Ocean Acidification Scam

Author Topic: Ocean Acidification Scam  (Read 7319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Ocean Acidification Scam
« on: June 22, 2011, 10:36:45 AM »
Ocean Acidification Scam
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/ocean-acidification-scam/
Published March 19, 2009



The evidence is inexorably mounting that the climate alarmists have been taking us all for a ride. It is only be a matter of time before their agenda is exposed as one of the biggest con tricks of all time. Thus they are already scrambling to breathe new life into the CO2 emissions scare. It will become obvious (by the passage of years if nothing else) that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not, after all, cause any significant climate change, thus it will be necessary to blame CO2 (and hence man) for some other catastrophic event. So, prepare yourself for the coming “ocean acidification” scam.

The media have already entered the fray with lying narratives that sound like science fiction scripts, warning about the catastrophe of ‘acid oceans’ and ‘toxic seas’. The BBC have churned out headlines such as ‘Marine life faces ‘acid threat”, ‘Acid oceans ‘need urgent action” and ‘Acidic seas fuel extinction fears’. Newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Times have got in on the act with scary headlines such as ‘Mussels face extinction as oceans turn acidic’, ‘Pollution to devastate shellfish by turning seas acidic’ and ‘Acid seas threaten to make British shellfish extinct’. Just recently, it has got all the more strident: the Sunday Times (March 8, 2009) chimes in under the headline The toxic sea:

    Each one of us dumps a tonne of carbon dioxide into the oceans every year, turning them into acidified soups — and threatening to destroy most of what lives in them.

And from the Guardian (March 10, 2009) under the headline Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs:

    Human pollution is turning the seas into acid so quickly that the coming decades will recreate conditions not seen on Earth since the time of the dinosaurs…The rapid acidification is caused by the massive amounts of carbon belched out from chimneys and exhausts that dissolve in the ocean…the pH of surface waters, where the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere, has fallen about 0.1 units since the industrial revolution, though it will take longer for the acid to reach deeper water.

Note the continual use of the word acid. Yet there is not the slightest possibility that seawater will turn to acid, or even become mildly acidic, so this is drivel. Note also the claim that pH has changed by 0.1 units over the last 200 years: it was not possible a hundred years ago, never mind 200 years ago, to measure pH to the accuracy necessary to support that assertion, so it’s just posturing. Finally, notice that CO2 is branded ‘human pollution’, though CO2 is an entirely natural and absolutely essential nutrient for plant photosynthesis, without which all life on earth would certainly become extinct very quickly.

As an aside, we should note that if lower alkalinity per se were so unfavourable to shellfish as is claimed then we would have no freshwater shellfish and snails – but we do. The freshwater mussel has lived for thousands of years in waters that are genuinely acidic and with highly variable pH, not only seasonally, but geographically. With spring snowmelt and high rainfall, the pH of rivers and lakes can fall to below pH 5, and experiments have shown that mussels can survive this acidity indefinitely without any deleterious effects to their shells. Note: a pH of 5 has 1,000 times as many ‘acidic’ H+ ions per litre as seawater, and 100 times more than pure water. This is not to say that sea creatures can survive in fresh water – they are adapted to a radically different saline environment – the point at issue is that the idea of a small change in ocean pH due to increased dissolved carbon dioxide having a deleterious effect on marine shells of living organisms is not as obvious as the alarmists make out.

The ‘science’ underlying the anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification scares relies on positive feedback – that is, that the overall effect of a small change is disproportionate to the effect of the change itself – there is an amplification process. Positive feedbacks cause unstable runaway or oscillating systems. The so-called physics of the global warming hypothesis are a perpetuum mobile of the second kind and should be consigned to the dustbin. Likewise, the so-called chemistry underpinning the ‘toxic ocean’ hypothesis suggests an unstable reaction process that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps (the mechanism in the literature is described and rebutted in the following post Toxic Seawater Fraud), whereas the equilibrium processes have massive negative feedbacks. In 1888, the chemist Le Chatelier wrote about a huge waste of resources that was caused by failing to apply sound equilibrium principles in relation to the reduction of iron ore:

    Because this incomplete reaction was thought to be due to an insufficiently prolonged contact between carbon monoxide and the iron ore (confusing a problem with equilibrium with that of kinetics), the dimensions of the furnaces have been increased. In England they have been made as high as thirty meters. But the proportion of carbon monoxide escaping has not diminished, thus demonstrating, by an experiment costing several hundred thousand francs, that the reduction of iron oxide by carbon monoxide is a limited reaction. Acquaintance with the laws of equilibrium would have permitted the same conclusion to be reached more rapidly and far more economically.

