Acidifying Oceans Add Urgency To Carbon Dioxide Cuts

"The ecological and economic consequences are difficult to predict but possibly calamitous, warn a team of chemical oceanographers in the July 4 issue of Science, and halting the changes already underway will likely require even steeper cuts in carbon emissions than those currently proposed to curb climate change."

We are being urged to rearrange the world's economy due to likely requirements perceived necessary to combat the difficult to predict, but possibly calamitous consequences.

"the extra carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH (a measure of water's acidity) to shift by about 0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels."

I wonder where they obtained the data regarding pre-industrial average surface pH. It's nopt like there was anyone gathering this info in the early 1800s. Probably more computer modeling.

Idiots Delight wrote:

"the extra carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH (a measure of water's acidity) to shift by about 0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels."
I wonder where they obtained the data regarding pre-industrial average surface pH. It's nopt like there was anyone gathering this info in the early 1800s. Probably more computer modeling.

"Most of the models couldn't predict the past"

Global Con-sensus

"a study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn't even predict the past.

Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil..., though she didn't name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move."
http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangl...

Shoot the messenger!!!!

Idiots Delight wrote:

"the extra carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH (a measure of water's acidity) to shift by about 0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels."
I wonder where they obtained the data regarding pre-industrial average surface pH. It's nopt like there was anyone gathering this info in the early 1800s. Probably more computer modeling.

Monitoring for several decades (e.g., HOTS, BATS) has shown that surface ocean CO2* tracks closely with atmospheric pCO2. A change in atmospheric pCO2 is realized within about 1 year in the surface ocean. The chemistry of CO2 in sea water is extremely well characterized and understood. Thus, it's an exceedingly simple calculation to determine the pH of the pre-industrial surface ocean based on atmospheric pCO2.

In addition, del11B (delta boron 11) is a faithful recorder of pH in things like foraminifera shells. Del11B has been used to reconstruct paleo-pH in numerous datasets.

Pre-industrial pH measurments and the chemistry of CO2 in sea water are not in any way controversial. They are very well characterized.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Monitoring for several decades (e.g., HOTS, BATS) has shown that surface ocean CO2* tracks closely with atmospheric pCO2. A change in atmospheric pCO2 is realized within about 1 year in the surface ocean. The chemistry of CO2 in sea water is extremely well characterized and understood. Thus, it's an exceedingly simple calculation to determine the pH of the pre-industrial surface ocean based on atmospheric pCO2.
In addition, del11B (delta boron 11) is a faithful recorder of pH in things like foraminifera shells. Del11B has been used to reconstruct paleo-pH in numerous datasets.
Pre-industrial pH measurments and the chemistry of CO2 in sea water are not in any way controversial. They are very well characterized.

Very nice explanation. I was thinking as I read the complaint that it was probably a simple calculation based on a strong relationship between atmospheric co2 concentration and upper ocean pH. But not knowing that for sure I didn't want to post it.

The more contrarian skeptics have the upper hand in that regard - they just fire off questions at the science knowing that you cannot be "wrong" to ask a question. It's very easy to fire off a lot of questions at something you don't know much about.

Nothing wrong with asking questions at all, except what tends to mark skeptics out is they think their questions are actual problems for the science. Because they don't know of the answer they assume there is no answer and they have just "challenged" the science. When given an answer they just move on to a new question.

Such skeptics will use their own ignorance as a tool to brush aside the concern of so many scientists about ocean acidification.

Honestly, it's very, very sad. It's not an honest question--an earnest request for information. It's just fishing for an excuse to dismiss whatever bit of science is personally offensive to them, regardless of its truth value.

The chemistry of ocean acidification is highly certain. The effects on the biota are less certain, but that's why people (like me) are working hard to determine how organisms and ecosystems respond. The short version: some organisms seem to be ok, others seem to be in far more trouble. Many ecosystems will experience disturbance though. We need more study to increase confidence with some systems (e.g., pterpod based food webs in the Southern Ocean and North Pacific), but things look pretty worisome with the data available.

All policy decisions ultimately come to risk assessment, and the ones here are no different.