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.