasting the difference (by eating less) will be organisms who depend on carbonate forming organisms at the bottom of their food chain. I'm pretty sure that includes a bunch of humans.

Andrew said...

It's a log scale for H+ ions IIRC. So 0.1 is more like a 10% concentration difference.

10% fewer stones means a lot if you are building a wall..

EliRabett said...

The change is about 25%, but as in most things concerning taste you would have to train the palate, using appropriate buffers. The added issue here is that there would be no associated odor, and smell is a huge part of taste discrimination.

George Montgomery said...

There is a wide spread variation for "sensitivity" to bitterness among humans based in part on genetic variation. The ability to taste bitterness also depends on the passage of signal molecules passing from taste buds to neurones.
There are nearly 30 genes that code for tasting bitter which means there is a spectrum of bitterness 'sensitivity'. So it might, might be possible for some people to taste the pH difference of 0.1, especially if they carry all the dominant 'bitterness' genes.
Evolutionary geneticists theorise that the ability to taste bitter things helped our ancestors to avoid eating toxins which generally(?) have a bitter taste. Primitive cultures are supposed to have used the oldest clan member as a food tester to see how safe it was to eat never-seen-before, possible food sources.

Russell Seitz said...

Under Burgindy's cheerfully draconian medieval wine laws, any merchant caught messing with natural levels of alcohol, sugar or acidity was forced to drink a large measure of the adulterated product and put in the stocks to watch the executioner of Dijon smash and burn his stock in trade.

I suspect anyone can detect a .1 pH shift, for though lemon juice , which has a pH of ~ 2- 2.5, is only about ~%% citric acid, just a cc makes a glass of water refreshingly tart.

Russell Seitz said...

Where % unshifted = 5, if it's a fresh lemon.

richard said...

the seas are average between 7.5 and 8.2.

The EPA regulations allow coastal waters to be between 6- 8.5.


Though we can say that a reduction in ph from 8.2 to 8.1 is acidification( the correct term is becoming less base) this is a term for the process not the outcome where the seas will never become acidic.

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf

"currrent projections of ocean acidification suggest that
the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)"

richard said...

Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life
pH
(Marine)

7.5 – 8.5, that is quite a range.

“The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between
7.5 and 8.5 worldwide) and is similar to that of estuarine
waters because of the buffering capacity provided by the
abundance of strong basic cations such as sodium,
potassium, and calcium and of weak acid anions such as
carbonates and borates (Wetzel 1983). Higher pHs are
usually found in near-surface waters because of solar
radiationBiological Effects
A broad spectrum of marine and estuarine organisms have
been shown to be adversely affected by pH fluctuations,
many of these effects being physiological. A decrease in
pH was correlated with a reduction in carapace weight,
increased magnesium content (with constant calcium….”

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

And so what?

It's a large range. Whoop.

You can handle a much larger dose of radiation, so carrying this bit of polonium should be acceptable, right?

richard said...

the epa allow a range of 6-8.8 within 5 miles of coastal waters so yes no problem,

richard said...

there is a a $1,000,000 reward for anyone building a machine to accurately measure the ph of the seas,

The Market Failure

"While ocean acidification is well documented in a few temperate ocean waters, little is known in high latitudes, coastal areas and the deep sea, and most current pH sensor technologies are too costly, imprecise, or unstable to allow for sufficient knowledge on the state of ocean acidification"

EliRabett said...

WTF. You can measure pH of ocean water to 0.001 units and better. What are they actually moaning about? Automated systems, better sampling, satellite measurements?

richard said...

mr Rabett i suggest you contact them and tell them they are wasting their money, or send them your own accurate measuring device and claim the reward,

http://oceanhealth.xprize.org/competition-details/overview

dhogaza said...

Wabbett:

"Automated systems, better sampling"

Mostly, yes. Affordable, accurate and efficient monitoring of ocean pH from shallow waters to the ocean depths.

So add affordable and efficient deployment oceanwide to the list, I guess. Sort of like Argo but a lot cheaper and more comprehensive coverage, and targetting pH?

Kevin O'Neill said...

Eli says: "WTF. You can measure pH of ocean water to 0.001 units and better."

The expanded measurement uncertainty of NIST's standard buffer solutions for pH is +/- 0.01 -- and these are under controlled laboratory conditions.

Given the reference solution has an uncertainty of 0.01 (NIST pH Metrology), measurement uncertainties for devices using these reference solutions will be even larger.

I'm not sure why Eli thinks we can measure pH an order of magnitude better than the uncertainty claimed by a National Laboratory under controlled conditions.

richard said...

not sure satellites can measure ph of the seas either!!

richard said...

an intersting read

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2002/238/m238p281.pdf

"Effects of pH on coastal marine phytoplankton"

Most of the testing I have seen of the Ph of the sea has been done in coastal waters, the problem with this is the coatal waters vary by quite a range.

"Fig. 5 provides another view of the pH variability for
surface waters of lower Chesapeake Bay. The most frequent measurements are near pH 8.0 to 8.2, as would
be expected for seawater in equilibrium with the atmosphere. However, there are many measurements having pH well above and below the median pH"

Anonymous said...

richard said (quoted a source):"Fig. 5 provides another view of the pH variability for
surface waters of lower Chesapeake Bay. The most frequent measurements are near pH 8.0 to 8.2, as would
be expected for seawater in equilibrium with the atmosphere. However, there are many measurements having pH well above and below the median pH"

hence the need for:"The Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPRIZE is a $2 million global competition that challenges teams of engineers, scientists and innovators from all over the world to create pH sensor technology that will affordably, accurately and efficiently measure ocean chemistry from its shallowest waters… to its deepest depths." from your prior link.

Rib Smokin' bunny

richard said...

it's good to point that out!!!


who indeed knows what the ph is.



Anonymous said...

Kevin said:"The expanded measurement uncertainty of NIST's standard buffer solutions for pH is +/- 0.01 -- and these are under controlled laboratory conditions.

Given the reference solution has an uncertainty of 0.01 (NIST pH Metrology), measurement uncertainties for devices using these reference solutions will be even larger.

I'm not sure why Eli thinks we can measure pH an order of magnitude better than the uncertainty claimed by a National Laboratory under controlled conditions."

Well, perhaps there is a difference in what NIST is after, and what someone measuring pH is after. pH is -log(aH), where aH is the activity of H+. The activity is molar concentration times the activity coefficient. Ideally the activity coefficient would be 1. Problem 1: activity coefficient depends on the environment. NIST is trying to achieve something like a standard suitable for SI units. In the IUPAC paper about this, from the appendix (pg 2194):
"As discussed in Section 5.2, the uncertainty due to the use of the Bates–Guggenheim convention
includes two components:
i. The uncertainty of the convention itself, and this is estimated to be approximately 0.01. This contribution
to the uncertainty is required if the result is to be traceable to SI, but will not be included
in the uncertainty of “conventional” pH values."
http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2002/pdf/7411x2169.pdf

Spectrophotometric measurement routinely get a standard deviation for pH below 0.001. For example:
Purification and Characterization of meta-Cresol Purple for Spectrophotometric Seawater pH Measurements, Xuewu Liu , Mark C. Patsavas , and Robert H. Byrne,Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45 (11), pp 4862–4868
"pHT(measured) = 8.0226 +/- 0.0002"

Go to wikipedia, look up pH, in the section called seawater, for what pHT is.

Rib Smokin' bunny

Anonymous said...

richard seems to confuse lack of a sensor with lack of a method for measuring. We can "accurately" measure ocean pH from its shallowest waters… to its deepest depths, a sensor would allow it to be done simply and in situ.

Rib Smokin' bunny

EliRabett said...

The bunnies need to remember how to search Rabett Run for all things. This is indeed a solved problem

Kevin O'Neill said...

Both the paper rib smokin' links to and the earlier post Eli links to state accuracy or uncertainties *relative* to a reference.

It is the accuracy of the reference - not the standard deviation of the measurements - that dominate the uncertainty calculation.

The Liu et al paper rib smokin' linked to also shows reproducibility between manufacturers can be 0.01 pH alone.


richard said...

and we have another winner for the measuring of the seas PH at depth with any kind of accuracy

I bring you the amazing Anonymous .

He will be collecting the $1,000,000 prize.

Guess they can take the competition down now.


richard said...

so Anon,

do contact the organizers of the competition and tell them that you would like "enter your instrument"

richard said...

Spectrophotometric measurement routinely get a standard deviation for pH below 0.001. For example:
Purification and Characterization of meta-Cresol Purple for Spectrophotometric Seawater pH Measurements, Xuewu Liu , Mark C. Patsavas , and Robert H. Byrne,Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011,

I hope it gives an accurate account of the ph of the seas from now on,, the only problem is what data are you comparing it against ( Sci. Technol., 2011) for the last 150 years.

Anonymous said...

Kevin said:"It is the accuracy of the reference - not the standard deviation of the measurements - that dominate the uncertainty calculation."

NIST is concerned with an absolute standard that meets SI qualifications for a standard. As of now pH is NOT an SI unit. The reason that NIST is so interested in activity is the tie to thermodynamics via fundamental theory. It MUST be measured by electrochemical potential by the definition they are using

People measuring ocean "pH" are not interested in what the activity coefficient is, just [H+], since they realize that

-log(a*[H+]) = -log(a) - log[H+]

Differences between pH and -log[H+] are exactly the same if a is relatively constant, no matter what the uncertainty in the value of a is.

Kevin also said:"The Liu et al paper rib smokin' linked to also shows reproducibility between manufacturers can be 0.01 pH alone."

and that purification leads to uncertainty in pHT of 0.0002. These corrections can be applied retroactively to old data.

Rib Smokin' bunny

Anonymous said...

richard said:"I hope it gives an accurate account of the ph of the seas from now on,, the only problem is what data are you comparing it against ( Sci. Technol., 2011) for the last 150 years."

"The reconstruction of past seawater pH is possible because B occurs as two species in seawater whose relative concentration is dependent on pH."

http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/7468/proxies.pdf

Now you can rest easy that acid base chemistry is on a firm foundation, dissolving more CO2 makes water more acidic, always has, always will.

Rib Smokin' bunny

richard said...

rib smoking bunnny,

ahem!!!! not acidic, the seas might be becoming less base,

remember

everything above 7 is alkaline everything below 7 is acidic , and we know the seas will never become acidic.

richard said...

my little bunny, let me help you again,

"currrent projections of ocean acidification suggest that
the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)"

Anonymous said...

I said: "CO2 makes water more acidic, always has, always will."

richard said:"ahem!!!! not acidic"

Acidosis in blood is pH below 7.3. It means more acidic than regular blood, not "acidic". In other words, claiming "more acidic" can't apply to anything where the end result is above pH 7 is idiotic.

Rib Smokin' bunny, who just happens to be teaching acid-base chemistry this week

richard said...

my little bunny,

don't you worry, you can call the process of change from 8.2. - 8.1 acidification if you like, it would normally be called becoming less base , but i don't mind what words you use, just don't assume this will lead to the seas actually becoming acidic.


"currrent projections of ocean acidification suggest that
the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)"

richard said...

my little bunny ,
]

so

“The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between
7.5 and 8.5 worldwide)

so if are worried what will happen between the ph of 7.5 and 7 then so be it,

richard said...

in other words and quite right too, you are worried about the change from an alkaline ph level of 7.5 to a possible neutral ph of 7.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"don't you worry, you can call the process of change from 8.2. - 8.1 acidification if you like, it would normally be called becoming less base"

Most people would call it being more acidic. Normally it would be called "more acidic". Less base is more accurate, but it's abnormal to call it that.

Moreover, if you're now in the acid range, it would STILL be "less base" if you made it more acidic.

More acidic is the normal term.

Less base is the abnormal one.

richard said...

less base was the term used until 2003 when Ken Caldeira coined the word acidification in one of his papers,



But as we know the seas will never become acidic,

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

And less base is an abnormal term to use: more acidic is the normal term.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:
"But as we know the seas will never become acidic,"

It will, however, become MORE acidic if you add carbon dioxide since CO2 and H2O produce Carbonic ***ACID***.

Adding an acid makes something...

MORE ACIDIC!

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

And I believe you mean "acid" not "acidic". But even that presumes it is not possible to drop the pH to that of a chemical acid.

It's definitely possible to do this, just monumentally infeasible with the resources available to us on planet earth.

EliRabett said...

The reason that scientists use more acidic is that alkalinity is defined in a complex way for good reasons.

Another honey trap that dyslexic citizen scientists fall happily into.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

A question for Eli:

As we know, the denialists LOVE to point out that the pH of sea water is above 7 and so basic. However, as we know, pH is defined a -log[H+], and the dissociation of H2O is endothermic. If we raise the temperature, the pH will drop. Has the warmed water become acidic? Certainly if we put the water under pressure and allow it to superheat above a couple hundred degrees C, it will dissolve rock.

EliRabett said...

High accuracy buffer solutions,, 0.002 for sale

richard said...

ken Caldeira was the man who in 2003 coined the phrase Acidification in one of his papers, in his own words( see below) rhe seas are becoming "less base" not acidic.

he then goes on to write,

rent projections of ocean acidification suggest that
the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005).



the seas are already between a ph of 7.5 and 8.5 without any chance of going below a ph of 7.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"ken Caldeira was the man who in 2003 coined the phrase Acidification"

Nope.

Semtner, Albert J., 1976: A Model for the Thermodynamic Growth of Sea Ice in Numerical Investigations of Climate. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 6, 379–389.

A Model for the Thermodynamic Growth of Sea Ice in Numerical Investigations of Climate

richard said...

so anon and Mr Rabett will you join me in acknowledging that the seas will never become acidic,

as for arguing over whether a change in ph from 8.2 - 8.2 should be less base or increasing acidification, well that is up to the individual ,

Ken Cladeira uses both terms.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

However, what does that indicate?

Freshwater acidification doesn't mean that freshwater is an acid:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v278/n5704/abs/278542a0.html

Nor does it mean that soil is an acid:

Title
Effects of experimental acidification and liming on soil organisms and decomposition in a Scots pine forest.
Authors
Baath, E.; Berg, B.; Lohm, U.; Lundgren, B.; Lundkvist, H.; Rosswall, T.; Soderstrom, B.; Wiren, A.
Journal
Pedobiologia 1980 Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 85-100


So what is it supposed to say?

richard said...

anon,

if it was used in that paper then i stand corrected , i could only read the abstract so perhaps you could direct me to where i can read the term used in the paper,

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a

So richy, will you agree with everyone else here that more acidic is correct and the more normal phrasing of even a alkaline solution that becomes "less base"?

PS do you not agree that fresh seawater if under extreme pressure and temperature will become actually acid as per discussion by arids.

PPS as for as for arguing over whether a change in ph from 8.2 - 8.2 should be less base or increasing acidification, well that is up to the individual, which you have insisted was not the case and that it was WRONG to use "more acidic", so please acknowledge your change in assertion.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"if it was used in that paper then i stand corrected"

If you hadn't checked every source possible for the option you might be wrong, why did you make the claim you did when you hadn't even bothered to check if it were right?

Your M.O. here is why you're a delusional freak: you come to an assertion based only on what you think ought to be right, then pretend as if you've heavily researched it and are speaking ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

richard said...

"PS do you not agree that fresh seawater if under extreme pressure and temperature will become actually acid as per discussion by arids."

I am not sure how many times I can say this, the guy who invented the term Acidification that you like to use has said that the seas will never become acidic.

what else can I say.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

And before we "all agree" on something nobody has said here to be wrong, there are some things I'd like to see that you agree are wrong on first. Like your request, nobody here has mentioned it, but you appear to want to work it this way, so I'm just going with the flow.

When we're done with some things I wish you to agree with, then we can move on to those things you want people to agree with.

Agreed?

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"the guy who invented the term Acidification"

Which guy? Because the guy you claim invented it did not.

richard said...

anon,
well pointed out though the soil acidification was actually making the soil acidic down to a ph of 4. so perfectly fine to use that term.

when above 7 you are in alkaline territory and the term should be less base, but i am fine if you want you use the term acidification, just t be aware the seas will not become acidic.

Richard said...

Anon

I think best to use the words of Ken Caldeira , it has led you to be confused .

However, the term can also lead to CONFUSION
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005).

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"well pointed out though the soil acidification was actually making the soil acidic down to a ph of 4."

So agricultural lime doesn't work unless the soil is ALREADY pH7.0 or less is your claim?

Because that's wrong.

If it isn't, then your claim about "it's pH is above 7.0, ergo cannot be acidification!" is bunkum.

And still note: acidification used in a paper in the 1980 when you claim it was "invented" in 2003.

Tell me, are you also claiming that 2003 is earlier than 1980.

And I note that you've elided COMPLETELY freshwater acidification.

What's the pH of freshwater, dearie?

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"I think best to use the words of Ken Caldeira ,"

I think that's rubbish. It has no bearing on your original claims, you've merely morphed your claim into something else and are now pretending that somehow Ken's words support your claims will stop anyone noticing that you yourself now rescind your claims, but insist that it's still only you that is right.

This is delusional.

richard said...

well let's make this simple for you,

if you want to use the term acidification then absolutely use that term. But the seas are between 7.5 which is alkaline and 8.5 which is alkaline and not expected to go below 7 which is neutral.

If Ken Caldeira was not the first to use the term acidification then i am fine with that but he is generally known as the fist person to use the term specifically for the oceans.

Just be aware the seas will never become acidic,

at the moment the seas are between a ph of 7.5 and 8.5 naturally which is quite a range though a change of 8.2 - 8.1 through acidification has been bandied around, whatever even at 7.5 the seas are alkaline and in a stable state as mentioned previously in one of my earlier comments

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"well let's make this simple for you,"

The problem isn't that you're being too smart. Quite the opposite in fact.

The problem is you're wrong, have changed your claims, and have elided the fact of your change of stance to retain your claims that everyone else is still wrong.

You claimed ph drop from 8.2 to 8.1 is not getting more acidic. Now you claim it is "up to the individual". Most individuals claim "more acidic".

You then claimed Ken invented the term acidification in 2003, when this was false, and then skipped past it to go "Oooh, soil! Can be pH4.0! That's acid!" when that's neither the point nor actually true (as in "the whole truth"). Again eliding that freshwater acidification doesn't mean pH4.0. And ignoring that acidification of soil does not start from pH7.0, else lime would not be added nor acidic soils exist since they'd start from a non acid loam and become acidic from leeching soils.

And you still insist that somehow Ken's words make you right when they do not.

Farcical in its delusion.

-n said...

For a conversation over rather basic terms, it is certainly becoming rather acerbic. One might even make a case that the dialog is trending toward the downright vitriolic.

I prefer the less technical but nevertheless accurate term "debased."

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

you can bang on about pH of 7.0 and less being acid, but that doesn't say that going from 8.2 to 8.1 is not becoming more acid.

It is.

Your incapacity to see the irrelevance is why you're correctly claimed to be a delusional freak.

richard said...

i am happy for you to use that term though remember 8.1 is heavily alkaline!

the problems for measuring the seas for a ph level is the following


The effect of solar radiation on pH is twofold: it
promotes photosynthesis and increases surface tempera-
tures, both of which decrease the amount of free carbonic
acid and consequently raise the pH (Skirrow 1965; Wetzel
1983). For example, at a depth of 23 m in the Beaufort
Sea, an average pH of 7.79 was recorded, whereas surface
pH measurements averaged 8.1content),

richard said...

anon

as we can see you have shown alarm at a change from 8.2 - 8.1 when in fact a natural change happens from 8.1 - 7.79 in 23 m

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a

"i am happy for you to use that term"

Evidently not, else you would have never come on here claiming

" Anonymous richard said...

rib smoking bunnny,

ahem!!!! not acidic, the seas might be becoming less base,

remember

everything above 7 is alkaline everything below 7 is acidic , and we know the seas will never become acidic.

25/2/14 2:26 PM"

But as I said before, you are changing your tune but insisting that it's still everyone else wrong, you right, as if you had never u-turned.

Delusional freakbattery at its finest.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"as we can see you have shown alarm at a change from 8.2 - 8.1"

As we can see, you make this claim with no evidence.

As with so many claims you make.

But lets ignore that for the moment. Do you think that changing the ocean's pH from 8.2 to 8.1 is of no consequence?

As an engineer, you are 100% incapable of determining that from your own education. As a trolling denier on this site you've demonstrated your incapacity with 100% certainty.

richard said...

Delusional freakbattery at its finest - hahah yes maybe!!

but i have endorsed it using ,

However, the term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005).


and

Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life
pH
(Marine)

7.5 – 8.5, that is quite a range.

“The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between
7.5 and 8.5 worldwide) and is similar to that of estuarine
waters because of the buffering capacity provided by the
abundance of strong basic cations such as sodium,
potassium, and calcium and of weak acid anions such as
carbonates and borates (Wetzel 1983). Higher pHs are
usually found in near-surface waters because of solar
radiationBiological Effects

and changes in ph in a short distance,

For example, at a depth of 23 m in the Beaufort
Sea, an average pH of 7.79 was recorded, whereas surface
pH measurements averaged 8.1content),

richard said...

i remain unconvinced, in your own words, the acidification of the seas from 8.2 - 8.1 is of concern when i have stated that the seas are stable at between 7.5 - 8.5

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"i remain unconvinced"

Feel free to remain unconvinced. Does not change a thing.

You are wrong about "more acidic", you're wrong about when acidification was invented, you're wrong about the acidification of the ocean being of no import.

Being unconvinced by anyone no matter the facts is the hallmark and REASON for you being called legitimately a denier.

You are free to remain a denier. Nobody will stop you, but this doesn't mean your denial is right or honest.

richard said...

ok you do not have to agree with me .

But would you agree then with the following from the
Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life
pH
that the seas are between a ph of 7.5 - 8.5.

would you agree with the following, that the seas will never become acidic.

"However, the term can also lead to CONFUSION
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)"

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

And before we "all agree" on something nobody has said here to be wrong, there are some things I'd like to see that you agree are wrong on first. Like your request, nobody here has mentioned it, but you appear to want to work it this way, so I'm just going with the flow.

When we're done with some things I wish you to agree with, then we can move on to those things you want people to agree with.

Agreed?

richard said...

point something out about the seas and i will see if I agree.

richard said...

this is the paper in 2003 written by Caldeira and Wickett
that triggered the use of acidification of the seas,

lots of "mays" in there.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/425365a.html

though even after all that they still say the oceans will never become acidic,

richard said...

The problem is i have looked through that paper and they do not state what the ph of the seas are but what they do state is

"there may be a pH decrease of ~0.7 units"

with the seas between 7.5 and 8.5 and they themselves state the seas will never become acidic i can only think they dod not realize that the seas were as low as 7.5

dhogaza said...

Richard, of course, is nitpicking over standard chemistry terminology because he wants people to believe that if ocean acidification doesn't actually cause the ocean's pH to drop below 7, then it is harmless.

Which is, of course, totally stupid, but we all recognize that he is, right?

Richard - chemists aren't going to change their terminology just because you don't like it.

richard said...

Richard, of course, is nitpicking over standard chemistry terminology because he wants people to believe that if ocean acidification doesn't actually cause the ocean's pH to drop below 7, then it is harmless.

you can believe what you like but do you agree with the following -

"However, the term can also lead to CONFUSION
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)"

dhogaza said...

Richard:

"However, the term can also lead to CONFUSION"

A lot of scientific jargon causes confusion amongst those unfamiliar with the field.

BFD.

The general public doesn't need to know of the pH levels are going to be pH 7.2, 7.0, or 6.8.

The general public is interested in what effect ocean acidification will have, and this can be communicated to lay people without reference to specific specific pH values.

I think we all know that you believe that since pH levels will still be above 7.0 that ocean acidification isn't really a problem, and that scientists are intentionally using "confusing" language to promote the CAGW fraud on unsuspecting people who need to be rescued by modern-day Galileo's like you ...

That, after all, is the only reason for you to bitch about standard chemistry jargon, and to insist that the term was "invented" by Caldeira (in order to sensationalize results and push the CAGW agenda, right?)

richard said...

i see so it will be easy for you to answer the following

are the seas acidic now or will they ever be?




dhogaza said...

richard:

"are the seas acidic now or will they ever be?"

I could easily, if I wanted to, but it is irrelevant.

Your question confirms my suspicion, though. You think this jargon, around for decades, was invented by Caldeira et al to hoodwink the public and to make CO2-driven ocean acidification look harmful when actually it won't be bad because, well, because you don't understand science.

When the weatherman says "today's high was 0F, but temps are warming, and tomorrow's high will be 15F", is she lying because it will still be cold despite warming?

Do you call the TV station accusing them of meteorological fraud because they didn't say "less colding"?

richard said...

," is she lying because it will still be cold despite warming?"



i agree, as you illustrate with the weather( it will still be cold) you realize that even with a 0.7 unit change in the ph, the seas will still be alkaline!!

"I could easily, if I wanted to, but it is irrelevant"

you just did!!

well done

dhogaza said...

Richard:

"i agree, as you illustrate with the weather( it will still be cold) you realize that even with a 0.7 unit change in the ph, the seas will still be alkaline!!"

And we still have winter despite global warming.

WTF is your point?

At this point I have to assume you're not sharing your last name because whatever institution you've been committed to only issues name tags with first names.

In other words, you are nuts, pure and simple.

Oceanographers studying ocean acidification have never claimed it will lead to oceans actually becoming acid. Never. We all know that. Lower pH will be dangerous to a wide variety of marine organisms, we all know that, too. Ocean acidification is the proper term, we all know that, too.

You'll a drool-spittled idiot, and we all have learned that, too, albeit a bit more recently due to not having had the mispleasure of meeting you decades ago.

richard said...

"Oceanographers studying ocean acidification have never claimed it will lead to oceans actually becoming acid"

not sure what the point of using the term acidification is for then as whatever happens the seas will be always be alkaline,

so where does that leave us, well we know the seas are stable at between an alkaline ph of 7.5 and 8.5 and we know that
that the seas will never go below the neutral state of a ph of 7. so then we look at the paper of
Ken Caldeira and he states that the seas will never become acidic and more importantly !!

"there may be a pH decrease of ~0.7 units"

"may" sounds uncertain, so not sure what you are worried about.

richard said...

so now I will word it and i will be correct in saying it


"there may be a decrease in alkalinity of the seas"

richard said...

not so scary is it!!!!


Alkalinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkalinity‎
Jump to Processes that decrease alkalinity

dhogaza said...

Richard:

Thank you for proving my point. We now return you to your regularly scheduled medications …

richard said...

your point being?

"there may be a decrease in alkaninity?



so far nothing has happened that illustrates there is a problem.

the seas are stable at a ph of 7.5 - 8.5.

and we know there are changes in the ph of the seas within 23m of the surface - from 8.1 to 7.9 .

So nothing to be alarmed about. The ph of the seas fluctuates quite naturally.

richard said...

as for the meds, will you be contacting the following suggesting they take them.

let me see now,

I quoted in comments above,

the EPA -rules and regulations of coastal waters

Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)" - who first used the term acidification of the seas but point out the correct term is "less base"

and

Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life


you in turn quoted nothing except to bang on about the term acidification , oh and meds,


you need to do better than that!!!

exusian said...

pH does not measure alkalinity, sweetie, it measures the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution, and thus acidity. Regardless of the starting pH level, increasing the H+ concentration lowers pH, which is defined as acidification. Every chemist on the planet knows that.

