
The Pacific Ocean is so acidic that it's dissolving Dungeness crabs' shells - finphil
https://www.fox5vegas.com/news/us_world_news/the-pacific-ocean-is-so-acidic-that-it-s-dissolving/article_fd95d429-a451-5cf8-832d-9bb41046f5c8.html
======
Mikeb85
It's not like battery acid is dissolving their shells. The ocean's PH is at
around 8.1 which means it's alkaline, not acidic. These creatures rely on
calcification for creating their shells, so it's that process which is being
disrupted (the article does briefly mention that in between the scary headline
and other scary/incorrect assertions).

Plenty of bivalves and shellfish live in fresh water which has significantly
lower PH levels (more like 7-7.5) and survive so this isn't some harbinger of
the apocalypse, but it is change nonetheless.

~~~
telchar
Freshwater animals aren't really relevant since they aren't going to do any
good for life in the ocean if the animals that evolved for PH of 8.1 can't
survive due to decreasing alkalinity. If the ocean life can't adapt it very
well could be a harbinger of the apocalypse. Not saying it will, but your
assertion that it isn't is also a false bromide.

~~~
Mikeb85
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since life has existed on earth for
quite some time, through changing conditions (CO2 levels were far, far higher
at one point in earth's existence!) and in many different biomes, life will
continue to exist. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if in ~20 years we find
that these crabs, through natural selection, manage to keep their shells or
adapt through some other means.

~~~
btilly
You went too far on that limb.

The ocean Ph level doesn't have much to do with CO2 levels. It has everything
to do with the rate of change of CO2 levels.

If you raise the CO2 level fast, the ocean turns acidic. If you raise it
slowly, deposits of lime on the bottom of the ocean dissolve and Ph remains
constant.

While CO2 has been much higher than the present, the rate of change is
unprecedented.

Also evolution is a lot slower than you think. A change in Ph over millions of
years could readily be adapted to by evolution. Over 20, not so much.

~~~
Mikeb85
Evolution through natural selection happens much quicker than that. Sure, fish
walking on land progression takes awhile, but otherwise it's pretty quick.
[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/evolution-brings-
ext...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/evolution-brings-extinct-
island-bird-back-existence)

As for the crabs, some of them still develop hard shells. They'll reproduce
and the soft-shelled ones won't. So whatever it is that causes harder shells
will persist.

~~~
btilly
Evolution has a fast mode and a slow mode.

The fast mode is that if there is enough genetic diversity in the population
that a subset have a combination of traits that suffices, natural selection
quickly will reduce the genetic diversity and all of the survivors will have
those traits. The advantage of sexual reproduction is that much of the genetic
diversity is retained and gets to recombine in interesting ways allowing the
next challenge to be addressed.

The slow mode is that if overcoming a barrier requires random mutations to
produce new traits, it takes many generations for that to happen.

The current pH allows some to survive and others not to. But with projected
future pH levels, none will be able to survive. Therefore natural selection
will select out the entire population as there isn't enough time for a new set
of traits to evolve.

------
Symmetry
People sometimes consider using sulfur dioxide aerosols to lower global
temperatures as an emergency measure. And it might be that there are potential
climate emergencies that that would be the least worst option for if we can't
otherwise get our act together. But it would be terrible if it came to that
because it would make the ocean acidifcation problem even worse.

~~~
atrilumen
But this reduced alkalinity is caused directly by the ocean's CO2 absorption,
not temperature, right?

~~~
btilly
Yes. It is caused by absorbing CO2 faster than ocean circulation can offset it
by dissolving lime from the bottom of the ocean.

If the CO2 rises and stays raised, in a few thousand years the Ph will go back
to its old value.

If we wanted to solve this problem, one of the better ideas is to crush
limestone and dump it into the ocean. As a powder so that it dissolves before
it can sink.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This is brilliant and I feel foolish for never having thought of it. No one is
going to stop someone from dumping barges worth of powdered limestone into the
ocean; and one with the means could action this immediately.

How much limestone do we need?

------
josefdlange
This is an issue in the Puget Sound region as well (and, I'm assuming, many
other areas). We're facing an acidification issue that's limiting smaller
bivalves' (mussels, oysters) shell production. Generally they do okay once
mature, but the seedlings don't stand a chance.

