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.
Posts
642 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 642 Newer› Newest»lots of latitude there.
Anon-101a here:
Prediction: verified.
PS you're wrong there too.
Anon-101a here:
Dicky dear, is 7.49 within the range 7.5 and 8?
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."
(PS I suspect Prof Brer will love you for bringing so much ad traffic to his site, helps pay for the carrots don'tchaknow)
so you agree that fossil fuels will still be used that will allow the co2 level to become 1680 ppm in 600 years that will allow the ocean to be at a ph of 7.49
do you think that fossil fiuels will be used in 600 years
Anon-101a here:
So, Dicky, you agree that 7.49 is OUTSIDE the range 7.5 and 8 AND you agree that yep the seas vary between the ph of 7.5 and 8.5 " have NOTHING to do with "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far."
Anon-101a here:
Just to hang the lampshade on it, you DO agree with those two statements I made above, you just REFUSE to say so because your ideology doesn't want to admit them.
just think we will be using fossil fuels in 600 years time
just think we will be using fossil fuels in 600 years time
Anon-101a here:
And you agree that your assertion that the sea cannot become more acid than a pH of 7.5 is, BY YOUR OWN NEW ADMISSION wrong.
Anon-101a here:
"just think we will be using fossil fuels in 600 years time"
Wow, so you believe you're from the future.
Tell me, have you seen a doctor?
I haven't a clue and i see so you don't know either,
ah well, we will never know whether they reached 7.49 ,
but i am guessing fossil fuels will be used for a hundred more years or so, so the seas will never reach a ph of 7.49 using NOAA's table of effect of co2.
Anon-101a here:
"I haven't a clue"
So you agree with everyone else here that you're a clueless moron who nevertheless thinks they're right!
PS and you agree, that you need to see a doctor about your mental issues!
Anon-101a here:
YOU claimed "we will be using fossil fuels in 600 years time". YOU cannot claim you never said it.
the good news is you are starting to get a better idea of the latitude of the ph of the seas at the moment , the allowed PH of the seas.
HOw long it takes for the ph of the seas to change,
That the seas will never become acidic.
you fought to start with but now you are quoting me which is good , there again i am quoting the
EPA
NOAA
the candian water authorities
the ALaskan authorities
so you are in good hands.
Anon-101a here:
The good news is that because you cannot find any way in which your claims match your complaints, you admit that you have nothing to complain about.
The bad news is that because of your mental illness, you cannot stop repeating it.
Anon-101a here:
"the allowed PH of the seas."
A-HA!
I HAVE IT!
You're the same sort of YECer fundie as any AIG PhD (just much less educated).
Because your claim here begs the question: Who ALLOWS the seas that range of pH?
Answer: YOU BELIEVE IT IS GOD.
We finally have the reason why you cannot shut up with the bollocks: it's all you have to try and get into heaven.
YOU claimed "we will be using fossil fuels in 600 years time"
if you look back i gave you the ph levels of the seas if the co2 level rose to 1680 ppm as quoted by NOAA
so you can see the time table of how long changes take,
so now you have to think a little,
will fossil fuels be used in a 100, 200, 300, 400, years time, if not then you do not have to worry that the seas will ever get below a ph 7.49. forget what i think now, it's up to you as to what you think will happen.
I am not worried if they get down to a ph of 7.
Anon-101a here:
"YOU claimed "we will be using fossil fuels in 600 years time"
if you look back"
I did. That's why I said you claimed that. And it's also why you haven't tried to disclaim it.
The bad news is that because of your mental illness, you cannot stop repeating it.
a mental illness from quoting the
EPA NOAA...........
haha I am the messenger , i am only quoting what they say,
you give me quotes about blood and soil ,
Anon-101a here:
"The bad news is that because of your mental illness, you cannot stop repeating it.
a mental illness"
Yes, you agree you have a mental illness.
Well done, you're progressing. It's the first step on the path to getting better.
I did. That's why I said you claimed that. And it's also why you haven't tried to disclaim it.
and i I claimed it from NOAA.
Anon-101a here:
"I did."
Indeed you did. And yet you later claimed you didn't. And now you claim you did.
Again: evidence of your mental illness.
Anon-101a here:
"I am not worried if they get down to a ph of 7."
Yes, but you're clueless as to what chemistry is, so your lack of worry is no more relevant than the lack of worry of a spermatozoa that the economy may go through a recession.
Indeed there are more parallels between you and it than should be comfortable for any rational human being, but then again, you've never been rational, have you.
"The bad news is that because of your mental illness, you cannot stop repeating it.
a mental illness"
what to quote the EPA and NOAA,
that's a new one to me, i will certainly get a check up to see if quoting the EPA And NOAA is a mental illness.
is it better if i quote from other organizations
Anon-101a here:
Where does NOAA claim that we'll be using fossil fuels for 600 years?
Again, your mental illness is flying out of your keyboard like spittle from a raging Muslim Imam at a cartoon of Mohammed having sex with a goat.
And for much the same reason.
Anon-101a here:
"that's a new one to me"
Yes, everything is new to you because any learning cannot support your idiocy, therefore you excise it.
I quoted YOU claiming that we WILL BE USING FOSSIL FUELS FOR THE NEXT 600 YEARS.
Then you claimed you didn't.
You can't.
Where does NOAA claim that we'll be using fossil fuels for 600 years?
they don;t , they give a table of levels that state what the ph of the seas would be if the co2 level got to 1680 ppm.
so now you say i lied and we will never get to that co2 level of 1680 ppm which means the seas will never get to a ph of 7.49.
Anon-101a here:
"Where does NOAA claim that we'll be using fossil fuels for 600 years?
they don;t"
Then when you claimed you were quoting from NOAA, YOU WERE 100% WRONG.
so the seas will stay within the stable ph of 7.5 - 8.5
Anon-101a here:
"so the seas will stay within the stable ph of 7.5 - 8.5"
Are you claiming this again?
Will you later be claiming that 7.49 is within 7.5-8?
Again.
Anon-101a here:
Dicky, you said "we will be using fossil fuels for the next 600 years", you said "I quoted NOAA". You've ALSO claimed "I have no idea" and that "NOAA never said that".
Given you will claim two completely different things, then re-claim them YET AGAIN, please let your doctor know the URL to this site so he can see how much you need medical help.
i then personally added on in my own words that at an increase of co2 at 2ppm ( this about the rate it is rising today) this wold take 600 years.
if you think this will happen in the next 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 , 100, 150 ,200 years then let me know because
neither does NOAA.
so now you know ,
NOAA says
at a co2 level of 1680 ppm the ph of the seas will be at 7.49.
so now when do you tbink this will happen.
and as the canada marine says the seas must be within a ph of 7- 8.7.
Anon-101a here:
"i then personally added on in my own words"
So you weren't quoting NOAA.
But that's all you've said in "defence" of your idiocies here: you were quoting someone else.
NOW you claim you made up some words on your own?
Yet another case where you make a claim, then a claim that is 100% in opposition to the former, then appear to act as if this is "normal".
Seriously, get locked away in an asylum for the sake of your city and yourself.
Anon-101a here:
"NOAA says
at a co2 level of 1680 ppm the ph of the seas will be at 7.49."
So you believe that 7.49 is in the range 7.5-8 again?
in fact the only comment they make the future is
"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"
Anon-101a here:
"in fact the only comment they make the future is "
So AGAIN you're flopping over to the "NOAA never said that".
You said that we will be using fossil fuels for the next 600 years, you said you were quoting NOAA, now you're repeating that NOAA never said that.
THERE IS NOT ONE THING THERE that isn't factually true as written.
So you believe that 7.49 is in the range 7.5-8 again?
i never said it was and i had the honesty to point out their figures knowing it was below ,
but now you have to figure out
NO1 the canadian marine authorities allow a ph of 7- 8.7 .
and NOAA say the seas are at a ph of 7.5 - 8.5 now and will be in the future,
you need to concentrate more on their statements,
and figure out for yourself whether the co2 level will ever hit 1680 ppm , oh and if so when?
