The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The Royal Society phrases it right: acidification.
This:
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 29 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Sep 12
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 9
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 75 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 43 comments
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 329 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 1108 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment