Acidification of Oceans

[CycloWizard]

Most of you have probably never heard of or considered that the absorption of carbon dioxide by the ocean is a major driving force for climate change. The process itself is simple: the ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate somehow proportional to the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This absorption causes a drop in the pH of the ocean (i.e. the water is more acidic the more CO2 it absorbs).

Since many biological systems are very sensitive to even small changes in pH, this can have tremendous effects on life in the oceans. Of greatest concern is the ability of sea creatures to form skeletons if the water chemistry shifts to the point that some calcium-containing species are no longer as prevalent. It is thought by some that the loss of skeleton formation in sea creatures led to the dramatic and sudden onset of the previous ice age. Anyway, I don't want to go into the gory details, but I think this is a very serious matter that most people don't know about and might want to consider because even if there is no causal relationship between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures, there is an obvious causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the ocean's pH.

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A panel of marine scientists is warning that the Pacific coast's increasing acidity could disrupt food chains and threaten the Pacific Northwest's shellfish industry.

The increasingly corrosive water threatens the survival of many organisms, from microscopic plants and animals at the base of the food chain to shellfish, corals and the young of some marine species, the researchers told a congressional field hearing Tuesday at the Seattle Aquarium.

The data indicates acidic water is appearing along the Pacific coast decades earlier than expected.

The acidified water does not pose a threat to humans, but it could dissolve the shells of clams, oysters and other shellfish.

The acidic seawater is moving closer to shallow waters containing the bulk of marine life, according to a recent article in the journal Science.

One of the article's authors, Christopher Sabine, said Tuesday he watched small marine snails placed in water of similar acidity to that recorded last summer off the northern California coast.

"We actually saw the shells dissolving off these living organisms. They were dissolving off the terapods as they were swimming around," Sabine said. Such creatures comprise as much as 40 percent of the Pacific king salmon's diet.

Global ocean currents make the Pacific Northwest's coastal ecosystems particularly vulnerable to acidification's effects, Sabine said.

A worldwide "conveyor belt" very slowly carries colder water from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific. Along the way, the water accumulates carbon dioxide from dead organisms, so it naturally has a higher carbon dioxide concentration before man-made carbon dioxide is added. A process known as "up-welling" drags this water into shallower, coastal areas.

"As long as CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere, the oceans will continue to absorb that," Sabine said. "What we're seeing is only going to get worse."

Corrosive water could be disastrous for Washington state's shellfish industry, noted one panel member, Brian Bishop, owner of Little Skookum Shellfish Growers in Shelton, Washington. Washington state produces 85 percent of all shellfish on the West Coast, Bishop said.

"This acidity dissolves calcium carbonate, which is the thing that shells are made out of. If diatoms, corals, clams and oysters succumb to this it not only wipes out the shellfish industry but potentially the entire marine food chain," said Bishop, a fifth-generation shellfish harvester.

The panel members said they did not know exactly how acidification will affect Puget Sound and other Northwest coastal waters.

"We know very little about the biological effects of acidification on the West coast," said Terrie Klinger, of the University of Washington's School of Marine Affairs. However, research has demonstrated that there will be early and strong effects in Northwest coastal ecosystems, she added.

"We won't see a total collapse in food chains, but we will see substitutions," Klinger said. "We may end up with food chains or food webs that are highly undesirable and not productive for the means that we use them today."

Source

 

[RichardE]

My girlfriend was talking about this to me a few days ago actually, shes a marine biologist. While its pretty serious as far as industries go, there doesn't seem to be a real way to change the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed. Another issue we discussed is where did the acidic waters come from last ice age? If we don't know the answer to that why are we not looking for that instead of assuming (rightly or wrongly) that man made is solely responsible?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RichardE
My girlfriend was talking about this to me a few days ago actually, shes a marine biologist. While its pretty serious as far as industries go, there doesn't seem to be a real way to change the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed. Another issue we discussed is where did the acidic waters come from last ice age? If we don't know the answer to that why are we not looking for that instead of assuming (rightly or wrongly) that man made is solely responsible?

Probably increased Volcanic activity. Man made CO2 probably isn't solely responsible, but it's so large and completely unnatural as to be a major problem.

 

[Perknose]

Great Barking Beelzebub, you science minded people with all your fact minded empirical observation and your determindedly reasoned proactive extrapolations -- don't you realize that the ocean is becoming more acidic because GOD is angry that California is now allowing gay marriage? :roll:

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Great Barking Beelzebub, you science minded people with all your fact minded empirical observation and your determindedly reasoned proactive extrapolations -- don't you realize that the ocean is becoming more acidic because GOD is angry that California is now allowing gay marriage? :roll:

My girlfriend and I are both religious and either Scientists or pursuing that path. You can be both scientific and religious :roll:

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Perknose
Great Barking Beelzebub, you science minded people with all your fact minded empirical observation and your determindedly reasoned proactive extrapolations -- don't you realize that the ocean is becoming more acidic because GOD is angry that California is now allowing gay marriage? :roll:

My girlfriend and I are both religious and either Scientists or pursuing that path. You can be both scientific and religious :roll:

Too late 🙂

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: RichardE
My girlfriend was talking about this to me a few days ago actually, shes a marine biologist. While its pretty serious as far as industries go, there doesn't seem to be a real way to change the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed.

