Chemistry Illiterates Drum Up Eco-Panic

3/23/2013

It seems that every normal variation in the planet's parameters cause climate alarmists to drum up panic. According to environmental extremists, and either uninformed or enthusiastically complicit public officials, normal human activity is invariably responsible for the most frightening scenarios, calling on the precautionary principle to save us!

This particular panic relies on total ignorance about basic chemistry. Watch out, Whatcom. A big show is coming to town on March 28th to promulgate fear that's based on spin, misinformation and nothing less than tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Those poor shellfish ... in danger! Not.

Is the ocean becoming acidic? No. The ocean is incredibly immense, and it's slightly alkaline ("base") at this time in history (at a pH of 8.14). And it will remain so - alkaline, base. It's only trending a miniscule degree towards neutral. No matter what, even if all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were deposited into the ocean in one moment, its pH would remain safely on the "base" end of the scale. There's not enough atmospheric CO2 to make the oceans "acidic" - and these folks suggest that acidic water will dissolve shells. Read this paper, "Acid Seas" which debunks the myth.

Of course, this slight trend, all within in the alkaline or "base" end of the pH scale, is being linked to anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide.

Why don't they say neutralization instead of acidification, when the oceans are still on the alkaline side of neutral? That question must be asked. "Neutral" is such a non-threatening word, whereas acid is corrosive, dangerous and very scary, like acid in a car battery. Ocean water's pH won't cross neutral line into acidity. Just for comparison, let's look at the pH of some well known household items, shall we? Let's shall!

1.0 - battery acid
1.8 - 2.0 - limes
2.2. - 2.4 lemon juice
2.2 Vinegar (acetic acid)
2.8 - 3.4 - fruit jellies
2.9 - 3.3 - apple juice, cola
3.0 - 3.5 - strawberries
3.7 - orange juice
4.0 - 4.5 - tomatoes
5.6 - unpolluted rain
5.8 - 6.4 - peas
6.0 - 6.5 - corn
6.1 - 6.4 - butter
6.4 - cow's milk
6.5 - 7.5 - human saliva
6.5 - 7.0 - maple syrup
7.0 - distilled water -- NEUTRAL
7.3 - 7.5 - human blood
7.6 - 8.0 - egg whites
8.14 ocean water
8.3 - baking soda
9.2 - borax
10.5 - milk of magnesia
11.0 - laundry ammonia
12.0 - lime water
13.0 - lye

What is pH, anyway? In chemistry pH is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration; but in laymen's terms, the number supplies useful information about the way a substance acts (and interacts) on a scale from strong acid to neutral to strong base (like oven cleaner). The pH scale goes from about zero to about 14 for most naturally occurring solutions (it can go below zero and above 14, but 0 ~ 14 is the normally encountered range). Notice that we put things in our mouths that range from 2.0 all the way up to 10.5. But not until we reach 11.0 (laundry ammonia on the alkaline side) or 1.0 (battery acid on the acidic side), do we get into burn territory. There's a huge range in the middle that is safe for humans and other living things. The difference between one pH number and the next is also big. The pH scale is logarithmic, expressing magnitude like the earthquake Richter scale, where the differences between each number become increasingly large:

Can relatively small pH changes have an effect on ecological systems? Of course they might. But life finds a way. Life operates within a wide range of "normal," and continuously adapts. The planet and its chemistry have never been static. The ocean has become a little less alkaline over time. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 (Wikipedia), a pH reduction of 0.11 in 243 years. This current prediction is for a long-term change of something like .01 - which is a very great deal less in proportion.

Is this good or bad? Is that a lot, or a little? (It's very little.) What causes it? That's hard to say. The current wave of "research" rests entirely on the hypothesis that it's all about CO2, when that's not only unlikely but virtually impossible (its a chemical reality) given the huge volume of water in the oceans and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Lower pH could be a tiny bit better for some life forms, and a tiny bit worse for others, but it's not proven that the minuscule change will fall outside "normal" range. Just as some flowers prefer acidic soil, and some alkaline, some species are virtually indifferent to big swings. Hydrangeas thrive and bloom in different colors depending on soil pH. (Here's some info on that, gardeners.)

What causes a shift in ocean alkalinity? It's easy for alarmists to jump to the conclusion that because the change coincided with human industrialization, we must have caused it. Even this article makes the unjustified jump to anthropogenic causes. But a core scientific principle is "correlation does not imply causation." Just because one thing happens while another thing happens, that doesn't prove the first thing caused the second thing to happen. Science is a method by which we find and test evidence. A person could also correlate dress hemlines to this over the same period of time. The point is, fear-generating "ocean acidification" statements are being made without relaying the reality about degree nor any real proof of causation. The entire assertion also flies in the face of the fundamentals of chemistry.

There is valid information about ocean chemistry that attributes most pH changes to natural organic upflows off our shores, but no matter... Blame it on the atmosphere and land use. Hypotheses of anthropogenic CO2 causing global environmental chaos are non-falsifiable, making them impossible to prove or disprove. They may be logical, and examples of good thinking even, but they are insufficient to convict. "If you’re going to announce your conclusions before you have the supporting data then you’re not engaging in science you’re engaging in politics."

Lacking objective truth, the knee-jerk reaction by environmental extremists invokes the precautionary principle, on the premise that we'd better be safe or we'll be sorry. It's a vacant and silly Chicken Little approach to change. And it completely ignores offsetting benefits of whatever it is we're supposed to be saved from, in addition to curtailing the beneficial aspects of whatever it is they allege is causing the supposedly undesirable effect. The public policy invoked to prevent the artifact could have an even worse impact on society and overall planetary well-being, but this is rarely considered.

