"Let's go back to high school chemistry class: Remember the Ph scale?" Me, who is currently in high school chemistry class, and was not taught about PH at all: the what now
Interestingly, this is another way in which our life will be radically disrupted in about the same time as the other problems we are facing. Fossil fuels really have been a dual edged sword for humanity. The faster we get off of it, the better.
This is a clear and concerning explanation about ocean acidification. Our inaction has an obvious detrimental affect on the climate. Instead of finding ways to increase the production of fossil fuels, we should have been replacing them.
What if every boat had Hydro fuel and didn’t have to use carbon emissions ever again wouldn’t that alleviate the systems for a lot of businesses in cutting their bottom line and still being able to transport items from point a to point B? I don’t know if you care about money. But if you did. That might make a bunch for you. My grandfather was a petroleum engineer, and spoke for the trajectory of petroleum, but seeing as how the island nation of Tuvalu is suing the United States before so much of the trajectory we could also think twice.
Not this. 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.
Soon the ocean will absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere. This is because the waters are warming and thus gasses will be absorbed less. We have ways to reverse this but will we?
It is not ocean "acidification", it is " neutralization ". From 1750 to now the pH has gone from 8.2 to now 8.1. Neutral pH equals 7, and numbers above that are alkaline (not more acidic). So when someone says " the oceans are more acidic" they should really be saying "the oceans are less alkaline". But that doesn't sound so bad so they refer to acids because we all know acids are scary, right?
Both sentences are correct. Less alkaline or More acidic is the same definition. And “neutralization” is to changes itself to neutral value which is around 7. But in this situation that the rate of acidity in ocean is increased faster than the marine animal or other animal that suffer could adapt themself from this Ocean acidification. The adaptation requires time and time is a matter of the survivorship.
It is correct to point out that at the moment, the ocean waters are still alkaline, but if the process continues, the Ocean will eventually become acidic. And when that happens, we will have lost biodiversity and the food chain will collapse. To imply that the lowering of the pH of the ocean is a problem, is nonsense. As Andy Garcias' character in "The Arrival" said to Charlie Sheens' character, "You can't tend to your planet, then none of you deserve to live on it".
Not only that, but the other thing you're missing is that before this process by which the pH of the ocean waters lowering started happening, it took millions of years to get the Oceans where they were, over the course of millions of years with natural variation and then suddenly in about 1900, the Industrial Revolution started in which we were dependent on fossil fuels. Between the start of that period and now, the drop in pH has been rapid: .1, which is equivalent to 30% higher concentration of hydrogen ions in ocean water, and it is not incorrect to call that an increase in acidity.
@@jordanmosman8305 you should look into insular biogeography and in particular seamounts. From Wikipedia "The ecological conservation of seamounts is hurt by the simple lack of information available. Seamounts are very poorly studied, with only 350 of the estimated 100,000 seamounts in the world having received sampling, and fewer than 100 in depth."
Sedimentary Geologist here… Ocean acidification is the most phenomenal fraud that is being used to scare a scientifically ignorant public. ‘acidification’ is a mere linguistic trick used because acids are scary to the general public. pH is measured in a logarithmic scale. The average pH of seawater is 8.1. To go from 8.1 to 7.0 (neutral) would require a 110 fold decrease in the amount of carbonate in the water. Whilst a decrease in pH from 8.1 to 8.0 technically equates to a numerical acidification, to call it acid is an outright lie as a pH of 8.0 is alkaline. Even if CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere didn’t off gas rapidly, there is so much dissolved carbonate in the earths oceans that it forms limestones beds several kilometres thick. The chemical buffering capacity of the earths oceans is essentially limitless with an inexhaustible supply of calcium (& magnesium) being supplied by the weathering of minerals at the earth’s surface. Acidification (and global warming in general) is a colossal fraud.
question So the ph is relavently still going down right even if its neutralisation, so one day it may become acidic at this rate ? Secondly no matter how much limitless supply of calcium there is from earths surface, they wont bond to make calcium carbonate if the carbonate keeps bonding with the extra hyrdogen ions released because of the increased CO2 intake of the ocean. Please explain how it works and if I have missed something?
"Let's go back to high school chemistry class: Remember the Ph scale?"
Me, who is currently in high school chemistry class, and was not taught about PH at all: the what now
Interestingly, this is another way in which our life will be radically disrupted in about the same time as the other problems we are facing. Fossil fuels really have been a dual edged sword for humanity. The faster we get off of it, the better.