Good questions. The only way to change the amount of CO2 being absorbed is to decrease atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Another issue we discussed is where did the acidic waters come from last ice age? If we don't know the answer to that why are we not looking for that instead of assuming (rightly or wrongly) that man made is solely responsible?

Many species can be absorbed and alter the pH of water. CO2 is only one of them. At this point, it doesn't matter if man is solely responsible or not - it's happening. It also doesn't matter how it happened last time, only that we know it did. Anyone who has taken a college chemistry class can tell you that increasing the amount of stuff on one side of an equilibrium equation (in this case, CO2) will always cause an increase in the other side of the equation (in this case, carbonic acid). In other words, as long as we keep increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, the pH of the ocean will continue to drop. As long as the pH of the ocean continues to drop, we will see the negative effects mentioned in the article. Thankfully, the ocean is pretty large and a pretty good buffer, so even a 2.5x increase in CO2 leads to minute changes in pH, but the current path we're taking is clearly unsustainable.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: RichardE
My girlfriend was talking about this to me a few days ago actually, shes a marine biologist. While its pretty serious as far as industries go, there doesn't seem to be a real way to change the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed. Another issue we discussed is where did the acidic waters come from last ice age? If we don't know the answer to that why are we not looking for that instead of assuming (rightly or wrongly) that man made is solely responsible?

No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm trying to find the connection between the MMGW CO2 argument and the acidification of oceans.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm trying to find the connection between the MMGW CO2 argument and the acidification of oceans.

Close your eyes and click your heals three times. 😉

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Perknose
Great Barking Beelzebub, you science minded people with all your fact minded empirical observation and your determindedly reasoned proactive extrapolations -- don't you realize that the ocean is becoming more acidic because GOD is angry that California is now allowing gay marriage? :roll:

My girlfriend and I are both religious and either Scientists or pursuing that path. You can be both scientific and religious :roll:

And yet humor challenged. :roll:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm trying to find the connection between the MMGW CO2 argument and the acidification of oceans.

Close your eyes and click your heals three times. 😉

So neither of you are paying attention?

We know that man is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere; we know that the ocean can and is absorbing this additional CO2; and finally we know that the additional CO2 is causing a spike in PH levels in ocean water.

What exactly are you looking for? A bible quote that addresses this process?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm trying to find the connection between the MMGW CO2 argument and the acidification of oceans.

Close your eyes and click your heals three times. 😉

So neither of you are paying attention?

We know that man is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere; we know that the ocean can and is absorbing this additional CO2; and finally we know that the additional CO2 is causing a spike in PH levels in ocean water.

What exactly are you looking for? A bible quote that addresses this process?

You mean a drop, not a spike, right?

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm trying to find the connection between the MMGW CO2 argument and the acidification of oceans.

Close your eyes and click your heals three times. 😉

So neither of you are paying attention?

We know that man is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere; we know that the ocean can and is absorbing this additional CO2; and finally we know that the additional CO2 is causing a spike in PH levels in ocean water.

What exactly are you looking for? A bible quote that addresses this process?

But it's still a very minute trace gas (somewhere between Argon and Neon). There could be other processes involved.

Note: I'm not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to reduce pollution. But using scare tactics like saying the oceans will turn to hydrochloric acid and boil away might not be the best way to get the point across. The earth used to be MUCH hotter and we're all still here, and I think most people know that.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm trying to find the connection between the MMGW CO2 argument and the acidification of oceans.

Close your eyes and click your heals three times. 😉

So neither of you are paying attention?

We know that man is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere; we know that the ocean can and is absorbing this additional CO2; and finally we know that the additional CO2 is causing a spike in PH levels in ocean water.

What exactly are you looking for? A bible quote that addresses this process?

But it's still a very minute trace gas (somewhere between Argon and Neon). There could be other processes involved.

Note: I'm not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to reduce pollution. But using scare tactics like saying the oceans will turn to hydrochloric acid and boil away might not be the best way to get the point across. The earth used to be MUCH hotter and we're all still here, and I think most people know that.

By "we're all still here" do you mean us minerals?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: feralkid
You mean a drop, not a spike, right?

Right you are - my mistake. A lowering of ocean water PH results in higher acidity.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
Note: I'm not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to reduce pollution. But using scare tactics like saying the oceans will turn to hydrochloric acid and boil away might not be the best way to get the point across. The earth used to be MUCH hotter and we're all still here, and I think most people know that.

No one, except yourself, is using scare tactics. The study and the scientists behind it are simply saying that oceans that are more acidic are going to have an impact on the food chain.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm trying to find the connection between the MMGW CO2 argument and the acidification of oceans.

