5 ms·

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 calcific

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.

maitredusoi 7y ago
Thanx Mikeb85 , I was asking myself: "am I mad ?" as 8.1 is not acid so... you said so ..., so I am not mad, it just that big news agencies are creating clickbaits .... ;(
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  Apologies, but I don't really understand the parent post's concern or your confusion - do people really think that "too acidic" is a misleading description of the problem, and that this article is therefore clickbait created by "big news agencies"? If an animal adapts to N ph, and has problems at N-0.1 ph, then surely it's rational and honest to say that the animal's environment has become "too acidic" for it, regardless of how acidic the number "seems" to us? Is this somehow different from temperature changes, where I feel like most people wouldn't be confused by what we would feel is "cold" being described as "too warm" for another species?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    "So acidic" is somewhat misleading when the ocean isn't "acidic" at all, at least based on conventional usage of the word as we typically refer to liquids with PH levels below 7 as acidic and above 7 as basic or alkaline. Also the use of the word 'dissolving' seems somewhat suspect as the crabs with shell defects simply didn't form their shells properly, it wasn't adult crabs melting away in an acidic slurry... A less misleading title would be "PH changes in ocean affect crab shell formation" or something like that.
    - CriticalCathed 7y ago
      The ocean acidifying is perfectly fine terminology. You're looking at this through a politicized lens.
      - Mikeb85 7y ago
        It is perfectly fine. It's also not what the headline says.
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      No offense, but is it possible your life experiences have you subconsciously looking for a political angle? I could be wrong, but the idea that "so acidic" is misleading because we're talking about values on the basic half of the ph meter is just way out there to me. Again, I can't see the difference between this and saying that 40 degree F water is "so warm" in some specific context, where in an information void that sounds cold. Similarly, acidity and alkalinity are purely relative in all my experience of the usage of those terms, both scientifically and colloquially.
      - Mikeb85 7y ago
        Yeah, my life experiences are such that I've lived long enough to remember several times people thought the world was going to end, WW3 would happen, and a bunch of doomsday predictions that should have but haven't happened. Or maybe it's the fact I'm Canadian and we generally push back against extremism, alarmism, most isms really. I've heard there's a hole in the ozone and we're all going to die from cancer and I've heard that New York will be underwater and all the glaciers will be gone by 2020. I've lived through 2 US presidents everyone has said are Hitler and somehow, despite the uproar being the loudest today, the world hasn't come to an end and things actually don't seem that bad. So yes, when I see headlines that are obviously click bait it hits this little part of my brain that feels compelled to say that maybe, just maybe things aren't all that bad.
        scarygliders 7y ago
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    "... so acidic..." implies the substance in question is actually an acid. That's what the title used. "...too acidic..." doesn't carry that same implication. On some scale, something is more acidic than optimum. At least, that's the way I interpret the comments above. After reading the article, I knew exactly what was happening and didn't really think the title was click-bait, but can see how others might perceive it that way.
- jryb 7y ago
  I really don't understand why this distinction matters. If the ecosystem collapses because development is hindered, that's just as bad as the scenario where the animals were outright killed after developing just fine. It's a huge problem either way. The headline is technically wrong, but the broad point, "things that we rely on are dying because of the changing pH of the ocean", is correct and meaningful.
  - Godel_unicode 7y ago
    Science doesn't operate on the theory that we can disregard the actual words and just go with the general flow, and when people report this way the inevitable corrections lend fuel to the "science doesn't work" fire. For the sake of getting people to take science seriously, let's try and leave that kind of "ignore the words and listen to the sound of my voice" to marketing.
telchar 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - ericd 7y ago
    The amount of time given to adapt to those changes seems likely to have a big effect on how well organisms weather them... just because the same conditions existed x million years ago doesn’t mean that life can deal with it if the same change happens over 100 years.
    - quakeguy 7y ago
      The rate of ecological collapse far outpaces most organisms ability to evolve.
      - Mikeb85 7y ago
        Does it? Normally I hate to be the guy to ask for some sort of citation but on this subject, all I hear is doom and gloom yet none of the dire predictions ever come to fruition.
        srmatto 7y ago
        Aren't we currently living through a mass extinction? That seems like a reasonable proxy for "outpaces most organisms ability to evolve." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

