Subscription Center
Nov 24, 2008 09:20 PM | 34
.jpg)
Increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is making the Pacific coast acidic far more rapidly than previously believed, potentially wreaking havoc for creatures living in it that are unable to tolerate the swiftly changing environment.
Ecologists at the University of Chicago tracked the acidity of the Pacific off an island close to Washington state over the course of eight years. Their results, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the waters here are becoming acidic 10 times more quickly than had been predicted using other models. Their data also shows that populations of mussels—key animals in that ecosystem—are declining rapidly as the ocean becomes less alkaline.
Oceans, like trees, absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, playing a big role in slowing down climate change. When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, it forms carbonic acid. This extra acidity can dissolve seashells, making life particularly hazardous for many shellfish, as well as all creatures from ducks to humans that depend on them as a source of food.
“Although coastal surface waters make up only a small portion of the world’s oceans, they are focal points for ocean production and human activity,” the authors say in their report. “Our results . . . may portend much broader-scale impacts in other marine habitats.”
Although all parts of the ocean are at risk from excess acid, the most drastic effects may be felt first in colder climes such as at the Earth's poles, ScientificAmerican.com has reported previously.
(Image of mussels courtesy of C. A. Pfister)
Tags:
shellfish,
acidification,
shell,
climate change,
CO2,
ocean,
carbon dioxide,
acid,
pH,
global warming
More News Blog:
Next: Other solar systems have carbon dioxide, too
Previous: Troubled waters: striped bass moms pass on harmful pollutants to babies
See what we're tweeting about
Horganism New essay on Thomas Nagel's anti-materialist "Mind and Cosmos," plus mine: http://t.co/AgG1ikLMhC http://t.co/W1qDxNezZC
notscientific #SciLogs Weekly Roundup: Charles Darwin, Biocalculator, Infotainment, Woman Scientist, National Champion For Science http://t.co/gnfWhgKaHF
TetZoo #Rio #pterosaur: some talk highlights: Unwin on Darwinopterus ontogeny, Bennett on rebuttal to Nesbitt & Hone, Costa on anurognathid tails..
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
34 Comments
Add CommentThis report confirms the equally deadly report of last week by the Australian Acad. of Sci. which gives the Southern Ocean a 2030 deadline for passing the tipping point of acidfication. Together these reports prove that Ocean Change is by far the most imminent and deadly impacts of fossil CO2, far more rapid and deadly than the glacially paced Climate Change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe oceans are not only becoming rapdily more acidic. They are equally as rapidly losing thier green plants due to the effect CO2 has in benefitting plants on land which in our high and rising CO2 air are becoming greener and better ground cover. That better ground cover has dramatically reduce dust in the winds which is the principal source of vital mineral micronutrients, esp. iron, for the ocean plants. As the late John Martin described some 20 years ago, ocean plant ecology depends of dust in the wind. His solution, even then, to the problem of 'global warming' was to replenish the oceans vital iron micro-nutrients and restore the balance of green plants in the oceans.
In the past 30 years the ocean have lost vast amounts of thier green plants due to our depriving them of vital mineral micronutrient iron. The Southern Ocean has lost 10% of its plant life, the N. Atlantic 17%, the N. Pacific 26%, and the tropic oceans 50%. This the greatest defoliation of the planet many times worse than the defoliation of the rainforests but it has taken place in the invisible oceans.
Only the power of restored photosynthesis offers hope for the oceans. If we restore the planktos the ocean plants will compete for the CO2 and instead of it becoming acid death it will become ocean life.
Planktos-science.com has been working for many years alongside the international ocean science academic community. Now with 20 years and a quarter of a billion dollars of research John Martins Geritol solution has been proven to work. If we can engage in ocean stewardship and ocean restoration immediately we might restore sufficient ocean life to forstall the otherwise certain acidifying ocean death.
Lend a hand, help save the oceans by restoring the oceans... demand that ocean ecorestoration becomes the most important task of the next 21 years. For more information visit www.planktos-science.com
How much is "10 times more quickly"? is the pH going from 7.2 to 7.200001 when it was expected to go to 7.2000001? Please print some specifics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd why is SA running a advertisement for fund raising for some group in one of their articles? Are the Editors now OK with infomercials instead of science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How much is "10 times more quickly"? is the pH going from 7.2 to 7.200001 when it was expected to go to 7.2000001? Please print some specifics. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trend was measured as -0.045 per year, corresponding to a decrease in pH between ~8.4 to ~8.1 over the period studied.
An interesting article but it carbon dioxide release from hydrocarbons increases global warming, per Al Gore, then how is it the article is concerned with the absorption of carbon dioxide in the colder climates?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last time I opened two soda pop bottles (one warm and the other cold), the warm one released more carbon dioxide than the cold one. Therefore, I can only conclude that global warming is not caused by increased carbon dioxide; rather, it is the other way around.
"Al Gore" "The last time I opened two soda pop bottles" "global warming is not caused by increased carbon dioxide; rather, it is the other way around."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpoken like a true rebublican.