Fantastic, accessible explanation. Well done, NowThis.
This is a clear and concerning explanation about ocean acidification. Our inaction has an obvious detrimental affect on the climate. Instead of finding ways to increase the production of fossil fuels, we should have been replacing them.
Marine scientist here! Great video, but just wanted to say NOAA is spoken as "Noah" not "N.O.A.A." :)
What if every boat had Hydro fuel and didn’t have to use carbon emissions ever again wouldn’t that alleviate the systems for a lot of businesses in cutting their bottom line and still being able to transport items from point a to point B? I don’t know if you care about money. But if you did. That might make a bunch for you. My grandfather was a petroleum engineer, and spoke for the trajectory of petroleum, but seeing as how the island nation of Tuvalu is suing the United States before so much of the trajectory we could also think twice.
Can we please reverse ocean acidification
Not this. 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.
Soon the ocean will absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere. This is because the waters are warming and thus gasses will be absorbed less. We have ways to reverse this but will we?
The average ocean depth is 3682 m. Below 200 m the average temperature is 4 C.
Thanks bro easy to understand 👌
It is not ocean "acidification", it is " neutralization ". From 1750 to now the pH has gone from 8.2 to now 8.1. Neutral pH equals 7, and numbers above that are alkaline (not more acidic). So when someone says " the oceans are more acidic" they should really be saying "the oceans are less alkaline". But that doesn't sound so bad so they refer to acids because we all know acids are scary, right?
Both sentences are correct. Less alkaline or More acidic is the same definition. And “neutralization” is to changes itself to neutral value which is around 7. But in this situation that the rate of acidity in ocean is increased faster than the marine animal or other animal that suffer could adapt themself from this Ocean acidification. The adaptation requires time and time is a matter of the survivorship.
@@12317968 Again, it is not "acidic" if the pH is above 7, by definition it is alkaline.
It is correct to point out that at the moment, the ocean waters are still alkaline, but if the process continues, the Ocean will eventually become acidic. And when that happens, we will have lost biodiversity and the food chain will collapse. To imply that the lowering of the pH of the ocean is a problem, is nonsense. As Andy Garcias' character in "The Arrival" said to Charlie Sheens' character, "You can't tend to your planet, then none of you deserve to live on it".
Not only that, but the other thing you're missing is that before this process by which the pH of the ocean waters lowering started happening, it took millions of years to get the Oceans where they were, over the course of millions of years with natural variation and then suddenly in about 1900, the Industrial Revolution started in which we were dependent on fossil fuels. Between the start of that period and now, the drop in pH has been rapid: .1, which is equivalent to 30% higher concentration of hydrogen ions in ocean water, and it is not incorrect to call that an increase in acidity.
@@jordanmosman8305 you should look into insular biogeography and in particular seamounts. From Wikipedia "The ecological conservation of seamounts is hurt by the simple lack of information available. Seamounts are very poorly studied, with only 350 of the estimated 100,000 seamounts in the world having received sampling, and fewer than 100 in depth."
Yeah now the kids have white hairs on their head proves that humanity is on the verge of extinction lol
-_- wow hal into 4tnite?
handsome
.
Sedimentary Geologist here…
Ocean acidification is the most phenomenal fraud that is being used to scare a scientifically ignorant public.
‘acidification’ is a mere linguistic trick used because acids are scary to the general public.
pH is measured in a logarithmic scale. The average pH of seawater is 8.1. To go from 8.1 to 7.0 (neutral) would require a 110 fold decrease in the amount of carbonate in the water.
Whilst a decrease in pH from 8.1 to 8.0 technically equates to a numerical acidification, to call it acid is an outright lie as a pH of 8.0 is alkaline.
Even if CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere didn’t off gas rapidly, there is so much dissolved carbonate in the earths oceans that it forms limestones beds several kilometres thick.
The chemical buffering capacity of the earths oceans is essentially limitless with an inexhaustible supply of calcium (& magnesium) being supplied by the weathering of minerals at the earth’s surface.
Acidification (and global warming in general) is a colossal fraud.
question
So the ph is relavently still going down right even if its neutralisation, so one day it may become acidic at this rate ?
Secondly no matter how much limitless supply of calcium there is from earths surface, they wont bond to make calcium carbonate if the carbonate keeps bonding with the extra hyrdogen ions released because of the increased CO2 intake of the ocean.
Please explain how it works and if I have missed something?
well dalagga, prophet or denial, whats the excuse this time? more propaganda or just fake news?