From Governor Gregoire's executive order 12-07 - WASHINGTON’S RESPONSE TO OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, "Reduce nutrients and organic carbon in locations where these pollutants alone, or in combination with other pollutants, are causing or contributing to multiple water quality problems in our marine waters. This effort shall be coordinated with the Directors of the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health, and the Executive Director of the Conservation Commission. In implementing this directive, Ecology with its partners shall prioritize watersheds with the most significant water quality problems, regardless of the source(s) – urban storm water, septic tanks, large and small sewage treatment facilities, or rural runoff from agricultural lands. This effort shall be carried out in consultation with other agencies, affected local and tribal governments, federal agencies, landowners, and the environmental community. These efforts shall: ... " (Read the book...)

Note the absence of reference to CO2 in the water and the implication that land-use is an important part of the problem, when that has not been demonstrated. Even the supporters correctly point out that lower pH in marine waters here is primarily the result of upwelling of CO2-rich water from deeper parts of the ocean, but they then make the leap to atmospheric CO2 as a cause without adequate foundation in the data for doing so.

The legislature really cannot be held to the kind of dictatorial executive orders that have been issued here. What Gregoire was doing is just like Mayor Bloomberg banning big soft drinks in New York City – imposing will without consideration of truth or rights.

Many rent-seeking groups have learned that it is very lucrative to collect government grants to further this agenda, so in effect, our own tax dollars are being used against us. We pay to perpetuate this behavior.

It looks like this "free" seminar on March 28 will predict dire consequences based on conjecture and non-falsifiable hypotheses, to make the case for public policy that places even more restrictions on normal human rights and activities. It would be interesting to see how they respond to knowledgeable questions from well-informed skeptics.

WE hope a lot of people go, and ask tough questions.

29 Comments

Joan Dow

3/23/2013 12:32:57 pm

What a terrific article. I must confess I was alarmed when I read the referenced poster, knowing nothing about ocean waters. The information in this article sets my mind at rest. It also reminds me, once again, of the arrogance of the so-called environmentalists. We incredibly important human beings are the cause of EVERYTHING, and must remedy (forget investigating or understanding) EVERYTHING, immediately.

Karl Uppiano link

3/23/2013 02:02:00 pm

I just read "Acid Seas", linked to in the main article. I'll admit, there is some innuendo and a few personal attacks, which gives it that slimy "Alinsky feel" (TM), but I guess turn-about is fair play.

So NDRC (in "The Vinegar Trick") are dissolving coral in vinegar, tying that to ocean pH neutralization, and showing it to school kids. Well, isn't that special?

Vinegar is 871,000 times more acidic than seawater. Seawater is never going to get from 8.14 to 2.2, no matter what. The very worst case scenario, which is still miles from being proved, and miles further from being pinned on the human use of fossil fuel, is the reduced bio-availability of calcium needed by some species for growing strong shells.

Parenthetically, these are the exact opposite problems we seem to be having in Lake Whatcom right now. We could benefit from some "acidification" to put stress on the zebra mussels and neutralize the phosphorus. Ah well... whatever floats yer boat. Cherry Picking for Political Advantage. Sounds like a great title for a reality TV show. But I digress...

These worst-case "sky is falling" scenarios also fail to account for other countervailing processes that would respond by restoring the pH balance, etc.

Nature is rife with these self-regulating systems, which level out the imbalances and counteract stress. One of the best examples of this is the amazing thermostat that keeps our body temperature at a constant 98.6 degrees F, despite enormous changes in activity level and ambient temperature.

If we fail to look for, and account for these elegant mechanisms, we'll lose a great deal of sleep, and waste a great deal of political capital on something that is already under control.

Greg Brown

3/23/2013 02:23:32 pm

What a great article! Again it appears that "Truth" and "Common Sense" are being replaced by calculated lies and prophesy. It is so hard to understand how willing and gullible so many have become. We laugh about the real estate salesman listing beachfront property in the middle of a desert, but seem unable to see through the propaganda misrepresented as "fact" by the environmentalist salesman. Keep up the great work and truth will prevail...

Vince Henley

3/24/2013 04:27:11 am

I think some people are taking a page from the "acid rain" playbook when trying to stampede others into action based on bad science. The reality is that the ocean is a sink for CO2 and as temperatures decrease it can hold more and when they increase, less. You can see the result of seasonal variation on the graph of atmospheric CO2 when more or less ocean water has increased insolation. So, if we are to believe the climate change advocates, then increased ocean temperatures would decrease the CO2 and hence acidity of the oceans making it slightly more basic than it currently is. Wouldn't that be a good thing and contrary to the acid ocean claim?

But wait! Since when have facts or even decent science been allowed to interfere with an agenda? Horrors! It cannot be allowed. Message discipline must be maintained!

I think we should take comfort in that most global systems are not only poorly understood but appear to be self-regulating and self-limiting despite our best efforts. I once asked a climate activist what the effect the collapse of the Soviet Union had on global warming, only to draw a blank look as he tried to understand the joke and not appear to not "get it." He failed in both attempts. When we parted he was certain he'd missed something important and he had, but he never figured it out.

Brady Olson

3/27/2013 02:09:36 am

Hi Vince,
I am not sure what figure you are referring to, but I'll take a guess and assume it is the most often published one - the Keeling Curve from the Mona Loa volcano is Hawaii. You are correct that from Henry's Law more gas dissolves into colder rather than warmer water. But I would argue that the seasonal oscillations in the atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is primarily driven not by temperature, but rather the annual cycles of primary productivity. That is, in spring and summer the microscopic plants (phytoplankton) in the northern hemisphere oceans and the substantial biomass of terrestrial photosynthesizers (trees) photosynthesize and grow faster due to the increased light that comes in summer months in the northern hemisphere. Because photosynthesis increases, so too does incorporation of atmospheric CO2 into plant biomass. As such, atmospheric CO2 goes down in summer months. The reverse is true in winter months when the southern hemisphere, with much less land mass, receives the majority of sunlight. The plant/phytoplankton photosynthesizers in the northern hemisphere photosynthesize much less and respire more. As such, they don't take in atmospheric CO2 and consequently atmospheric CO2 goes up. If atmospheric CO2 was driven by temperature alone, I would think the warm northern hemisphere summer would be balanced by the simultaneous cold southern hemisphere winter.

3/28/2013 09:43:17 am

Yes, I am referring to the so-called Keeling curve from Mauna Loa simply because that's the one that all the global warming acolytes refer to. Of course they never show the graph axes origins and thus people get seduced into thinking that the changes are huge and they simply are not. It's taken fifty years to have in an increase of about 70 PPM for this one measurement. Hardly panic time. It is not the only data set and Mauna Loa isn't the world, and while all the data sets do indicate a general annual increase of CO2 of about 2 PPM the seasonal oscillations and the phasing with sea surface temperatures vary among the data sets. There have been some attempts to resolve these differences but, to my mind the results are unsatisfying.

I know the photosynthesis argument is enticing, but I think it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that once one gets above about 40 degrees latitude in the northern hemisphere, the dominant vegetation consists of conifers and broad-leafed evergreens. In southern hemishpere it's mostly broad leafed evergreens. Respiration would peak up in response to increased light but it still seems to me that the phasing suggests warming as an at least equal contributor, as in first you get the temperature change and then you get the CO2 effect.

By the way, I am quite content to stipulate that climate changes. It's been doing so rather reliably for millions of years and will continue to do so, whether we want it or not. I just don't accept that anthropogenic factors are the major contributors. There was a paper done by the Swiss somewhere around the time of the release of IPCC AR4 where the authors had attributed nearly all the global changes at that time to changes in insolation, not mankind, but one never hears about those studies. In fact, in IPCC AR4 itself, the concept of anthropogenic warming is not emphasized in the scientific papers but only in the "Advice to Policy Makers" summaries, which are POLITICAL documents, not scientific ones.

If I had to be concerned about so-called greenhouse gases, I'd worry more about water vapor and methane than CO2. I doubt that the sort of paint I use on my deck is going to contribute to warming in any way and the painting of everyone's deck on the planet would be dwarfed by the effect of one volcanic eruption. I get tired of people making demonstrations with kids blowing through straws when I know that it's just the worst sort of propaganda and intended to deceive, not demonstrate.

I know that because of your chosen profession you must promote the party line. If you didn't you'd never get another penny of grant money. I know how that works. So, your work will continue to show the world in crisis that must be "mitigated" by restricting the liberty of your fellow citizens. Unfortunately, these restrictions will have no effect whatever except to be restrictive.

BTW, more along your line of expertise, didn't I read somewhere recently that there was a huge deficit of phytoplankton in Antarctic waters and therefore a reduction in the krill biomass and that the whales were going to starve to death? I seem to remember some new panic about that. There is a new crisis every day. We must act! Not.

Gary Hagland

3/24/2013 09:00:01 am

Excellent refutation of the latest environmentalist scare scenario. Those of us in Anacortes were treated to this traveling pseudo-scientific eco-salvation show on March 13th.

After arriving late at the Seafarer’s Building, I walked in and sat down. You would have thought I was in the midst of a convention of bobble headed dolls. Most of the audience, eyes glistening, were in rapt attention to a professor from Shannon Point Marine Lab as he explained the seriousness of the problem. He strongly implied it was caused by anthropogenic CO2, although never coming out and making a direct connection. He even used the vinegar experiment, choosing someone’s young teenage son as a co-participant, as well as having someone exhale numerous times through a straw into a beaker of water to watch the change in chemistry.

Questions or comments were not welcome. One lady, who obviously knew more than the large number of scientific illiterates in the room, pointed out the liner/logarithmic misrepresentation in the presentation. I commented about the obvious fact that the ocean was still basic and wouldn’t be acidic anytime soon, so wasn’t the term “ocean acidification” inaccurate? Both times the professor answered with somewhat tortured logic, if not tortured science, and then was saved by the moderator who came running up from the back of the room, telling us to hold our questions and the speakers would answer them on an individual basis after the program was over. Don’t think she wanted heretical views expressed in front of the true believers from the local beach watchers club.

Oh yes, when the professor announced Shannon Marine Lab had just received $1.1 million so he could continue his vital research, there was a round of applause.

So, I would encourage Whatcom residents to attend the show on the 28th, if only for the entertainment value.