Rome continues to heat up while fools with agenda fiddle with semantics.

Anonymous said...

It's all very well for people to argue about this being an issue of terminology for chemists who are, be honest, a very very small proportion of the population.

Life would be a lot easier if we referred to the language of people who are a much larger proportion of the population, gardeners and farmers and other agricultural/ horticultural folks. If you watch a very few hours of television on these topics, you'd know that "acidification" is very common terminology regardless of measured pH.

MinniesMum

Ian Forrester said...

richard shows his complete ignorance of chemistry especially as it relates to pH. He thinks that adding CO2 to sea water will reduce its "alkalinity". That is complete rubbish, adding CO2 to sea water will reduce its pH i.e. make it more acidic but it wil not reduce alkalinity.

Alkalinity has got nothing to do with the pH of a solution. Alkalinity is measured in “mg/L as CaCO3″. Incidentally, addition of CO2 to water does not change the alkalinity but does change the pH.

Brian said...

Thread has become rather caustic.

Maybe bitter.

richard said...

yes the ph can be low with a high alkininity,

but

"make it more acidic"

yes but anything above 7 is alkaline!!!

and as i keep repeating the seas are stable between an alkaline ph of 7.5 and 8.5 with the seas never ever ever going below a ph of 7,

there is no problem with the ph of the seas.

So sure if it makes you feel better the seas are stable between a ph of 8.5and a lower ph, where it is more acidic, a ph of 7.5 though this is still actually alkaline ,

there are you happy,

or as i posted above in the bEaufort sea the surface water has a ph of 8.1 and 23m lower where it is more acidica ph of 7.79, though as we know this is still alkaline,

now then guys tell me what you are worried about

richard said...

or lets turn to the EPA regulations up to 19 kilometers
off shore the US they allow a ph of between an acidic ph of 6 up to an alkaline 8.5.

richard said...

though what astounds me is the the guy who actually used the term acidification for the first time in a paper about the ph of the seas spells it out so clearly.

I repeat again,

"However, the term can also lead to CONFUSION
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)"


the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"point something out about the seas and i will see if I agree."

OK, if strictures on what can be asked for agreement on is acceptable, then please ask for agreement on something someone has claimed here, not a fake claim you've made up.

TIA.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"so now I will word it and i will be correct in saying it"

And I will word it and I will be correct AND USING NORMAL UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED TERMINOLOGY:

The ocean is becoming more acidic.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:
"Life would be a lot easier if we referred to the language of people who are a much larger proportion of the population, gardeners and farmers and other agricultural/ horticultural folks.
MinniesMum"

Yup, and so the term

Ocean Acidification is correct by that definition.

Title
Effects of experimental acidification and liming on soil organisms and decomposition in a Scots pine forest.
Authors
Baath, E.; Berg, B.; Lohm, U.; Lundgren, B.; Lundkvist, H.; Rosswall, T.; Soderstrom, B.; Wiren, A.
Journal
Pedobiologia 1980 Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 85-100

richard said...

anon,


really what is your point,

i told you , you can use the term if you like but so what are you trying to prove using that term, what does it mean, at any point wherever you stop on the ph scale down to a neutral ph of 7 the seas are alkaline.

the seas will never be acidic,

they are at a stable ph of between 7.5 and 8.5

even the guy who used the term acidification for the first time says it leads to confusion , he even says the seas MAY decrease by 0.7 , decrease from what , he never says, was he using 8.5, 8.4. 8.3. as his starting point, as the seas are STABLE between 7.5 - 8.5 his views are rather limited.

richard said...

lets go straight to the top of thread, the comment,

"Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1:

NO!

the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8.5 .

there do feel better now.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

""Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1:

NO!"

YES!

pH is the measure of acidity.

If you had any clue for the underlying chemistry rather than mindlessly extending the work of those far more competent in their work and getting a *methods patent* and pretending this is somehow evidence of facility with chemistry, you would know that.

But you're a fraud, an ignoramus, and a waste of water but with an overwhelming belief in your own legend, so your lack of understanding is never understood by you, even when clearly and evidentially supported by everyone surrounding you.

pH is the measure of acidity.Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2pH to 8.1pH.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

" lets go straight to the top of thread, the comment,

"Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1:""

Where is that comment?

richard said...

this may help you,

the comment at the top of the thread, a reduction i seas from 8.2 - 8.1,

So what!!!

http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/02ocean/swcomposition.htm

extract,
pH

pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a substance and is one of the stable measurements in seawater. Ocean water has an excellent buffering system with the interaction of carbon dioxide and water so that it is generally always at a pH of 7.5 to 8.5. Neutral water is a pH of 7 while acidic substances are less than 7 (down to 1, which is highly acidic) and alkaline substances are more than 7 (up to 14, which is highly alkaline). Anything either highly acid or alkaline would kill marine life but the oceans are very stable with regard to pH. If seawater was out of normal range (7.5-8.5) then something would be horribly wrong.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

" this may help you,

the comment at the top of the thread, a reduction i seas from 8.2 - 8.1,"


Nope, the first comment on this thread is:

1 – 100 of 100

Anonymous Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I'm pretty sure carbonate forming organisms can taste the difference and that's what counts. So the first ones not tasting the difference (by eating less) will be organisms who depend on carbonate forming organisms at the bottom of their food chain. I'm pretty sure that includes a bunch of humans.

23/2/14 9:06 AM

richard said...

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2014
Blegging re human ability to taste the change in ocean acidity

Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far.

guess i counted that as the first comment.

anyway why are you worried the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8.5

richard said...

anon the marine sciences link was for you,

"Marine Science is a distance learning course for beginning college students"

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Nope, the first comment in the thread was not that.

If you meant Eli's topic said that, then guess what?

YOU USED THE WRONG WORDS.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

pH is a measure of the acidity or of a substance.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Wikipedia: ph:
pH is defined as the decimal logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion activity, aH+, in a solution

Wikipedia: hydrogen ion:

See also

Acid

+++

it's not my problem if you keep using the wrong words, dearie.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Wikipedia acid:

A lower pH means a higher acidity, and thus a higher concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here

"When an acid is dissolved in water, the pH will be less than that of pure water"

How can adding something not make it more that something?

Add acid to your meal and it becomes more acid.

Add acid to your water and it becomes more acid.

richard said...

"When an acid is dissolved in water, the pH will be less than that of pure water"

How can adding something not make it more that something?

Add acid to your meal and it becomes more acid.

Add acid to your water and it becomes more acid.


who care, the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8.5 and are alkaline.

richard said...

after all only in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C will the seas become acidic,

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

So, having failed massively, you're seguing into another irrelevant cul-de-sac.

You've claimed that it's not possible to change the ocean to a pH below 7.0, and now you're saying that you agree it can, but are implying that somehow this proves you right somewhere, somehow.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Add acid to your meal and it becomes more acid.