Considerable cost was expended in redesigning furnaces to no benefit, because in the mid-nineteenth century they did not fully understand what became known as Le Chatelier’s principle. Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview: if all life in the universe, and all the complex processes on earth, came about by chance, then everything is a fluke – it’s just a one in a quadrillion chance that it all came right on the night. This gives rise to the mentality that the slightest disturbance will upset this highly improbable chance arrangement, so highly unstable systems and positive feedbacks are to be expected and feared. Anthropogenic catastrophism thus flows naturally from atheism, and belief in anthropogenic catastrophism feeds atheism. However, in a worldview that holds that the universe and all life was purposefully designed then one would expect there to be very strong negative feedbacks and ultra-stable systems, because this is what a good designer would do – design extremely robust systems with extremely robust processes for extremely complex organisms that are to flourish for thousands of years. Of course, this is what we actually find in the cosmos whatever our worldview. But as the religion of atheism gains ground amongst scientists, it not only colours their outlook and what results they expect to find, and what evidence they suppress, it also (as illustrated on the posts of this blog) seems to corrode their understanding of basic scientific principles.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Re: Ocean Acidification Scam
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2011, 10:40:14 AM »
Toxic Seawater Fraud
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/
Published March 19, 2009

[Note: some understanding of chemistry (approximately A-Level) is necessary to understand this post, and it will be helpful to read the background in the previous post Ocean Acidification Scam.]

The theory behind the ‘toxic ocean acidification’ scam proceeds like this: as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the concentration in the oceans also increases due to dissolution [true – all other things being equal]. CO2 dissolved in water reacts with water to form carbonic acid, making the seas acidic [a half truth – they become very slightly less basic]. This acidity dissolves the shells of marine life causing mass extinction [an utter falsehood].

As a matter of fact, seawater is alkaline and basic. Dissolving the carbon dioxide from all the world’s known fossil fuel reserves would never make the sea acidic. The climate alarmists coined the phrase “ocean acidification” to make it sound alarming, whereas the process is actually what is known as neutralization. The term ‘acidification’ of course sounds more scary than talking about the oceans becoming slightly less basic or a little more neutral.

To put this into perspective, the pH of seawater is, on average, around pH 8.2. Pure water is pH 7.0, and clean rainwater is pH 5.6. What is more, seawater is a highly buffered solution – it can take up a huge amount of dissolved inorganic carbon without significant effect on pH. There is not the slightest possibility that the oceans could approach the neutral pH of pure water even if all the fossil fuel reserves in the world were burned, so all talk of ‘acid’ oceans is utter nonsense. What sort of change are we talking about? Possibly a change of pH of 0.2 units this century, say from 8.2 to 8.0. That would mean by definition that the concentration of the ‘acidic’ H+ ions would still be no more than 10% of their concentration in pure water.

The so-called science behind this ‘acid ocean’ scare is highly questionable. Firstly, an increasing concentration of CO2 in the water improves the efficiency of photosynthesis in the oceans (as it does on the land), and so increases the growth of plant life in the ocean, including phytoplankton, upon which ‘graze’ zooplankton, which is food for a vast range of sea animals, including whales.

Secondly, it’s not possible through lifeless inorganic chemistry to predict what is happening with living processes. Fish pump huge quantities (hundreds of millions of tonnes annually) of available carbonate in the oceans as a byproduct of the systems that enable them to survive in high salinity. This is using the energy of life processes to buck the normal dissolved inorganic carbon equilibria. The calcium carbonate of dead calcifying organisms dissolves naturally in seawater. What stops a sea creature’s shell from dissolving away is the living creature’s continually producing more calcium carbonate, just like a land animal continually produces skin cells to replace those that are lost to the environment.

Thirdly, an increasing concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon (e.g. dissolved carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ions, carbonate ions) makes the process of laying down calcium carbonate in shells efficient. This is because there is a far greater supply of calcium ions (441ppm) in seawater than dissolved inorganic carbon (90ppm) and any increase in dissolved carbon dioxide simply pushes the reactions towards the production of more bicarbonate and carbonate ions. The reactions are reversible and in equilibria:

CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 <=> H+ + HCO3- <=> H+ + H+ + CO32-

Add more CO2 at the left and the reaction proceeds to a greater or lesser extent to the right. Most of the additional carbon ends up as bicarbonate. Note that as the reaction is driven to the right by the dissolution of additional CO2 there is increased production of H+ ions, so acidity is increasing (= decreasing pH).