Anon-101a here:
"So you believe that 7.49 is in the range 7.5-8 again?
i never said it was"
Yes you did.
You claim that the ocean is stable and goes between a pH 7.5 and 8. You ALSO claim that the ocean can get to pH7.49.
Which means necessarily that you believe 7.49 is within the range 8 and 7.5.
So AGAIN you're flopping over to the "NOAA never said that".
so lets run you through what they did say.
"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"
and the seas will be at a ph of 7.49 if the co2 levels hit 1680 ppm.
actually they give a table of ph levels of varying amounts of co2 , i gave the highest they quote,
which obviously does not mean it will happen,
so at 1400 ppm of co2 the seas will be at a ph of 7.56
so we are at around 400 ppm now,
Anon-101a here:
"so lets run you through what they did say."
Except you have changed your claims about what they've said many many times so far.
It is incontrovertible, to such an extent you have been not only incapable but unwilling to even say it's wrong (never mind proving it):
You claimed that we will be using fossil fuels for the next 600 years and that you were quoting NOAA.
Anon-101a here:
"so at 1400 ppm of co2 the seas will be at a ph of 7.56"
So you agree ocean acidification is going on and is caused by increased CO2 levels.
Just so I am clear: The definition of "more acidic" appears to attract a lot more attention here than the question whether you can taste the historical change in pH.
Got it.
I also understand that someone is tall if they are over six feet and short if they are less than six feet so I will cease saying that my grandson is getting taller and instead use the correct terminology, that he is becoming less short.
last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million,
Anon-101a here:
So you agree, dicky, that AGW is real and causing ocean acidification at last!
Just so I am clear: The definition of "more acidic" appears to attract a lot more attention here than the question whether you can taste the historical change in pH.
i agree, though as i quoted earlier this can lead ot confusion as the seas are becoming less base and will never become acidic,.
or how would you class a ph of 7.5 as acidic.
Anon-101a here:
"Just so I am clear: ....
i agree "
So, despite your whining complaints, you NOW agree that "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far." is correct, but that you just don't like it.
Anon-101a here:
"or how would you class a ph of 7.5 as acidic."
Like this:
Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far.
So, despite your whining complaints, you NOW agree that "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far." is correct, but that you just don't like it.
the average has changed though the seas remain stable between 7.5 and 8.5, thee will always be a little leeway as rains etc can effect the outcome
but it is good to know that you understand that your choice of words " acidification" refers to a process but the outcome of the ph will be alkaline,
as we know the seas will never become acidic,
though i wojd argue if the seas were stable between 7.5 and 8.5 the average would be a ph of 8
Anon-101a here:
"the seas remain stable between 7.5 and 8.5"
vs
"thee will always be a little leeway as rains etc can effect the outcome"
So is it stable or does it vary, dearie? You seem to be unable to manage a single thought without contradicting yourself.
Anon-101a here:
Dicky dear, what we want to know is if 7.49 within the range 7.5 and 8?
And 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."?
Busy as I have been for the last week, I didn't notice this thread spin out as it did. Pity, because it's a rerun of so many before...
To save time I'll refer interested readers to an exchange I had with someone called Bart over at the Woo Factory. There's a chronology which I will list below, and that might help folk go staight to the bits that most interest them...
And don't worry - I've archived the original thread here so that traffic needn't be directed there.
It started with a little surprise from me that I was allowed to be sarcastic (March 5, 2013 at 6:49 pm).
Following that I provided some links to a basic explanation of some of the fundamentals of acidity, including the tenuousness of a fixed point of neutrality in response to varyinf temperature (March 6, 2013 at 6:20 pm).
Harrumphing commenced (search for 'Bernard').
I threw in a description of the concept of neutrality in the context of a Lowry-Brønsted acid, and how this relates to the semantics of acidification (March 7, 2013 at 5:52 am).
More harrumphing, including this beauty from Bart:
"[Quoting me] “An acid is simply a solution where the concentration of H3O+ is greater than the concentration of OH-.”
[Bart's response] I’m not a chemistry buff, but I cannot see how these things can co-exist in a well mixed solution."
Yes, truly...
Then some more argy-bargy until Bart, who didn't know that cations and anions can exist together in solution, started talking about publishing his "equation" "in good time" - except that he eventually demured... "My interest lies in other fields of research, and I wish for no notoriety in this one."
Acidification is just one big Groundhog Day.
As a postscript it might be interesting to challenge any especially recalcitrant lurker Einsteins who claim that seawater can never be acidified. So, in honour of Tim Curtin* - who believed the alternate theory that acidifying sea water rendered it potable - a little kitchen benchtop experiment...
(*Flying Spaghetti Monster rest his Gs&T.)
'As a postscript it might be interesting to challenge any especially recalcitrant lurker Einsteins who claim that seawater can never be acidified'
it depends on how you are using the term, so
a, are you using the term as a process of change from 8.2 - 8.1, ( the proper term is becoming less base) where the end state of 8.1 is still alkaline.
or
b, are you using the term as an end state where the substance is actually acidic or in the case of the seas , below a ph of 7.
In the case of the seas, the seas will never become
acidic,
so which term are you referring to, a or b?
this will help explain it for you.
"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)"
Yup, Richard fails reading comprehension again.
Becoming acidified means becoming more acid than it was, that means an increase in the hydrogen ion concentration.
However Richard doesn't understand what that means, and persists in confusing it with the ocean having a pH of less than 7.
Is he an idiot? Or stupid? Vote now!
there is a of confusion on this thread so best left to read the extract below, which i agree with!
"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)"
Is he an idiot? Or stupid? Vote now!
Not having read but a handful of these comments on this thread my wild guess is that he is unaware that the pH scale is based upon the self ionization of pure water.
So I vote 'innumerate'.
this is amazing,
Caldeira coined the phrase " acidification" in a paper about the seas, he goes onto explain to confused people, see above ANON and others thatv the seas will not become acidic, the seas are becoming less base,
and still they do not understand,
"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)"
The only people who are confused are ignorant, arrogant and dishonest people such as richard.
i pity the people who read this and are confused, it seems looking at the comments above they do not really understand
"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)"
i pity the people who read this and are confused
Allow me to introduce you to the shift key and the period.
I propose the term 'debasification' in your honor.
I think we should leave the last world to Ken Caldeira who first coined the words acidification of the seas in his paper about the ph of the seas, as he says, this has led to confusion as seen in comments above. As he says the seas are becoming "less basic" but not acidic, I repeat this is from the man who first used the word acidification as a change of ph, so an open, honest comment.
"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)"
I think Ken Caldeira would be concerned about those who are unable to understand his words,
"the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not 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, you are hung up on the semantic subtleties of the difference between 'acidic' and 'more acidic'.
When we say "a solution is acidic" we are saying that that the concentration of the Brønsted–Lowry acid moiety is greater than the concentration of the base moiety. When we say "a solution is becoming more acidic" we are saying that that the concentration of the Brønsted–Lowry acid moiety is inceasing relative to its previous concentration.
As has been pointed out to you before, acidification in the current context is the increase in the concentration of hydronium (and similar) ions: it's as simple as that. The concentration of the acid moiety in an acidifying solution does not have to pass the point at which it becomes acid for the process of acidification to be happening.
And this is the basic (boom-tish) point. We are increasing the concentration of acid moieties in sea water, which screws with calcium deposition, and with the viability of calcifers and the ecosystems in which they play an integral part.
Thomas has already beaten me to the very phrasing that I was going to suggest - ocean 'debasification', which is exactly the same thing as ocean acidification chemically, and which has the same profoundly serious consequences biologically.
Your argument is nothing more than a straw man, and a poor one at that.
I further propose that the quantum unit of hydronium be named the 'sprungion' in richard's honor, since is springs forth from the water. How debasing can that be? Prepare for greatness Richard! Now let's talk about solvated electrons.
I hesitate to add anything to this too-long thread, but I kind of like the term "ocean debasification". Maybe it'll catch on.
`oh Bernard ,
I am not hung up on it, i worry that people will think the seas will become acidic when in fact they wont,
let's leave it at this which describes what is happening beautifully.
"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)"
I have read a lot of papers for and against changes of ph the seas,
I think this is well worth a read,
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983#pone-0028983-g002
short and to the point and fair on both sides.
Richard.
I understand that you are shit-scared to face the truth because it would blow your ideology to smithereens...
Fact: the oceans' concentration of the Lowry-Brønsted acid - hydronium and its stable of closely-related protonated compounds, formed from the aqueous dissolution of CO2 - is increasing. This process is referred to by chemists as acidification (an increase in the amount of acid moieties present in solution), irrespective of the pH of the solution relative to the neutral point under the physiochemical conditions present.
Fact: the increasing presence of acid moieties in sea water reduces the capacity of calcifers to deposit solid calcium carbonate from solution. This has profound biological consequences and it is this fact that is the reason for the concern in the first place.
Those are the facts. They might stick in your craw, but that's just your bad luck.
Bernard,
you didn't read the paper did you?
it doesn't matter whether it is acid or alkaline , it onyl matters whether a change in ph effects marine life,
in the paper they cannot be sure,
try reading!!
the seas are already acidic belOW A PH OF 7 around coastlines where coral lives.
beranrd
I understand if you do not read the paper that you are shit-scared to face the truth because it would blow your ideology to smithereens...
its a good read,
thus, on both a monthly (Fig. 2) and annual scale (Fig. 4), even the most stable open ocean sites see pH changes many times larger than the annual rate of acidification. This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions” [24].
Bernard ,
you will learn a lot,
"Very few data exist for the Southern Ocean; however, open-water areas in this region experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter"
Beranrd
Sothern ocean
8.2 - 8.1 in 250 years
or
~0.3–0.5 units in a season.
makes you think.
I mean Bernard how far do you want to go with this,
all over the oceans are Hydrothermal vents where the ph is a low as 2.5
Hydrothermal vent communities are able to sustain such vast amounts of life because vent organisms depend on chemosynthetic bacteria for food. The water from the hydrothermal vent is rich in dissolved minerals and supports a large population of chemoautotrophic bacteria.
Richard, quite the Gish Gallop there. Is any of it relevant? - Eli
Richard.
Throughout this thread you have been making much of oceanic pH being "stable" [sic] between 7.5 to 8.5. you contrast this with the contemporary decrease from 8.2 to 8.1, as if the latter is insignificant compared to the former.
What you are not understanding (either through ignorance or through deliberate mendacity) is that the mean of a distribution has more physiological relevance than the range, especially when the range incorporates temporal, depth, regional location, and temperature variabilities that do not apply across the board. For most productive ecosystems pH fluctuates within a much narrower range, and species are adapted to those short-term variations much better than they are to longer-term changes to the mean.
Further, the impact of pH change does not have to be one of direct mortality for there to be a profound effect on species. You should know full-well that many calcifers are already on the edge of reaching inadequate calcium carbonate fixation, but pH change affects much more than this. It affects the ability of fish to smell. If affects the propagation of sound though water. It affects the ability of zygotic and embryonic eggs to metabolise by affecting the electron transport mechanisms of energy systems. All of these impacts have ever-increasing serious knock-on effects on the survival of affected species, and on the ecosystems in which they live.
You might cavalierly dismiss with a flap of the wrist the acidification of the marine environment, but that just demonstrates that you don't have a clue. Those in the know think differently, and I personally trust my ecophysiologist colleagues over a denialist ideologue every time.
"all over the oceans are Hydrothermal vents where the ph is a low as 2.5
Hydrothermal vent communities are able to sustain such vast amounts of life because vent organisms depend on chemosynthetic bacteria for food. The water from the hydrothermal vent is rich in dissolved minerals and supports a large population of chemoautotrophic bacteria."
FFS.
Do you even know why that's such a staggeringly stupid thing to say?
oh Bernard ,
the oceans vary in ph from 2.5 up to 8.5 . Up welling of co2 happens in shallow waters around coastlines as well.
Around the coastlines the ph varies from 6- 8.5 ( in areas of coral and many species)
we know the oceans on the grand scale will never become acidic, we know according to NOAA figures that the seas will be at a ph of 7.49 if the Co2 levels hit 1680 ppm, this would be in around 600 years time based on the increase of co2 at todays level, so the question is and this is not known , what effect it will have for certain, \
and we do ot know when we will stop using fossil fuels, if in another 1oo, 200, 300, 400 years, so you can gauge your ph of the seas at each 100 year point.
Read the paper!
Bernard
SOmetimes i like to send of emails to various institutions,
so i sent this an email to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute questioning the use of ' LESS BASE":
feel free to contact Kim the PR person yourself
Her or his reply-
"Yes, “less basic” would be a more appropriate term. However, it would
also be very confusing for members of congress and the general public"
So I responded that perhaps as a scientific organisation it would be
better to educate the public and congress that the seas are not
becoming acidic but less base,
his or her response,
“Thanks for trolling me”
Richard says: (to paraphrase) blah, blah, ..... blah, .... BLAH
He is unable or unwilling to face the main scientific fact that stares him in the face - changes in ocean pH are having a detrimental effect on numerous lifeforms, many of which we depend upon - directly or indirectly - due to their positions in the foodchain.
Richard quotes Caldeira and Wickett - but does he really, *really* understand their work? I seriously doubt it. Ken Caldeira's own words give lie to everything Richard claims to believe.
Bernard you're confused!
Kevin,
if you read his paper all the conclusions feature the word " MAY"!
as in MAY happen!
read the following, first the proper use is less BAse and he uses the word suggests , he does not say will decline! as we know the seas will never become acidic,
watch out for use of language in all papers, watch out for might, may or could!
As in i think you "might" be able to understand the correct usage is "less base" but i doubt it.
"current 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)"
ELI
I agree,
species adapt and if your read the paper i posted the comment on all tests done in a lab are questionable,
It is not real life and what ph do they subject any given species to,
the seas ph varies through the day and over seasons by more than the change in over the last 250 years.
the beaufort sea in 23 meters from the surface varies from a PH of 8.1 to 7.79.
based on comments on this thread the change from 8.2 -8.1 in 250 years is of concern.
the testing of the ph of the seas is a new science and
the change in the last 250 is a very loose estimate,
Nobody knows.
there are no doubts as to the destruction of marine life/ coral from onshore pollution etc.
Tuvalu is a prime example , back in the 70's the coral was decimated by use for building, Coral was always used for building but when tourism took off the coral was stripped. this also had the added effect of the sea level on Tuvalu and the natural water supplies on Tuvalu were contaminated.
Ken Caldeira
"Here we quantify the changes in ocean pH that may result from this continued release of CO2 and compare these with pH changes estimated from geological and historical records. We find that oceanic absorption of CO2 from fossil fuels may result in larger pH changes over the next several centuries than any inferred from the geological record of the past 300 million years, with the possible exception of those resulting from rare, extreme events such as bolide impacts or catastrophic methane hydrate degassing"
use of MAY not WILL -
Hey there is a chance that Bernard may understand the use of less base.
Nobody knows.
Richard knows that nobody knows because richard thinks and speaks for nobody.