Don't worry, we'll save you from your ignorance.
Again.
Spoken as a trained chemist! As for saving, try saving Al Gore for his inane remarks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The trend was measured as -0.045 per year, corresponding to a decrease in pH between ~8.4 to ~8.1 over the period studied"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid the study correct for temperature and depth? How long was the period of study?
As I understand the article, the warmer the ocean (using the geographic location of each one mentioned), the more plant life lost. Is this not proof that temperature causes carbon dioxide release? If so, what is the current pH of these oceans versus some past period of time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy greatest concern with some of the talks over the years has been sequestering carbon dioxide in the oceans just for the reasons mentioned. Also, like the "acid rain" over the land is it really carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide which may be from natural sources as well as man made?
And during your chemistry 'training', nobody took 5 minutes to introduce you to the concept of CO2 partial pressure?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe measurements spanned between 2000 and 2007. I am not sure what you mean by 'correcting' for temperature and depth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The measurements spanned between 2000 and 2007. I am not sure what you mean by 'correcting' for temperature and depth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 carrying capacity varies with temperature. The colder the water, the more CO2 it can hold. As temperature is also depth related , there is a depth termed the carbon compensation depth below which bivalves etc. can't live as the water will dissolve their shells. The CCD is used in paleontological studies to figure our paleodepths. If memory serves, it is nominally around 600' or so. Without correcting for temperature and depth, natural variances in pH values may be due to changing currents, upwellings, etc.
Ok, it wasn't clear to me whether you suggested they account for these in the way they derive the pH, or in the way they interpret the variation in pH. In order to interpret the variations, they have fitted their measurements through non linear regression, to a function of atmospheric CO2, time of the day (to account for Sun driven fluctuation in photosynthesis), water temperature (modulating the potential to dissolve CO2), the response to upwelling, phytoplankton, PDO index, surface alkalinity and finally water salinity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistest
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeadline: Ocean…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst para: Pacific coast…
Second para: an island…
Notice how the scope of the alarmist headline (lightning speed?!) narrows dramatically.
If a scientist claims to know what is happening in the whole ocean after studying a single beach, should we award him a medal or smile politely?
When observations refute the output from a model, the model is proven wrong. Should we then try to explain the differences from the model, or simply admit the ignorance of the model maker?
"Although all parts of the ocean are at risk from excess acid…" This is inadequate science; worse, it is scaremongering masquerading as science, for no acid exists in oceans of pH greater than 7.
This article elucidates no cause for concern.
Cheers.
http://www.diasporamacaense.org/Dead%20Fish.jpg http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=i+released+phytoplankton+into+your+dead+zone&btnG=Google+Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=++++++++++++++hemerick++you+will+see+fish%2Cseals%2C+whales&btnG=Search http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=%20oregon%20%20whales&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.diasporamacaense.org/Dead%20Fish.jpg http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+i+released+phytoplankton+into+your+dead+zone&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=++++++++++++++hemerick++you+will+see+fish%2Cseals%2C+whales&btnG=Search http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=+++++++++++++oregon+whales&btnG=Search+Images glen hemerick, 15871 peacock hill rd se, olalla, wa 98359
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisphone 253-857-7225 ghemerick@yahoo.com, themerick@hotmail.com, ghemerick@harbornet.com note: i am doing what i can to reverse ocean acidification...gh
cwill43, your chemistry is fine regarding bottles of carbonated water; it's true that carbon dioxide is less soluble in warm water. The researches even measured this fact (0.078 pH/�C) and used it in their model. But CO2, on the whole, isn't produced in the ocean and pop bottles are not the source of CO2. (How did they get carbonated in the first place?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat your chemistry training should direct you to instead is Henry's law: that the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas. From there, the equilibrium between aqueous carbon dioxide and carbonic acid directly effects the pH of the solution.
In other words, if your experiment had instead been varying the partial pressure of CO2 in your bottles, you would have noticed that increasing pCO2 decreased pH.
In any case the article makes no attempt to address warming climates. It simply documents 8 years of ocean chemistry and biodiversity of animals at Tatoosh Island, showing that replacement of calcareous species by noncalcareous species is correlated with the decrease in pH which was observed over the study.
cwill43, your chemistry is fine regarding bottles of carbonated water; it's true that carbon dioxide is less soluble in warm water. The researches are aware of this fact and estimate it as a parameter in their model (0.078 pH/°C). But CO2, on the whole, isn't produced in the ocean and pop bottles are not the source of CO2. (How did they get carbonated in the first place?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat your chemistry training should direct you to instead is Henry's law: that the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas. From there, the equilibrium between aqueous carbon dioxide and carbonic acid directly effects the pH of the solution.
In other words, if your experiment had instead been varying the partial pressure of CO2 in your bottles, you would have noticed that increasing pCO2 decreased pH.
In any case the article makes no attempt to address warming climates. It simply documents 8 years of ocean chemistry and biodiversity of animals at Tatoosh Island, showing that replacement of calcareous species by noncalcareous species is correlated with the decrease in pH which was observed over the study.
