A perpetual summation of music, science, and other variables of interest.

1.06.2008

"Ocean Acidification" or "Why You Should Be Scared About Rising CO2 Emissions Even If You Are A Climate Change Skeptic"

At this point the debate given from dwindling but increasingly aggressive climate change skeptics goes something like this:
1. We concede that the climate is warming
2. We concede that CO2 levels are rising
3. But there is still not enough evidence that the changing climate is linked to anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 emissions.
4. Therefore, we should not hasten to reduce our CO2 emissions because the consequences of doing so are extreme and may not do anything to help climate change.

Many skeptics maintain this view despite the mountains of evidence that CO2 and climate are indeed linked and that humans are more than likely a major contributor to these effects. They say this despite their counter-arguments being disproved time after time. They say this despite the fact that the risks involved with climate change far exceed the sacrifices needed to change our behavior. They say this despite the fact that the planet is not something we ought to gamble with, regardless how right or wrong the science is.

Given that this debate is often as fruitful as debating a creationist on evolution, I propose a different tact in winning support for timely action on this issue: explain the looming problem of ocean acidification.

The problem:
CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. In fact, about a third of the CO2 we have emitted is now contained in the world's vast oceans. Once absorbed, CO2 then undergoes a chemical reaction to create carbonic acid. It's now been proven that the ocean's acidity level has slowly but surely been increasing from the CO2 humans have emitted. This has enormous consequences for the marine food web. Aquatic ecosystems are sustained by small organisms like coral, diatoms and pteropods:


The survival of these organisms depends on their ability to create a protective carbonate shells. When the water's acidity increases, their shells simply dissolve and these organisms cannot survive.

Let me make one thing clear about this phenomenon: this acidification is occurring due to a very basic chemical reaction that is well understood and has been proven countless times in the laboratory. There is no uncertainty about the effects of CO2 on water's acidity. It is also well known that the affected organisms make up the base of the food chain in many ocean ecosystems. Thus if uncertainty in climate science creates a stumbling block when arguing skeptics, perhaps we can turn to an argument unrelated to climate -- an argument for which there is virtually no uncertainty that an unchecked rise in CO2 will have global consequences. If skeptics are unwilling to be convinced on the climate argument alone, perhaps they would be willing to recognize the economic, social, and political consequences of the collapse of global fisheries.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi,
I find your acidic CO2 scene very left field and I appreciate open minds.

I am not an academic of any sorts but I do carry my very own concerns with our world.

As for the past ten years and more, I have considered what would happen if all the salt in our oceans were to deplete very rapidly?

Do the whales and fish in general have anything to do with the stabilisation of our oceans salt levels or are they just a natural abundance brought in via our rivers during our rainfall seasons.

What would happen with our moons gravity pull on us if our oceans were lacking sufficient salt and mineral levels and will the acidic levels impact on our salt levels also. Could it altimately have an affect on our rotational speed and consistency as far as where the moon is concerned with it's connection to us.

It has long been a dilema for me, to accept also the amount of neuclear testing and dumping done in our oceans, could this also have an impact either on the acidic, salt or mineral compositions of our oceans, not to mention the huge poisonous atomic fullout clouds that get blown around our Earth by the four winds and also end up in our oceans.

I don not know what the real affects these may have but my basic understanding says something, perhaps someone can shed some light on the scientific chemical substance of it all.

Dale

Hurricane Eddie said...

Thanks for the comment Dale. FYI, ocean acidification is currently being studied by many prominent and mainstream scientists so it is not really left field, but certainly deserves more prominence in academia and the media. Check out a few recent journal articles:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html

http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/pubs/Cicerone_etal_2004_EOS.pdf

Additionally, I have never heard any evidence of the salt levels in the ocean changing, nor do I know what effect that would have but I'm sure it would be serious.

Anonymous said...

Ocean acidification stories are just that, stories. There has been higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere than the 2000ppm 'problem' level. The Cretaceous experienced 300ppm, and had extensive coral reef build, more than today, and the Ordovician experienced 4000ppm, again without the expected problems. There is more to the ocean chemistry than dissolved CO2 making it acidic.

Anonymous said...

Diatoms are so pretty

wrygrass said...

Hi,

My chemical knowledge being next to nothing, the letter from anonymous got me to thinking which is always a bad thing. No question where that could lead. :) But to lay the question to rest, is there a chemical reaction that could take place between the rising acidity and the salt or seawater? I know the acidity most websites are talking about is pretty small, one page calling it less alkaline. I guess what my question is, will this rising acidity at some point cause other chemical reactions with saltwater?

Anonymous said...

Well isn't this wonderful?

Hurricane Eddie has a cunning wheeze to use the acidification of the oceans as a new and less controvertial way of persuading skeptics to join the global warming bandwagon!

Trouble is, even if the science of acidification turns out to be exactly as suggested, it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming - only with predicting the possible loss of certain marine animals which, however lamentable, is clearly not the same thing at all - just seems to be connected in some vague touchy-feely way.

So it doesn't get us anywhere near the real issue which warmists won't face up to. This is the uncomfortable fact (based on the the Hadley Centre's own HADCRUT3 official data) that the global mean temperature between 1880 and 2007:

(i) exhibits an annoyingly modest straight line rise of 0.0058 degC per year, or only 0.58degC per century, the most likely natural cause of which in the view of many climate scientists is the planet's slow emergence from the little ice age.

(ii) shows no sign whatsoever of a sudden anomalous upturn in the last 50 years of increasing post-war CO2 emissions, only a very obvious gentle 60 year oscillation over the 128 year period, exactly consistent with the expected behaviour of the well-researched Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

It's difficult even for warmists to resist this reality, so they have to fall back on theoretical climate models for their predictions. They are welcome. I prefer the hard data.

Anybody can check my assertions out for themselves by downloading the data from the Hadley website and graphing it in Excel.

And remember, this isn't MY data, it's THEIRS!

Anonymous said...

no we don't concede that temperatures are rising - there was a period between 1976 and 1998 that might be attributed to greenhouse gases. But the lack of any warming since 1995 says both PDO and solar variation are driving temps down over decades to centuries.

But when has the scientific consensus got it wrong? Well, recently? Well apart from DDT, ozone depletion, acid rain and global warming.

I want a lot more science before bowing to half understood alarmism