Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
...got more things wrong, but let's not squibble on that too much.

The Royal Society phrases it right: acidification.

This:

The escalating level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making the world's oceans more acidic.

is incorrect. The increasing cabon dioxide makes the oceans less alakine, it has not been acidic (= below pH 7) in a long time. Ocean pH is now measured at about 8.1 (quoted from head, so could be mistaken there).

But well. That's what reporters do. The problem of decreasing pH appears real enough.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:44:30 AM EST
alakine = alkaline
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:45:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's have a PN duel...

You've said that before, and I fail to be convinced even the second time.

pH measures the concentration of H+ ions, that is, the acidity.

pOH measures the concentration of OH- ions, that is, the basicity.

pH + pOH = 14

You're taking the ph of pure water (pH = 7) as your boundary between "acid" and "basic". That is an arbitrary choice and depends on a medium (pure water) that is not found outside the laboratory. Sea-living organisms in pH = 7 would esperience it as an acidic environment, since they are adapted to a pH of 8.1 (by your claim).

Also, the process is one of increased concentration of carbonic acid in the water.  That is not the same thing as the removal of some basic substance (say ammonia). So it is still more descriptive to call it acidification than de-basification.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:51:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and pH = 7 is the pH of pure water in "standard conditions of pressure and temperature" (1 Atm, 25°C), also not found outside a textbook.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 08:04:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're taking the ph of pure water (pH = 7) as your boundary between "acid" and "basic". That is an arbitrary choice and depends on a medium (pure water) that is not found outside the laboratory. Sea-living organisms in pH = 7 would esperience it as an acidic environment, since they are adapted to a pH of 8.1 (by your claim).

There's no answer I could possibly provide you here. Where are you going for with this? The pH of 7 as watershed is a chosen standard, and really only somewhat arbitrary because it is the natural state of pure water by its dissociation behaviour.

The descriptor that sea-living organism would experience a pH of 7 as acidic, is simply the incorrect use of the definitions. They would experience it as less alkaline, or neutral. Would the pH drop below 7, then they would experience an acidic environment. It's just language, semantics. When I read that article, I read a language that simply doesn't make sense to me, knowing that ocean pH hovers at about 8.1. It's actually a futile point anyway, because what really matters is the change in the equilibrium reaction between carbonate (CO3), CO2 and bicarbonate (HCO3) which directly affect the dissolution of calcoimcarbonate shells.

I've no qualms to describe the process as acidification, and I've even done so in my previous post by stating that the Royal Society's use of acidification is perfectly correct. Because that's what it is: the lowering of pH in water.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 06:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To be picky about pH, it really can't be the case that when OH- and H+ have equal concentrations, the log is 7.000000000000 (in units of moles/liter, no less). Looking into this, I found that the Wikipedia article on pH first makes the usual, impossible statement

In solution at 25 °C, a pH of 7 indicates neutrality (i.e. the pH of pure water) because water naturally dissociates into H+ and OH− ions with equal concentrations of 1×10−7 mol/L.

then later says that the actual number, at 25°C, is 6.998 ± 0.001. So, you see, when a solution is a pH 7, it's actually acid. Beware!

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:14:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But I think you mean basic? :)
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, it's only 0.002 ± 0.001 pH units away from the threshold of being acid! You call that significant?
[[Ooops.]]

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Thu Oct 12th, 2006 at 12:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Does this acidification have any relevance for, say, the Ca/Mg ratios of foraminifera shells?

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 09:01:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know. Something to consider, dvx.
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you have a solution of calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate and you add carbonate ions, you change the concentration of the Ca and Mg ions by an amount which depends on the eqquilibrium constants of the respective precipitation/solution rections.

That is, the solubility of Mg and Ca will change differently as CO2 dissolvess in water, and you have told us that foraminifera amplify the differences in solubility.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Since Ca and Mg have the same valence, the solubilities change by the same multiplicative factor, as the product of the concentration of the metal and the Carbonate must be constant (at constant temperature and pressure).

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 12th, 2006 at 08:55:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with your taste in words here, but only somewhat.

As Migeru notes, pH 7 is somewhat arbitrary.

But of course it's not entirely arbitrary -- a condition with equal concentrations of H+ and OH-, with their sum at a minimum, is a special point.

But "7" only approximates this point, and many chemistry texts lie about that.

But also, many processes are sensitive not to the balance of the two, but to the concentration of one, and each varies smoothly with no discontinuity or change of sign at pH 7, which is why pH is defined in terms only of the concentration of H+.

But "more acidic" implies that the state is already in the "acid" range, which it certainly isn't.

But "acid" is, just discussed, physically arbitrary.

But it's standard usage.

But even the term "acidification" would seem to mean making acid, which isn't a prospect.

But "dealkalinification" would do the job.

But that would be pedantic, and the discussion, once it's out of the journals, is aimed at public understanding, and above or below pH 7 is beside the point.

But what about Lewis acids -- should Brønsted acidity get all the attention?

But "but" is a fun conjunction to abuse.

But "in conjunction with" means roughly the same as "and".
-------------------------

There is a need to fill slots in sentences like "Because there is more CO2, the oceans are becoming more ___", and this encourages the use of "more acidic", despite its faults.

If the issue gets into popular culture, you know that he cartoons will show the oceans burning people, dissolving boats, and so on. The oceans will be about to become "acid".

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 03:07:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
are completely right. With every textbook we open, we find simplifications, which need to be replaced by more sophisticated simplifications when we decide to dig deeper. And again. And again. Until your sentences becomes so turgid, no one reads your articles and you die poor and unread and everyone forgets about you, so what's the point?

But as above, I do not argue against the use of "acidification". I argue against the frequent (actually, I've hardly seen it anywhere right in press articles so far) use of "turning the oceans more acidic". That's just flat out incorrect, and although I understand the need for public understanding, this is mythmaking at work - which I resent. And here's an audience which is willing to be open for the slight correction here and there.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 06:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would rather go back to foraminifera.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We're nearing another Friday, yes? Real life has kept me off the streets. Actually, on the street, and off the keyboards the last days.
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:07:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But I'm the one offering an argument against "acidification"!
But I agree with you anyway.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Thu Oct 12th, 2006 at 12:59:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series