The National Academy of Sciences – one of the many scientific bodies that affirms human-driven global warming (none of the major ones fail to do that) has come out with a statement on the other major problem of humans using the atmosphere as a waste dump: the death of the oceans through acidification:
[ul]The changing chemistry of the world’s oceans is a growing global problem, says the summary of a congressionally requested study by the National Research Council, which adds that unless man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the ocean will continue to become more acidic. The long-term consequences of ocean acidification on marine life are unknown, but many ecosystem changes are expected to result. The federal government’s National Ocean Acidification Program, currently in development, is a positive move toward coordinating efforts to understand and respond to the problem, said the study committee.
The ocean absorbs approximately a third of man-made CO2 emissions, including those from fossil-fuel use, cement production, and deforestation, the summary says. The CO2 taken up by the ocean decreases the pH of the water and leads to a combination of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately 0.1 unit -- from about 8.2 to 8.1 -- making them more acidic. Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century. This rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, the report says. The ocean will become more acidic on average as surface waters continue to absorb atmospheric CO2, the committee said.
Studies on a number of marine organisms have shown that lowering seawater pH with CO2 affects biological processes, such as photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction, and individual survival depending upon the amount of acidification and the species tested, the committee found. For example, some of the strongest evidence of the potential effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems comes from experiments on organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. The results showed decreases in shell and skeletal growth in a range of marine organisms, including reef-building corals, commercially important mollusks such as oysters and mussels, and several types of plankton at the base of marine food webs.
The ability of various marine organisms to acclimate or adapt to ocean acidification is unknown, but existing data suggest that there will be ecological winners and losers, leading to shifts in the composition and functioning of many marine ecosystems, the committee said. Such ecosystem changes could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources.[/ul]
Bob, please understand that these doomsday cults are all about marketing. Most people wouldn’t have a clue what alkaline means, but they know acid eats stuff away even though a nice base like sodium hydroxide will do the same thing. That’s why Al Gore put those polar bears on an iceberg in his movie. It tugs at the emotional response within you despite the fact that every so often polar bears do swim to all the way to Iceland where they are promptly shot by farmers protecting their livestock.
The real irony here is Vorkosigan having similar beliefs to Revelationists, people who he would mock mercilessly for their beliefs. He does do a great blog on Taiwan though so he’s not all bad. Could we have less pics of you and other men in bike shorts though?
“becoming less alkaline” IS identical, equivalent, and totally congruent to “becoming more acidic”.
if the pH falls, it is known as acidification. Whether or not one starts at a point lower or higher than the nominal pH 7.0 taken as neutral is irrelevant.
It’s not a science question. It’s a semantics question. You can’t have something becoming more something if it isn’t already a bit that thing.
If you had an apple ripening in the sun on the window and took a bite and thought it was bitter and then came back a day later and took another bite and it wasn’t sweet yet you wouldn’t say that it was becoming sweeter, you’d say it was becoming less bitter. Or you might ask where the worm came from, I dunno, but if it wasn’t sweeter you wouldn’t say it was becoming sweeter. You’d probably say it wasn’t sweet yet, actually.
This is definitely NOT a swipe at Vorkosigan. It is just stating a fact. Pointing out a flaw in the way it is coneptualized. Even if scientists say it that way it is still “obviously” wrong and you can bet the fred smiths of the world will be around to point it out.
I thought urodacus would be around by now to point out that it is scientific convention to call the process of something becoming less alkaline “acidification” (likely stemming from the fact that “dealkinization” is difficult to pronounce and would make people think of the twelve steps, and we all know what a drag that is etc.) and that while it doesn’t make any sense nobody complains. Sort of like how nobody complains when people use the term “literally” to mean something other than “literally.” People are sloppy. Their thoughts are sloppy. Sloppy people express sloppy thoughts sloppily. So it goes.
Then I thought that maybe acid and alkaline were not mutually exclusive catagories, with alkaline referring to things that really weren’t acid at all, and therefore it would even “make sense” to say that something that was becoming less alkaline was undergoing a process of acidification, so I did a bit of research and came up with…
…and so it appears that acid and alkaline “are” entirely different kinds of things so until the ph falls to seven it makes no sense to call something more or less acid.
This stunning realization will no doubt lead to a revamping of the way biology texts around the world are written. History texts will also be written to include a chapter on how global warming could have been averted if only a fossil fuel tax had been implemented with the proceeds used to encourage alternatives etc.