"Richard knows that nobody knows because richard thinks and speaks for nobody"
apart from quoting
EPA
NOAA
CALDEIRA
ALASKAN MARINE AUTHORITIES
CANaDIAN AUTHORITIES
VS
the PH of blood and the soil.
isn't it wonderful what can survive at a ph of 2.5
"The archaea are used by other animals to generate energy. These animals include tubeworms, clams, mussels, crabs and shrimp. Hundreds of species of animals have been identified in the hydrothermal vent habitats around the world"
Great, they can hide out down there and repopulate the world after the great human extinction. Thank you so much for bringing up the sliding electron and proton solvation concentration and energy scale in polar solvents. I got it. Move on.
Thomas
"Great, they can hide out down there and repopulate the world after the great human extinction:
when will that happen, the UN's prediction for the population of Africa in 2100 is 4x that of China today,
Has Eli noticed that he is starting to attract a lot of mono-maniacs to his blog.
Oh Richard.
The land surfaces vary in temperature from -80°C to +55°C, excluding record extremes.
Around many land areas the temperature varies from -30°C to 50°C (in "areas" [sic] of humans and many species)
Please point out to me which species are adapted to either of these temperature ranges. Once you've done that please point out which oceans speices regularly (or even infrequently) experience a pH range of 2.5 to 8.5.
Discuss.
Please also point out where marine ecophysiologists have ever said that the problem is that the oceans would become acid (that is, having a ratio of Lowry-Brønsted acid:base >1), as opposed to them acidifying (that is, where their concentration of Lowry-Brønsted acid moieties is increasing).
Read a high school text on chemistry, and when you've finished that start on high school-level ecology and ecophysiology.
Or just stop your trolling - you either know that the oceans are in greater and greater trouble as the contemporary acidification event continues, or you are too clueless about the consequences of what's occurring with respect to the dissolution of human carbon dioxide emissions to have any credibility whatsoever.
Richard.
Call it morbidly perverse curiosity, but what reduction in pH do you believe is possible without any significant harm to oceanic species?
One more point that's worth making.
Richard said on 26/2/14 9:00 AM
"i am happy for you to use that term though remember 8.1 is heavily alkaline!"
Um, no.
pH 8.1 is most definitely weakly alkaline, by the inverse logarithmic (or any other) definition of a Lowry-Brønsted base.
If pH 8.1 was "heavily" alkaline most marine life would be rendered to soap...
The problem you are having with the overall acid/base semantic, Richard, is that you are confabulating the pH neutrality of pure water with the more general concept of an equivalence point. They are not the same. Seriously.
If this is confusing for you follow that link and study some of the graphs to understand why. Ask yourself what is the salt composition of seawater, and what that implies for its equivalence point. When you do that, ask yourself again what the term acidification implies, given that the focus is on the protonaceous species and not on the irrelevant equivalence point of pure water.
And for fun and laughs ask yourself what the pH of pure water is at a temperature of 0°C, and at a temperature of 100°C.
Discuss.
One more challenge for you Richard.
Can you tell the thread what is the equivalnce point of seawater?
And yes, this is a trick question...
Ken Caldeira: "My passion for researching corals, then ocean acidification and now alternative energy approaches began with a look at the age of dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. My Ph.D. dissertation was largely about the stabilization of ocean chemistry after a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs along with most marine species. Organisms that made shells or skeletons out of calcium carbonate such as plankton and corals were particularly hard hit. It seems as if it took about 20,000 years for the ocean’s chemical balance to be restored, but carbonate-shelled plankton took about 500,000 years to rebound and it took about two million years for coral reefs to become widespread once again."
Richard reads these words and draws comfort from them - see, they recovered!!!
after a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs along with most marine species.
I see, you as expecting a meterorite to it the earth,
when will this happen and how large,
after a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs along with most marine species.
I see, you as expecting a meterorite to it the earth,
when will this happen.
now read these words
marine lives in the seas from a ph of 2.5 to -8.5
calderia,
the seas will never become acidic, oh unless a meteroite hits the earth .
Kevin
As originally proposed by a team of scientists led by Luis Alvarez, it is now generally believed that the K–Pg extinction was triggered by a massive comet/asteroid impact and its catastrophic effects on the global environment, including a lingering impact winter that made it impossible for plants and plankton to carry out photosynthesis.
plankton are at the bottom of the food chain , what effect do you think this has up the food change.
without sun the coral will die.
this may help you,
he K–Pg extinction event was severe, global, rapid, and selective
RAPID!!
Calderira - the seas will NEVER become ACIDIC>
even with this rapid hit,
"Despite the scale of the extinctions, however, we must not be trapped into thinking that the K-T boundary marked a disaster for all living things. Most groups of organisms survived. Insects, mammals, birds, and flowering plants on land, and fishes, corals, and molluscs in the ocean went on to diversify tremendously soon after the end of the Cretaceous. The K-T casualties included most of the large creatures of the time, but also some of the smallest, in particular the plankton that generate most of the primary production in the oceans"
and finally to really help you inderstand
"Even though the boundary event was severe, there was significant variability in the rate of extinction between and within different clades. Species that depended on photosynthesis declined or became extinct as atmospheric particles blocked sunlight and reduced the solar energy reaching the Earth's surface. This plant extinction caused a major reshuffling of the dominant plant groups.[20] Photosynthesizing organisms, including phytoplankton and land plants, formed the foundation of the food chain in the late Cretaceous as they do today. Evidence suggests that herbivorous animals died out when the plants they depended on for food became scarce. Consequently, top predators such as Tyrannosaurus rex also perished"
HELLO KEVIN
On this link
http://www.stewgreen.com/irrational_world/rational74.htm
at the bottom of the page is a graph of co2 levels of the atmospphere,
take a look at the levels at the time when the meteorite hit earth and after and compare over the millions of years previous when life thrived
as you can see, the co2 levels were on a downwards spiral before the meteorite hit, when the meteorite hit and after it hit,
what was your point?
Interesting...
Ask him a few questions and he dissolves into a puddle of gibbering idiocy.
Ask him a few questions and he dissolves into a puddle of gibbering idiocy.
more gibberish on the way ,
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/cretaceous4.html
Richard.
Your unanswered questions are piling up.
1)
The land surfaces vary in temperature from -80°C to +55°C, excluding record extremes.
Around many land areas the temperature varies from -30°C to 50°C (in "areas" [sic] of humans and many species)
Please point out to me which species are adapted to either of these temperature ranges. Once you've done that please point out which oceans speices regularly (or even infrequently) experience a pH range of 2.5 to 8.5.
Discuss.
2)
Please also point out where marine ecophysiologists have ever said that the problem is that the oceans would become acid (that is, having a ratio of Lowry-Brønsted acid:base >1), as opposed to them acidifying (that is, where their concentration of Lowry-Brønsted acid moieties is increasing).
3)
What reduction in pH do you believe is possible without any significant harm to oceanic species?
4)
Richard said on 26/2/14 9:00 AM
"i am happy for you to use that term though remember 8.1 is heavily alkaline!"
Um, no.
pH 8.1 is most definitely weakly alkaline, by the inverse logarithmic (or any other) definition of a Lowry-Brønsted base.
If pH 8.1 was "heavily" alkaline most marine life would be rendered to soap...
The problem you are having with the overall acid/base semantic, Richard, is that you are confabulating the pH neutrality of pure water with the more general concept of an equivalence point. They are not the same. Seriously.
If this is confusing for you follow that link and study some of the graphs to understand why. Ask yourself what is the salt composition of seawater, and what that implies for its equivalence point. When you do that, ask yourself again what the term acidification implies, given that the focus is on the protonaceous species and not on the irrelevant equivalence point of pure water.
And for fun and laughs ask yourself what the pH of pure water is at a temperature of 0°C, and at a temperature of 100°C.
Discuss.
5)
Can you tell the thread what is the equivalence point of seawater?
What's up - can't you answer these pretty simple* questions?
[*OK, at least one of them is a bit tricksy, but it's answering will reveal your unlying premise about acidification to be the utter non sequitur that it is...]
Based on the record of atmospheric CO2 over the past 300 myr and our geochemical model, we conclude that there is no evidence that ocean pH was more than 0.6 units lower than today. Our GCM results indicate that continued fossil-fuel burning with atmospheric CO2 release could lead to pH decreases of ~0.7 units. Thus, we conclude that unabated CO2 emissions over the next several hundred years may produce changes in ocean pH greater in magnitude than any experienced in the past 300 myr, with the possible exception of rare catastrophic events in Earth history. -- Caldeira & Wickett
When CO2 levels increase to 560 ppm, the Southern Ocean surface waters will be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, and the pH will be reduced by about 0.24 units— from almost 8.2 today to a little more than 7.9. At the present rate of acidification, all reef waters will have a Ωa of 3.5 or less by the middle of this century (Guinotte et al. 2003). Should CO2 levels reach 800 ppm later this century, the decrease will be 0.4 units (Riebesell et al. 2000; Caldeira and Wickett 2003) and dissolved carbonate ion concentration will have decreased by almost 60%. At that point all the reefs of the world will be eroding relicts.
The levels of CO2 and pH predicted by the end of this century may not have occurred since the Middle Eocene, but the all-important rate of change we are currently experiencing has no known precedent. There can be no evolutionary solution for such a rate of change.
Ultimately—and here we are looking at centuries rather than millennia—the ocean pH will drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes, including anoxia, would be expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end of K/T, or something like it, will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction. Another 1–3 decades like our last will see the Earth committed to a trajectory from which there will be no escape. -- Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints on geological dilemmas, J. E. N. Veron DOI 10.1007/s00338-008-0381-8
As Caldeira, Wickett, Veron and many other ocean scientists have tried to point out, there's no need to wait for another huge meteor impact - we are creating the same results chemically with CO2.
Kevin ,
no sign of acidic seas then.
when the co2 levels were a lot higher than today!!!!
Insects, mammals, birds, and flowering plants on land, and fishes, CORALS, and molluscs in the ocean went on to diversify tremendously soon after the end of the Cretaceous.
remember what happens in a lab does not happen in real life
So now we go down to a ph of 7.3 - 8.1 and take a look a real life!!!!!
"Most of the studies to date have examined the impact of ocean acidification on corals and/or associated microbiota under controlled laboratory conditions. Here we report the first study that examines the changes in coral microbial communities in response to a natural pH gradient (mean pHT 7.3–8.1) caused by volcanic CO2 vents off Ischia, Gulf of Naples, Italy. Two Mediterranean coral species, Balanophyllia europaea and Cladocora caespitosa, were examined. The microbial community diversity and the physiological parameters of the endosymbiotic dinoflagellates (Symbiodinium spp.) were monitored. We found that pH did not have a significant impact on the composition of associated microbial communities in both coral species. In contrast to some earlier studies, we found that corals present at the lower pH sites exhibited only minor physiological changes and no microbial pathogens were detected. Together, these results provide new insights into the impact of ocean acidification on the coral holobiont"
I haven't read this paper but should be a good read,
extract
"Therefore, the Puerto Morelos site demonstrates that
certain coral species may tolerate extreme acidification
events and still maintain their ability to calcify"
Richard says:"Kevin ,
no sign of acidic seas then."
I ask this seriously - do you even read other people's posts? Isn't it clear by now that no one is buying your semantic game? The ocean's are undergoing a process of acidification. Deal with it. *Every* sign points towards it - and playing puerile word games won't change facts. You are a disgrace to whatever university mistakenly gave you a degree.
Kevin, do you not read my posts !!!
the MOnteray aquatic ......
said that less base is the proper term but the public( that would be you) and congress would not understand that term, Ken Caldeira - the seas are becoming less base - not acidic,
and real life!!!!!!!!!!! not a lab!!!!!
even at a ph of 7.3- 8.1 venting co2 has a minor effect on coral.
http://www.futurity.org/coral-can-live-thrive-acidic-water/
extract
"Oceanographer Katie Shamberger and colleagues examined coral reefs around the islands of Palau in the western Pacific Ocean.
They measured the pH levels of seawater on several coral reefs in Palau and found that coral reefs in the Rock Islands of Palau have high levels of acidification that aren’t expected to occur in the open ocean in that region until the end of the century.
Contrary to what might have been expected, these reefs appeared to be healthier than nearby reefs in less acidic waters"
try reading!!!!
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news/corals-could-survive-a-more-acidic-ocean
Corals ‘could survive a more acidic ocean’
“The good news is that most corals appear to have this internal ability to buffer rising acidity of seawater and still form good, solid skeletons,”
Richard - You insist on playing word games and - rather than look for the truth - you prefer to play fast and loose with it.
Since *you* brought up Palau's reefs I will assume you've read as many articles on them as you can find. And having done this you *know* they are the exception - not the rule. As the researchers themselves note:
"These reef communities have developed under these conditions for thousands of years," said Shamberger. "These are conditions that are going to be occurring in a lot of the ocean by the end of the century.
"We don't know if other coral reefs will be able to adapt to ocean acidification--the time scale might be too short."
The scientists are careful to stress that their findings in Palau are different from every other low pH environment that has been studied.
"When we discover a reef like Palau where the coral communities are thriving under low pH, that's an exception," said Cohen.
"It doesn't mean that coral reefs around the globe are going to be fine under ocean acidification conditions. It does mean that there are some coral communities out there--and we've found one--that appear to have figured it out. But that doesn't mean that all coral reef ecosystems are going to figure it out."
So, is your intent that we should base our policies on the exceptions - or the general rule? Or would you rather continue to deny what science tells us?
P.S. - Do you find it surprising that some corals can survive these conditions? I don't. Even during the great extinction events most marine genera had at least a couple of species survive. But rather than apply what little thought you're capable of, you just rove the web quote-mining and looking for *gotchas* that are only so in your feeble mind.
hello Kevin,
and as we know not many studies have been done outside the lab,
but now this is happening and as well see in one of the first off the coast of Italy, the coral survives in a ph of between 7.3 - 8.1
perhaps you can give me your projections of the co2 levels in 100, 200, 300, 400, years time to see if we get to a PH level of 7.3.
I look forward to your reply.
Kevin,
I think you need to move on from what you have read about how coral reacts in a lab!
Corals ‘could survive a more acidic ocean’
“The good news is that most corals appear to have this internal ability to buffer rising acidity of seawater and still form good, solid skeletons,”
Kevin
"It doesn't mean that coral reefs around the globe are going to be fine under ocean acidification conditions
no it means that MOST corals will be.
the problem is, Kevin, that you are preaching from the hymn book that was written way back when studied were still done in the lab, now they are getting out in the field and doing proper research,
2013-
"Predicted to go extinct by the year 2100, coral reefs are thought to be the quintessential climate change victims.
But new research shows the reefs are actually putting up a better fight against warming waters than previously thought.
Scientists at CSU Monterey Bay discovered coral reefs are adapting to the temperature changes after they realized current reef populations are larger than what predictive models said they should be. That meant coral bleaching, which occurs when warming waters cause reefs to expel the algae that give them their color, was less prevalent than anticipated.
"The model over-predicted present levels of coral bleaching," said lead author Cheryl Logan. "This led us to believe that maybe the future predictions were over-predicting too."
Richard says: "I think you need to move on from what you have read about how coral reacts in a lab! "
This is *exactly* what I was talking about earlier. You *don't* read what others write. I haven't quoted anyone that does research only in a lab. No coral specialist that I know of only spends time in a lab. You make sh*t up, pass it off as truth, but it's all in your mind. You create strawmen - then act like you've proven something.
To date, you've been shown wrong on the changes in ocean chemistry. You've tried to semantically argue the term 'ocean acidification' - but every scientist and interested layman knows what the term means. You cite exceptions rather than the general population. And the Monterey Bay data is for temperature and *not* pH. Do you ever mark your beliefs to market - or do you just figure you're smarter than all these silly marine biologists that have spent decades studying the subject?
"I haven't quoted anyone that does research only in a lab"
"Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints
on geological dilemmas"
they go onto talk about past extinctions not realizing that the co2 levels were higher before the extinctions!!!
this is a paper based on what if situations with no basis on anything actually seen in the field
though they do go on to mention coral that had been put in an acidic bath in a lab- ( "I haven't quoted anyone that does research only in a lab"
)
I have posted real life situations with coral living between a ph level of 7.3 all the way to 8.1.
find me another paper to look at that monitors coral in the field.
if you want Kevin I will take your paper apart bit by bit.
to start with
they mention that the first reefs were laid down during the Ordovician period ,,this is when the co2 levels were at around 5000 ppm,
Going by their own figures the first extinction was at the end of the Ordovician period when the co2 levels had dropped to a lower ph.
the next extinction was in the Late Devonian ,where the co2 levels had dropped to around PH 1300 ppm
do you want me to continue!!
Kevin, your paper
Extract,
". At
one point or another, wildly fluctuating temperatures in
response to sharp increases in atmospheric CO2
, acid rain
and lack of oxygen in shallow waters after protracted times
of plenty have all been held responsible"
what is the point of this when they have already stated that the coral was laid down in the Ordovician period when the co2 levels were at their highest and temps were at their highest in the last 500 million years.
So you use this paper as a basis to tell me that a higher co2 content is dangerous when looking through the paper we know that coral was laid down at a co2 level nearing 5000 ppm,
are you mad.
Richard.
The span of time during which you have avoided answering my questions (repeated for your benefit in case you have a comprehension problem) is lengthening. It started as a short time, but as it lengthened this span became longer -even though at first it was still short - and it is now becoming conspicuously long as you continue to ignore my questions.
What is it that you are so assiduously avoiding, whilst simultaneously erecting straw men and falsehoods galore?
So, just to remind you...
1)
The land surfaces vary in temperature from -80°C to +55°C, excluding record extremes.
Around many land areas the temperature varies from -30°C to 50°C (in "areas" [sic] of humans and many species)
Please point out to me which species are adapted to either of these temperature ranges. Once you've done that please point out which oceans speices regularly (or even infrequently) experience a pH range of 2.5 to 8.5.
Discuss.
2)
Please also point out where marine ecophysiologists have ever said that the problem is that the oceans would become acid (that is, having a ratio of Lowry-Brønsted acid:base >1), as opposed to them acidifying (that is, where their concentration of Lowry-Brønsted acid moieties is increasing).
3)
What reduction in pH do you believe is possible without any significant harm to oceanic species?
4)
Richard said on 26/2/14 9:00 AM
"i am happy for you to use that term though remember 8.1 is heavily alkaline!"
Um, no.
pH 8.1 is most definitely weakly alkaline, by the inverse logarithmic (or any other) definition of a Lowry-Brønsted base.
If pH 8.1 was "heavily" alkaline most marine life would be rendered to soap...
The problem you are having with the overall acid/base semantic, Richard, is that you are confabulating the pH neutrality of pure water with the more general concept of an equivalence point. They are not the same. Seriously.
If this is confusing for you follow that link and study some of the graphs to understand why. Ask yourself what is the salt composition of seawater, and what that implies for its equivalence point. When you do that, ask yourself again what the term acidification implies, given that the focus is on the protonaceous species and not on the irrelevant equivalence point of pure water.
And for fun and laughs ask yourself - what is the pH of pure water at a temperature of 0°C, and at a temperature of 100°C. And to make this just a little more interesting, it I add 0.01M HCL to pure water at 5°C am I acidifying it? If I reduce its pH by 0.2 of a unit, and add some more HCL, am I acidifying ?
Discuss.
5)
Can you tell the thread what is the equivalence point of seawater? And to make this issue a little more interesting, can you tell the thread what ionic species are present at this point? Bonus marks if you can catalogue the relative proportions of conjugate acids and bases, and describe why there is no acidification occurring as the equivalence point is aproached from the higher end of the pH scale. And a gold star if you can explain why there's no acidification occurring when water itself is a conjugate acid...
Discuss in detail.
Bernard,
What reduction in pH do you believe is possible without any significant harm to oceanic species?
a ph of 2.5 as seen on the floor of the oceans where there is teeming live of fish mussels, crabs etc,
or to the coasts of Italy where we can see life thrivibg bewteen 7.3 - 8.5
or the coasts of America between 6.0 - 8.5
They knew this back in the 1980's . why they had to relearn it beats me!
New evidence points to pollution as main cause of much coral reef destruction
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-02/hboi-nep020904.php
Anon-101a here:
"at the bottom of the page is a graph of co2 levels of the atmospphere,"
So given you've stopped trying to pretend ocean acidification doesn't exist, and even dropped that it's the "wrong term", you're now blagging on about what?
Anon-101a here
"they mention that the first reefs were laid down during the Ordovician period"
And they are NOT the species we have making corals today.
A lack of knowledge, a denier site ready to feed you nonsense, and a complete disregard for truth or even ethical consideration has led to you not understanding a damn thing and getting it 100% wrong.
Anon-101a here:
"So you use this paper as a basis to tell me that a higher co2 content is dangerous when looking through the paper we know that coral was laid down at a co2 level nearing 5000 ppm,
are you mad."
No, you are, dicky.
Bernard , before you ask me a question please refer back to my other postings
I repost,
what survives at 2.5
isn't it wonderful what can survive at a ph of 2.5
"The archaea are used by other animals to generate energy. These animals include tubeworms, clams, mussels, crabs and shrimp. Hundreds of species of animals have been identified in the hydrothermal vent habitats around the world"
anon,
you used the wrong name there,
that paper is so inept, they harp on about extinctions without making any reference to the PH of the seas when the co2 was first laid down, every extinction afterwards was at a vastly lower ph.
What was the point in referring me to that paper.
some lovely pics of some of the marine life that live around hydrothermal vents at a ph of 2.5.
http://www.deepseaphotography.com/vents.php?start=0&type=hydrothermal%20vent%20animals
the PH of the seas when the co2 was first laid down
coral not co2!
So everyone or just the one!
By all means quote papers but none featuring the following-
please no papers using the past as a reason to be frightened of your so called "acidification"
as coral was laid down at a ph nearing 5000 ppm.
and none using experiments in a lab.
All others i look forward to reading with great interest.
Anon-101a here:
"please no papers using the past as a reason to be frightened of your so called "acidification" as coral was laid down at a ph nearing 5000 ppm."
With organisms who had evolved to deal with it, organisms that had perished as the CO2 changed, just as CO2 today is changing, at far greater rate, therefore ensuring that the organisms will not have a chance to evolve without collapse.
Please peddle your ignorant assertions where they will be swallowed whole. WTF will accept it.
"What reduction in pH do you believe is possible without any significant harm to oceanic species?
Ah, so you're reduced to answer a (repeated) question (and just one of several) with a question. The first refuge of the clueless. Your avoidance of a direct answer is noted, as is the cowardice that it represents.
Nevertheless, I will answer briefly myself, to frame my position so that yours can be better defined.
I think that harm to some marine species will start with the pH reduction seen to date. This harm will escalate exponentially with further decrease of oceanic pH, and a decrease of around half a pH unit will have profound effects. And note well - it is not the increasing concentration of hydronium that is the major problem in many instances, it is the concurrent decrease in carbonate ion concentration - and in particular the aragonite saturation state - that is the issue.
"a ph of 2.5 as seen on the floor of the oceans where there is teeming live [sic] of fish mussels, crabs etc,"
You are engaging in serious logical fallacy here. You are cherry picking examples of extremophiles as if they are representative of marine species in general, which they most certainly are NOT.