It is far more likely that changing rain patterns washed material from the island into the coastal waters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand thoroughly the concept of partial pressure. I have looked at Al Gore's chart where he plotted C02 & temperature against a timeline. Take a ruler and drop straight lines down at any given time and you will see for yourself that warming occurs before increased CO2 levels do
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for my "training", I have two degrees in chemistry and worked as a chief chemist and later R&D Director for two different companies. In one we used CO2 on regular basis.
Pls understand I have no doubts that man is adding to global warming, just what is the mechanism? Increased population in large cities with huge amounts of concrete and asphalt create heat islands. Waste heat from power plants needed to generate the electricity dumps heat into the atmosphere, etc. CO2 is not the sole generator that many would like to believe. It is easy to pick one culprit whether it is real or not.
"This is inadequate science; worse, it is scaremongering masquerading as science, for no acid exists in oceans of pH greater than 7."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are wrong. Acid(s) exist in solution with pH larger than 7 in general, and acid exists in sea water in particular.
@cwill43:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, you seem to think that many processes have been overlooked and that the focus has been exclusively on the anthropogenic CO2. I would suggest that you read the IPCC reports; the impact of temperature on the solubility of CO2 is obviously no news to them, and it is one of the many feedbacks considered. I would suggest chapter 7 (Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry) or in particular 7.3.4.2 "Carbon Cycle Feedbacks to Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" to have a better idea of what the IPCC has done or not in that matter. (note: The issue of Urban Heat Island is treated elsewhere in the report). As for picking CO2 as the "one" culprit (which is not totally accurate as part of the warming during the 20th century has been attributed to other factors), I would say that contrary to what you seem to think, it has been far from easy. It has required a century of scientific endeavor.
I will have to stop the exchange here, this website is too much of a pain to use ...
Yes, I wonder of hte strong acids (SOx, NOx, etc.) effects over the weak acid of carbonic, etc...And if the pH was 8.4, dilution from melting glaciers, the expansion of the heated water would give different values...(driving pH toward acidity) Is ocean water that alkaline to begin with? 8.4?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would wonder also the effects of the strong acids (SOx, NOx) over a weak acid (carbonic, etc.) I'm sure there is a buffer system that may be overloaded...Also melting glaciers would dilute the 8.4 pH 'solution' thus bringing down the pH...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso the article's heading is wrong! it is turning it 'Acid-IC' but even at 8.1 pH is FAR from below 7.0 to become an ACID...
Who writes these? A science journal is printing this heading?... I also desire numbers instead percentages of an unknown... Sounds loike scare tactics to me, too......
very interesting to know, and at the same time, we should put little more fast towards making life in Moon and Mars, so that, if the water swallows our mother planet, all can safely be exported to Moon and Mars. I hope that day is not far away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree we need think to think in terms of big system inputs and outputs...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Heinberg wrote recently about a report from the British Government that shows a 73% decline in zooplankton since 1960.
http://postcarbon.org/top_food_chain
We need to prioritize and protect our food chain if we want our kids and their kids to enjoy their place at the top of the food chain, too.
I agree we need think to think in terms of big system inputs and outputs...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Heinberg wrote recently about a report from the British Government that shows a 73% decline in zooplankton since 1960.
http://postcarbon.org/top_food_chain
We need to prioritize and protect our food chain if we want our kids and their kids to enjoy their place at the top of the food chain, too.
I agree we need think to think in terms of big system inputs and outputs...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Heinberg wrote recently about a report from the British Government that shows a 73% decline in zooplankton since 1960.
http://postcarbon.org/top_food_chain
We need to prioritize and protect our food chain if we want our kids and their kids to enjoy their place at the top of the food chain, too.
I agree we need to think in terms of whole system inputs/outputs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Heinberg recently wrote about a British Government report that shows a 73% decline in zooplankton since 1960.
http://postcarbon.org/top_food_chain
We need to prioritize and protect our food chain if we want our kids kids to have a place at the top of the food chain, too.
@ cwill43
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis particular process has nothing to do with temp, just simply with the fact that by putting more CO2 in the atmosphere more of it will dissolve in the ocean.
@ cwill43;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis article has not so much to do with the rising temp, but just with the fact that a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere makes that more CO2 dissolves in the oceans. would you not agree with this?
The ocean gets more acidic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMussels dissolve, animals die
Competition decreases, CO2 rich environment is good for plant life
Plants thrive, use up CO2, Oceans become more alkaline
Animal life becomes more abundant, mussels return
I don't understand why nobody sees cycles in fluctuation like this. The Earth always returns to a natural balance. People see change and automatically start screaming about the end of the world. I am not saying that global warming is not a threat, but we need to understand what we are "fixing" before we fix ourselves out of existence.
It wasn't a year ago that I saw that scientists wanted to put CO2 IN the ocean to relieve the effects of global warming.
Bunch of monkeys, the lot of you.
Is this not the beginning of turning earths atmosphere into the same one Venus has?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this