3/25/2013 04:56:04 am

Hi Gary,
I am the marine scientist from Shannon Point Marine Center you speak of. First off, thanks for coming to the talk, and I thought the question you asked me was spot on. I too have always thought the term acidification was misplaced. I am not sure who first coined it, but it is easier to say than 'the ocean is become less basic,' and obviously from the media’s perspective, more catchy. I also thought I answered your question honestly. You are correct that the oceans are not acidic. I made that point several times during my talk. The term 'acidification' comes from the fact that with addition of CO2 into seawater, human produced or not, through a series of acid-base reactions, pH decreases. Since the trend is movement away from the basic scale towards the acidic side, I suppose that's where the term came from. As for the women that asked me the question you reference, I simply didn't understand it. But after talking to people afterward, I think the miscommunication stemmed from when I said that whether something is considered acidic or a basic was relative to its relation to pure water, which as I said was neutral and pH 7. I followed that with the description that the pH scale was logarithmic. I think her question - and I can only assume because she left right after the last speaker - was that if everything is relative to water, how can it be logarithmic from pH 8 to 7, or from 6 to 7. I said it was a continuum, but again, I am still not sure if that's what she meant, so apologies to her, you and everyone else in attendance for not being able to articulate that point. After all, we’re human. We were all pressed for time given the AV trouble at the beginning. That's why it was requested that questions be held for the end. Plus, once questions start to flow, they tend not to stop, and it is hard to get through one’s talk in the time allotment. Sorry you didn’t like the demos. I thought the boy blowing bubbles into the seawater was a great demo for how pH changes in seawater simply from addition of CO2. The vinegar demo, yeah, probably won't repeat that because as I mentioned, the reduction in carbonate ions is what causes shells to dissolve, not the pH. That is why I had several slides showing the equilibrium reaction of calcium carbonate formation. And I did say emphatically that it was a demo to show a process, not to be taken as an indication that the ocean is even close to that pH. But point taken - if someone didn’t understand the chemistry, I can see where that would be alarming. I have always felt that my job when giving overview talks to the general public is to not beat the drum, but to describe the chemical process, highlight some research that has been done regarding the effects of changing carbonate chemistry to organisms, and to highlight that there will be winners (photosynthesizers) and losers (calcium carbonate producers) if trends in atmospheric CO2 continue to rise at the rate they are. Admittedly the media has focused on the losers, but I think that is starting to change as scientists start to better understand organism responses to changing carbonate chemistry. But even for the losers, it’s not as simple as just the thermodynamics of carbonate acid/base reactions. Biology is involved too. Processes and enzymes that regulate calcification can be modified, and this depends on a lot of factors, including whether or not the calcifier itself has adequate food available. That it is why I showed the photo of the star fish that calcifies more under lower pH, but has less muscle mass. I’ll end by saying that I welcome questions from all perspectives. Science is, after all, a self-regulating and self-correcting process. As such, it needs skeptics to continue to move the process and the information we take from it forward (I do desire less ad hominem though). I won’t be checking back into this website, but I live in Anacortes and would be more than happy to talk with you more about this topic since you are interested. I can be found at SPMC, and with advanced notice I would be happy to show you my lab and what it is I do here. Regards, Brady

Edison von Fahrenheit

3/25/2013 09:11:31 am

Demos are fine, they "bring science to the masses", but you really cannot stress enough that the demos are intended to illustrate a point, and that they vastly exaggerate the effects in nature. Also, they’re out of context, so other forces in the wild could cancel them out. They should stress that we don’t know most of the interactions very well.

It would be worthwhile to discuss non-falsifiable hypotheses, and why it’s important to understand that anthropogenic /anything/ will be nearly impossible to prove scientifically, and further, that in an American court of law, you cannot get a conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Doug

3/25/2013 03:36:00 pm

In my opinion and as a trained scientist, newly retired, I've seen this farce and side-show once, don't need to see it again. They have been making the way up the coast with the vinegar, blue water, and straws entertainment with lots of pretty colored slides ta-boot. Too much hot air the first time with enough insults to anyone's intelligence that learned any basic chemistry (pun intended). Really.

They must think the general public is so stupid now and lost the capacity to think, much less read and educate themselves further. A flurry of slides does not make truth or equate to scientific proof. Looking at a lab does not equate to scientific truth or proof. Ah, but I forgot that the slides do go by fast, so does the flurry of leaps and claims, the average person would have a hard time keeping up. Almost like that was intended. Hmmm...

Oceanic convection currents & upwelling have been going on for eons - literally. Not only is chemistry and biology involved, so is thermo-dynamics. For these people to twist facts about pH, chemistry, and physics and make wild leaps and claims is patently absurd, to be generous.

The spin the recent crop of fear-mongers are attempting to pull, for the sake of grant monies and social-based policy changes is anemic and easily challenged. They should be challenged and hard facts demanded to prove claims rather than relying on modeling and theories as so-called 'proof'.

What happened to real scientists? Empirical science? How about truth and ethics in research? What about using best available science, as supposedly is the new mantra for basic standards?

What a waste of money and resources that could be used on real issues and real problems. So, here we go again with the latest in "Chicken Little Science".

3/26/2013 08:04:17 am

Professor Olson,
Thank you for the gracious reply to my comments and also thank you for the invitation to visit your facility at Shannon Point. That was generous, but unnecessary.

The major problem with the ocean acidification seminar in Anacortes was that it was a political event under the guise of an objective examination of the effects of lower pH levels in the waters around Puget Sound. You were the only presenter who could claim scientific credentials. Others included a politician, as well as representatives from the shellfish industry, an NGO and a local tribe. Your audience was made up mostly of local activists. Judging from the rapturous nods of certainty throughout, you could have declared that ocean acidification was about to dissolve all concrete pilings in the sound and turn boat hulls bright pink and they would have believed you. The purpose of the seminar was to advance an agenda. In this case, to establish a crisis mindset among the members of the audience of another consequence of modern man’s continuing affront to nature. From that, support for legislation, more regulation and possibly further grant money would flow.

The passage most quoted from Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation in January 1961 is the warning about the military-industrial complex. Unfamiliar to most people and hardly ever mentioned is what he said shortly afterwards;

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.“

Unfortunately, Eisenhower’s warning is now reality. Somewhere along the way, the Socratic dictum of following the evidence wherever it leads has been lost.

3/25/2013 06:31:01 am

I find it fascinating that when the environmental panic peddlers get caught in a "miscommunication" that the apologia is lengthy and convoluted. The key information that one can take away from this is that the demonstrations were intended to deceive, had nothing to do with the science presented and were only done because it was "from the media’s perspective, more catchy." The bubble demonstration is not to demonstrate science, it is to convince children and others that the breath of human beings is bad. It's all a show designed to deceive and that's the long and short of it. The only thing one needs to understand about these presentations is that they are first and foremost about pushing an agenda. That agenda is designed to restrict the lives of ordinary citizens in order to preserve some environmental quality that probably isn't at risk and will likely self-correct quite independently of any action we could take. It's about control. It is not about the environment. That's the key fact to remember - control.

3/27/2013 03:14:40 am

Hi again, Gary

I am sorry you found the Anacortes seminar overly political. As someone whose research is supported by taxpayers dollars, I consider it my civic duty to participate when asked in these public events. I don't control who else participates. I try to present the science as we currently know it. I also think it's great that people question whether or not their tax dollars are being spent wisely. I do it all the time myself. You might find it surprising that in addition to giving to speaking at seminars, that I/we also listen. To that end, I have already changed my talk for the Bellingham seminar to stress your point that the ocean is not acidic, won't become acidic in our lifetimes (and likely our grandkids'), and that their are other accurate ways to describe the process (i.e. neutralization, becoming less basic, etc.) that, while equally accurate, as less easy to sensationalize. So again, thank you for illuminating where we swing and miss. If you aren't uninterested in seeeing SPMC or my lab, you probably won't be interested in seeing the modified talk. But the offer is there for me to send it to you as a pdf if you would like to see it.

3/27/2013 07:18:11 am

Mr. Brady,

If you are planning to change your presentation for Bellingham, I would re-iterate my suggestion from an earlier comment, that the demos are out of context, so other forces in the wild could cancel them out.

You should stress that we don’t know most of the interactions very well, and that we could discover something tomorrow that invalidates all of our modeling.

It would also be worthwhile to discuss non-falsifiable hypotheses, and why it’s important to understand that anthropogenic /anything/ will be nearly impossible to prove scientifically, and further, that in an American court of law, you cannot get a conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Be warned however: That message will not play well in Bellingham, especially to the likely attendees. Best case scenario, you might not be invited back.

3/27/2013 04:34:09 pm

Brady,
Will not be able to make it up to Bellingham tomorrow night to see your presentation again, but I do believe you when you write that you will modify your presentation to include more accurate terminology than “ocean acidification.” However, am wondering if the folks organizing and sponsoring the program will appreciate that. Unfortunately, climate science has been irrevocably politicized (at least for the next decade or two) and, like it or not, you are now a player. But good luck on the presentation.

If the offer to visit Shannon Point is still open, will take you up on it if my wife can come too. She’s informed me that it would be prudent for me to bring her. We were both heavily involved in diving during the many years we lived on Okinawa. She misses that as the water here is too cold for her. And there’s a real physical reason behind that. It’s not the wimp factor. Have visited the University of the Ryukyus marine lab at Sesoku, but yours is much larger, and undoubtedly devoted to different critters and habitat. Will call in the next week or two.

Took me a while to reply because I'm in a bit of daze tonight. Saw our state senator's comments on Q13/Fox about Professor Easterbrook's testimony in Olympia this past Tuesday and am having a hard time believing he is representing us.

“Ninety-five percent of the peer-reviewed data very clearly states climate change is real, it’s happening, it’s human caused,” Ranker said. “To have a bold discussion about the facts is ridiculous.”

Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen and heard it for myself.

Gary

WE Editors

3/25/2013 08:46:59 am

More real science/chemistry input received:

Source: Elsevier, Oct 15, 2001 - Science - 360 pages

"Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas after water vapor in the atmosphere of the earth. More than 98% of the carbon of the atmosphere-ocean system is stored in the oceans as dissolved inorganic carbon."

http://books.google.com/books/about/Co2_in_Seawater.html?id=VrumU3XvQ-gC <-(copy link to your browser)

So if the CO2 in the atmosphere doubles (not going to happen any time soon), then the carbon content in the ocean will rise, but the chemistry is complicated, and it is certainly not the case that all of the increase will be in the form of carbonic acid. Rather, much of it will be converted to carbonate. The effect on pH is difficult to calculate, given the level of the unquantifiable in the process."

Translation: The assertions are way out of proportion, the scenario doesn't prove out.

3/27/2013 02:13:43 am

WE Editors,

I am not sure if the last full paragraph from above was from the book you cite, or from your translation of it. But there is an inaccuracy. You are correct that the CO2 dissolving into the ocean does not remain (only a miniscule fraction) as carbonic acid. It dissociates into bicarbonate and a hydrogen ion. The now free hydrogen ion can form a bond with carbonate, which becomes bicarbonate. This decreases carbonate, rather than increases it as you say above.

3/27/2013 06:39:38 am

The last quotation mark was a scrivener's error.
To see the source of the language quoted, it is necessary to follow the link that follows it. The actual source is Google Books' preview of the book, the author of which is Mr. Elsevier.

WE Editors, continue

3/27/2013 06:49:14 am

...that post should have read:
Source: Elsevier, Oct 15, 2001 - Science - 360 pages

"Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas after water vapor in the atmosphere of the earth. More than 98% of the carbon of the atmosphere-ocean system is stored in the oceans as dissolved inorganic carbon."

http://books.google.com/books/about/Co2_in_Seawater.html?id=VrumU3XvQ-gC <-(link to source)

So if the CO2 in the atmosphere doubles (not going to happen any time soon), then the carbon content in the ocean will rise, but the chemistry is complicated, and it is certainly not the case that all of the increase will be in the form of carbonic acid. Rather, much of it will be converted to carbonate. The effect on pH is difficult to calculate, given the level of the unquantifiable in the process.

3/26/2013 06:01:14 am

Doug makes some good points above. But in answer to his question:

"What happened to real scientists? Empirical science? How about truth and ethics in research? What about using best available science, as supposedly is the new mantra for basic standards?"