~~~
bondolo
I was surprised to hear that oyster sprats for the PNW oyster industry are now
being grown in Hawaii for this reason.

~~~
josefdlange
Yep! Lots of companies also have indoor laboratories for seeding as well.

------
JoshTko
Just a peek into how entire ecosystems might irreversibly collapse. Just
imagine if krill shrimp are similarly affected as they are critical link in
the food chain.

~~~
istorical
Unfortunately carbon based shells are basically everywhere in the food chain,
when the phytoplankton start disappearing it'll be fun to see climate change
non-interventioners then!

~~~
hinkley
I believe they're also expressed concern about higher temperatures affecting
plankton lifecycles as well.

------
rhacker
The article first said it was dissolving, then later it said it was affecting
the shell's build up in the first place. Those may both be affected by
alkalinity, but which is it technically?

~~~
blix
They are the same effect. As the shell minerals grow they are dissolving at
the same time. Growing and dissolving are two sides of the same reversible
chemical reaction. The equilibrium point is a function of acidity. More acid
yields slower growth as well as decreased compound stability. It is not one or
the other, it is both.

~~~
rhacker
Thanks good to know!

------
hn_throwaway_99
The article didn't state this, does anyone know the actual pH change? The
oceans are so large and so buffered I'm surprised the magnitude of pH change
would be so dramatic.

~~~
tezzer
From NOAA:

"In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the
concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to
humans burning fossil fuels (such as car emissions) and changing the way land
is used (such as deforestation). During this time, the pH of surface ocean
waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. The pH scale, like the Richter scale, is
logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in
acidity."

[https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-
co...](https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts-
education-resources/ocean-acidification)

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
Are CO2 levels higher than they were ~150m years ago when crabs first evolved
into being?

~~~
ncmncm
Doesn't matter. What does matter is the rate of change, and whether each
species that makes up the ocean ecosystem can adapt fast enough to survive.
Those that can't, go extinct. If enough of certain key species decline enough,
the ocean ecosystem collapses, many more species go extinct, and around again.

The ocean will certainly recover in a few thousand years, or at worst a
million. Human civilization's immediate prospects are less optimistic.

After a worldwide collapse of civilization, and forced population reduction
below two billion, civilization will also begin to recover, and take maybe a
century or three to get back to, say, the level of launching satellites.
Global thermonuclear war could be expected postpone recovery to the upper end
of the range.

~~~
yongjik
After the end-Permian extinction (the worst mass extinction in the Earth's
history), life took several _million_ years to recover. From Wikipedia:

> Research indicates that recovery did not begin until the start of the mid-
> Triassic, 4 to 6 million years after the extinction;[73] and some writers
> estimate that the recovery was not complete until 30 Ma after the P–Tr
> extinction, i.e. in the late Triassic.[8]

The current extinction might not be as severe, but "a few thousand years"
sounds really optimistic.

~~~
ncmncm
The P-Tr extinction was overwhelmingly worse than we are capable of, even on
our worst day. It drove every single obligate-shelled ocean species to
extinction. The ones with shells that came after were descended from those
that had lost their shells, and then evolved them again.

If civilization collapses, the sudden pulse of reforestation and radical
reduction in CO2 production will clear the excess in a few decades. Many
shelled species will survive just by waiting it out; do you recall the
400-year-old clam that turned up recently? It is mostly the larval forms at
risk.

------
SlowRobotAhead
Proper link if you aren’t in to clickbait:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720301200#)!

> Using a retrospective prediction from a regression models, we estimate an
> 8.3% increase in external carapace dissolution over the last two decades and
> identified a set of affected OA-related sublethal pathways to inform future
> risk assessment studies of Dungeness crabs.

Bad, but it seems no one actually measured this decades ago and it would be
nice to have that data vs retrospective prediction. I believe them of course,
it would just be nice to have real data if they’re claiming 8.3% estimation
and not a range with expected looser precision for their sampling efforts.

Edit: for clarity

~~~
klyrs
@dang this is a much better link

>> we _estimate_ an 8.3% increase

> it would just be nice to have real data if they’re claiming exactly 8.3%

Point of fact, they don't claim "exactly" 8.3% -- they call it an estimate,
and the notation indicates uncertainty -- read it as 8.3 ± 0.1%.

~~~
ncmncm
It is quite unlikely that they can claim that much precision.

"8.3" probably reads as more authoritative than ">8%".

Whatever the case, 8% should be deeply alarming. Just how many % indicates a
crashing ecosystem, and mass famine? Much of the world depends on ocean catch
to get enough protein.

~~~
uniformlyrandom
Take a look at the graph:
[https://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/OurChangingOcean.aspx](https://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/OurChangingOcean.aspx)

~8.1% was not alarming 50 years ago, so why 8.3% should be alarming now? I
would be more concerned about the curve slope and shape.

~~~
Pfhreak
That graph shows ph, not %. And the seawater ph is decreasing over time. I
think perhaps you've misread it?

------
legitster
I worked for a bit for a lobbying firm for commercial fishermen. They would
spend money on all sorts of things: global warming, removing mining, removing
dams. I asked my boss why weren't doing any messaging around ocean
acidification.

"You don't tell people about the end of the world. If people knew how fucked
they were, they would just get out of the industry and stop supporting us."

Seafood is the last wild food that normal people can still affordably and
regularly eat. But there is a very real chance that our generation will be the
last to do so.

~~~
djsumdog
I talked to someone who was an agricultural scientist, working for a fishing
company in Seattle. When I brought up how I heard the oceans would be
unfishable in 50 years, he said, "That's not true."

He want to to say the fishery industry is concerned with sustainability, after
all these fisheries have been around for generations and want to stay that
way. He claimed they carefully monitored fish populations to maintain
stability in fishing.

I don't know enough about the subject. He could have been touting the official
line fed to him, but he could have also been telling us the honest truth based
on his team/company's research.

~~~
grouseway
The Canadian government was carefully monitoring Atlantic cod too. Until they
completely collapsed. These systems are apparently too complex for us to make
good predictions.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_north...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery)

~~~
philipkglass
Scientists correctly predicted that catch quotas needed to be set much lower.
The government discounted the lower-end predictions of sustainable catch rates
or even ignored them outright, choosing instead to "balance" the scientists'
advice against "socio-economic considerations." But nature cannot be fooled,
so socio-economic conditions deteriorated abruptly and catastrophically in the
1990s as the ecological conditions did likewise.

------
bondolo
Cool related video that was published just yesterday: "Predator-Prey
Interactions Between Crabs and Gastropods"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PvVSCxk5ns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PvVSCxk5ns)

------
jgamman
"As for the acidifying ocean, NOAA proposes two methods of attack: Reducing
our overall carbon footprint to reduce the carbon dioxide absorbed by the sea,
or teach wildlife and the people who rely on it to adapt to how the sea will
change."

teach wildlife to adapt - GLWT

------
acvny
Let them adapt or die

------
m4r35n357
451: Unavailable

The page you are attempting to access is not available in your country.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
I'm in EU and the link Slowrobotahead provided works for me.

~~~
nottorp
But my oh my, what a dark pattern CNN's tracking opt out screen is.

About a hundred 3rd party vendors each with their own checkbox.

Of course, they have an accept all button. But not a reject all.

The fox5 thingy is more honest, at least they refuse to be accessible from
Europe.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
There is a select all checkbox that is pre-selected. Click that select all and
it deselects all, then click the save preferences text in the bottom of the
modal that is designed not look like a button.

------
SubiculumCode
As I was taking a shower this morning watching the suds go down the drain, I
thought to myself, "I wonder if we are making the oceans more basic." I guess
not. Where does all that soap go then?

~~~
empath75
How much carbon dioxide is being absorbed by the ocean compared to soap.

~~~
SubiculumCode
there is a oit of soap being used in laundry and baths.

~~~
ska
"a lot" relative to what, ocean volume?

------
RobertRoberts
Nothing will change until every single person that calls for climate change
stops using gas, plastic and any other CO2 causing activity. (like flying in
planes, dirty fossil fuel burning ships, etc...)

Can't demand others to do it you won't do it first.

Edit: Removed hyperbole.

~~~
snthd
> Can't demand others to do it you won't do it first.

Saving the environment is not about individual choice, it's about fixing an
unsustainable system. It's unsustainable because negative externalities are
not effectively taxed/banned. Bad behaviour is rewarded financially which
further drives change in the wrong direction.

Making it about individual choice, and therefore subject to "hypocrisy" is an
effective way of preventing change. Divide and conquer. It's undeniably the
pervasive narative in the media (but again this can be explained by systemic
effects - where does the money come from? Who stands to benefit?).

You can demand new rules that come in for everyone at the same time. That's
how tax rates change, how universal healthcare systems are established, how
slavery is ended.

Societies are ultimately shaped by what people believe is possible.

Edit: Your comment has changed, but you're still expressing the conviction
that everyone has to do things voluntarily. That's not true - only enough
power has to come together to make and enforce laws. A high bar, but not as
insurmountable.

~~~
RobertRoberts
> Societies are ultimately shaped by what people believe is possible.

This is exactly my point. If 100% of the people calling for climate change
"rules/laws" have no ability to follow their own ideas now, what hope is
there?

(I removed one sentence that I felt was a little inflammatory, it was
extraneous)

------
ghastmaster
> _The crab larvae that showed signs that their shells were dissolving were
> smaller than the other larvae, too._

From sciencedirect.com:

> _To our knowledge this is the first time that OA-related dissolution of
> calcite structures in situ has been demonstrated for crustaceans_

> _Using a retrospective prediction from a regression models, we estimate an
> 8.3% increase in external carapace dissolution over the last two decades_

Given that not all larva show signs of OA-dissolution and this is the first
study, it would be wise to wait for the next studies, to see actual trends.

The present concentration of co2 in the atmosphere according to Zhang, Yi Ge;
et al. is the highest in 14m years. Given crabs in general have been around
adapting for 145m years, I do not think the current levels will be
detrimental.

~~~
lukastr0
> Given crabs in general have been around adapting for 145m years, I do not
> think the current levels will be detrimental.

That argument often comes up when discussing wildlife impacts of global
warming. The problem is, the rate of CO2 increase vastly exceeds anything that
happened naturally. The rate of change is the problem here.

~~~
ghastmaster
This is not true. Given that temperature and co2 rise sync with each
other(still debated) and OA are fairly synchronous, the steep decline and
subsequent rise in temperature from appx. 8400ya - 8000ya(Vinther, B., et al.,
2009) exceeds what we are seeing now. Notably that fall and rise was at a much
higher temperature as well. I can only assume this has happened many many
times previously.

~~~
faded242
[https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleo_CO2_2018_1...](https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleo_CO2_2018_1500.gif)

------
peterwwillis
The ocean has always been highly acidic, and was only able to support complex
life once enough coccolithophores bloomed and died, and the ocean dissolved
enough of their carbonate sediments that it made the ocean less acidic. An
increase in carbon dioxide has been slowly re-acidifying the ocean.

If calcium carbonate-dense phytoplankton die off, the ocean gets fucked, and
it'll no longer trap half the carbon dioxide generated on the planet, nor
generate over half the planet's oxygen.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)

~~~
ska

      The ocean has always been highly acidic,
    

Can you clarify what you mean here? The ocean is slightly basic.

------
abtinf
The ocean isn’t acidifying, it is becoming slightly less basic. But that won’t
do for scaremongering headlines.

~~~
usaar333
Acidifying literally just means dropping ph because you are introducing more
acid. (increasing H+ ions)

~~~
logfromblammo
The self-ionization constant of water, Kw, changes with temperature, pressure,
and ionic strength.

Kw is also used as cologarithm pKw. If you are not aware, X = 10^(-pX), and pX
= -log(X). So a lower pH is a greater concentration of [H+] (actually [H3O+]),
a lower pOH is a greater concentration of [OH-], and a lower pKw is a greater
self-ionization of water.

pKw decreases with increasing temperature. It decreases with increasing
pressure. And it decreases with increasing ionic strength until around
0.6-0.8, then goes back up.

While those are held constant, a dropping pH does indicate acidification. pH +
pOH = pKw . But if they are not constant, pOH can drop at the same rate as pH,
because pKw is also dropping. As long as pH and pOH are both near pKw/2, the
solution is neutral. The solution is only acidifying when pH is decreasing
faster than pOH.

If you become slightly less basic, your pOH goes up. Under normal
circumstances, that means pH is going down by an equal amount. Either way you
describe it in English, de-alkalinization usually yields the same mathematical
results as acidification. Deviation from this rule, which holds at standard
temperature and pressure, and constant ionic strength, requires additional
explanation.

------
jobseeker990
Last time I went in the ocean I noticed my skin was getting burned a bit. My
wife thinks it might be that same ocean acidification. Swim while you can I
guess.

~~~
knodi123
Nope. From wikipedia:

> Seawater is slightly basic, and ocean acidification involves a shift towards
> pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions.

Also

> Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from
> approximately 8.25 to 8.14

So we're not talking about water that is deadly to humans. Just water that
disturbs certain delicate biological processes that could have knock-on
effects to the food chain.