Fourthly, the situation is completely different from the case where pH is artificially lowered by adding, say, hydrochloric acid, where there would be no addition of dissolved inorganic carbon. Unfortunately, many scientists have failed to understand this basic chemistry and have conducted crude experiments on shellfish by adding mineral acids to seawater. Whilst this duly lowers the pH, it drives the equilibrium reactions in the opposite direction, so is completely invalid as an experimental model. In the equilibrium equation above, introducing mineral acid (which introduces no additional dissolved inorganic carbon) adds H+ ions on the right of the equilibrium equation, which drives the reaction to the left. The increase in H+ ions (equivalent to lower pH), arises because the experimenter is tipping in mineral acid and is thereby forcing the reaction drastically to reduce carbonate and to increase dissolved carbon dioxide, which will come out of solution into the atmosphere as bubbles, decarbonizing the seawater. But if increasing atmospheric CO2 is the driver, the reaction is forced the other way; if mineral acid is the driver, the pH goes down and carbonates and possibly bicarbonates also go down. Looking at pH alone tells us absolutely nothing about the concentrations of carbonates, bicarbonates, dissolved CO2, equilibria, reaction rates or reaction directions. At the very least we also need to know the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon. Moreover, calcium carbonate dissolves in alkaline seawater (pH 8.2) 15 times faster than in pure water (pH 7.0), so it is silly, meaningless nonsense to focus on pH.

At pH 8, seawater is supersaturated with carbonate. Why does this excess carbonate not precipitate out as calcium carbonate, since there are so many free calcium ions in the water? This seldom happens because of the presence of magnesium ions in seawater that preferentially ion pair with the carbonate in solution. With ion pairing, the reaction moves further to the right than would be the case without magnesium ions, yet without precipitation of magnesium and calcium carbonate salts, and this ensures there is an abundance of dissolved carbonate ions available for living organisms in spite of the low alkalinity. Moreover, phosphorus and dissolved organic compounds permit high levels of carbonate to exist without precipitation. Seawater is a truly marvelous and complex chemical system, which includes non-volatile borate, phosphate and silicate buffers.

Increasing CO2 partial pressure in a CO2/carbonate equilibrium will always drive the reaction towards the production of more dissolved inorganic carbon, irrespective of any associated reduction in pH arising from the shift in equilibrium itself. So if atmospheric CO2 increases, leading to increased dissolution of CO2, we can be sure that there will be a higher concentration of available carbon – the complete opposite of what the scare mongers are telling us. It seems that those creating the ‘ocean acidification’ scare would like us to believe that a reduction in pH is analogous to tipping mineral acid in the oceans, which would indeed be damaging, and would liberate CO2 from the oceans and decarbonize it, whereas the effect of increasing dissolution of CO2 is beneficial both to marine plants and animals.

To see what muddled thinking and ignorance of chemistry there is, it is sufficient to examine the report by the Royal Society, Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. They state

    Carbonic acid is an acid because it can split up into its constituents, releasing an excess of H+ to solution and so driving pH to lower values. Carbonic acid splits up by adding one H+ ion to solution along with HCO3- (a bicarbonate ion)…This increase in H+ causes some CO32- (called carbonate ions) to react with H+ to become HCO3-…Thus the net effect of the dissolution of CO2 in seawater is to increase concentrations of H+, H2CO3 and HCO3- , while decreasing concentrations of CO32-

The reasoning in the Royal Society’s paper (and many others) is that because addition of carbon dioxide causes more acidity, the increasing H+ ions will eventually force the reaction to the left. But where are the H+ ions coming from in the first place? As a result of the reaction moving to the right! The reasoning of this Society is that as the reaction proceeds to the right and liberates H+ ions it must subsequently swing back to the left (which would create higher CO2 in the water as well). Equilibrium processes don’t work in unstable, oscillatory ways, and can’t pull themselves up by their own bootstraps: the H+ ions that are generated from addition of carbon dioxide become a significant brake on the reaction proceeding to the right, and a new equilibrium point is reached with lower pH.

Of course, the above equation showing the chain of reversible reactions doesn’t specify absolute concentrations. Seawater is a complex system, and whether carbonates increase or decrease in concentration with increasing dissolution of carbon dioxide requires careful analysis, the solution of many simultaneous equations, and knowledge of other systems such as magnesium and borates, as well as ion pairing.

Whilst the relative concentration of CO32- (carbonate) with respect to the increasing concentration of HCO3- (bicarbonate) can reduce with increasing dissolved inorganic carbon, it is not obvious what happens to the absolute concentration of carbonate as more CO2 dissolves. For example, consider a beaker of pure water, pH 7.0. The beaker contains nothing but H2O molecules and its dissociated ions H+ and OH-. If carbon dioxide is bubbled through the water for some hours and the system left to rest and establish equilibrium the pH will go down, perhaps to pH 5. There will be now be some dissolved CO2, some bicarbonate ions and some carbonate ions in solution and many more H+ ions than there were before. Carbonate ions have thus increased because there were literally none before, yet pH has gone down and the absolute quantity of H+ ions has increased considerably. So, in absolute terms, carbonate ion concentration can increase as dissolved CO2 increases even though pH has reduced. Notwithstanding, many studies modeling seawater in its usual composition, salinity, temperature and pressure, show some decline in carbonate with increasing dissolved inorganic carbon. But we are inclined to say ‘so what?’ Of the various dissolved carbon species, bicarbonate is typically dominant as the form in which the carbon exists, and since it is bicarbonate ions (not carbonate ions) that are used to form calcium carbonate shells, then we would expect biological pumps to find increased bicarbonate concentration very advantageous. Why should we care what happens to carbonate concentration?