[quote=“Okami”]
The real irony here is Vorkosigan having similar beliefs to Revelationists, people who he would mock mercilessly for their beliefs. He does do a great blog on Taiwan though so he’s not all bad. Could we have less pics of you and other men in bike shorts though?[/quote]
Yes, because you know how the National Academy of Sciences is a bunch of loony revelationists.
Glad you like the blog, thanks for your kind words.
[quote=“bob”]I thought urodacus would be around by now to point out that it is scientific convention to call the process of something becoming less alkaline “acidification” (likely stemming from the fact that “dealkinization” is difficult to pronounce and would make people think of the twelve steps, and we all know what a drag that is etc.) and that while it doesn’t make any sense nobody complains. Sort of like how nobody complains when people use the term “literally” to mean something other than “literally.” People are sloppy. Their thoughts are sloppy. Sloppy people express sloppy thoughts sloppily. So it goes.
Then I thought that maybe acid and alkaline were not mutually exclusive catagories, with alkaline referring to things that really weren’t acid at all, and therefore it would even “make sense” to say that something that was becoming less alkaline was undergoing a process of acidification, so I did a bit of research and came up with…
…and so it appears that acid and alkaline “are” entirely different kinds of things so until the ph falls to seven it makes no sense to call something more or less acid.
This stunning realization will no doubt lead to a revamping of the way biology texts around the world are written. History texts will also be written to include a chapter on how global warming could have been averted if only a fossil fuel tax had been implemented with the proceeds used to encourage alternatives etc.[/quote]How weird it would be to live in a little b bob world. Instead of getting up in the morning, you’d get not-down. Instead of going to work, you’d go in a reverse direction from homeward bound.
If there were ever a thread that deserved a split, this is it. OP’s topic has been completely ignored in favor of trivia (not bob’s intention, I know). Ocean acidification (call it what you must) is a serious problem that gets far less attention than atmospheric issues.
You were all notified of the convention of calling a relative drop in pH “acidification” in 8th grade science class; semantically accurate or not, don’t expect it to change now because you weren’t paying attention or forgot.
I do not usually agree with Bob but in this case I do. The title Ocean acidification does not suggest that the oceans are becoming less alkaline but that they are becoming acidic. That is not the case. And, I do not care what your “Academy” of “Scientists” calls it. The oceans remain alkaline. It is precisely this kind of semantic sexing up that has left so many “scientists” facing criticism. I think that the criticism should stand. Good job Bob. I may have to revisit our arguments on philosophy. You may be ready…
Well, there is always that yeah. I didn’t mean it as a criticism so much as a diversion actually. A little something to entertain fred on his return. The PH thing was his idea actually though he is so dumb he has likely forgotten that he mentioned it some time ago. Anyway as it turns out this particular “convention” (of calling dealkinization acidification) has been in place for sometime apparently, long enough that it couldn’t have been dreamed up by the fear mongerers, of which there are no doubt many (present company excluded, of course).
Hi Bob, if you look up a little you can see that I was there earlier.
acid and alkali are trends or directions, if you like, not necessarily regions per se.
carry on.
don’t forget the huge consequences of the buffering capacity of water and the eventual shift in pH (Google the Henderson-Hasselbach equation for some idea of the process) when taken over the vast volumes of the ocean, and its inevitable effect on any life with a carbonate exo-skeleton, like shellfish, corals, diatoms, etc which make up the bulk of the biomass on the earth.
I think that I shall form a new NGO titled Scientists for Scientific Science. That moniker should impress the less than intelligent on this forum.
We have gone from 8.2 to 8.1 on the PH scale. Two things: We have the incomplete data on sea level increases from poorly monitored/measured tidal gauges. We also have a history of “sexed” up “science” to “prove” x y or z. First, tell me how long the PH measurements have been in place, who is doing them and how global/comprehensive they are. Second, how are the trends from 8.2 to 8.1 calculated, what are the measured effects and what are the predicted future variables?
There it is. I doubt that there is much doubt that the effect of changing PH for the oceans will be extremely negative if the change in PH reaches a certain level. I doubt too that there is any doubt that CO2 causes PH values to fall. And I KNOW there isn’t any doubt that mankind has been, and continues to, release an immense amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is little doubt that some in the scientific community and in the media are inclined to exagerate the threat, just as there is some in the scientific community who get paid to minimize it. There is no doubt that people will hear acidification and start asking how something that isn’t acid could be becoming more acid.
Best to bully up right away and admit that there is a bit of a terminology glitch but that it has absolutely no bearing on the physical changes that are occuring because there are no doubt people who will manipulate the issue to their supposed interests ignoring the fact that a given phenomenon is one thing and the words used to describe it entirely another.