Close your eyes and click your heals three times. 😉

So neither of you are paying attention?

We know that man is pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere; we know that the ocean can and is absorbing this additional CO2; and finally we know that the additional CO2 is causing a spike in PH levels in ocean water.

What exactly are you looking for? A bible quote that addresses this process?

But it's still a very minute trace gas (somewhere between Argon and Neon). There could be other processes involved.

Note: I'm not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to reduce pollution. But using scare tactics like saying the oceans will turn to hydrochloric acid and boil away might not be the best way to get the point across. The earth used to be MUCH hotter and we're all still here, and I think most people know that.

please show me where anyone said the oceans would turn into hydrochloric acid and boil away..

People with a clue about marine wildlife understand that a fluctuation in pH levels can be devastating for entire ecosystems, even if the change in pH is small. People are concerned because there is no way to tell how exactly killing off more marine wildlife is going to affect our world. Some might think that because it's the ocean (and therefore isn't directly affecting land) that there is no large consequence, but those with biological backgrounds know that our ecosystems are more closely intertwined than that.

 

[blackangst1]

Interesting. I havent paid much attention to this either.

At first blush I wonder, just like GW, HOW MUCH man contributes. That would determine how much time and energy we should commit to the problem (IF we could). I really dont think theres a way to measure it. But Im a network engineer not a scientist 😛 Interesting though...

 

[alphatarget1]

Can one presumably "neutralize" the ocean with... say, NaOH? 😛 I wonder how much it'd take.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Taejin
People with a clue about marine wildlife understand that a fluctuation in pH levels can be devastating for entire ecosystems, even if the change in pH is small. People are concerned because there is no way to tell how exactly killing off more marine wildlife is going to affect our world. Some might think that because it's the ocean (and therefore isn't directly affecting land) that there is no large consequence, but those with biological backgrounds know that our ecosystems are more closely intertwined than that.

And those people should also know just how resilient life is. You can practically nuke a place (Chernobyl) and it'll teem with life 20 years later (today) with animals which appear resistant to the high levels of radiation.

Acidify the oceans some and some shellfish won't be able to make a coral reef, but something else will come along in their place.

One question I'd like the "climate change is bad" camp is: "Why is change necessarily a bad thing, given that the earth consantly changes anyways?"

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Can one presumably "neutralize" the ocean with... say, NaOH? 😛 I wonder how much it'd take.

While we're at it, let's drop a huge ice cube in the ocean to offset global warming. 😀

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: RichardE
My girlfriend was talking about this to me a few days ago actually, shes a marine biologist. While its pretty serious as far as industries go, there doesn't seem to be a real way to change the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed. Another issue we discussed is where did the acidic waters come from last ice age? If we don't know the answer to that why are we not looking for that instead of assuming (rightly or wrongly) that man made is solely responsible?

No one's assuming anything. We KNOW that mankind is pumping HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. While there may be some other natural factor that's partly responsible (e.g. volcanic eruptions), how would we even begin to have any control over that? Obviously, we don't. So how about we focus on the things we CAN do something about? Seems reasonable to me.

I understand that. The point is do we pour a ton of resources just for this reason into something that has not been fully explained yet or understood yet? We see where that got us with fuel alternatives and corn based ethanol incentives. I'm sorry if most people don't buy into the "omg we have to fix it now or we are all gonna die in 20 years!!" panic that causes people to have knee jerk reactions. In case you didn't notice the quality of life of a few hundred million people is going to drop significantly if we put into place worldwide the requirements of the carbon climate change initiatives. It would be nice to say "yes this is the "ONLY" thing we can do" before we jump on it, when if with a little more research we can either be concrete in our knowledge and know its a sacrifice we need to take, or we can come up with an alternative that would enable people to not have a drop in there quality of life.

 

[umbrella39]

Wonders if the sea-bed stored methane hydrate release might contribute to this at all?

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Taejin
People with a clue about marine wildlife understand that a fluctuation in pH levels can be devastating for entire ecosystems, even if the change in pH is small. People are concerned because there is no way to tell how exactly killing off more marine wildlife is going to affect our world. Some might think that because it's the ocean (and therefore isn't directly affecting land) that there is no large consequence, but those with biological backgrounds know that our ecosystems are more closely intertwined than that.

And those people should also know just how resilient life is. You can practically nuke a place (Chernobyl) and it'll teem with life 20 years later (today) with animals which appear resistant to the high levels of radiation.

Acidify the oceans some and some shellfish won't be able to make a coral reef, but something else will come along in their place.

One question I'd like the "climate change is bad" camp is: "Why is change necessarily a bad thing, given that the earth consantly changes anyways?"

I think you're taking it for granted that 'life is changing' is a good thing.

Yesyes..we know life is resilient. A comet comes, obliterates the planet and we'll still have things kicking and screaming. Whether these changes are actually good for us (humanity) is another thing. We don't know what kind of quality of life we'll have if we do serious damage to the ocean's ecosystems.... we don't know what we'll be losing by the things we inadvertently (or willfully) destroy.