The answer is that all these things have been replaced by "consensus." Now I don't know about the rest of you, but my scientific training didn't seem to mention "consensus." Science either was or it was not. It wasn't a matter of opinion, but a matter of repeatable experiments and hypotheses that were tested and either rejected or not. I don't recall that the weight of opinion had anything to do with it. The weight of opinion is a notoriously bad guide to good science. The weight of opinion once had the world flat and at the center of the universe.

3/27/2013 07:56:18 am

WE Editors. I am simply saying that in the last paragraph, whether it was a translation error or not, most of the CO2 that dissolves into the ocean converts to bicarbonate, not carbonate, as you say in the last paragraph. Hence the attention to calcium carbonate dissolution. Also, Elsevier is the publisher, not the author. Authors are Zeeb and Wolf-Gladrow.

3/27/2013 12:45:51 pm

Maybe yes...
From the book: 3.2.6 Kinetic 13 fractionation in the carbonate system

"CO2 +H20> H++H20
leading to HCO3- that is lighter than CO2 by about 13% at 24degrees C. Similarly, the dehydration step
H++ HCO3> CO2+H2O results in lighter CO2 of about 22%..."

The form of the notation is a bit incorrect, but there is more to come:

From Wikipedia
Acidity of carbonic acid

Carbonic acid is one of the polyprotic acids: It is diprotic - it has two protons, which may dissociate from the parent molecule. Thus, there are two dissociation constants, the first one for the dissociation into the bicarbonate (also called hydrogen carbonate) ion HCO3−:
H2CO3 HCO3− + H+
Ka1 = 2.5×10−4 mol/litre; pKa1 = 3.6 at 25 °C.[1]
Care must be taken when quoting and using the first dissociation constant of carbonic acid. In aqueous solution, carbonic acid exists in equilibrium with carbon dioxide, and the concentration of H2CO3 is much lower than the concentration of CO2. In many analyses, H2CO3 includes dissolved CO2 (referred to as CO2(aq)), H2CO3* is used to represent the two species when writing the aqueous chemical equilibrium equation. The equation may be rewritten as follows:[1]
H2CO3* HCO3− + H+
Ka(app) = 4.6×10−7 mol/litre ; pK(app) = 6.3 at 25 °C and Ionic Strength = 0.0
Whereas this apparent pKa is quoted as the dissociation constant of carbonic acid, it is ambiguous: it might better be referred to as the acidity constant of dissolved carbon dioxide, as it is particularly useful for calculating the pH of CO2-containing solutions. A similar situation applies to sulfurous acid (H2SO3), which exists in equilibrium with substantial amounts of unhydrated sulfur dioxide.
The second constant is for the dissociation of the bicarbonate ion into the carbonate ion CO32−:
HCO3− CO32− + H+
Ka2 = 4.69×10−11 mol/litre ; pKa2 = 10.329 at 25 °C and Ionic Strength = 0.0
[edit]pH and composition of carbonic acid solutions
At a given temperature, the composition of a pure carbonic acid solution (or of a pure CO2 solution) is completely determined by the partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the solution. To calculate this composition, account must be taken of the above equilibria between the three different carbonate forms (H2CO3, HCO3− and CO32−) as well as of the hydration equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and H2CO3 with constant (see above) and of the following equilibrium between the dissolved CO2 and the gaseous CO2 above the solution:
CO2(gas) CO2(dissolved) with where kH=29.76 atm/(mol/L) at 25 °C (Henry constant)
The corresponding equilibrium equations together with the relation and the charge neutrality condition result in six equations for the six unknowns [CO2], [H2CO3], [H+], [OH−], [HCO3−] and [CO32−], showing that the composition of the solution is fully determined by . The equation obtained for [H+] is a cubic whose numerical solution yields the following values for the pH and the different species concentrations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

All I said was that the chemistry is complicated.

The argument at the heart of the presentation is that "ocean acidification" presents a huge problem to shellfish producers while appearing to ridiculously simplify the cause of any observed neutralization of seawater without underlying data to serve as a foundation for that argument.

brady olson

3/27/2013 08:43:02 am

Edison Von Fahrenheit,
Great name, by the way. I only have 20-25 minutes to give the seminar, so I won't be doing the demos again. Last time I used them I had to rush through the last few slides. Not only does the message get lost, but I hate doing that. I believe I made the case that all I was doing was showing the physical process by which CO2 can acidify water. Of course there are other factors, like the biological pump, can that mollify that effect, which I do talk about. But to your point, I’ll be sure to clarify that more if/when I repeat the demo. I also talked, and plan to again in Bellingham, about natural sources that reduce pH, such as upwelling of CO2 rich waters in coastal regions, leaching and runoff of acidic compounds into rivers and coastal environments, and input of organic matter and subsequent respiration of that OM in coastal regions. Because I only have 20-25 minutes I do not plan to go into a treatise on the scientific method and non-falsifiable hypotheses. I also don't consider it my responsibility to convince people one way or another that the rise in CO2 over the last 200 or so years is anthropogenic, from volcanoes, or aerobic respiration, or whatever. My responsibility is to show the data, which I do, and then let people critically interpret it themselves. After all, isn't that how science should work? What I do is show CO2 records going back from 800,000 years ago to roughly present, and the recent spike (geologically speaking) in atmospheric CO2. With that, people can make up their own minds about the cause, but as you know most people have already before even hearing me. If you and others find that disingenuous, I can live with that. The reason I show that figure is to show atmospheric CO2 is higher than in the past. This sets up the explanation of how elevated CO2 can physically reduce seawater pH and alters seawater carbonate chemistry. I then proceed to show examples of how this effects marine organisms (both +, photosynthesizers) and (- to many calcifiers), and even highlight that we’ve learned that some calcifiers calcify more under high CO2/low pH. I plan to end with the fact that the research community understands the response of organisms to high pCO2/low pH is complex, there will be winners and losers, and in the last 10 years, the research community has learned a lot, including that trends in organisms are not universal, e.g. calcification. If I can get that done in 25 minutes, I’ll be happy and sleep well.