maitredusoi 7y ago

Thanx Mikeb85 , I was asking myself: "am I mad ?" as 8.1 is not acid so... you said so ..., so I am not mad, it just that big news agencies are creating clickbaits .... ;(

happytoexplain 7y ago
Apologies, but I don't really understand the parent post's concern or your confusion - do people really think that "too acidic" is a misleading description of the problem, and that this article is therefore clickbait created by "big news agencies"? If an animal adapts to N ph, and has problems at N-0.1 ph, then surely it's rational and honest to say that the animal's environment has become "too acidic" for it, regardless of how acidic the number "seems" to us? Is this somehow different from temperature changes, where I feel like most people wouldn't be confused by what we would feel is "cold" being described as "too warm" for another species?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  "So acidic" is somewhat misleading when the ocean isn't "acidic" at all, at least based on conventional usage of the word as we typically refer to liquids with PH levels below 7 as acidic and above 7 as basic or alkaline. Also the use of the word 'dissolving' seems somewhat suspect as the crabs with shell defects simply didn't form their shells properly, it wasn't adult crabs melting away in an acidic slurry... A less misleading title would be "PH changes in ocean affect crab shell formation" or something like that.
  - CriticalCathed 7y ago
    The ocean acidifying is perfectly fine terminology. You're looking at this through a politicized lens.
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      It is perfectly fine. It's also not what the headline says.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    No offense, but is it possible your life experiences have you subconsciously looking for a political angle? I could be wrong, but the idea that "so acidic" is misleading because we're talking about values on the basic half of the ph meter is just way out there to me. Again, I can't see the difference between this and saying that 40 degree F water is "so warm" in some specific context, where in an information void that sounds cold. Similarly, acidity and alkalinity are purely relative in all my experience of the usage of those terms, both scientifically and colloquially.
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      Yeah, my life experiences are such that I've lived long enough to remember several times people thought the world was going to end, WW3 would happen, and a bunch of doomsday predictions that should have but haven't happened. Or maybe it's the fact I'm Canadian and we generally push back against extremism, alarmism, most isms really. I've heard there's a hole in the ozone and we're all going to die from cancer and I've heard that New York will be underwater and all the glaciers will be gone by 2020. I've lived through 2 US presidents everyone has said are Hitler and somehow, despite the uproar being the loudest today, the world hasn't come to an end and things actually don't seem that bad. So yes, when I see headlines that are obviously click bait it hits this little part of my brain that feels compelled to say that maybe, just maybe things aren't all that bad.
      - scarygliders 7y ago
- alistairSH 7y ago
  "... so acidic..." implies the substance in question is actually an acid. That's what the title used. "...too acidic..." doesn't carry that same implication. On some scale, something is more acidic than optimum. At least, that's the way I interpret the comments above. After reading the article, I knew exactly what was happening and didn't really think the title was click-bait, but can see how others might perceive it that way.
jryb 7y ago
I really don't understand why this distinction matters. If the ecosystem collapses because development is hindered, that's just as bad as the scenario where the animals were outright killed after developing just fine. It's a huge problem either way. The headline is technically wrong, but the broad point, "things that we rely on are dying because of the changing pH of the ocean", is correct and meaningful.
- Godel_unicode 7y ago
  Science doesn't operate on the theory that we can disregard the actual words and just go with the general flow, and when people report this way the inevitable corrections lend fuel to the "science doesn't work" fire. For the sake of getting people to take science seriously, let's try and leave that kind of "ignore the words and listen to the sound of my voice" to marketing.

telchar 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- ericd 7y ago
  The amount of time given to adapt to those changes seems likely to have a big effect on how well organisms weather them... just because the same conditions existed x million years ago doesn’t mean that life can deal with it if the same change happens over 100 years.
  - quakeguy 7y ago
    The rate of ecological collapse far outpaces most organisms ability to evolve.
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      Does it? Normally I hate to be the guy to ask for some sort of citation but on this subject, all I hear is doom and gloom yet none of the dire predictions ever come to fruition.
      - srmatto 7y ago
        Aren't we currently living through a mass extinction? That seems like a reasonable proxy for "outpaces most organisms ability to evolve." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction