California Coastal Waters Rising In Acidity At Alarming Rate, Study Finds (latimes.com) 112
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: Waters off the California coast are acidifying twice as fast as the global average, scientists found, threatening major fisheries and sounding the alarm that the ocean can absorb only so much more of the world's carbon emissions. A new study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also made an unexpected connection between acidification and a climate cycle known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation -- the same shifting forces that other scientists say have a played a big role in the higher and faster rates of sea level rise hitting California in recent years. El Nino and La Nina cycles, researchers found, also add stress to these extreme changes in the ocean's chemistry.
This study, published Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience, came up with a creative way to confirm these greater rates of acidification. Researchers collected and analyzed a specific type of shell on the seafloor -- and used these data to reconstruct a 100-year history of acidification along the West Coast. The study analyzed almost 2,000 shells of a tiny animal called foraminifera. Every day, these shells -- about the size of a grain of sand -- rain down onto the seafloor and are eventually covered by sediment. Scientists took core samples from the Santa Barbara basin -- where the seafloor is relatively undisturbed by worms and bottom-feeding fish -- and used the pristine layers of sediment to create a vertical snapshot of the ocean's history. The more acidic the ocean, the more difficult it is for shellfish to build their shells. So using a microscope and other tools, the research team measured the changes in thickness of these shells and were able to estimate the ocean's acidity level during the years that the foraminifera were alive. Using these modern calibrations, the scientists concluded that the waters off the California coast had a 0.21 decline in pH over a 100-year period dating back to 1895 (the lower the pH, the greater the acidity, according to the logarithmic pH scale of 0 to 14). This is more than double the decline -- 0.1 pH -- that scientists estimate the ocean has experienced on average worldwide.
This study, published Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience, came up with a creative way to confirm these greater rates of acidification. Researchers collected and analyzed a specific type of shell on the seafloor -- and used these data to reconstruct a 100-year history of acidification along the West Coast. The study analyzed almost 2,000 shells of a tiny animal called foraminifera. Every day, these shells -- about the size of a grain of sand -- rain down onto the seafloor and are eventually covered by sediment. Scientists took core samples from the Santa Barbara basin -- where the seafloor is relatively undisturbed by worms and bottom-feeding fish -- and used the pristine layers of sediment to create a vertical snapshot of the ocean's history. The more acidic the ocean, the more difficult it is for shellfish to build their shells. So using a microscope and other tools, the research team measured the changes in thickness of these shells and were able to estimate the ocean's acidity level during the years that the foraminifera were alive. Using these modern calibrations, the scientists concluded that the waters off the California coast had a 0.21 decline in pH over a 100-year period dating back to 1895 (the lower the pH, the greater the acidity, according to the logarithmic pH scale of 0 to 14). This is more than double the decline -- 0.1 pH -- that scientists estimate the ocean has experienced on average worldwide.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Tag whole thread -1 offtarget (Score:2)
I want a new kind of mod points, "super mod", that can moderate every single post in a thread "-1 off-target".
Re: (Score:2)
well of course, everything California causes cancer, just read the labels and fuckashima is helping
Deniers in 3...2 ...1 (Score:1, Funny)
Climate change deniers incoming!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Obviously you're going to face opposition when you constantly spew ridiculous garbage without supporting evidence like some batshit insane AGW nutjob.
Remember pH is logarithmic (Score:3)
It's a lot worse that in sounds since to change by one pH unit you have to change the concentration of hydronium (water ion) by ten fold.
Additionally it's also a lot worse that it sounds for another reason. It's very rare to be regime where the pH is determined by equilibrium of the hydronium ion from the presence of a stong acid. Instead almost in all practical natural cases outside of a chem lab, the pH is held at nearly a fixed point by a buffer. In this case the buffer may actually be the sea shells
Hobo urine (Score:4, Funny)
Washed off the streets, through the storm drains and out to sea.
Re: (Score:2)
Average Urine is acidic (Score:3)
Most urine is neutral, unless you have medical problem were it can go slightly acidic...
According to the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, the average value for urine pH is 6.0 (but can range from 4.5 to 8.0). This average is acidic, relative to 7.0 neutral.
The pH of seawater is between 7.5 and 8.4, which is basic.
So average Urine is about 2 PH points more acidic than sea water.
(Although I doubt that this would cause enough of an effect, considering the volume of urine versus the volume of coastal sea water.)
Re: Average Urine is acidic (Score:2)
Re: Average Urine is acidic (Score:4, Funny)
What does beer do to urine acidity?
See: First entry on a google search.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hobos have many medial problems. It's kind of a side effect of homelessness
Re: (Score:3)
You joke, but that would be a fraction of the urine that comes from the million or so dogs that have appeared in neighboring Los Angeles since 100 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's a lye.
Santa Barbara, you say? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a map of the study site. Note the depth.
extended data figure 7 [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Can we have more nuclear power now? (Score:1, Offtopic)
California's anti-nuclear power government is leading them down a path of increased CO2 emissions. Closing their existing nuclear power generation capacity, reliance on intermittent solar and wind, and hydroelectric power getting some misguided opposition, is leading California to rely more on natural gas and coal.
California needs to embrace nuclear power sooner or later because what they are doing now is only raising energy costs and raising CO2 emissions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Can we have more nuclear power now? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Easy, just tax diesel fuel to the point only the rich can afford it!
Right! That will fix it!
No, wait a minute. Weren't there riots in France and Iran from fuel price hikes?
Let's raise fuel prices and electricity rates until rioters burn down Sacramento! That should fix the problem!
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, just tax diesel fuel to the point only the rich can afford it!
So like a tax on everything so only the rich can afford it?
Because pretty much everything most people buy comes on ships, trains and trucks powered by diesel fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Make cement. Smelt ores. Purify water. Electrolyze water into hydrogen. Mine bitcoins.
If you had free electricity for a few hours every day, what would you do with it? Charge your electric car? Start your laundry on a timer? Cool down/warm up your house so it's pleasant when you arrive home?
Re: (Score:3)
California's anti-nuclear power government is leading them down a path of increased CO2 emissions. Closing their existing nuclear power generation capacity, reliance on intermittent solar and wind, and hydroelectric power getting some misguided opposition, is leading California to rely more on natural gas and coal.
California needs to embrace nuclear power sooner or later because what they are doing now is only raising energy costs and raising CO2 emissions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
The data is so clear (energy in California) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] that your propositions simply isn't a matter of opinion, they are blatantly false.
Re: (Score:3)
I can post links to Wikipedia too. Like this one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I'll highlight a portion for the whole class...
Without any form of energy storage, after times of high solar generation generating companies must rapidly increase power output around the time of sunset to compensate for the loss of solar generation, a major concern for grid operators where there is rapid growth of photovoltaics.
The growth of solar PV in California is growing faster than demand, storage, distribution, and other generation sources, can manage. Unless something is done to resolve this then we can all expect blackouts from the grid being driven beyond its capacity to take in this coming over supply of solar power.
Take Germany as an example of what it likely to happen in California.
https: [bloomberg.com]
Let the free market fix it (Score:2)
It's not rocket surgery.
California needs nuclear power (Score:2)
Why? Because it won't work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Nuclear power would be cheaper. It's not rocket surgery.
Re: (Score:3)
You can dump power out of a lithium ion battery faster than you can spin up a nuclear reactor.
Re: (Score:2)
You can dump power out of a lithium ion battery faster than you can spin up a nuclear reactor.
Repeating the same thing does not change the answer. Nuclear power would be cheaper.
The rate on which the power can ramp up and down is only relevant if California continues to dig themselves in this hole of over reliance on solar power. Stop digging, and build some nuclear power plants to climb out. Getting some onshore wind, hydro, or geothermal could help too. Just do something to diversify instead of just more solar. Get some diversity in supply and there's no need to worry about how fast they can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless something is done to resolve this then we can all expect blackouts from the grid being driven beyond its capacity to take in this coming over supply of solar power.
You claim this, and your solution to too much solar, is to add even more nuke as well?
You're going to idle your nuke 80% of the time and just use it for a little bit when the sun goes down? Yea, sure it's going to be cheaper... We know you are a nuclear fanboi but this is just ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
I know.
Sure thing gramps, everything has been said anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use the energy to pump water *into* hydroelectric lakes, then at night, run the dams. Simple solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the nuclear plant building boom going on everywhere else in the world.
No, what you need to get nuclear going is a carbon tax. Make it cap and trade if you want to harness market forces more effectively.
Re: Can we have more nuclear power now? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear power does not need to be on an ocean or in an earthquake zone. California already ships in electricity from Palo Verde, a very large nuclear power plant in the Arizona desert. They can build in a similar kind of site, or expand this existing site.
While I can see room for modernizing nuclear power designs there is no reason to "tighten" safety measures on the already proven exceedingly safe nuclear power plant designs we have now. There is no risk of a "spectacular failure" for a plant like Palo
Re: (Score:2)
Just replant with this variety: https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_... [nsf.gov]
Twice as fast yep. (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So where is the SO4 and CO2 coming from? (Score:1)
Yes, it must be Hawaii, since it can not possibly be China. Right Caffeinated Bacon?
So, add in to that the fact that Northern Alaska, and Northwest Canada are the warmest areas in the arctic, and most off in the world, means that Hawaii is doing major destruction. Right Caffeinated Bacon?
Find a way to mix Californiaâ(TM)s Ocean wate (Score:2)
Then at least we could slow things down a little by averaging the acidification rate out? Right?
Proposal to mix the CA ocean water around the glo (Score:2)
Dern iPad text probs probably slowing down understanding and acceptance of this plan?
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, "OK Doomer" is about right.
Did everyone forget that we solved the problem? Have we gone so far in solving the problems of the world that we have to go out looking for new ones to solve?
We have solar power that supposed to be cheaper than coal. There's promises we can get wind power cheaper than natural gas, and built those wind turbines faster than we can build natural gas turbines. We have economic studies showing electric cars having a lower total cost of ownership than gasoline burners. Much of
Re: (Score:2)
CFCs [Re:OK Doomer] (Score:2)
There have been lots of great strides! It isn't a foregone conclusion that we can solve things without government involvement, though. Remember when they banned CFCs? Spray cleaners and so on sucked for a while, although they seem pretty equivalent nowadays. Would private industry have done that on their own at all, let alone on a good timetable?
Possibly. The reduction in CFC production started after it was shown that CFCs damaged the ozone layer, but before the Montreal Protocol banning them.
...
Re: CFCs [Re:OK Doomer] (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I already insist all ICE engines purchased be either hybrid or ecosmart. I find it interesting that my Prius hypermiling skills that allow me to get 46 MPG work just as well in my wife's ecosmart Honda Van to get 25MPG.
Next step, full electric. And I dream of the type of motor home that has a small golf cart in the rear hatch, a ton of batteries, and a fold out roof of solar panels for extra living space that can, without grid tie, do 100 miles a week.
Fukashima Water is Coming (Score:2)
Stop the broken record about climate change. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a local problem like this, it's unlikely to be driven by a global phenomenon. Like the growing "dead zones" in the ocean, this is almost certainly caused by agricultural runoff. That's the reason it's localized around the California coast.
Somehow, scientists seem to think it necessary to mention climate change and CO2 in conjunction with everything. But a localized phenomenon like this is pretty clearly not being driven by global CO2 levels. Trying to imply that it is discredits the paper, even if the underlying work (measurement of pH levels) is correct.
Re: Stop the broken record about climate change. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How can agricultural runoff be causing waters to become more and more acidic? Is California making more cropland?
It's complicated (Score:3)
Turns out that when a basic variable of the environment is adjusted wildly, it has far reaching effects. CA is greatly affected due to the size of the state, but increased acidification affects the entire west coast, ranging from the Baja peninsula all the way up north of Brittish Columbia. Agriculture runoff is just one factor of this issue.
Source: [nih.gov] (emphasis mine)
... While it had long been assumed that ocean alkalinity would provide the buffering capacity required to keep ocean pH levels stable through time, we now know that the rate at which CO2 is entering world oceans is too rapid for it to be buffered against [5,6]. As a consequence, CO2 entering the oceans is reducing the availability of carbonate ions and reducing pH, which is largely controlled by the ratio of carbonic acid to carbonate ions in seawater. This process also occurs in regions that experience low oxygen conditions, but at a greatly accelerated rate. ...
Despite the strong coupling of hypoxia and acidification via respiration, there is a series of processes that likely make acidification more common and persistent in many coastal zones, both today and in the future. Beyond respiration, there is a series of coastal processes that promote acidification and high CO2 conditions but have minor effects on DO levels, including the discharge of acidified riverine water, acid deposition, sea ice melting and the lower alkalinity of coastal zones that results in a lower buffering capacity against acidification compared with ocean regimes. Furthermore, the differential diffusion and solubility of DO and CO2 cause oxygen levels in seawater to come to equilibrium with prevailing atmospheric conditions more rapidly than CO2 [18]. As a consequence, when deeper waters that are low in pH and DO are advected to the surface via upwelling, the signature of acidification can be persistent [7] even to the detriment of marine life [19], whereas oxygen levels are commonly more normal. Similarly, when the water column of temperate, coastal hypoxic zones cools and destratifies, whole water columns become normoxic, but low pH conditions can persist for several weeks [10]. An additional factor that likely enhances acid production (lower pH) during times when DO levels are increasing is the oxidation of anaerobic metabolites. The reduced constituents (e.g. NH4+, HS, Fe2+, Mn2+) that build up in surface sediments during hypoxia oxidize seasonally when systems re-oxygenate [20]. These oxidation reactions produce strong acids that titrate alkalinity and lower pH [15]. For all of these reasons, acidification is likely more persistent than hypoxia in coastal zones
Any part of that can be disputed, so feel free. Just realize opinion is not a substitute for facts.
Sea water is basic (Score:1)
You solved global warming ! (Score:2)
That's lucky, everyone else thought it was warming.
Ship exhaust scrubbers acidifying sea water (Score:2)
Sea water is naturally basic, so it can neutralise acids. This is used in the open-loop exhaust scrubbers used by most large ships that have been converted to meet atmospheric sulphur emission rules from 2020 ( http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCen... [imo.org] ) while still using high-sulphur fuel (the cheapest heavy fuel oil). Systems like this: https://www.wartsila.com/marin... [wartsila.com]
But they are dumping a lot of hot, acid water contaminated with various other aromatic hydrocarbons and so on:
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
How
Re: Ship exhaust scrubbers acidifying sea water (Score:2)
Garbage in, garbage out (Score:1)
California is NOT the problem! (Score:2)
The most populated state is a preview of where the nation is headed as the population rises; duh!
They have the most people because of the nice weather and biggest economy. Housing will ALWAYS be a huge problem because demand to live in CA will always outstrip what you can supply. Cheaper housing = more people move to CA. It will push the limits of what people can live with.
The pollution will be greater even with higher regulations because there is more of everything! Relative costs will be higher because
Re: (Score:1)
I'm in denial (Score:1)
Estimate is accurate to +/- what? (Score:2)
There are as stated in TFA some assumptions made in the estimate. Therefore there is a degree of accuracy in the results. So what is it?
Modelling is an approximation so why is the public never informed about the estimated accuracy of a model?
On the plus side it looks like all the data is available so you can replicate the results (maybe) and see how accurate it is yourself.
Acid areas are more fertile for life (Score:2)
Watch this, decide for yourself who is lying to you:
Acid Oceans, Osteoporosis of the Sea, and the CO2 Monster - Dr. Willie Soon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You wouldn't be trying to call someone *puts on glasses* basic, now would you?
I should go to bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Welp, scored a safety on that one, didn't we, smart-ass...
Acid, base, up, down, you know, same-same.
Re: Give me moar money! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All we need to do is grind the Sierra Nevada Granite down to sand and dump it in the ocean (that's the normal way this problem is taken care of- Oceans become acidic during warm periods, then ice ages wear down the mountains and dump granite into the sea to soak up the acid).
Re: (Score:2)
Money devoted to fixing climate change creates new jobs you know. Unlike military spending, which we do not recoup, money spent fighting climate change creates jobs and those jobs create more money. Fixing climate change helps the economy. Except for a few very wealthy sectors of the economy. Rent seeking parasites in those sectors don't mind harming the economy overall, as long as it protects their cash flow.
Fix the climate, fix the economy. Ignore the climate, suffer the economic consequences.
just knew it (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't disappoint.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Why not link to science? (Score:1)
It was expected because it's been done before. And will be done again in every topic to do with actual science.
It was also completely predictable people like you would make the silly claims you're making now.
If either of you had any actual scientific evidence and not some highly biased junk denier site. You would have just linked to that instead wouldn't you.
Checkmate.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Real science makes sense.
Fake science calls other people "deniers" and their claims make no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether wrong or right there are too many people who hold positions that they can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're replyig in a thread starting with a denier triggered by people doing some actual science, soooo.... no prize for you.
Re: just knew it (Score:2)
Re: Perfect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)