Ocean acidity increasing along Pacific coast

[Omnitheo]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... 86?cmp=rss

The results of a study along the west coast of North America shows acidified ocean water is widespread along the shoreline and is having devastating impacts on coastal species.

The three-year study of ocean currents was conducted along the California and Oregon coasts by researchers from Oregon State University.

Team member and marine ecologist Francis Chan said they found pH levels were among the lowest ever recorded in surface water in some spots (note: the lower the pH, the higher the acidity).

He said the results are concerning because it showed ocean acidification is no longer confined to deep water, but "had made landfall and is lapping up right on the shores."

Carbon dioxide and acidification

Chan says part of the reason why ocean acidification happens is because the oceans have absorbed so much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Global carbon dioxide levels have risen since the Industrial Revolution and reached a high point of 400 parts per million in our atmosphere last year — long considered a benchmark of irreversible damage.

"We've emitted so much carbon dioxide that enough of it is being absorbed in the ocean and is changing the very chemistry of the sea water," he said.

Species at risk

Chan says ocean currents along the west coast are more vulnerable to change because they're naturally more acidic (and have a higher baseline for carbon dioxide levels) than other bodies of water.

"Whatever carbon dioxide the ocean absorbs, it's more likely to push us past the tipping point," he said.

Chan says ocean acidification could have devastating impacts on local coastal wildlife ike shellfish, which are sensitive to changes in pH levels.

"The oyster industry is who really sounded the alarm," he said.

"About 10 years ago, they stopped being able to successfully grow the seed oysters they need for their industry. It turns out the water had absorbed so much carbon dioxide.

"Every month we're finding more species that are known to be sensitive to the carbon dioxide levels. We just recently added Dungeness crab to the list of things that are sensitive. We had reports just last week that Coho salmon behaviour might be affected."

I wonder how long we're going to pretend that mindlessly dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is somehow beneficial? That cheap fossil fuel power is somehow better for the economy than all the industries (ie fishing, tourism, agriculture, anything in a coastal city etc) which are at risk as result of climate change.

[GordonH]

What about ocean bottom volcano off the coast of Oregon, each surface volcano give off huge amounts co2. I suspect it's no different with ocean bottom volcanoes
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... on_co.html

[averagejoe]

I wonder how long we're going to pretend that mindlessly dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is somehow beneficial? That cheap fossil fuel power is somehow better for the economy than all the industries (ie fishing, tourism, agriculture, anything in a coastal city etc) which are at risk as result of climate change.

*removed*

Like GordonH just pointed out about the active underwater volcano 250 miles off the coast of Oregon....

Or is Fukushima even mentioned as a possibility?

Oh ya, that's old news...

[GordonH]

As well ocean dead zones appear to happen around this planet.

[neilsimon]

What about ocean bottom volcano off the coast of Oregon, each surface volcano give off huge amounts co2. I suspect it's no different with ocean bottom volcanoes

Volcanoes emit huge amounts, so large that they are almost 1% of what we humans do:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

[Omnitheo]

If you'd like, I can link several studies regarding how ocean acidity and carbon levels are affected by deep sea hydrothermal vents vs atmospheric levels. There's actually a pretty cool process behind it, and helps solve why these vents keep the ocean carbon neutral, while absorption from the atmosphere continues to have a large impact.

I love chemistry.

And Joe, yes, we know that acidification comes from carbon dioxide. Not radiation, and yes we know whether damage to life forms is caused by chemistry or radiation. Because a lot of people with a lot more understanding into the studies of radiation and chemistry than you or I have the data and knowledge to make these observations.

[averagejoe]

Volcanoes emit huge amounts, so large that they are almost 1% of what we humans do:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

GordonH talkin underwater volcano off the west coast....

Get with the program....

P.S....and there are about a billion of them.....(not all active of course)

[neilsimon]

...
GordonH talkin underwater volcano off the west coast....

Get with the program....

P.S....and there are about a billion of them.....(not all active of course)

So what if he is talking about some volcanoes off the west coast, they emit a small fraction of the CO2 that volcanoes around the World do, which combined is less than 1% of the total CO2 from humans. Since the US emits roughly 14% of the World's total CO2 (at roughly 2.7 times the average per person amount for a country), and the Pacific coast states account for roughly 15.7% of the US population, assuming that Pacific coast states pollute with CO2 at the same rate as the rest of the US, that means that that population emits roughly 2.2% of the World's total CO2, or significantly more than twice the CO2 for all of the volcanoes of the World combined.
Do you not think that that CO2 might have an impact on the nearby bodies of water?