3/27/2013 10:38:22 am

I don't find it disingenuous. I just think the masses have no idea what the purpose of science is all about. Without understanding the scientific method, they're liable to jump to all the wrong conclusions, and it becomes very easy to politicize.

It just seemed a good teaching moment, but as I said, people might not appreciate hearing it.

3/28/2013 02:41:47 am

Gary,
First of all, the offer to visit SPMC is absolutely still open. Among other things, we have a very active diving program here doing some really neat stuff. One project in particular is working with state biologists trying to re-establish pinto abalone populations in the area. Our divers marked and out-planted juveniles into local waters, and return often to try and find them in an effort to measure mortality, distance traveled, population recovery, growth rate, etc. Pretty neat stuff. Your wife may enjoy hearing about that and seeing our diving facilities.

I won’t speak for K. Ranker, but will simply note the ability for people to have open-minded civil discourse seems a lost skill. There is evidence of that all over, including this board. I have had my motives challenged, accused of having an agenda, and been called some pretty creative names (to your credit, the ‘traveling pseudo-scientific eco-salvation show’ was pretty damn funny – and do know that I don’t take any of this personal). But as far as I know, you are the only person I have seen and engaged with personally, or even possibly has seen me speak. I think you can see by my postings that I don’t address those comments. I have in the past and the only thing accomplished is elevating all participants’ blood pressures to dangerous levels. But the notion that I spend a second of my time thinking of ways to manipulate politicians in order to control the activities of citizens is just absurd. I do science, I publish it in peer reviewed journals, and let others interpret the results, sometimes very critically, which is good. Outside of that, when I go home I play with my kids when I have them, try and train my dog to be a better duck hunter than he was last year, have beers and eat oysters with friends, and like I am sure a lot of people, stress about how I am going to pay my bills. But to your point, I do realize that since I have received grant money to study the effects of ocean neutralization (:)) on plankton food webs, I am in the crosshairs given the political nature of the topic, and even more so because when asked, I attempt to engage the public on the research being done, as I did in Anacortes and am doing again in Bellingham. But in case anyone reads this and is wondering, the government and the National Science Foundation weren’t simply begging people to take their money. It took me three attempts, each time my grant request going a through and rigorous peer review process (twice rejected), before I could convince them that I had a solid research question. I am excited to show you what I do here.

But if anything, by posting on this board – which I swear!!! is the last time I will today since I have a talk to prepare for – proves that civil dialog can occur between folks. I think you and I proved that. This spring I teach all day on Thursdays, but am pretty much free any other time. All my information can be found on the SPMC website. I look forward to hearing from you.

Charles

3/28/2013 03:20:38 pm

I read this blog before went to see the presentation tonight and didn't comment before seeing the talk because I wanted to make my own assessment of all of the information available before saying anything. I was pretty skeptical of what I was reading here, not so much of the actual arguments in the blog article - sound basic science, but of the apparent fervor of the pushback by some comments. Believed it is prudent to hear and read all sides of an issue before weighing in on the topic. Grew up on the east coast, had good education, and studied the hard sciences; utilized them throughout the years.

Now to the point. My opinion of this, and to be brief, the clap trap I just witnessed tonight and the propaganda mantras afterwards were almost more than I can bear as a traditionally trained scientist. These guys have sold out for grant money and a politically controlled propaganda roll-out machine I was convinced was just hype before actually hearing and witnessing the program tonight. I had a good seat near the main speaker where I could hear and see the slides well, plenty of people could not see them without standing up. What I saw was slide after slide of unfounded and weak extrapolations in logic and numerous claims of supposed common knowledge that were more than just questionable. They were out-right laughable. That is a common tactic these days and that happened all night long. Make a statement as truth or fact, rephrase in the form of a question, then repeat it as a fact and as proof, and jump to the next claim without ever proving or substantiating anything. Time and again they started with a 'given' or as something 'everyone knows to be true' that in reality was not a fact. Absolutely unbelievable, yet it happened so many times I just started making ticks on the page for each wild-ass notion stated as a 'fact'. It was bad enough through the 'scientist's' part - he credibility is shot now. Was even worse afterwards as the propaganda really was laid on thick for the rest of the program.

Who ever said something about consensus science earlier was definitely on the mark. Consensus is not a valid replacement for scientific method. It does not equate to proof of anything. Alarm bells should have been going off in anyone's head that has had an ounce of high school chemistry or biology or that has seen used car sales guys in action pushing a Dodge Aries K as the next great family vehicle in the early 80s. It was that bad.

To the author of this blog and the other commenters expressing concern over the plausibility or benefit of the doubt for the ocean acidification story being told, I apologize for doubting the veracity of your statements. You are were right. This is a scam and a sham of shameful proportions.

Dr. No

3/28/2013 04:59:17 pm

I'm getting old; cranky, too. There's just too much overt stupidity afoot and I'm having less and less tolerance for it. My opinion:

I'm a PhD scientist - a classically trained, scientific method, reproducible data, statistical significance type scientist. The whole anthropogenic global warming thing has been a travesty. Now we have "ocean acidification" (which the cool kids just call "OA").

