Ocean acidification

[EmdeReef]

I am not a scientist, but I gamble a wager that an 80 ppm atmospheric increase in CO2 probably does affect the pH of the ocean since increased CO2 in my home does affect the pH of my reef. I use a CO2 scrubber to reduce this affect.

I'm curious though, just how much does a 25% increase in CO2 affect pH? I imagine there are a lot of factors that we don't fully understand yet (such as CO2 sinks?).

Has something like this happened before? Is the change too fast for the oceans (the life in them) to adjust? I think life will prevail, it will probably be different though.

Yes, it's happened a few times, although at slower rates and this of course is the first time it's anthropogenic in nature. The PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) is often studied as one of the proxies (imperfect) for better understanding a 'rapid carbon release'. See attached.

 

[Jose Mayo]

There are many intrinsic and extrinsic factors to the planet that, by themselves, are capable of changing all known parameters of atmospheric composition, global temperature, ocean chemistry and biosphere ... centering batteries only on CO2 is a reductionism incredible, perhaps the unique justification (for this reducinism), would be linked to the fact that the supposed excess to the limits of natural compensation is brought about by human activity and therefore perhaps controllable by the adoption of some measures ... I find this hope of control weak in the face of complexity of the World Economy.

Regards

 

[EmdeReef]

There are many intrinsic and extrinsic factors to the planet that, by themselves, are capable of changing all known parameters of atmospheric composition, global temperature, ocean chemistry and biosphere ... centering batteries only on CO2 is a reductionism incredible, perhaps unique, justification, would be linked to the fact that the supposed excess to the limits of natural compensation is brought about by human activity and therefore perhaps controllable by the adoption of some measures ... I find this hope of control weak in the face of complexity of the World Economy.

Regards

There aren't that many major factors however. Very few "black swan" events in climate's history - although there are a few. Carbon cycle is without a doubt one of the major processes if not the major process regulating Earth's climate, especially given its disproportionate impact on other contributing systems. Whether someone chooses to disregard significant evidence and the almost perfect correlation between the latest CO2 concentration increase with the industrial revolution is something that in a free society is perfectly fine

I do agree with your view that the odds of us controlling it are nonexistent...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I am not a scientist, but I gamble a wager that an 80 ppm atmospheric increase in CO2 probably does affect the pH of the ocean since increased CO2 in my home does affect the pH of my reef. I use a CO2 scrubber to reduce this affect.

I'm curious though, just how much does a 25% increase in CO2 affect pH? I imagine there are a lot of factors that we don't fully understand yet (such as CO2 sinks?).

Has something like this happened before? Is the change too fast for the oceans (the life in them) to adjust? I think life will prevail, it will probably be different though.

It is easy to calculate the effect on seawater pH of 25% extra CO2 in the air that it is equilibrated with (about 0.10 pH units), but the real ocean mixes slowly, and the deep ocean will take a very long time to equilibrate with the atmosphere, so what exactly you are asking alters the answer.

 

[Jose Mayo]

There aren't that many major factors however. Very few "black swan" events in climate's history - although there are a few. Carbon cycle is without a doubt one of the major processes if not the major process regulating Earth's climate, especially given its disproportionate impact on other contributing systems. Whether someone chooses to disregard significant evidence and the almost perfect correlation between the latest CO2 concentration increase with the industrial revolution is something that in a free society is perfectly fine

I do agree with your view that the odds of us controlling it are nonexistent...

I referred to solar cycles, the intensity variation of ionizing radiations that hit the Earth, submarine volcanic activity (especially in the Pacific), the variations of underwater currents in volume and velocity, and their effects of merging the surface and deep waters, to the phenomena "El Niño" and "La Niña", the regime of low and high atmosphere winds and a long etc.

But I reiterate that I understand that the focus on CO2 emissions (perhaps unreasonably neglecting all other pollutants that our activities produce) has the appearance of being "more controllable" than other occurrences that contribute to the variation of the planet's climate and the aggression of the surrounding environment.

Regards

 

[EmdeReef]

I referred to solar cycles, the intensity variation of ionizing radiations that hit the Earth, submarine volcanic activity (especially in the Pacific), the variations of underwater currents in volume and velocity, and their effects of merging the surface and deep waters, to the phenomena "El Niño" and "La Niña", the regime of low and high atmosphere winds and a long etc.

But I reiterate that I understand that the focus on CO2 emissions (perhaps unreasonably neglecting all other pollutants that our activities produce) has the appearance of being "more controllable" than other occurrences that contribute to the variation of the planet's climate and the aggression of the surrounding environment.

Regards

Most do impact our climate, although and at risk of getting into the chicken and egg debate some are largely driven and controlled by Earth's greenhouse gasses and most notably CO2. I would exclude El Nino/La Nina , (weather events). Winds and ocean currents are climate (more specifically temperature driven) and thus in a more positive feedback loop over time with greenhouse gasses, notwithstanding the lag.

to the Solar radiation, I'd add average albedo, Earth's axial tilt, eccentric orbit and plate tectonics but they are in a slightly separate category. The reason we can plausibly discount those when looking at changes in later part of "the Anthropocene" is that those occur on a geological time scale.

Volcanic input is also a contributor but at some of the latest estimates at a rate of 0.15 Gt p.a. (within a factor of 2-3 given annual variability). However the release has been successfully offset by a natural uptake up to about 250 years ago and there is no indication of a significantly increased volcanic activity over the same period.

By elimination, which I don't necessarily like in this context, if you look at the climate system in its totality, very few other factors have actually changed over the last 2-300 years ex GHG emissions.