However, the Royal Society’s paper also has this to say:

    From our understanding of ocean chemistry and available evidence, it is clear that increasing the acidity of the oceans will reduce the concentration and therefore the availability of carbonate ions. It is expected that calcifying organisms will find it more difficult to produce and maintain their shells and hard structures.

Here also is a classic trick of the illogical argument, the non sequitur. We are being led to believe from these two sentences that the availability of carbonate ions is important to the production and maintenance of shells. As a matter of fact, nearly all the literature teaches (as was found by measuring carbon isotopes) that the biological process of calcification proceeds from the reaction between calcium ions and bicarbonate ions, and there’s no shortage of either of those – in fact bicarbonate strongly increases as more carbon dioxide is introduced. Thus Kleypas et al:

    …HCO3- is the preferred substrate for coral photosynthesis (Al-Moghrabi et al., 1996; Goiran et al., 1996; Allemand et al., 1998), coral calcification uses both HCO3- from seawater and metabolic CO2 as sources of carbon (Erez, 1978; Furla et al., 2000)…Biochemical studies fail to provide any evidence that CO32- plays a direct role in coral calcification…Results from several studies indicate that the substrate for calcification in E. huxleyi is HCO3- (cf., Paasche, 2001), which increases under elevated pCO2 conditions…

Even the Royal Society report says as much 12 pages earlier, but you are expected to have forgotten that by now:

    two ions of bicarbonate (HCO3-) react with one ion of doubly charged calcium (Ca2+) to form one molecule of CaCO3

This makes the “availability of carbonate ions” a moot point, but you are not supposed to pick up on this false logic. Of course, by removing some dissolved inorganic carbon to form shells, calcifiers are reducing the total alkalinity of the oceans, depositing more carbon dioxide in the oceans, and reducing the pH of the oceans. So what would be evidence that calcifiers were thriving? Reducing pH in the oceans and either a slower uptake from or even an outgassing of CO2 into the atmosphere, i.e. “ocean acidification”!

The reaction mentioned by the Royal Society is written variously, but commonly as follows:

Ca2+ + 2HCO3- <=> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O

Calcifiers use biological pumps to drive the reaction to the right to build calcified shells using the superabundant calcium ions and the abundant bicarbonate ions, liberating dissolved carbon dioxide and water, and thus reducing ocean pH. It is widely assumed that if dissolved CO2 increases in the ocean due to increased atmospheric concentration, it makes it increasingly more difficult for life processes to move the reaction to the right because the equilibrium is shifting adversely. And as dissolved CO2 increases then it must push the reaction to the left, dissolving calcium carbonate along the way. So we are allegedly faced with the spectre of a greater difficulty for organisms in laying down calcium carbonate, coupled with a greater propensity for dissolution of the carbonate they have already produced as shells – a ‘double whammy’.

Yet for the purposes of laying down shell we can pretty much forget about standard reaction kinetics and equilibria because the whole thing is driven by a biological process. Moreover, since CO2 is liberated as part of the calcification process, then the local CO2 concentration at the site of calcification is determined by the calcification process itself practically independent of the very low concentration of dissolved CO2 generally available. Thus Kleypas et al

    Most models assume that the calcifying fluid is isolated from external seawater. This is supported by microelectrode observations that show that the pH of the calcifying space is elevated relative to external waters (as high as 9.3) (Al-Horani et al., 2003) and by the well-known fractionation of oxygen and carbon isotopes in the calcifying fluid.

We could also observe that as DIC increases and the concentration of bicarbonate increases, which is the precursor used in the calcification process as above, then biological pumps have an easier time of it. Thus as shown in the quoted articles below, many calcifiers including corals benefit from higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 dissolving in the oceans. Metabolically, they also benefit from increased [H+]. As far as dissolution of shells is concerned, this is a pretty slow process. In living organisms there does not seem to be any detrimental effect because calcium is continually deposited. The main changes that seem to have been measured are slightly faster dissolution of shells after the death of the organism. And who cares about that?

Just as the availability of CO2 on land and in the oceans constrains plant growth, and plants flourish when the concentration is increased, so calcifiers benefit from increased dissolved inorganic carbon, especially in the bicarbonate form, which is the form in which most of the DIC ends up. Thus, Marubini and Thake noted in 1999:

    …the present dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) content of the ocean limits coral growth…adding DIC increases coral calcification rates and confers protection…

And Herford et al noted in 2008 that a large projected increase in atmospheric CO2 “will result in about a 15% increase in oceanic HCO3-” which “could stimulate photosynthesis and calcification in a wide variety of hermatypic corals.”

And here comes the classic from the Royal Society:

    …the lack of a clear understanding of the mechanisms of calcification and its metabolic or structural function means that it is difficult, at present, to reliably predict the full consequences of CO2-induced ocean acidification on the physiological and ecological fitness of calcifying organisms.

So, let’s consign this report to the waste bin, please, and look at papers by authors who do know what they are talking about. But in this regard, the following assertion given in the Royal Society paper is an outright lie, as inspection of the sources below shows:

    Published data on corals, coccolithophores and foraminifera all suggest a reduction in calcification by 5–25% in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial values (from 280 to 560 ppm CO2)

So, what’s the effect of increasing carbon dioxide in seawater on calcifying organisms? Here are some reported findings:

Wood, Spicer, and Widdicombe (2008) found that increasing dissolved CO2 increases calcification rates and improves the rate of regeneration of damaged body parts [Proc Biol Sci. 2008 August 7]. The following extracts are given at length because of the importance of these findings, which overturn ‘assumptions’ (read, false reasoning and bad science):

    …we have investigated the effect of CO2-induced acidification on the ability of a calcifying organism (the ophiuroid brittlestar Amphiura filiformis) to regenerate calcium carbonate structures (arms).

    Amphiura filiformis collected from Plymouth Sound, UK, were maintained in sediment cores (five individuals per core) supplied with filtered seawater of the allocated pH (pH modified using CO2). Each pH treatment (8.0, 7.7, 7.3 and 6.8) had four cores (20 individuals per pH)…

    One of the most surprising results is that there was no decrease in the total amount of calcium carbonate in individuals exposed to acidified water. Indeed, individuals from lowered pH treatments had a greater percentage of calcium in their regenerated arms than individuals from control treatments, indicating a greater amount of calcium carbonate…In regenerated arms, calcium levels were greater in those organisms exposed to acidified seawater than in those held in untreated seawater. This was true for all three levels of acidified seawater…there was actually an increasing rate of calcification with lowered pH. Calcium carbonate in established arms was also affected by lowered pH. At pH 6.8, calcium levels increased and at pH 7.7 and pH 7.3, calcium levels were equal to the control indicating that A. filiformis actively replaced calcium carbonate lost by dissolution.

    Rates of oxygen (O2) uptake (as a measure of metabolic rate), or MO2, were significantly greater at reduced pHs (7.7, 7.3 and 6.8) than in controls (pH 8); However, MO2 was not significantly different between the three lowered pH treatments. Increased rates of physiological processes that require energy are paralleled by an increase in metabolism; this relationship is seen with growth and metabolism here in our results.

    Seawater acidification stimulated arm regeneration. After the 40-day exposure, the length of the regenerated arm was greater in acidified treatments than in the controls…This increased rate of growth coincided with increased metabolism. Regeneration was not affected by the number of arms removed, nor was there a significant difference in any of the physiological parameters measured as a result of having two arms regenerating instead of one. The ability to regenerate lost arms faster meant a reduction in the length of time animal function (e.g. burrow ventilation and feeding) was compromised by reduced arm length.

    Interestingly, even at high levels of hypercapnia (the 6.8 pH treatment crosses the threshold into acidic water, i.e. pH<7.0) investigated here, no mortality was observed.

    These results change the face of predictions for future marine assemblages with respect to ocean acidification. Whereas it was previously assumed that all calcifiers would be unable to construct shells or skeletons, and inevitably succumb to dissolution as carbonate became undersaturated, we now know that this is not the case for every species.

Marubini and Thake (1999)

    The addition of 2 mM bicarbonate to aquaria containing tropical ocean water and branches of Porites porites caused a doubling of the skeletal growth rate of the coral. Nitrate or ammonium addition (20 μM) to oligotrophic sea-water caused a significant reduction in coral growth, but when seawater containing the extra bicarbonate was supplemented with combined nitrogen, no depression of the higher growth rate was evident. We infer that (1) the present dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) content of the ocean limits coral growth, (2) this limitation is exacerbated by nitrate and ammonium, and (3) adding DIC increases coral calcification rates and confers protection against nutrient enrichment.

Riebesell (2004):

    coccolithophores may benefit from the present increase in atmospheric CO2 and related changes in seawater carbonate chemistry…increasing CO2 availability may improve the overall resource utilization of E. huxleyi and possibly of other fast-growing coccolithophore species…if this provides an ecological advantage for coccolithophores, rising atmospheric CO2 could potentially increase the contribution of calcifying phytoplankton to overall primary production…a moderate increase in CO2 facilitates photosynthetic carbon fixation of some phytoplankton groups…CO2-sensitive taxa, such as the calcifying coccolithophorids, should therefore benefit more from the present increase in atmospheric CO2…

Iglesias-Rodriguez et al (2008) confirmed Riebesell findings experimentally, concluding that coccolithophores, which account for a third of all marine calcium carbonate production, flourish and calcify much better at higher levels of CO2:

    Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.

Richardson and Gibbons (2008):

    …no observed declines in the abundance of calcifiers with lowering pH have yet been reported…the role of pH in structuring zooplankton communities in the North Sea and further afield at present is tenuous.

Vogt et al (2008), experimenting with atmospheric concentrations up to three times current levels,

    …the ecosystem composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction were not significantly affected by CO2 induced effects.

Gutowska (2008) subjected cuttlefish larvae to CO2 concentrations of 6000 ppm (sixteen times current CO2 concentration), at pH 7.1. Results:

    No differences in soft tissue growth performance were measured between cuttlefish incubated at ~4000 and ~6000 ppm CO2 and controls…Standard metabolic rates of cuttlefish exposed acutely to ~6000 ppm CO2 showed no significant increase or decrease over time…there were no significant differences between the mantle lengths of control cuttlefish and those incubated at 6000 ppm CO2…Interestingly, in the ~6000 ppm CO2 growth trial, the CO2 incubated animals incorporated significantly more CaCO3 [calcium carbonate] into their cuttlebones than did the control group…Functional control of the cuttlebones (i.e. buoyancy regulation) did not appear to be negatively affected by low pH conditions.

Herford et al (2008):

    A wide range of bicarbonate concentrations was used to monitor the kinetics of bicarbonate (HCO3-) use in both photosynthesis and calcification in two reef-building corals, Porites porites and Acropora sp…additions of NaHCO 3 [bicarbonate is added as the sodium salt because additional sodium ions are ‘lost’ in the sodium ions already present in seawater] to synthetic seawater proportionally increased the calcification rate of this coral until the concentration exceeded three times that of seawater (6 mM). Photosynthetic rates were also stimulated by HCO3- addition…Similar experiments on aquarium-acclimated colonies of Indo-Pacific Acropora sp. showed that calcification and photosynthesis in this coral were enhanced to an even greater extent than P. porites, with calcification continuing to increase above 8 mM HCO3-. Calcification rates of Acropora sp. were also monitored in the dark, and, although these were lower than in the light for a given HCO3- concentration, they still increased dramatically with HCO3- addition…

Chave, K.E., Suess, E., Calcium carbonate saturation in seawater: effects of dissolved organic matter, Limnology and Oceanography 1970, Vol. 15, Issue 4

Gehlen, M., Biogeochemical impacts of ocean acidification – emphasis on carbonate production and dissolution. CIESM workshop: Impacts of acidification on biological, chemical and physical systems in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, Menton, 1 – 4 October 2008.

Gutowska, M.A., Pörtner, H.O. and Melzner, F., Growth and calcification in the cephalopod Sepia officinalis under elevated seawater pCO2. Marine Ecology Progress Series (2008) 373: 303-309.

Herford et al., Bicarbonate stimulation of calcification and photosynthesis in two hermatypic corals, Journal of Phycology, Vol 44 Issue 1, pp. 91 -98 (2008)

Kleypas, J.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, and L.L. Robbins, 2006. Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research, report of a workshop held 18–20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL

Iglesias-Rodriguez, M.D., et al., Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World, Science 18 April 2008: 336-340

Irving, L., The carbonic acid-carbonate equilibrium and other weak acids in sea water, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1925

Marubini, F., and Thake, B., Bicarbonate Addition Promotes Coral Growth
Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 44, No. 3, Part 1 (May, 1999), pp. 716-720

Riebesell, U., Effects of CO2 enrichment on marine phytoplankton. Journal of Oceanography (2004) 60: 719-729.

Richardson, A.J. and Gibbons, M.J., Are jellyfish increasing in response to ocean acidification? Limnology and Oceanography (2008) 53: 2040-2045.

Vogt, M., Steinke, M., Turner, S., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Riebesell, U., LeQuere, C. and Liss, P., Dynamics of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide under different CO2 concentrations during a mesocosm experiment. Biogeosciences (2008) 5: 407-419.

Wangersky, P.J., The control of seawater pH by ion pairing, Limology and Oceanography, Jan 1972.

Wilson, R. W., Millero, F. J., Taylor, J. R., Walsh, P. J., Christensen, V., Jennings, S. M., Grosell, M., Contribution of Fish to the Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle. Science 16 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5912, pp. 359 – 362

Wood, H.L., Spicer, J.I., and Widdicombe, S., Ocean acidification may increase calcification rates, but at a cost. Proc Biol Sci. 2008 August 7; 275 (1644): 1767–1773.