Very little of the global marine biodiversity could survive at all at a pH of 2.5. Much of it wouldn't survive even at pH 7.0, either as a result of direct physiological effects or through food web cascades, and as I said in above even a pH around 7.5 or higher will have serious consequences for species and for ecosystems.
None of this is controversial to any informed and sane person. There is literature galore available, and it's a serious indictment of your intellect and/or ideology that you ignore the fundamental issues of chemistry and biology in order to make the claims that you do.
Now, can you attempt from the beginning to answer my questions, or are you just going to further embarrass yourself with more of the same puile intellectual excrement that you've produced to date?
Anon-101a here:
"what survives at 2.5"
Yes, what survives at 2.5? Will it support human society at the top of the tree?
You don't know, do you, you just hope and believe that your God won't let YOU die. Because you love him.
Anon-101a here:
"You are engaging in serious logical fallacy here. You are cherry picking examples of extremophiles as if they are representative of marine species in general, which they most certainly are NOT."
Indeed, if they were representative, they would not be EXTREMEOPHILES. That's what "EXTREME" means: outide the norm.
But dicky doesn't understand English if it gets in the way of his faith...
cheer picking,
well lets cherry pick the past , coral laid down at 5000ppm.
So now I cherry pick today, the testing of ph of the sea off the coast of Italy is one of the first outside the lab.
Ok if you want you can cherry pick me some papers showing experiments in the lab, you show me what you have found and I will you you my lab experiment papers ,
not actually written by me!!!
Anon-101a here:
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."
Since you have so far managed to avoid even the pretence of answering the question, you must agree that you do not know and cannot say, therefore you're engaging in pointless whataboutery, dicky.
warnings come and go.
In 1970, coral reef science was warned that the crown-of-thorns starfish, Acanthaster planci, might cause the extinction of scleractinian corals in the Pacific Ocean. Now, 20 years later we can fortunately say that this alarm was almost certainly too severe. Many reefs were devastated by the starfish, but none are extinct, none have disappeared and many are in various stages of recovery.
Anon-101a here
"cheer picking,
well lets cherry pick the past , coral laid down at 5000ppm."
Where the corals were laid down by a different species that no longer exists, using a different method.
Lets actually LOOK, rather than parrot what WTF told us, eh?
Anon-101a here
" warnings come and go."
Showing that you're absolutely pants at engineering, dicky.
Your claim there is as useful as "Cars stop and start", as if there's "magic" making it all happen.
Ok anon
I will start with my first paper, 2004,
Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming
1] Coral reefs are constructed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Deposition of CaCO3 (calcification) by corals and other reef organisms is controlled by the saturation state of CaCO3 in seawater (Ω) and sea surface temperature (SST). Previous studies have neglected the effects of ocean warming in predicting future coral reef calcification rates. In this study we take into account both these effects by combining empirical relationships between coral calcification rate and Ω and SST with output from a climate model to predict changes in coral reef calcification rates. Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.
"magic" making it all happen.
no starfish!!
Anon-101a here:
"1] Coral reefs are constructed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3)."
And the corals creating the reefs will die off because of the acidifciation of the oceans going on.
You don't understand the paper IN THE LEAST, dicky.
PS I note that you are STILL studuously avoiding acknowledging that "yep the seas vary between the ph of 7.5 and 8.5 " has NOTHING to do with "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far.".
Anon-101a here:
"no starfish!!"
So you think that starfish causes warming???
What a complete and utter nutbag you are, dick.
Anon-101a here:
"Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future."
If previous analyses were wrong, then what makes this one, uniquely, right?
Hope and prayer, is it, dick?
If previous analyses were wrong, then what makes this one, uniquely, right?
NOW YOU ARE THINKING, i absolutely agree with your thinking!!!! it works both ways.
and that is why i give an alternate view, nothing has been proven, sure some lab tests show a particular result but i have seen papers for and against on that.
out of interest , it does not get more extreme than this,
Abstract
Five decades after a series of nuclear tests began, we provide evidence that 70% of the Bikini Atoll zooxanthellate coral assemblage is resilient to large-scale anthropogenic disturbance. Species composition in 2002 was assessed and compared to that seen prior to nuclear testing. A total of 183 scleractinian coral species was recorded, compared to 126 species recorded in the previous study (excluding synonomies, 148 including synonomies). We found that 42 coral species may be locally extinct at Bikini. Fourteen of these losses may be pseudo-losses due to inconsistent taxonomy between the two studies or insufficient sampling in the second study, however 28 species appear to represent genuine losses. Of these losses, 16 species are obligate lagoonal specialists and 12 have wider habitat compatibility. Twelve species are recorded from Bikini for the first time. We suggest the highly diverse Rongelap Atoll to the east of Bikini may have contributed larval propagules to facilitate the partial resilience of coral biodiversity in the absence of additional anthropogenic threats.
Anon-101a here:
"NOW YOU ARE THINKING"
I was always thinking, dick, unlike yourself, who find mere assertion of "convenient lies" a far more salubrious way to pass the time.
I note that you still refuse to accept that "yep the seas vary between the ph of 7.5 and 8.5 " has NOTHING to do with "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far.".
Anon-101a here:
"and that is why i give an alternate view,"
False equivalence and yellow journalism.
"The earth is flat"
"The earth is spherical"
are two alternative views of the shape of the earth.
One is ENTIRELY and UTTERLY WRONG.
If there are 998 views on AGW which boil down to "AGW is real and a problem NOW" and only two that boil down to "AGW is not a problem worth bothering with", why is it you want to present as if fact only those two views, and pretend they are both as valid as 499 times the other view?
And why do you, when putting 499x as much weight behind views you find comfortable, do you think you can get away with pretending you're merely "showing balance"?
so what you are telling me is that marine life lives happily between 7.5 and 8.5 but the average ph of 8.1 is now disturbing marine life.
actually as we have seen the ph of seas along coastlines where coral lives goes down to a ph of 7.5
sorry 7.3
and by vents on the ocean floor, 2.5
Anon-101a here
"so what you are telling me is that marine life lives happily between 7.5 and 8.5 but the average ph of 8.1 is now disturbing marine life."
Yes.
Why does this amaze you?
IPCC projected acidification of between 0.14 and 0.35 pH units by 2100.
So far so good!!
Anon-101a here:
"and by vents on the ocean floor, 2.5"
So you'll go live by that ocean sea floor vent, right?
After all, you're alive, those extremeophiles are alive, and you have absolutely no qualm about making that the only relevant factor in surviving.
Anon-101a here:
"IPCC projected acidification of between 0.14 and 0.35 pH units by 2100.
So far so good!!"
So you agree that Rabbet was right to use Ocean Acidification.
Well done, however, I predict that this improvement is temporary and you will recant your apostasy of the Cult Of Denial as soon as you notice.
Why does this amaze you?
it doesn't what amazes me is that hundreds of marine species live at a ph of 2.5 , the equivalent of vinegar, and a temp in the hundreds of degrees by vents in the ocean floor.
Anon-101a here:
"Why does this amaze you?
it doesn't"
Then why do you complain so loudly and profess amazement?
yep your right ,
I always get excited ,
there is nothing to be amazed at, nothing is happening and marine life lives at a low of 2.5 all the way up to 8.5.
so move along, nothing happening,
Kevin said:
"I haven't quoted anyone that does research only in a lab"
richard said...
"Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints
on geological dilemmas"
Umm, that paper was written by John Veron. Do you know his background? Are you seriously claiming he has only worked in laboratories and never been out in the field?
You are ignorant. Do some basic research and background checks before making such stupid statements.
You can continue this discussion by first admitting that your made-up accusation that Veron has only worked in a lab as totally spurious and WRONG. Laughably wrong. I repeat, you are a disgrace to whatever university gave you a degree.
Anon-101a here:
"nothing is happening"
Thereby proving your incapacity at thought, dick.
