Demystifying ocean acidification and biodiversity impacts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2014
- Why are the oceans becoming more acidic and how does that threaten biodiversity? Human activities produce excessive carbon dioxide and much of it is absorbed by the oceans, where it is converted to an acid.
For more biodiversity tutorials, visit bit.ly/cas-khan.
I’m just watching this for class 😩🙌🏻🙌🏻
Sameeee
Same 😩
LMAO SAMEE
I’m watching this at 4am for class😣
same lol
these illustrations are so frickin good im in tears
I had no idea that the effects of pH increase or decrease is by factor of 10, that does make the reports that much scarier... Anyway, great job on the illustration, very clear messages and narrative :)
Same.
And logarithmic scales are kinda unintuitive. But for comparison:
"...in humans, arterial blood pH normally falls within the range 7.35-7.45.
A drop of 0.1 pH units in human blood pH can result in rather profound health consequences, including seizures, heart arrhythmia, or even coma
(a process called acidosis).
Similarly, many marine organisms are very sensitive to either direct or indirect effects of the change in acidity (or H+ concentration) in the marine environment.
Fundamental physiological processes such as respiration, calcification (shell/skeleton building), photosynthesis, and reproduction have been shown to respond to the magnitude of changes in CO2 concentrations in seawater, along with the resultant changes in pH and carbonate ion concentrations that are expected over the next century."
0:21
I highly recommend to watch this while on acid, the educational impact and illustrations are more meaningful
LMAO
6:41 Avengers Infinity War
I don't feel so good mr coral
lmao underrated comment
so true
I thought that too and then I scroll down to see your comment at the top 😂 xx
SFTU
Just wanting to say this video was incredibly descriptive and yet very easy to follow. Thanks so much!
I'm making a project about this for school, it's the most important important assignment in the year, so I really need to understand this well and this video's been really helpful, please keep up the good work, you're nailing it.😊
You've probably done your report, but I hope you asked some questions. For example, at 3:07 it says in 1751 the pH was 8.25 ( the IPCC says 8.2). Where does this come from? Did someone go back in a time machine with a digital pH meter? They didn't even know what pH was until the early 1900s. This is based on computer models and not reality. The oceans have a lot of problems but becoming 'more acidic' is not one of them. The sea is alkaline and always will be.
thank you for such a neat demonstration, i understand the concepts way better after watching this video
Excellent explanation. Thanks for putting this together.
Incredibly well explained
Great video! what software have you used?
super interesting video! well done! really helped me with my project
awesome explanation.....
Hi, can i please use this video to include it in an educational project I'm doing, its non profit and I'm basically doing it to raise awareness for ocean pollution and acidification?
I basically copy-pasted this video for my essay but since my native language is not English, my teacher never knew. I got an A on the essay. Thank you.
currently 14th of May 2021, i am being aware of this climate cause i really experiencing it rn here in the Philippines, and here is the ocean acidificatio which i want to be enlightened
Excellent explanation
thanksss it's a great explanation! help a lot! 💯
hi, does someone know why it’s change acoustics propriety ?? in details??
Im confused about how crabs are related to this, their shells are made of chitin not calcium carbonate.
Ah, this was already answered, never-mind. Apparently their exoskeletons actually get thicker in higher acidity.
Great explanation!!! Great work!!
Exactly what I was looking for
You truly the best hats off
this is amaizing thankyou
the beauty of only showing just a part of a chemical cycle to convince someone. Adding CO2 causes MORE carbonate ions overall. Sure, the bicarbonate step may temporarily involve vary the carbonate equilibrium,but you can't remove carbonate by adding CO2
Peter Ciurea Yes you can The addition of CO2 with Calcium Carbonate saturated water will convert Carbonate ions to Bicarbonate ions.
+Peter Ciurea Matter of fact, carbonate ions will be reduced by decreasing pH. At lower pH values, bicarbonate concentrations dominate, and large concentrations of carbonate ions will protonate to form bicarbonate. Concentration of carbonate ions decreases with lower pH values. You do have a point in saying that adding carbon dioxide will increase carbonate concentration, but this would also reduce the pH of the water, which in turn makes it favourable for carbonate ions to protonate and form bicarbonates, thus reducing the carbonate concentration, in spite of addition of CO2.
1 molecule of CO2 with 1 molecule of H2O produces 1 molecule of the acid, H2CO3. Now here comes the tricky part: that 1 acid molecule of H2CO3 can give away 2 (!) H+ to form 1 carbonate CO3(2-). Now one of these H+ can catch up with the original CO3(2-) to form that intermediate product, bicarbonate HCO3(1-), BUT the other H+ can now (instead of also going back to the original molecule and go back to the acid H2CO3) grab one additional CO3(2-) from the poor shells who actually wanted to make it into calcium carbonate - Boom, one carbonate lost for the shells for each CO2 dissolved, and the ocean richer in HCO3(1-) instead of calcium carbonate shelly creatures. So the problem seem to be the two acidifying H+, which come with each one CO2... Also, I guess the levels of H+ and carbonate, CO3(2-), are increasing as compared to the calcium, Ca(2+), which might be a problem?
The ocean like blood has a natural buffer (Carbonic acid/bicarbonate) system . It is not mentioned here. The assumption of your model leaves that important factor out.
really helpful! thanks!
Does that mean adding bleach and baking soda into the ocean helps balance the acidity level in the ocean?
this is the third time ive watched this and i still dont understand
LMAO
Dead coral is made from what?
Are there any plants or any sea life humans can step in and help encourage faster growth to fix problems our earth has?
Well... in this video I saw a first neutralisation reaction without OH-. That's awesome! Like c H+ and c OH- are completely separate things and don't interfere with each other... clap clap man, next tim listen to the teacher in chemistry class.
are you dumb
@@catherinegalindo22 Check the dissociation constant on H2CO3. It is such a weak acid that It will probably never go to CO3(2-) by itself, and only some of it will go to HCO3-. In order to keep dissociating it needs to be spent. Further increase in concentration of H2CO3 in the oceans will not result in proportional increase in available H+ ions. There will be more available H2CO3 for "spending" and reacting, but that's not really going to affect the organisms proportionally to the increase in H2CO3, because chemistry of living organisms is not the same as chemistry in a laboratory glass with reactants that have tension between them caused by the difference in reduction potentials, as their (living organisms) reactions depend on pH rather than the concentration of the weak acid that is present around them. Living organisms can utilize energy to force the "natural" reaction go backwards and they will not obey the standard laws stoichiometry.
@John Gregg Calcium is a very abundant metal on the Earth. It was simply there. But since it's extremely reactive, it mostly forms calcium hydroxide (very alkaline salt) in contact with water. Calcium hydroxide is very soluble and dissociates into ions, which makes it available to living organisms, and it can also react with acids to form different salts.
Organisms are usually responsible for turning Calcium salts into less soluble Calcium Oxide (shell material), which then creates sediments and rocks.
Crabs don't have trouble with their shells, and in fact make harder shells under low pH, b/c their shells are chitin-based, not calcium carbonate based. But it otherwise is a great video. Thanks.
You are correct that Crustaceans (such as crabs) are chitin-based and not calcium carbonate, however chitin is not used in its pure form in the shells Crustaceans rather it is used WITH calcium carbonate as a compound to create an even stronger shell. And CAS did not say crabs are calcium carbonate-based.
I was unaware that crustaceans use CaCO3 to augment their chitin. Good to know. And, yes, I realize that CAS did not explicitly say that crabs' shells are calcium carbonate, but it was implied, or at the best, unclear. And my point stands: their shells are not dissolving/thinning in lower pH. This can easily be noted on the video, as is done in Crash Course when facts are unclear/slightly off.
As more and more research is conducted, it becomes increasingly clear that the effects of ocean acidification on ecosystems and individual species is very complex. A laboratory study on blue crabs, for example, shows that their shells actually get thicker in more acidic conditions. However their prey is clams and the clams shells dissolve. A lovely, thick shell does not help a crab if he is starving. See: www.chesapeakequarterly.net/V11N1/main3/ This is just one of the thousands of negative interactions that will result from a sustained change in ocean pH which will change entire ecosystems and cause the rise of some species- predominantly jellyfish while causing the ultimate extinction of others such as dolphins due to loss of prey. For a fascinating and highly disturbing look at the future of our oceans read Lisa-ann Gershwin's 2014 book, "Stung".
Great lesson, but I see ocean acidification as calcium carbonate deficiency, where the solution is simple. Grind all shells into powder & tiny chunks, spread it on every water surface. I call it SeaCycle, Everything wins.
How does ocean acidification create a chain reaction in biodiversity??
Why are the oceans becoming more acidic and how does that threaten biodiversity? Human activities produce excessive carbon dioxide and much of it is absorbed by the oceans, where it is converted to an acid.
+Leighton Julye Wrong! CO2 absorption in the oceans is unattested. The bulk of CO2 may be going into plants, but we don't know. I've yet to see an adequate study on this. And wrong about acid. The ocean pH average is a fantasy. No one has measured the average pH of the oceans. No one. The chemistry of oceans varies broadly around the globe from 8.2 to 7.5 -- all alkaline and not acid! Calling it "acidification" is like calling eating a little less, "starvation."
And on top of this insanity, the psychopathic globalists are promoting fear of warmth in an ongoing Ice Age. Insane or unethical, or both.
Wrong! Your political idiosyncrasies are irrelevant to the matters of fact, and this is a matter of fact. Averages are AVERAGED -it's a calculation, not measurement. But please do tell me how there are no measurements of the ph of the occean...
Here is a sample of hundred of values which is still just a drop in an ocean of data:
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/ocean-acidity_fig-1.csv
Here's some more:
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/map/text
"all alkaline and not acid!"
No one is saying that the oceans are acid. The oceans becoming are more acidic.
"Calling it "acidification" ..."
it's like saying little Tim is taller now (although Tim is still a child and not tall). That is standard in the English language. It is also standard in the English language that a shift towards acidity is called acidification and a shift towards basicity is called basification. But you can also call it less basification and less acidification (but that doesn't sound right - a bit like calling eating "less starvation").
And again, like your idiosyncrasies your semantics and wording is also irrelevant to the facts that the ocean is in fact less basic/more acidic (regardless of however you want to call it - cause rewording your sentences will not make reality any different).
You (and other denialists like you) are after all, the one who is insane or unethical, or both.
You are the psychopathic ignoramus propagating the misinformation about the impact of modern practices on climate.
"an ongoing Ice Age" - Because change over hundreds of thousands of years is totally the same thing (and totally gives the same time for ecosystems to adapt) as rapid change in less of a thousandth of the time of the time. There is no excuse for your ignorance nor shameless behavior.
I just hope he was joking
Not enough people are talking about ocean acidification 😭
So here is an idea. It may seem macabre, but it might work. What if... instead of burying people in formaldehyde and polluting ground water, what if we buried people in the ocean? Would a lot of human bones possibly then create the slightly basic environment required? And avoid all that pollution?
I don't understand that on the one hand you say that the absorption of co2 leads to the production of carbonates (which would be beneficial to create calciumcarbonate for animal skeletons) and on the other hand you say it' a problem that calciumcarbonate cannot be formed due to the high levels of h+ in the water. But by absorbing the co2 both ions are formed. So if no co2 would be absorbed, the acidity might not increase, but there would be no increase in the amount of carbonate ions either. (?) So based on this video, the positive effect of adding carbonates would be compensated by the negative effect of acidification, meaning no overall change. Where would the carbonates that they need so much otherwise come from? Please help me on this one.
I was also wondering about that. But if you watch the video carefully: 1 molecule of CO2 with 1 molecule of H2O produces 1 molecule of the acid, H2CO3. Now here comes the tricky part: that 1 acid molecule of H2CO3 can give away 2 (!) H+ to form 1 carbonate CO3(2-). Now one of these H+ can catch up with the original CO3(2-) to form that intermediate product, bicarbonate HCO3(1-), BUT the other H+ can now (instead of also going back to the original molecule and go back to the acid H2CO3) grab one additional CO3(2-) from the poor shells who actually wanted to make it into calcium carbonate - Boom, one carbonate lost for the shells for each CO2 dissolved, and the ocean richer in HCO3(1-) instead of calcium carbonate shelly creatures. So the problem seem to be the two acidifying H+, which come with each one CO2... Also, I guess the levels of H+ and carbonate, CO3(2-), are increasing as compared to the calcium, Ca(2+), which might be a problem?
this shit was gas ngl🔥🔥🔥 rip crab frrrr.
can we just dump some base in there?
i’m watching this 4 my chem class..
There is a lot of speculation here always leading to distructive conclusions.
Could you explain that Ca is a buffer keeping ocean acidity constant. And that Ca is in supper abundance.
Could you please explain that acid rain disolves Ca formations on the land and replenishes the oceans Ca levels.
Could you explain that these ocean creatures have existed for millions of years during periods when CO2 was far above the current levels.
Could you explain how difficult it is to determine the acidity of the oceans because they cover 2/3 rds of the earth. And we have very few ph meters. And our measures are very recent.
the carbon dioxide have never been at these high levels as they are today though! i found this page that might explain why calcium dissolves in acidic fluids www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/calcium/calcium-and-water.htm
@@milkwithcake Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. The CO2 levels have been much higher than today (in the thousands of ppm). We are in a low CO2 world. See for example: www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
Also, could they explain who went back with a pH meter in a time machine to 1751?
wait i'm confused... wouldn't you have more carbonate ions through the reaction between CO2 and H2O? i don't understand how ocean acidification is damaging to coral reefs :/
Regina Huttunen thank you very much!!
Basically, Carbonic Acid releases H+ to become Bicarbonate. Then, a carbonate ion can then become another bicarbonate, reducing the amount of Carbonate ions for Calcium Carbonate. Or at least, that's what I think
Funny the things always avoided: Human waste flushed into our oceans and fertilizer + pesticides from expanding farms to feed the extra 150 new people on the planet every minute, and ocean slowing (warmer upper portion plus less CO2 absorbed, thus more CO2 in air) corresponding with earth's weakening magnetic field over the last 200 years according to the European Space Agency's measurements from SWARM satellites and whatever historical records they're using. It is 9 or 10% weaker and accelerating if I remember right.
Statistic is from world population balance .org
it doesn't, It actually helps corals. Corals have symbioisis and need c02 to produce much of their energy
This needs work. It needs to make clear that when CO2 dissolves in the ocean that Carbonate ions are converted to Bicarbonate ions. The video incorrectly talks about Carbonic Acid which is a virtual compound and shows Hydrogen ions in the water while alkaline ocean water will have mostly OH ions in it.
It is also unfortunate that you show a reference to what is an experiment that may have been conducted improperly due to a lack of available excess Calcium Carbonate.
I would hope that the CAS could do a better job.
this is wonderful for high school biology...thank you!
The whole premised is based off of pH levels dropping from 8.2 to 8.1. Measuring the pH means over the entire ocean is a daunting task because it’s varies in different places. This video says pH was 8.2 for millions of years and started to drop in 1750. Yet, pH testing only dates back to 1924. Could anyone explain how pH levels are tested today and for millions of years. Are these claims made by samples or models and what’s there accuracy? I hate when videos start with “we know that” an conclude “therefore”. The effects of acidification are clear but I’m curious about the root claim. Help!
Robert Gilmer model based junk science
@@Kenneynrg no it isn't... i'm studying this at university in the uk... i don't study made up fake junk. i study hard scientific facts and research and study under experts in their field.. who actually don't get paid a ton like some in the us do. some are even striking for higher pay... but they are passionate and work hard and are very knowledgeable. they all agree that this is happening.
Nukaria it’s model based junk.
Instead of your appeal to authority, try posting something to counter the well known fact that the science outlined in this video is model based and is debunked in the real world
@@Kenneynrg if its debunked in the real world. Why am i being taught it as fact in university in england. And why are the facts I'm being taught make total sense. (who have no connection to the UN btw)
@@Kenneynrg just because it makes life easier to deny these things as nonsense doesn't mean you should. Also. I would like some proof of your claim that it is junk
Yep
yep
You say disolved CO2 creates more CO3 ions, which corals need. So how again can that be bad for corals?
Does anyone else see the mis-step in his analysis?
At around 6:15 he explains that the CO3 binds with the 'free' H ions to make bicarbonate (HCO3), reducing the amount of CO3 in the oceans to react with Ca to create calcium carbonate.
I was also wondering about that. But if you watch the video carefully: 1 molecule of CO2 with 1 molecule of H2O produces 1 molecule of the acid, H2CO3. Now here comes the tricky part: that 1 acid molecule of H2CO3 can give away 2 (!) H+ to form 1 carbonate CO3(2-). Now one of these H+ can catch up with the original CO3(2-) to form that intermediate product, bicarbonate HCO3(1-), BUT the other H+ can now (instead of also going back to the original molecule and go back to the acid H2CO3) grab one additional CO3(2-) from the poor shells who actually wanted to make it into calcium carbonate - Boom, one carbonate lost for the shells for each CO2 dissolved, and the ocean richer in HCO3(1-) instead of calcium carbonate shelly creatures. So the problem seem to be the two acidifying H+, which come with each one CO2... Also, I guess the levels of H+ and carbonate, CO3(2-), are increasing as compared to the calcium, Ca(2+), which might be a problem?
ua-cam.com/video/ccYvlbcBlTY/v-deo.html :)
I'm also confused by it.
It does not help that they talk about "acidification" while the pH is actually still in the alkaline range
pov: your teacher made you watch this
the accuracy
And I'm glad
Thanks yall ma teacha Mr.Baint no teachin in ma class and i need toi know where da snails are loosin dere shells! Swipe up to see more naughty videos of me deacidifiying jwefno
great video but man was I ever qweezy from that motion effect
"No way to measure the pH of the ENTIRE OCEAN." well, i mean... no, not every drop, but you're underestimating the tools we have at our disposal these days. countless instruments- none perfect, but we have everything from simple floats to sophisticated geosats to help us collect this data; we CAN find information, and we can compare it the stacks of information we've found over the past few decades, and with greater precision with each new year of breakthroughs. determining that the pH of the ocean is different- on average!!!- today than it has been in the past is not a far cry. and furthermore, aside from the ability to detect it directly, isn't there some substantial evidence in other ways the marine environment is affected? ecosystems changing? shells thinning out? weather patterns? marine life development and behavior? at any rate, one should aspire to care for the environment one lives in; for their own and everyone else's sakes. now and tomorrow.
this was 2014
cool
Mr.Kim OCHS represent
Sup
what up oceanography at ASU
Dangerous drivel. As regards ocean acidification, it is estimated that the ocean’s global mean surface pH may have declined (i.e., become less alkaline and thus more “acidic”) by -0.07 to -0.08 in the last 200 years - from pH8.12 during pre-industrial times to 8.04 to 8.05 today (Wei et al, 2015). N.B. The decline in pH occurred before 1930.
However, and very importantly when you look the data after CO2 emissions began rising precipitously in the 1930s, the oceans have become less “acidic”!!!
By way of comparison, from one season to the next, or over the course of less than 6 months, pH levels naturally change by ±0.15 pH units, or twice the overall rate of the last 200 years. On a per-decade scale, the changes are even more pronounced. Oceanic pH values naturally fluctuate up and down by up to 0.6 U within a span of a decade, with an overall range between 7.66 and 8.40. This is decadal rate of pH change is larger than the overall 200-year span (0.07-0.08) by a factor of 8.
Why would anyone fear nuclear power, compared to this!
How does it reduce calcium carbonate? More co2= more carbonate supply. Yes there will be more bicarbonate but also more calcium carbonate....
I was also wondering about that. But if you watch the video carefully: 1 molecule of CO2 with 1 molecule of H2O produces 1 molecule of the acid, H2CO3. Now here comes the tricky part: that 1 acid molecule of H2CO3 can give away 2 (!) H+ to form 1 carbonate CO3(2-). Now one of these H+ can catch up with the original CO3(2-) to form that intermediate product, bicarbonate HCO3(1-), BUT the other H+ can now (instead of also going back to the original molecule and go back to the acid H2CO3) grab one additional CO3(2-) from the poor shells who actually wanted to make it into calcium carbonate - Boom, one carbonate lost for the shells for each CO2 dissolved, and the ocean richer in HCO3(1-) instead of calcium carbonate shelly creatures. So the problem seem to be the two acidifying H+, which come with each one CO2... Also, I guess the levels of H+ and carbonate, CO3(2-), are increasing as compared to the calcium, Ca(2+), which might be a problem?
need a degree to watch this
what are you struggling with?
Mrs Kilfoil LDHSS represent
physically here not mentally here
Oh 😲
Is this Jeff Goldblum talking?
Sea water PH is 8.3 on average. With the amount of salt in the ocean it absolutely cannot become acidic. CO2 doesn't remove the salinity, this is smoke and mirrors. Shallow coral reefs are often rained upon and it lowers the PH, but doesn't harm the corals or the foraminifera. The ocean is not becoming acidic and it cannot. I'm an Aquariologist and what harms corals is pollution. The coral reefs off New Guinea Island is much warmer than the Great Barrier Reef of Australia and don't suffer from bleaching, so it's not heat that causes it, it's pollution. Fix that and the bleaching will stop.
Mountain Fisher - your adamant belief that the pH of the ocean cannot change is both touching and alarming. Touching as it appears that you truly do care about the oceans and do not want it to be true that the pH can change. You don't want it to be true that the oceans have reached their capability to absorb safely the carbon dioxide that falls into them. The alarming part here is that because you don't want it to be true, you will therefore not be doing anything to change humankind's behavior. Unless and until you understand what is happening under the water. Flatly, sadly, you are wrong that the pH can't change. Current research absolutely proves that not only can the pH of salt water change when overloaded with carbon dioxide, but that indeed it is. Read the IPCC reports and other recent research in which scientists measure the changes in pH. The seemingly tiny, tiny changes pH have huge ramifications for the species that have very low tolerances for changes in pH. The changes favor the species that are tolerant- like jellyfish - and they will take over when the less tolerant species decline on their way to extinction. Eventually the apex species like dolphins, whales, sharks, etc will go extinct do to lack of food. We will notice them. But lost to posterity will be the thousands of unnamed, unknown demersal species that are the base of the ocean food chains. Sad.
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
i just had to watcha video from nbc about the arctic ecosystem. very bad pitch. they mantioned sea spiders. i hate it so much
Im so confused are we just not going to mention that it’s not just humans that are causing this acidity increase? I only heard him talk about our impact and not anything else. I get we are a big part of it but we aren’t the only factor.
7:53 they're not plants, just like how kelp isn't a plant either :/
Fuck we had to watch this
Just plant more plankton or whatever
yo
HUH
waht a load of BS, baiscly it is saying that cause there is more CO3 there is less CO3 ? :D what? there is more CO3 there is both more CO3+ Ca and also H+CO3 reactions. Btw ocean is still basic ph ~8.1 so "acidification" is a bogus word. Btw there way way more CO2 during the camrbium-devon period sea organism thrived very well
What a load of BS (your comment that is).
The word "acidification" is not the same as the word "acid". A child does not have to become tall in order to become taller.
Rapid change is the problem, not the absolute values of the key metrics. That was expressly said in the video (4:40)......
"waht a load of BS, baiscly it is saying that cause there is more CO3 there is less CO3 ? :D"
No, it is not saying that at all. It is saying that the excess H (there are 2 H ions generated along the reaction but only 1 CO3) is reacting with the CO3 reducing it's availability.
So your bogus objections are not only bogus, but also show that you were unable to listen or retain what was already addressed in the video.
ok CO2 is now 400 ppm and ph 8.1, middle estimate is we'll get to 650 max so like 8ph and oh we only make 4% of CO2 natue 96%
There is no "max" unless we curb the current trend of emissions.
An increase of 4% of all CO2 in circulation is a lot of CO2. And again, in a short amount of time....
Correct. Decreasing the pH of a alkaline solution is correctly termed "neutralizing', but fuck real science and correct terminology. You can't scare the shit out of people with terms like 'neutralizing' and there's no grant money in that.
It is also correctly termed acidification (especially so when the process is not known to stop at a neutral neutral ph...). But fuck it if the term is correct, what matters is to pretend that this matter is just semantics and making unsubstantiated claims about what is or isn't real science.... ....based on semantic objections.
i hate chemistry. HELP.
Make no sense whatsoever xD