The Royal Society, Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, 2005
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,057
Re: Ocean Acidification Scam
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 02:07:06 PM »
related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

Carbonic acid is the inorganic compound with the formula H2CO3 (equivalently OC(OH)2). It is also a name sometimes given to solutions of carbon dioxide in water, because such solutions contain small amounts of H2CO3. Carbonic acid forms two kinds of salts, the carbonates and the bicarbonates. It is a weak acid.

When carbon dioxide is dissolved in dihydrogen monoxide (water) the two form a chemical equilibrium thus producing carbonic acid:

CO2 + H2O  H2CO3

The hydration equilibrium constant at 25 °C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] = 1.70×10−3: hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly. The rate constants are 0.039 s−1 for the forward reaction (CO2 + H2O → H2CO3) and 23 s−1 for the reverse reaction (H2CO3 → CO2 + H2O). Carbonic acid is used in the making of soft drinks, inexpensive and artificially carbonated sparkling wines, and other bubbly drinks. The addition of two equivalents of water to CO2 would give orthocarbonic acid, C(OH)4, which is unimportant in aqueous solution.

Addition of base to an excess of carbonic acid gives bicarbonate. With excess base, carbonic acid reacts to give carbonate salts.
...



Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,057
Re: Ocean Acidification Scam
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2015, 07:10:48 PM »
bump - - - - -  The Ocean is BASIC ie alkaline its not even acidic ....

My question is what is the saturation point of CO2 in sea water and what would the ph be at that point ... ie the worst case scenario ...


Quote

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/
...
So if atmospheric CO2 increases, leading to increased dissolution of CO2, we can be sure that there will be a higher concentration of available carbon – the complete opposite of what the scare mongers are telling us. It seems that those creating the ‘ocean acidification’ scare would like us to believe that a reduction in pH is analogous to tipping mineral acid in the oceans, which would indeed be damaging, and would liberate CO2 from the oceans and decarbonize it, whereas the effect of increasing dissolution of CO2 is beneficial both to marine plants and animals.

http://www.coolpexarabia.com/reverse_osmosis.html


Water pH Levels (May Fluctuate)
Sea Water = 8.1 pH (alkaline)
 Mineral Water = 7.4 pH (mildly alkaline)
 Tap Water = 6-8 pH (Varies constantly)
 RO water = 5-7 pH (Depends on pH of input water)

http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/OceanAcidification.htm


Molecules of CO2 exchange readily with the atmosphere and on average only remain in the surface waters for about 6 years. … Surface oceans have an average pH globally of about 8.2 units. However, pH can vary by ±0.3 units due to local, regional and seasonal factors.” The stated 8.2 ±0.3 number does not match the figure they present shown above.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html


Solubility of Carbon Dioxide - CO2 - in Water  [ (not sea water) ]

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html&edu=high

This is a simple temperature-depth ocean water profile. You can see temperature decreases with increasing depth.

Temperature of Ocean Water 

Most of the solar radiation (light and heat) that hits the ocean is absorbed in the first few tens of meters of water. Waves and turbulence mix this heat downward quickly. The surface layer of the ocean is well mixed from the top to the bottom of that layer. The temperature of the surface waters (the mixed layer) varies mainly with latitude. The polar seas (high latitude) can be as cold as -2 degrees Celsius (28.4 degrees Fahrenheit) while the Persian Gulf (low latitude) can be as warm as 36 degrees Celsius (96.8 degrees Fahrenheit). The average temperature of the ocean surface waters is about 17 degrees Celsius (62.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

There is a boundary between surface waters of the ocean and deeper layers that are not well mixed. The boundary usually begins around 100-400 meters and extends several hundred of meters downward from there. This boundary region, where there is a rapid decrease of temperature, is called the thermocline. 90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep ocean. Here, temperatures approach 0 degrees Celsius. So even though surface waters can be a comfortable 20 degrees Celsius (good for swimming in!), the majority of our ocean water has a temperature between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit).

The density of ocean water continuously increases with decreasing temperature until the water freezes. Ocean water, with an average salinity of 35 psu, freezes at -1.94 degrees Celsius (28.5 degrees Fahrenheit). At very high latitudes, ocean water can reach these low temperatures and freeze. Dissolved salts in the water tend to be rejected by the forming ice so that sea ice is only about 1 % salt. An interesting tidbit for those of you interested in survival tactics - because of the lessened amount of salt, melted sea ice would be fit to drink even if sea water is not! Sea ice formation at high latitudes ultimately drives circulation of the deep waters of the ocean.




|  -- - - -

here we go ... mass extinction - "before man"  c02 ....

http://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-acidification-drove-earths-largest-mass-extinction

Ocean acidification drove Earth’s largest mass extinction
By Deanna Conners in
Blogs | Earth  on Apr 20, 2015

New evidence suggests that ocean acidification played a key role in the Permian–Triassic mass extinction event 252 million years ago that killed most life on Earth.

During the Permian–Triassic mass extinction event 252 million years ago, most life on Earth perished. Scientists have now obtained evidence that ocean acidification played a key role in the die-off. The new research was published in the journal Science on April 10, 2015

,...The ocean acidification was driven by massive amounts of CO2 released from volcanoes.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Ocean Acidification Scam
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2015, 08:47:58 PM »
bump - - - - -  The Ocean is BASIC ie alkaline its not even acidic ....

My question is what is the saturation point of CO2 in sea water and what would the ph be at that point ... ie the worst case scenario ...



http://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-acidification-drove-earths-largest-mass-extinction

Ocean acidification drove Earth’s largest mass extinction
By Deanna Conners in
Blogs | Earth  on Apr 20, 2015

New evidence suggests that ocean acidification played a key role in the Permian–Triassic mass extinction event 252 million years ago that killed most life on Earth.

During the Permian–Triassic mass extinction event 252 million years ago, most life on Earth perished. Scientists have now obtained evidence that ocean acidification played a key role in the die-off. The new research was published in the journal Science on April 10, 2015

,...The ocean acidification was driven by massive amounts of CO2 released from volcanoes.

  Only psuedo-scientists would believe this crap.  Have you ever noticed that there are very few of these scientists that write this crap and are then torn down or ridiculed by their colleagues?  WHY?  Because they all have to make a living living off grants and governments.  They know that they can write papers that no one understands--not even their  own colleagues and STILL GET PAID.

  These rat bastards want for the wealthy countries to pay carbon taxes so that the scientists can do phony research.

 

  Another thing.  I went to school a long time ago and never believed something happened 252 million years ago.  There is NO WAY they can measure that.  Carbon dating is fairly predictable but only up to 14,000 years ago. 
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Ocean Acidification Scam
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2015, 08:54:21 PM »

  See how  complicated the pseudo scientists make it?

  The oxygen is as simple as God could make it.

  Anything beyond the simple picture below, is worthless info.

I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
Re: Ocean Acidification Scam
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2015, 10:33:19 PM »
 I'm still concerned about the oceans being used for radioactive waste  dump sites which have been going on for decades,          Fukishima being the latest.

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,057
Re: Ocean Acidification Scam
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2015, 12:16:41 AM »
I'm still concerned about the oceans being used for radioactive waste  dump sites which have been going on for decades,          Fukishima being the latest.

Yes we keep being blasted about everything but the real problems ... There is an gigantic ocean of trash in the ocean ,, plus all the pollution plus the radioactive waste ...

There's no shortage of articles or documentaries on ocean acidification ...  It seems to be the left(air)/right(ocean) punch of the sob's

the ph has gone from 8.2 to 8.1 as the world has come out of the ice age ... gee ...
Maybe there should be a science project to stop all the worlds volcanoes from spouting off ... hmmm 


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880
Science chief warns on acid oceans

By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst

The UK's chief scientist says the oceans face a serious and growing risk from man-made carbon emissions

Sir Mark Walport warns that the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 25% since the industrial revolution, mainly thanks to manmade emissions.
24 October 2014
 From the section Science & Environment
 
The UK's chief scientist says the oceans face a serious and growing risk from man-made carbon emissions

Sir Mark Walport warns that the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 25% since the industrial revolution, mainly thanks to manmade emissions.
...

[ now get psych warfare bit: ]

biologist Ceri Lewis from Exeter University, one of the report’s authors  ...
“It’s unacceptable that pupils can go through their entire school science career learning nothing about the oceans which cover 70% of the planet,” she says. “Ocean acidification is a fact children should know that.”

| - - - -

[ Oh now it's the oxygen in the ocean ....  again pollution is not mentioned as a possible cause ...!!! ]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150313-oceans-marine-life-climate-change-acidification-oxygen-fish/
Oceans Are Losing Oxygen—and Becoming More Hostile to Life

Low-oxygen areas are expanding in deep waters, killing some creatures outright and changing how and where others live. It may get much worse

,,,

Globally, these low-oxygen areas have expanded by more than 1.7 million square miles  (4.5 million square kilometers) in the past 50 years
,,,
Scientists are debating how much oxygen loss is spurred by global warming, and how much is driven by natural cycles.

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
Re: Ocean Acidification Scam
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2015, 09:32:36 AM »
Hi t.
           Setting a mind mucking trend requires endless rhetoric, eventually it will become  accepted if not for the competion - the reality.
           Environmentalist of the scientific community, ( mainstream sukups ) convenienetly avoid, radioactive waste, massive polution neglected and the mainstream promoting it is carbon.
          No suprise is it!  These guys want to dance for the big dogs,to be in the club and suk up the Bennys..
          Those honest will openly admit poultion and nuke waste are the no. 1 threat, though they may risk their entitlement to the club.