[GordonH]

I will pick 1 surface volcano that is Kīlauea, it pumps out 20,000 metic tonnes of co2 per/day. That 1 volcano produces 175 million metric tonnes of co2 per/year, its been erupting now for 24 years.

Wondering how many surface volcanoes are erupting each day pumping the same 20,000 metic tonnes of co2.
Follow that up with how many ocean bottom are also pumping out co2.

do math, that right we have no idea how many volcano are currently erupting. We only know for certain those land.

Then massive eruption that blow thousands metres up like the one in Iceland, produces 150,000+ metric tonnes in that blast.

[neilsimon]

I will pick 1 surface volcano that is Kīlauea, it pumps out 20,000 metic tonnes of co2 per/day. That 1 volcano produces 175 million metric tonnes of co2 per/year, its been erupting now for 24 years.

Wondering how many surface volcanoes are erupting each day pumping the same 20,000 metic tonnes of co2.
Follow that up with how many ocean bottom are also pumping out co2.

do math, that right we have no idea how many volcano are currently erupting. We only know for certain those land.

Then massive eruption that blow thousands metres up like the one in Iceland, produces 150,000+ metric tonnes in that blast.

Your estimate seems higher than most I've read, which put it at around 8-10 kilo-tonnes per day. Even assuming that our estimate of around 200 mega-tonnes pa for volcanoes is off by a factor of 10, we are still talking about less than 10% of the CO2 being produced by humans.
Volcanoes just aren't a credible source for the CO2 in the face of the evidence available. If they were, don't you think that vulcanologists would be using it to get funding for their research. There are plenty of businesses for whom having a convenient scapegoat to use to deny anthropogenic climate change, that funding would be trivial to get in large quantities.

[The Green Barbarian]

:130: What about ocean bottom volcano off the coast of Oregon, each surface volcano give off huge amounts co2. I suspect it's no different with ocean bottom volcanoes
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... on_co.html

You can't tax under-water volcanoes, so expect the usual corrupt suspects to present "peer-reviewed" garbage science trying to take all blame away from any naturally occurring source of CO2, just as they deliberately ignore the giant glowing ball in the sky when talking about potential issues with heating and cooling.

[maryjane48]

your problem is the sun puts out a constant output of energy . its a fusion reactor bigger than your brain will ever comprehend . but thats irrelevant . what matters is the rate at which change is happening and when that change started . . all your wishing and hoping wont change that . you could try praying but i suspect god wont answer . hes busy with easter bunny

[d0nb]

Of course, one of the best ways for Chan to alert the public to the potentially horrific effects of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on ocean PH levels and marine life would be to use the fossil records to show the kinds of widespread damage (extinction events?) that occurred during periods when c02 levels and temperatures were as high or higher than they are now.

If, for some reason the record shows limited impact, we might want to consider looking for less trendy explanations for the ups and downs of the crab and oyster populations.

[neilsimon]

Of course, one of the best ways for Chan to alert the public to the potentially horrific effects of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on ocean PH levels and marine life would be to use the fossil records to show the kinds of widespread damage (extinction events?) that occurred during periods when c02 levels and temperatures were as high or higher than they are now.

It's the rate of change which matters. Large changes over many millennia are not so much of a problem as life adapts. Changes over a handful of centuries are far harder to adapt to as evolution doesn't work very well on such small time scales. I have no doubt that if they could find similar periods of time when the rate of change has been this high or higher, you would find huge changes in the flora and fauna on the planet.

If, for some reason the record shows limited impact, we might want to consider looking for less trendy explanations for the ups and downs of the crab and oyster populations.

Or maybe use our brains and realise that the rate of change is what matters when you are dealing with adapted species evolving to adapt to a new environment.

[d0nb]

It's the rate of change which matters. Large changes over many millennia are not so much of a problem as life adapts. Changes over a handful of centuries are far harder to adapt to as evolution doesn't work very well on such small time scales. I have no doubt that if they could find similar periods of time when the rate of change has been this high or higher, you would find huge changes in the flora and fauna on the planet.

No doubt? Of course, you're welcome to your faith-based beliefs, but for the rest of us, some evidence would be helpful.

Or maybe use our brains and realise that the rate of change is what matters when you are dealing with adapted species evolving to adapt to a new environment.

Sadly, history tells us that trusting our brains rather than proof is a good way to court disaster.