Add acid to your water and it becomes more acid.


who care"

You did.

Until it was proved you were wrong.

But then you run back to "caring" until the proof you're wrong is brought back up. Then a little later... yup, back to caring...

PS please learn grammar.

PPS if you don't care, given you claim that adding acid to something DID NOT make it more acid, doesn't this mean you don't care if you're right or wrong?

richard said...

anon,

"You've claimed that it's not possible to change the ocean to a pH below 7.0, and now you're saying that you agree it can"

"after all only in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C will the seas become acidic"

this has been posted again and again and again by me in the comments above.

"and now you're saying that you agree it can""

no I am not now saying!!!! I have posted this again and again and again,

its just that your argument is so weak that you had to suddenly jump on something to try and prove me wrong.

let me know how high the co2 levels would have to be to reach 10,000 Pg C !



Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"this has been posted again and again and again by me in the comments above."

What? The wrong words?

You've consistently claimed that the ocean cannot become acid, such as when you claimed the paper on soil acidification supported your claims because acid soils can have a pH below 4.0. The ONLY WAY that could be the case is if it had to be acid before it could be acidification, and the ONLY WAY that could make "ocean acidification isn't happening" true is if you're claiming that the process cannot happen until it's acid.

Just because your claims rest on a causal logical link (that is incorrect in this case) that you don't explicitly state doesn't mean your claims do not rest on that causal logical link.

You've been wrong

a) the ocean is becoming more acid because we're adding carbon to it
b) acidification doesn't require being acid at the end of the change to be acidification
c) acidification was not invented in 2003
d) more basic would be correct if you added a base to the ocean, which we aren't.
e) "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far" was never said in the comment thread

but your "best answer" to your failures are

a) "I HAZ PATENCE!"
b) "WHO CARE!"

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

PS let me know when they change the normal terminology for adding an acid to something from "acidification".

richard said...

wow, who would have thought not only by me but by the following guy as well who first coined the phrase acidification in the seas and says the term leads to confusion,

"currrent projections of ocean acidification suggest that
the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,


ocean pH is NEVER!!! expected to fall below 7.0
2005)"


what does NEVER Mean

richard said...

Anon

what is extraordinary is that you are confirming what this guy illustrates with his comment- confusion!!

the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic,

richard said...

anon, don't worry,


"Would dissolving all the CO2 released by burning all the world’s fossil fuel reserves ever make the seas acidic?

No. The fundamental chemistry of the ocean carbon system, including the presence of calcium carbonate minerals on the ocean floor that can slowly dissolve and help neutralize some of the CO2, prevents the oceans from becoming acidic on a global scale. — Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine

Environmental Laboratory, USA



the seas are stable!!

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"who would have thought not only by me but by the following guy as well who first coined the phrase acidification"

What guy?

The guy you thought had done it, did it in 2003, but it was used decades before then.

I guess this is yet another case where you're proven wrong, but ignore the inconvenient fact.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"ocean pH is NEVER!!! expected to fall below 7.0"

Irrelevant to whether ocean acidification can happen. You know, your complaint, or is this yet another thing you don't care about, despite your insistent volubility?

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Would dissolving the CO2 released so far by burning fossil fuels cause the ocean to become more acid?

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"the seas are stable!!"

So the tides never come in?

Ocean pH has never changed?

There's a reason why you're called a delusional freak, and your claim there is Exhibit A.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"However, the term can also lead to confusion when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic,"

It's only being wrongly assumed that by those who want to pretend it doesn't happen.

I.e. you and your fellow histrionic and hysterical deniers.

Since this is entirely your own concoction of failure, why the hell should everyone else try to avoid a situation that is impossible to avoid: you can ALWAYS claim to be confused.

richard said...

wow, now you are calling the Canadian water control authorities delusional



Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life
pH
(Marine)

“The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between
7.5 and 8.5 worldwide)

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"now you are calling the Canadian water control authorities delusional"

No, I'm calling YOU delusional.

YOU are the one who claims that acidification isn't happening because the seas are stable.

YOU said it.

NOT them.

william said...

anon ,

"However, the term can also lead to confusion when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic,"

It's only being wrongly assumed that by those who want to pretend it doesn't happen.

So i quote the canadian water authorities and you call me delusional

and now you are saying Christopher L. Sabine is wrongly assuming and pretending it won't happen


No. The fundamental chemistry of the ocean carbon system, including the presence of calcium carbonate minerals on the ocean floor that can slowly dissolve and help neutralize some of the CO2, prevents the oceans from becoming acidic on a global scale. — Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine

Environmental Laboratory, USA


classic!!!

richard said...

anon,

a question of terminology. When a base is combined with an acid, for example putting baking soda on spilled car battery acid, that is called “neutralizing” the acid. This is because it is moving towards neutral. Yes, it increases the pH, but despite that, it is called “neutralizing”

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Sorry billy^wricky, what the hell are you on about?


"and now you are saying Christopher L. Sabine is wrongly assuming and pretending it won't happen"

Thereby indicating that my statement:

""However, the term can also lead to confusion when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic,"

It's only being wrongly assumed that by those who want to pretend it doesn't happen."

is wrong HOW?

Christopher isn't saying that people saying it's more acidic is confusing him to think that it's acid.

He;s not saying that it's confusing others to think that.

He;s not even using the words "more acidic" in your quote mine.

Sorry billy^Wricky, you're incoherent rantings are predictably incoherent.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"a question of terminology"

Which you claimed "who care" over.

"When a base is combined with an acid"

What about when water is combined with an acid? IT BECOMES MORE ACID.

"for example putting baking soda"

Which isn't water.

And so on.

richard said...

anon

This same terminology is used when measuring pH. In a process called “titration”, you measure how much acid it takes to neutralize an unknown basic solution. If you add too much acid, the pH drops below 7.0 and the mixture becomes acidic. Add too little acid, and the mixture remains basic. Your goal in titration is to add just enough acid to neutralize the basic solution. Then you can tell how alkaline it was, by the amount of acid that it took to neutralize the basic solution.

richard said...

just trying to really help you now,

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"This same terminology is used when measuring pH"

What "this" are you on about?

The confusion is all from you, dearie. And you're mired too deep to notice.

"In a process called “titration”, you measure how much acid it takes to neutralize an unknown basic solution."

We already know the solution we're putting the acid into: water.

And it's not alkaline or base, else adding alkaline or a base to water would not make it less acidic.

Please stop using terms incorrectly. Ask a chemist to help, YOU are out of your depth and think that YOUR confusion at your OWN terminology is the fault of standard chemistry terms like "more acid" when adding an acid to water.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"just trying to really help you now"

Odd, everyone here has been trying REALLY HARD to help you understand chemistry and science for ages.

You've refused any and all help so far.

richard said...

a better observation would be

The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2.

not that it will ever hit a neutral ph of 7.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

The ocean is being made more acid by additional CO2.

richard said...

