The arctic can be warming, but it is still cold. The ocean is acidifying, but it is still alkaline.
Warming refers to increases in temperature. It does not refer to a temperature range. Acidification refers to decreases in pH (increases in hydrogen-ion activity). It does not refer to a pH range. Saying the ocean isn't acidifying because it is alkaline is like saying the arctic isn't warming because it is cold. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:18 AM, John Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: > good simple explanation. I couldn't be bothered to reply to such > rubbish.And I assume that Will > Burns sent it just for interest -not to support it. > The trouble is such rubbish is believed by those who don't know the > facts.Noone can be an expert in everything and this subject is important to > everyone. Most people just have to trust the experts in a field. > > In a similar vein, the following appeared in the UK mag The WEEK of 21st > aug > > *from Remnin Ribao (magazine?) in Beijing > "our western critics hubbub endlessly about China becoming the biggest > greenhouse gas emitter, yet we are doing more about global warming than they > are, and are on course to reduce carbon emissions by almost half of 2005 > levels by 2020- far more than any other country"* > > It seems that someone has been fooled by the term "emission intensity" > Actually it means in comparison with GDP so > *China. 40 to 45% reduction in "Carbon Intensity".(5) Carbon intensity > means emissions in comparison with GDP (economic output). In the 10 years > from 1996 to 2007 Chinese GDP increased by a factor of 3.5 so, assuming a > similar economic future, a reduction in carbon intensity of 45% would allow > emissions to double between 2010 and 2020 exactly as they did from 1997 to > 2007* > * *more detail in attached one pager -What the Big Countries are Doing > > John Gorman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Emily" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:12 PM > Subject: [geo] communicating geo-eng re OA False Alarm: CO2 is just > "neutralizing" the ocean > > > hi all, > > yes, the 'acidification' of the ocean means that it has more acid in it > that it used to have, (carbonic acid from CO2 dissolving into the > water). And that is a serious condition, but treatable. We know how to > stop making it worse, and we could possibly help restore the ocean to > near full health. We could also, possibly restore the climate, just as > we can restore some degraded habitats through good environmental > practice and remediation. > > i think in terms of geo engineering particularly, use of language is > really important too. I understand the confusion with the phrase 'ocean > acidification', I have found messaging to the public about this really > hard to explain too. The co2 in sea water creates carbonic acid, which > leads to an increase Hydrogen ions (30% increase to date) which causes a > decrease in pH, but make the ocean nearer to the acid end of the > spectrum but not acidic. This is critical to sea life and the way the > oceans regulate our climate. I attach a graph with long term data on > this. The current change is rapid and large, with potentially huge impacts. > > The reason I raise this with the group is that I think it has really > important implications for messaging on geo-engineering. In public, i > avoid the term geo-engineering and I call it 'pro-active mitigation' > like an oil spill clean up operation. If we could see co2 we wouldn't > just reduce the release of the pollution, we would start a clean up > operation fast, we'd try to contain the pollution and undertake standard > environmental rehabilitation measures, like we do with an oil coal mine > slag heap, or other polluted area. It is standard practice with many > large projects which cause damage to the environment or people, that the > impact will be : > > 1) identified, > 2) minimised > 3) monitored > 4) restored after wards > 5) compensation provided as is fit. > > this approach could be taken with the climate, which is where > geo-engineering techniques can contribute. There is such a mix of > techniques which can be considered to fall into the large and diverse > umbrella of geo-engineering, but the term geo-engineering has a very bad > press and is assumed will only include big, scary, large scale > interventions with the climate and also that this is something that we > don't do in other areas of environmental management. Whereas in reality, > large scale intervention is standard practice in many fields of > environmental management and also regular business activities. > > So, an example is iron fertilisation. Whether is it a useful or > successful technique aside, it is in principle no different from sewage > dumping which goes on around the world into every ocean. both are mass > inputs of nutrients. The difference is that sewage is put into coastal > waters which are much more sensitive to nutrification than the open sea > is likely to be. Another analogy is that Fe dumping in the sea is the > opposite but very similar to fishing. Fishing is a mass extraction of > nutrients from the ocean. > > I think messaging around climate issues, and most especially on > geo-engineering