"Acidification" is a purposeful and deceitful misnomer. Everyone knows acid hurts, it's harmful, it's bad. In truth, however, what's occurring in the ocean, if anything, is that it is slightly less alkaline but no where near acidic. But Chicken Little pseudoscience, which has only an arms length relationship with the truth, loves a scaremongering term like acidification because it suits their utopian socialist agenda much better than honesty.

From what I've read and heard, ocean acidification is political science, not actual science. It's just more pre-determined outcomes trying to coerce more social engineering.

"Climate science"; now "ocean acidification". To our collective detriment, their pseudo-science acolytes sully what was once an honorable discipline.

Kathy

3/29/2013 11:10:06 am

Lots of good posts here so I won't bother re-hashing what has already been said so well by several people.

After attended both the Anacortes and Bham events, I am dismayed at what in my opinion, scientific training, and education find to be gaping holes in scientific method and essential proof. The jumps and extrapolations made and passed off to the unsuspecting lay-person as science are not.

In 30 years, nowhere have I seen such brazen billing and advertisement as science when it is anything but; it was chocked full of hype, propaganda, and sensationalism. This came off to me both times as politically motivated story-telling and machinations rather than science, even with some subtle changes in the event from two weeks ago. The unproven, weakly grounded message and sensationalism were the same.

This has all the hallmarks for political hype and dressed up non-sense to look like 'sciency', it is not science. I am actually embarrassed that fellow scientists have stooped to such lows and in my opinion sold-out for grant money and publicity in recent times. This is a textbook example of that ugliness.

The question to anyone and everyone should be why? Where is the funding come from to perpetuate the farce? Who benefits from the fable? Who benefits from scaring the public with such tales?

Where is the outrage from the scientific community that looks away and pretends that the wave of such unprofessional and irresponsible behavior such as this and in recent years? What happened to peer review and truthful fact driven findings and debate? Whatever happened to science based on large data sets of empirical, reproducible results?

I'll stop here because now I find myself repeating what others have already stated and asked. Kudos to the author who started this blog and comment thread. Nice catch and thank you for bringing this drummed-up eco-panic to our attention.

3/30/2013 04:08:36 am

Slept on it; had to add more of my opinion on “ocean acidification”. To set the scene, we were all there at the ferry terminal for the Faux Science Festival in Bellingham last night; the Kool-Aid was free flowing, granola crumbs were knee deep, and I’m sure a majority of the crowd had on sustainable underwear.

Those attendees hoping to get real answers to real questions were surely disappointed. The seminar was set up to have a thin veneer of something appearing to be science provide a cachet of legitimacy for the two snake oil sales shows that followed. If there is a real problem in the ocean then an opportunity was lost to get valid understanding and solutions.

After the public’s push back to the seminar’s Anacortes dress rehearsal the handlers removed the unconscionably misleading demonstration where a child exhales air (CO2 concentration of 5.3%) into pH indicator water to simulate atmospheric CO2 (0.038% CO2) “acidifying” the ocean. When is using a concentration 139 times greater an accurate or responsible representation? Never. An act of contrition or perfecting the masquerade? You be the judge.

My PhD background is in actual, scientific method based, life sciences. What strikes me in these presentations, what the non-scientist Hamster acolytes failed to recognize, is the almost total lack of diligent scientific rigor. Let’s see what we can “tease” out from the performance:

• The Pteropods loss of calcification in “low pH” study - no experimental conditions stated, just “low pH”. Exactly what was the pH? How was pH controlled and in what medium? What were the experimental conditions and how do they compare with the Pteropods’ natural environment? What were the controls?
• The one time cruise down Puget Sound collecting deep-water samples. How many samples at each location? How many samples at each depth? How many different times of the year? (oops, forgot, they only did it once) I’ve read that there are diurnal variations in Co2 so what times of day were recorded? What historical values are there for similar samplings? How do we know that “low” pH of 7.4 at depth is not normal for that time, day of year, depth and always has been? What is the periodic variance in the pH range at various depths? Etc. etc.
• Real science uses the rigor of reproducibility. That rigor is missing here. Reportedly, there was just the one cruise (and a second along a different track). When constantly referring to the “data set” why was there no table detailing the number of samples, ie all the data? Why was there no statistical analysis – the hallmark of real science and basis for making comparative statements? What served as control values and, if there were any, were they appropriate controls? What reproducibility of these findings is there? (oops, I keep forgetting that the “data set” actually is only a one-and-done phenomenon). The highlight of self-delusion was trying to use this flimsy, one-off “data set” to refute a world renowned expert’s huge, statistically significant, reproducible, and valid data.

Maybe some scientific rigor really is there but wasn’t presented. Knowing classical, scientific method based scientists, as I have for over 50 years, when they’ve got good data, real data, valid data, they’re excited to show it to anyone who will listen. Instead, we have people purposefully trying to use marginally scientific findings to incite the public to some sort of save-the-planet, social engineering action – all based on no real data being presented.

Last night, I must admit I appreciated some honest, helpful comments about the economic importance of the shellfish industry in the Pacific Northwest. I also respected the disclosure that there are winners and losers in this [and every other] ocean ecosystem (brackets are mine). Equally refreshing was the honorable admission that all the CO2 in the atmosphere would never turn the ocean acidic (yet the seminar’s promoters keep hyping the inflammatory and misleading “ocean acidification” mantra).

Was the seminar just hype and exploitation? To this retired research scientist, yes, it was. To those preferring the world of pre-determined outcomes, to those clutching on to Chicken Little pseudoscience, to those who have an arms length relationship with the truth, and to those whose ends justify their means the seminar must have been paradise. My preference is to abandon political science for actual science. It was sad to see exploitation in the name of science to facilitate others who have a completely different purpose.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Chemistry Illiterates Drum Up Eco-Panic

Leave a Reply.

Categories

Archives