The ocean is being made more acid by additional CO2.

if the seas could get to a ph of 7 ( they can't ) what will this be classed as,

Acidic, Alkaline or NEUTRAL

i helped you there!!

richard said...

anon oh i cant wait ,

so using your description of the oceans becoming acidic, they will become more acidic until they reach Neutral , hahaha neither acidic nor alkaline .

So as the seas will never go below a ph of 7, are you saying they are acidic above the ph of 7.



oh you are a wag!!!

richard said...

anon so in your eyes you believe the seas are becoming more and more acidic and heading towards a neutral ph

and then what? as we know burning all the fossil fuels in the world will not make the seas actually acidic,

so do you see a slight problem there in your thinking,

how does something actually become more acidic until it reaches a neutral state!!

richard said...

remember a ph of 7 is neither acidic or Alkaline

richard said...

and that, my dear, is why becoming "less base is the correct term"

richard said...

imagine burning all the fossil fuels in the world will not make the oceans acidic but might make them get to a neutral state,

EliRabett said...

Richard, go take an analytical chemistry course. You are propagating ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"a better observation would be "

Please provide evidence of this claim.

"Because I like it better" isn't proof it's a better observation.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

The ocean is being made more acid by additional CO2.

Whether it's acid, opiate or unicorn farts doesn't change that the ocean is being made more acid by additional CO2.

Since your complaint is that the above claim is wrong, please address facts relevant to that point, not irrelevant bollocks.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"and that, my dear, is why becoming "less base is the correct term""

No, dearie, that isn't why that's the correct term.

Adding acid means it's getting more acid(ic). The phraseology used there makes the generation of the term so obvious even a retarded little bastard like you should get it if you're AT ALL interested in facts and truth.

However, the betting is that you'll still "not get it".

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"anon so in your eyes you believe the seas are becoming more and more acidic and heading towards a neutral ph "

Yes.

And chemists agree.

As does everyone else who isn't being deliberately retarded in order to promulgate antisocial misanthropy to the order "I've got mine, Jack". I.e. you and your fellow deniers.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

" remember a ph of 7 is neither acidic or Alkaline "

Then why did you talk about adding an acid to an alkaline?

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Since pH is the count of protons hanging about without an electron to love, adding electrons to an acid would cause it to become less acid, correct?

H+ plus e => H

So are electrons alkaline?

richard said...

don't you worry,

seas will NEVER become acidic,.

and the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8.5.

so let me know where you think there might be a problem.





Anonymous said...

Anon-101a

"and the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8.5."

So to you "stable" means "changes a hell of a lot". pH is a log scale.

And you complain about inaccurate terminology! ROFLCOPTER ALERT!

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

You, richard, will NEVER understand chemistry.

Anonymous said...

Richard, human blood should have a pH between 7.35 and 7.45. Guess what it is called when the pH goes below 7.35 (but is still above 7.0)?

Hint: it starts with a and ends with cidosis.

You do NOT want to be on the receiving end of acidosis.

Marco

richard said...

Anonymous said...
Richard, human blood should have a pH between 7.35 and 7.45. Guess what it is called when the pH goes below 7.35 (but is still above 7.0)?

Hint: it starts with a and ends with cidosis.

You do NOT want to be on the receiving end of acidosis.

Marco


no i wouldn't

so thank goodness the EPA do not worry about that and allow the ph of coastal waters, up to 17 kilometers under their Jurisdiction to, if necessary, be between a ph of 6- 8.5.

wow can you imagine they would allow the waters to actually be acidic.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

So, dicky, given you have been 100% unable to show

"Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far."

is either wrong or incorrect or even confusing to anyone who isn't already terminally confused about chemistry, I take it you agree your complaints are wrong.

If you were able to refute it, you would not have to keep whining on about how the ocean isn't an acid bath.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Dicky, care to answer Marco's question?

What is it called when blood pH levels drop below pH7.35?

richard said...

oh lordy ,



Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life
pH
(Marine)

Interim Guideline
The pH of marine and estuarine waters should fall within
the range of 7.0 - 8.7 units

richard said...

Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life
pH
(Marine)

7.5 – 8.5, that is quite a range.

“The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between
7.5 and 8.5 worldwide)

richard said...

alaska marine conservation

"seawater pH is a critical variable in marine systems. Today’s surface ocean water is slightly alkaline, with a pH ranging from 7.5 to 8.5 :

richard said...

anon

this must frighten you.


NOAA estimates that at a co2 level of 1680 ppm of co2, the seas will have a ph level of 7.49

Just outside the stable estimate of 7.5 - 8.5 the seas are now.

exusian said...

"the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8.5"

Tell that to those farming calcium carbonate shell marine species, dear patent-holding chemical engineer. Ocean pH does not need to drop below 7 to inhibit shell building, or even to cause dissolution of carbonate shell material to neutralize locally decreased pH. Wild species on the sea bottom may be safe at present, but farmed species in surface waters in direct contact with the atmosphere are already being impacted:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/acidic-ocean-deadly-for-vancouver-island-scallop-industry-1.2551662

richard said...

Tell that to those farming calcium carbonate shell marine species, dear patent-holding chemical engineer


ok "the seas are stable at a ph of 7.5 - 8.5" and only at a co2 concentration of 1680 ppm will it go below 7.5 which at an increase of 2ppm per year will take another 600 years to get to a ph level of 7.49.

richard said...

anon , remember your figure of 8.1 is an average of the seas.

richard said...

in fact let's round it off to a ph of 8.

richard said...

Scallops, co2 or just plain pollution!!

Canada flushes some 200 billion liters of raw sewage directly into natural waterways every year, from the St. Lawrence River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean. That’s only a fraction of the three trillion liters of sewage Canadians produce annually—about 6 percent, in fact—but it’s still enough to fill more than 40,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
A Dangerous Brew
According to Macleans, Canada’s leading news magazine, the sewage is a mixture of water, human waste, microorganisms, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, excreted pharmaceuticals and, potentially, pathogens such as cholera, typhoid and hepatitis B.

"It is widely recognized that inadequate or no waste water treatment have negative impact on aquatic life, human uses of water, fisheries and human health,” Environment Canada told Macleans. “Therefore it is unacceptable and shortsighted not to maintain and upgrade infrastructure."

Anonymous said...

Richard, you did not answer my question.

The EPA guidelines refer to SURFACE water and are set to allow for the natural and human-pollution related pH of rain, which may vary considerably.

Also, a pH of 7.5 allows different life than that of 8.5. You might want to see what a few degrees of annual difference in average temperature does to biotopes, despite the enormously larger intra-annual variation in temperature. Now tell us how the biotopes that work best at pH 8.0 move to the regions where the pH used to be 8.5, but is now 8.0.

Finally, please tell us what special expertise you bring that allows you to contradict the scientists who work on this topic on a daily basis for decades.

Marco

guthrie said...

I couldnt' be bothered to read it all, but is Richard an illiterate (i.e. doesn't understand that the -ation ending means becoming, moving towards) or anti-science (i.e. denying that such changes in pH as we are experiencing and will see will be a problem)?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

illiterate or anti-science

He's an inventor! Or more properly, an inventionator.

dhogaza said...

guthrie:

"I couldnt' be bothered to read it all, but is Richard an illiterate (i.e. doesn't understand that the -ation ending means becoming, moving towards) or anti-science (i.e. denying that such changes in pH as we are experiencing and will see will be a problem)?"

I stopped responding because it became clear that it is the latter: he doesn't think such changes are a problem and that the term "acidification" is being fraudulently used to scare people, not because it is jargon.

dhogaza said...

He's not only an inventor with a patent, he's also an inventor of sockpuppets.

i.e., Wabbett, he's using "rspung" in one thread and "richard" here. if you don't have rules against sockpuppets this would be a good time to implement one and ban both …

richard said...

i have used and quoted as a basis for my comments above.

THE EPA
NOAA
THE CANADIAN WATER BOARD
THE ALASKAN WATERBOARD
Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)" ( who first used Acidification in a paper on the PH of the seas)

the replies from anon and his other names regarding PH of any substance have so far come from a piece about soil Ph and a piece about blood ph.

1/ 10 you must try harder

richard said...

"Also, a pH of 7.5 allows different life than that of 8.5"

and yet this is the stable state of the seas with a ph of 8 being an average.

richard said...

so once again ,

Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life
pH
(Marine)


“The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between
7.5 and 8.5 worldwide)

and the average of that would be...........

richard said...

and so once again

Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection
of Aquatic Life
pH
(Marine)

7.5 – 8.5, that is quite a range.

“The pH of marine waters is usually quite stable (between
7.5 and 8.5 worldwide)


and the average would be , ah yes a ph of 8

richard said...


http://coralreef.noaa.gov/


Figure 2. Relative proportions of the three inorganic
forms of CO2
dissolved in seawater. The green arrows at
the top indicate the narrow range of pH (7.5–8.5) that is
likely to be found in the oceans now and in the future.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

What is the record for consecutive crank posts here?

richard said...

i haven't added up anons and his friends so hard to guess,

but judging by my quotes from the

EPA
NOAA
the canadian water board
the aLAskan eater board
Caldeira and Wickett,


none from me!

richard said...

unless we think NOAA are cranks for stating this,

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/


Figure 2. Relative proportions of the three inorganic
forms of CO2
dissolved in seawater. The green arrows at
the top indicate the narrow range of pH (7.5–8.5) that is
likely to be found in the oceans now and in the future.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"unless we think NOAA are cranks for stating this,"

We don't.

However, this has nothing to do with your whining streak on here, dearie.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a:

"i have used and quoted as a basis for my comments above."

WRONG.

Lies by omission are still lies, dearie.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Given your hysteric posts to hide it, this question must have you REALLY frightened, dearie:

What is it called when blood pH levels drop below pH7.35?

richard said...

what is it called when the range of ph of the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8.5 now and into the future as quoted from NOAA and the Canadian water board.


Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Tell that to those farming calcium carbonate shell marine species, dear patent-holding chemical engineer."

Remember that AIG have several PhDs in geology on their staff.

Remember too that his "invention" is merely a process patent, the most worthless kind, and merely one that extends the work of others who did some ACTUAL innovation.

His is the chemistry equivalent of the AUS patent on "Swinging in a circular pattern on a swing".

In short, his degree is likely of no actual utility to determining his ability.

Meanwhile his "theory" that acidification was invented in 2003, that it's the wrong term unless the mix ends acid and the theory that varying ph by 1.0 is "stable" indicate most strongly that he has absolutely no clue what's going on in chemistry.

And most tellingly of all, he's unable to answer the question of what a blood pH below 7.35 is called.

Why?

The same reason the PhDs at AIG insist that YEC is absolutely proven science.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"what is it called when the range of ph of the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8."

pH variation isn't stability, dearest.

richard said...

what is it called when it will take 600 years for the ph of the seas to be 7.49, a fraction below the stable 7.5 and 8.5 we have today as quoted by NOAA.

richard said...

what is it called when we know the seas will never become acidic as quoted by

— Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine

Environmental Laboratory, USA


but anon do carry on and ask me questions about blood and the soil.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"what is it called when it will take 600 years for the ph of the seas to be 7.49"

A prediction.

What is it called when someone asks a question of no relevance?

A diversion, dearie.

The seas are not stable, they are more acidic, they are becoming more acidic due to human release of fossil carbon. Acidification was not invented in 2003, the normal term for the process is acidification.

Live with it.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"what is it called when we know the seas will never become acidic as quoted by"

A failure to understand what you did.

What is it called when blood pH is below 7.35?

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Dearie, until you take notice of your questions being answered, no questions of yours will be answered until you agree to answer a few of everyone else's.

Anonymous said...

I am afraid richard will never ever understand anything that does not fit what he has already decided must be true. Acidification? Wrong term, because he has decided it sounds "alarming". pH of the oceans between 7.5 and 8.5? Then a drop of a few units does not matter!.

The illogic in his thinking will simply not get through. Ever. Complete waste of time, just as the various attempts at wottsupwiththatblog/andthentheresphysics at educating him. Sigh.

Marco

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

pH of the oceans [vary] between 7.5 and 8.5? = Stable!

FTFY.

I wonder if dicky here is Oprah's dietician: "Don't worry, Ophrah, your body weight is stable between 8st and 20st!"

richard said...

yep the seas are stable between the ph of 7.5 and 8.5

sort of like the blood but with more latitude, the normal pH of arterial blood lies between 7.35 and 7.50

richard said...




yes stable between the ph of 7.5 and 8.5 ,

sort of like blood but with more latitude,


the normal pH of arterial blood lies between 7.35 and 7.50

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

A number that varies is not stable, dearie.

And, like oceans, blood doesn't have to be acid to become acidic.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Tell us all, o fount of all f-wittery, what does "yep the seas vary between the ph of 7.5 and 8.5 " have to do with "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far."

?

richard said...

would you say the blood is stable between the normal 7.35 and 7.50.

richard said...

Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far."

and?

the seas are stable between 7.5 and 8.5 and will take another 600 years to get to a ph of 7.49.

the beufort sea has a surface ph of 8.1 and 23 meters down has a ph of 7.79 so what about 8.1!

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"would you say the blood is stable between the normal 7.35 and 7.50."

I refer the right dishonourable shithead to my earlier comment.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far."

and?"

Yes.

And?

And so what does "yep the seas vary between the ph of 7.5 and 8.5 " have to do with "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far."

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

dicky #1:"what is it called when the range of ph of the seas [vary] between 7.5 and 8."

dicky #2: "what is it called when it will take 600 years for the ph of the seas to be 7.49"

Dicky dear, is 7.49 within the range 7.5 and 8?

Do you even know enough maths to be able to answer?

My prediction: No.

richard said...

don't worry, the canadian marine authorities state marine waters should fall between a ph of 7- 8.7

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 642   Newer› Newest»