is vital to ensure that we don't fall into the usual pit > falls of: > > 1) using scary messaging to try to trigger action - this usually back > fires (I have fallen into this one myself) > 2) using extreme examples and projections which turn out to be false (I > have fallen into this one myself) > 3) using language which may have one meaning in the science or other > technical language but a different meaning in common use (I expect I > have done this too - but it is harder to notice about oneself) > 4) using umbrella phrases which catch a mixture of meanings and are not > specific enough. > > It may be possible to be more specific about geo-engineering to > distinguish more clearly > > 1) what each technique is, what it's impacts, limitations, potential > costs and benefits are > 2) put them into context of what is predicted to happen if we continue > without them (without going down the scary route) > 3) put them into context of other environmental management techniques or > business practices which have incidental impacts, which we undertake > globally and daily without a second thought. > > I'd be really happy to have a side conversation about communicating > geo-engineering with anyone who might be interested. > > The way I now realise that it might be possible to explain the term > 'acidification' is that it is like saying that the Arctic is warming, > while it is still largely frozen. Yes much of the Arctic is still > utterly freezing, yet it is still warming. (warming rather than warm). > The ocean is the same, yes it is still on the alkaline side of neutral > but it is still acidifiying (but not acid) and this has huge > implications both for marine life, people who eat fish and for the > climate itself. It has more acid in it that it used to have. > > sorry it was a long one. Hope it was of use to some. > > best wishes, > > Emily. > > > > www.lewis-brown.net > > > On 20/08/2010 18:54, Rau, Greg wrote: > > What’s next – Acidgate? -Greg > > > > http://boss.hawaiireporter.com/ocean-acidification-is-a-misnomer/ > > Ocean Acidification is a Misnomer > > B*/Y JACK DINI–/*A good way to excite people is to tell them that > > something is becoming more ‘acid,’ as ‘the oceans are undergoing > > acidification and this is a potential environmental catastrophe.’ > > The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading > > proponent of the doom of global warming, states that the mean pH of > > surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open oceans, so the > > oceans remain alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience > > that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are > > turning to acid. (1) Since the pH of the oceans is higher than neutral > > (pH = 7), this means the oceans are alkaline. The pH scale ranges from > > 0 to 14; pH 6 is ten times more acid than pH 7 and pH 5 is a hundred > > times more acid than pH 7. (2) > > Unfortunately, as Scientific American points out, ‘acidification’ > > means a drop in value, anywhere along the scale. (3) So the term > > ‘ocean acidification’ is misleading. The oceans are not acidifying. > > They are undergoing a process known as neutralization, but the term > > ‘acidification’ sounds scarier than talking about the oceans becoming > > slightly less basic or a little more neutral. > > At least one university is equating seawater with vinegar in an > > on-line presentation for schools. Vinegar (acetic acid) has a pH of > > 2.5, almost a million times more acidic in terms of hydrogen ion > > activity than seawater. This is deliberate disinformation to present > > to young people. (1) > > What about pH variation? > > The Economist talks about pH measurements in Hawaii; “The pH > > difference from one year to the next is frequently greater than the > > change in average pH levels over 20 years. All of this suggests that > > the effects will be far from uniform.” (4) > > Chris Jury, Center for Marine Science, Biology and Marine Biology, > > University of North Carolina, reports, “On some reef flats pH values > > have been measured to vary from as low as 7.8 to as high as 8.4 in a > > single 24 hour period. In some lagoons, pH has been measured to vary > > as much as 1 pH unit in a day (e.g., 7.6 to 8.6). (5) > > USF researchers raised a warning flag upon finding that upper-ocean pH > > had, over the preceding one-and-a-half decades, decreased by > > approximately 0.026 units, equivalent to an average annual pH change > > of -0.0017, over a large section of the northeastern Pacific. “The pH > > decrease is direct evidence for ocean acidification,” said Richard > > Feely. “These dramatic changes can be attributed, in most part, to > > anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean over a 15 year period.” (1) > > Pretty hefty words for a pH change of 0.0017 per year. Have you ever > > tried to measure pH? How do you get a value as low as 0.0017? > > What about the effects on corals and various species? > > “Experiments with seawater are flawed because they are done in > > laboratories removed from the ocean floor rocks, sedimentation from > > continents and flow of river waters into the oceans. It is these real > > processes that have kept the oceans alkaline for billions of years. > > Laboratory experiments have to provide results in a short time to be > > reported in scientific journals. Processes over geological time cannot > > be that easily replicated. Computer simulations that ignore > > observations and natural processes that have taken place over billions > > of years end up with a result unrelated to reality. Reality is written > > in rocks, not models based on incomplete information,” notes Ian > > Plimer. (6) > > Proof of this statement can be found in a recent Scientific American > > article by Marah Hardt and Carl Safina, “If small pH changes occurred > > gradually over tens of thousands of years, a species might evolve > > adaptations, for example, by retaining chance genetic mutations that > > result in greater production of buffer molecules. But species > > generally cannot adapt to changes occurring over mere hundreds of > > years or less. Similar changes produced in the lab over days to weeks > > are lethal.” (3) There it is; short time experiments are lethal. Lab > > experiments persist for weeks to months. Climate change occurs over > > decades and centuries. We have no way of predicting how species will > > adapt over long periods of time. > > There are many contrary peer reviewed papers challenging the claims > > about the impact of CO2 on the oceans. One survey highlights some one > > hundred and fifty such papers, most of them showing that we cannot > > possibly acidify the oceans. (1) > > Iris Hendriks of the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies > > recently analyzed data from a wide sample of research into how > > individual organisms respond to increased carbon dioxide in their > > seawater. She found that the range of responses was wide, with some > > seeming to prefer the lowered pH. She also found that the effects to > > be expected in the 21st century were, on average, comparatively > > modest. (4) > > Recent research published by Elisabetta Erba in Science says corals > > are not threatened by lower pH. The study contradicts the assumption > > that ocean acidification leads to species die-offs, surprising > > scientists. (7) > > Hugo Loaiciga and colleagues report in Geophysical Research Letters > > that a doubling of CO2 from 380 ppm to 760 ppm would increase the > > seawater acidity approximately 0.19 units (e.g., from a pH of 8.2 to > > 8.0). This paper’s result concerning average seawater salinity and > > acidity shows that on a global scale and over the time scale of > > hundreds of years, there would not be accentuated changes in either > > seawater salinity or acidity. (8) > > What To Do? > > Here’s the suggestion from Hardt and Safina, “The EPA should move > > forward with including CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, > > giving states the authority to enforce CO2 emissions limits. > > Establishing marine protected areas would allow species to recover > > from overexploitation; higher numbers would give their populations and > > gene pools more resilience in responding to climate changes.” (3) > > Sounds great, but what about the 80% of the world’s people who want to > > catch up to us. We can’t make any durable dent in global emissions > > because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast. Any > > proposed CO2 controls would increase production costs while giving a > > ‘free pass’ to underdeveloped countries. Guess were the most energy > > intensive industries will relocate? To the lowest cost producers who > > will not have to worry about controlling emissions. > > The bottom line on pH measurement is that to pretend there is an > > accurate long-term record of pH over the oceans—or that a single > > reading from Hawaii or anywhere else is typical of all oceans—is > > nonsense. The simple answer is we don’t know. But what we do know is > > that in the past, creatures in the ocean have survived and thrived > > under conditions that were less alkaline than those existing right > > now. (4) > > References > > 1. Dennis Ambler, “Acid Seas- Back to Basic,”, SPPI Original Paper, > > February 11, 2010 > > 2. Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth, (New York, Taylor Trade Publishing, > > 2009), 331 > > 3. Marah J. Hardt and Carl Safina, “Threatening Ocean Life From the > > Inside Out,” Scientific American, 303, 66, August 2010 > > 4. “The other carbon-dioxide problem,” The Economist, July 1, 2010 > > 5. Chris Jury, “Aquarium Chemistry: The Carbonate System in the > > Aquarium, and the Ocean, Part I: The Components of the Carbonate > > System,” > > http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/12/chemistry/view?searchterm=. > > 6. Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth, 338 > > 7. Elisabetta Erba, et al., “Calcareous Nannoplankton Response to > > Surface-Water Acidification Around Oceanic Anoxic Event 1a,” Science, > > 329, 428, July 23, 2010 > > 8. Hugo A Loaiciga, et al., “Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effect > > on seawater acidity and salinity,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L10605, > > i:10.1029/2006GL026305 > > J/ack Dini is a resident of Livermore, CA/ -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "geoengineering" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