You claim that the ocean is becoming more acid (after crying that it's "the wrong term" with nothing other than your best effort at being confused at it as "proof"), and now you claim nothing is happening.
Things happen all the time, dearie.
But in your haste to pretend that AGW is just a commie scam cooked up by godless atheists, you're willing to pronounce ANY OLD CRAP if it will push your ideals in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
It's a VERY odd way of agreeing that ocean acidification, where the average pH of the ocean changes, will cause extinction of many species of marine animal.
so arguing about acidification or less base is just about semantics ,
Ken Caldeira used the term 'less base"
the email from the Monteray aquatic...... told me "less base" is the correct term but the public and congress would not understand.
but probably best to keep away from whether your so called acidification will be a problem or not as based on the past, when coral was first laid down, no , and the future based on the first in the field experiments - no.
Anon-101a here:
"I repeat, you are a disgrace to whatever university gave you a degree."
Remember AIG have geology and physics PhDs in their number: people who learnt by rote the facts whilst never once believing them or accepting them. Their ONLY purpose was to get letters after their name so that their religion would have "professors" supporting them (thereby "proving" them right).
Dick here is a religious fundie who believes that AGW cannot happen because God promised Noah.
There's absolutely no proof that dick did anything other than what was required to get his degree. It's entirely possible to fake learning if you're ignorant enough.
Anon-101a here:
"so arguing about acidification or less base is just about semantics"
No, it was you pretending that AGW must be wrong and ocean acidification cannot be bad because "it's not an acid".
I.e. your "argument" is rhetoric bollocks.
so what are you basing your fear on,
surely not the past when coral was laid down when co2 levels were near 5000 ppm.
"it's not an acid".
is 8.1 acid or alkaline.
Anon-101a here:
"so what are you basing your fear on"
Why do you call it fear?
I call it concern. The only fearful one is you, dearie.
And I base my concern on the facts of the case. Not just those facts most comforting to me, as is your M.O.
Anon-101a
"is 8.1 acid or alkaline."
Can adding an acid to a solution change the pH from 8.2 to 8.1?
absolutely , so you are referring to the process not the outcome.
8.1 being alkaline all the way to a ph of 7 which is neutral.
Anon-101a here:
"absolutely"
So you agree that there is something happening now.
Is there any limit to how far you'll flip flop your statements so as never to admit an error?
That, by the way, was a rhetorical question: we all know the answer: there is no limit.
and of course as you know anything above a neutral ph of 7 is what we class as being in a neutral state,
but knowing that the seas will never become acidic why do you not like to use the term "less base"
so you are happy with me using the term becoming less base.
not neutral , in an alkaline state
Anon-101a here:
"and of course as you know anything above a neutral ph of 7 is what we class as being in a neutral state"
And of course, as you don't wish to know, changing ocean acidification causes problems to the life of all marine animals, pH7 being neutral notwithstanding.
Anon-101a here:
"not neutral"
And becoming more acidic.
Anon-101a here:
"but knowing that the seas will never become acidic"
However, we know that isn't the case. The seas are becoming acidic. You just deliberately confuse yourself so you can "prove" the term confusing.
"I will start with my first paper, 2004,
Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming"
Yeah, that paper's been discredited multiple times since it's publication.
Try using a bibliographic database sometime.
"so what you are telling me is that marine life lives happily between 7.5 and 8.5 but the average ph of 8.1 is now disturbing marine life."
Do you have a brain injury or a serious congenital intellectual impairment?!
I said nothing whatsoever to that effect. If your reading comprehension so that so inadequate that you believe otherwise then you require remedial literacy education.
Further, you've completely ignored my point from several days ago that adaptation to short term variability in environmental parameters is a different matter to long-term changes to the means of those same parameters.
You really are grossly ignorant of basic science, aren't you?
And I notice that you are still assiduously avoiding my questions to you.
You really don't want to swim in the deep end, do you...?
Anon101a here:
"And I notice that you are still assiduously avoiding my questions to you."
Does that for all questions.
Occasionally he'll misspeak and appear to answer it, but later on it will be shown by his posts that his answer wasn't one he agreed with.
Currently he's going with "it's an alternative view", but since "wrong" is an alternative view compared to "correct", this is hardly the knock-down/drag-out argument winner he "thinks" it is...
Anon-101a here
"You really don't want to swim in the deep end, do you...?"
Though the logical conclusion of his "proof" that ocean acidification is no problem would indicate that he would survive quite happily in the deep end, since so many other animals do...
"8.1 being alkaline all the way to a ph of 7 which is neutral."
Richard...
Now, I know that you are in some fashion or other intellectually impaired, but you're just embarrassing yourself. You see, you still haven't twigged to some fundamental points.
First, 'neutrality' when fined as pH 7 is a very specific state dependent on a very particular compound and a stringent set of physical parameters. It's a definition that cannot be applied with the same meaning to different admixtures and solvents, and indeed the whole concept of a Lowry-Brønsted acid is iself inadequate in some contexts - which is why there are different conceptualisations, from the rather naïve (with modern hindsight) idea of Arrhenius acids to Lowry-Brønsted acids to Lewis acids.
You still haven't even touched on the nature of seawater and its equivalence points, or the significance of its buffer components that include weak acids and conjugate acids. You haven't answered my questions about pH and temperature. What is the pH of pure water at a temperature of 0°C, and at a temperature of 100°C.
You're no different from the anonymous troll who couldn't count past 1, and who ignored all work that indicated that equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely greater than 2°C, and probably greater than 3°C. Prating knaves and fools, the both of you...
i am wondering whether to send you all this book,
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YaUZ-7owUXUC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=chemistry+%22less+base%22&source=bl&ots=7B1LUIuPg9&sig=K1-BARJx4lCEUYZklYdQdwTbP18&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AZwUU4C2DNKShQe1-YGICQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=chemistry%20%22less%20base%22&f=false
Anon-101a here:
"i am wondering whether to send you all this book,"
I am wondering how you thought that would be possible.
Or even instructive.
or make you members of the KOI club
https://koiclubofsandiego.org/water-chemistry--4-of-6.html
see of you can beat wiki answers,
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_weak_acids_require_more_or_less_base_for_titration?#slide=1
a nice paper for you all. Its about soil,
Soil solution chemistry and element budgets of three Scots pine ...
link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00477144
by W Schaaf - 1995 - Cited by 37 - Related articles
The site Taura received LESS BASE cation deposition and is marked by the lowest pH values throughout the soil profile combined with increased Al concentrations ...
Anon-101a here:
"or make you members of the KOI"
Yup, same problem: how would you consider it possible, and why would you consider it informative?
Anon-101a here:
"a nice paper for you all"
Yeah, sorry, you've not displayed any great discernment so far, and a complete inability (nay, unwavering refusal) to understand anything that doesn't comport to your ideation of reality in a fundamentalist paradigm.
Therefore what you would consider "nice" may be in the same sense as AIG is "nice". It's certainly nice for YEC fundamentalists, but rather short on factual accuracy and truth.
Anon-101a here:
"see of you can beat wiki answers"
Yes, easily.
For example, I could give information that was actually of any relevance to the claims made here, rather than womble off to the far corners of irrelevancies.
In other words, this is yet another attempt to make "yep the seas vary between the ph of 7.5 and 8.5 " appear (to the credulous) to have something to do with "Ocean acidification has changed pH from about 8.2 to 8.1, so far."
When it doesn't.
this might help you
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Acid%2F%2FBase_Reactions/Neutralization
"A neutralization reaction is when an acid and a base react to form water and a salt and involves the combination of H+ ions and OH- ions to generate water. The neutralization of a strong acid and strong base has a pH equal to 7. The neutralization of a strong acid and weak base will have a pH of less than 7, and conversely, the resulting pH when a strong base neutralizes a weak acid will be greater than 7"
Post a Comment