I believe the focus on CO2 and GHG in general is due to their rapid nature of action and rather acute impact on our environment. We can, with high certainty, conclude that some catastrophic changes on an extremely short (geological) scale and in not so distant Earth's past were in fact driven by CO2 and methane. Again, I do share a rather grim view on our willingness and ability to actually make changes that would slow our impact.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Most do impact our climate, although and at risk of getting into the chicken and egg debate some are largely driven and controlled by Earth's greenhouse gasses and most notably CO2. I would exclude El Nino/La Nina , (weather events). Winds and ocean currents are climate (more specifically temperature driven) and thus in a more positive feedback loop over time with greenhouse gasses, notwithstanding the lag.

to the Solar radiation, I'd add average albedo, Earth's axial tilt, eccentric orbit and plate tectonics but they are in a slightly separate category. The reason we can plausibly discount those when looking at changes in later part of "the Anthropocene" is that those occur on a geological time scale.

Volcanic input is also a contributor but at some of the latest estimates at a rate of 0.15 Gt p.a. (within a factor of 2-3 given annual variability). However the release has been successfully offset by a natural uptake up to about 250 years ago and there is no indication of a significantly increased volcanic activity over the same period.

By elimination, which I don't necessarily like in this context, if you look at the climate system in its totality, very few other factors have actually changed over the last 2-300 years ex GHG emissions.

I believe the focus on CO2 and GHG in general is due to their rapid nature of action and rather acute impact on our environment. We can, with high certainty, conclude that some catastrophic changes on an extremely short (geological) scale and in not so distant Earth's past were in fact driven by CO2 and methane. Again, I do share a rather grim view on our willingness and ability to actually make changes that would slow our impact.

Thank you
I really liked this position and I will think about it a lot ...
One of the reasons I enjoy being among you is because of this multiverse of deep thoughts about issues beyond aquarism, other than aquarism; even yesterday Mr. Randy made us a "simple question," about adding fresh water into salt water (to reduce salinity) and its consequences on pH, which are making me re-eat books.

Thank you very much

 

[EmdeReef]

Thank you
I really liked this position and I will think about it a lot ...
One of the reasons I enjoy being among you is because of this multiverse of deep thoughts about issues beyond aquarism, other than aquarism; even yesterday Mr. Randy made us a "simple question," about adding fresh water into salt water (to reduce salinity) and its consequences on pH, which are making me re-eat books.

Thank you very much

You're welcome and couldn't agree more! I learn so much every day, this place is a bit like a knowledge drip drug

 

[Myka]

It is easy to calculate the effect on seawater pH of 25% extra CO2 in the air that it is equilibrated with (about 0.10 pH units), but the real ocean mixes slowly, and the deep ocean will take a very long time to equilibrate with the atmosphere, so what exactly you are asking alters the answer.

I was hoping you would catch on to my indirect question. I figured it was "easy to calculate".

So are you saying that surface pH values could be affected significantly more than 0.1 pH units, or that the deep water would be affected less than o.1 pH units? Long-term the deep water matters, but short-term the first 100 feet or so I think would be more of a concern for the oceans, wouldn't not?

 

[Myka]

Since most of us are not willing to change the way we live the CO2 will continue to raise and with that the temperature. With higher avarage temperature there will be more mass bleaching events with less time in between for the reefs to recover. So the future for the corals reefs doesn't look great.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/4/16849336/global-warming-coral-reefs-bleaching-rate-climate-change

You see, there are the whistle blowers that overreact to everything, and then there are the non-believers. There are people who do not believe in global warming (heck there are people that don't believe the Earth is round). Wherein lies the reality? What's going to happen in 10 years? What's going to happen in 20 years?

 

[Sallstrom]

You see, there are the whistle blowers that overreact to everything, and then there are the non-believers. There are people who do not believe in global warming (heck there are people that don't believe the Earth is round). Wherein lies the reality? What's going to happen in 10 years? What's going to happen in 20 years?

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...mate-change-bleaching-pollution-a7626911.html
http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1676/

That's what most of the scientists belive is going to happen if we go on like we do today.

/ David

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I was hoping you would catch on to my indirect question. I figured it was "easy to calculate".

So are you saying that surface pH values could be affected significantly more than 0.1 pH units, or that the deep water would be affected less than o.1 pH units? Long-term the deep water matters, but short-term the first 100 feet or so I think would be more of a concern for the oceans, wouldn't not?

That the deep water, and hence also areas where deep water is rising to the surface, will take far longer to rise. So if someone shows pH over time in such a place and there’s no rise, it won’t mean that in most places it isn’t rising. [emoji3]

 

[Myka]

It seems like rising temperatures is more of an immediate threat than acidification, isn't it? It's the temperatures that have caused most of the destruction around Australia, correct?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It seems like rising temperatures is more of an immediate threat than acidification, isn't it? It's the temperatures that have caused most of the destruction around Australia, correct?

Quite probably.

 

[KMench]

Man, sorry to generalize, but you guys are a pessimistic bunch. There’s been plenty of steps in the direction of at least controlling climate change. While the United States certainly isn’t a leader in the issue, other countries have made significant strides and some localities within the states are as well. Countries like Germany produce over 30% of their electricity from renewable sources and Denmark has vowed to become a carbon free country essentially. If it’s possible for these smaller countries, then it’s possible for larger countries as well. The mentality of too little too late or denying that there is a problem only worsens the situation. Even small changes you make in your lifestyle make a difference such as eating chicken instead of beef (reduces meat associated emissions by 80%). We all know the oceans act as a heat sink currently and, that temperatures are rising. It would be better to fix these problems before we enter a positive feedback cycle where temperatures go up regardless of the changes we make....
I feel as if we should also remember that pH is a logrhythmic scale, so a .1 change is bigger than it seems.
~ just my 2 cents

 

[Myka]

@KMench
I've made a ton of changes to my carbon footprint in the last 2 years for exactly these reasons you provide.