Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cogitator
Re: Seawater pH is 8.1+/-0.1, that's good enough. Calling a change within that range acidification for the purposes of justifying "serious problems" for coral is flat out BS.

"Sorry that you don't get it. A small shift in the pH of seawater means a large shift in the saturation state with respect to calcium carbonate

You're doing the same thing i pointed out was done in htat paper. You think the matter's covered by alkalinity, but as I pointed out, it's not.

"Reducing the seawater concentration of carbonate ion makes calcification a much more difficult physiological process for the organisms to accomplish."

No, not more difficult. It takes slightly longer. In fact if you read the damn paper, you'll see they're puzzle why the corals grow anyway, regardless of their simplistic understanding of the matter.

"Not BS. Basic marine chemistry.

The presentation of the chemistry is faulty and the whole "corals are in serious trouble" claim is BS.

Re: Once all the components of the system are included, there is no net change in CO32-, because the increase in CO2 causes an increase in dissolution.

" Not in surface waters."

What do you mean, not in surface waters? Coral grows in shallow water on a lime bed, in and around sources of Ca, so it will dissolve locally, as I said.

"Surface seawater is currently 6x supersaturated with respect to CaCO3. Acidification drastically lowers the supersaturation state, making calcification much more difficult, without causing any significant dissolution aspects to kick in.

Nonsense. The words "drastic" and "much more difficult" don't apply, and the corals agree.

132 posted on 12/15/2007 9:32:14 PM PST by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]


To: spunkets
The Dangers of Ocean Acidification (PDF)

More later.

136 posted on 12/16/2007 11:27:37 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

To: spunkets
You think the matter's covered by alkalinity, but as I pointed out, it's not.

The only thing I read that could compensate is the dissolution of high-magnesium calcite once the saturation state for that phase has switched from super- to understaturation. Otherwise I don't grasp your point, you may wish to restate.

No, not more difficult. It takes slightly longer. In fact if you read the damn paper, you'll see they're puzzle why the corals grow anyway,

They noted that there was a possible detection of decreased calcification as well as reasons that it may not have been detected yet. With further acidification, the situation becomes more difficult for calcifiers. They would be working with less of a saturation gradient.

Once all the components of the system are included, there is no net change in CO32-, because the increase in CO2 causes an increase in dissolution.

I didn't get this until I read it a few times. No net change in CO32- in the reef environment?

What do you mean, not in surface waters?

The effects of acidification will be most acute in surface waters. Most of the carbonates that can compensate are in deep waters. What I don't think is clear is whether dissolution in the reef environment will compensate for the reduced CO32- in the surrounding ocean waters. I think you're asserting that it will. That would depend in part on reef water - open ocean circulation.

The words "drastic" and "much more difficult" don't apply, and the corals agree

What do you think of this paper?

The sensitivity of corals, coccolithophoids and foraminifera to carbonate ion concentration (PDF)

I'm not sure the corals are as optimistic as you are.

137 posted on 12/16/2007 12:54:25 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson