In northern winter, the Bering Sea, dividing Alaska and Siberia, becomes the most acidic region on earth (in purple) as shown in this February 2005 acidity map in pH scale. Temperate oceans are less acidic. The equatorial Pacific is left blank due to its high variability around El Niño and La Niña events. (Takahashi)A team of scientists has published the most comprehensive picture yet of how acidity levels vary across the world’s oceans, providing a benchmark for years to come as enormous amounts of human-caused carbon emissions continue to wind up at sea.
“We have established a global standard for future changes to be measured,” said Taro Takahashi, a geochemist at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who published the maps with his colleagues in the August issue of the journal Marine Chemistry. The maps provide a monthly look at how ocean acidity rises and falls by season and geographic location, along with saturation levels of calcium carbonate minerals used by shell-building organisms. The maps use 2005 as a reference year and draw on four decades of measurements by Lamont-Doherty scientists and others.The oceans have taken up a quarter of the carbon dioxide humans have put in the atmosphere over the last two hundred years.

But their help in offsetting global warming has come at a price: the oceans are growing more acidic as they absorb our excess CO2. To what extent ocean acidification may harm marine life and ecosystems is still unclear, but already signs of stress have appeared in corals, mollusks and other shell-builders living in regions with naturally more acidic water. Since the industrial era began, average surface seawater pH in temperate oceans has fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 by 0.1 pH unit, equal to a 30 percent increase in acid concentration. (A lower pH indicates more acidic conditions.)The saturation state of the mineral aragonite, essential to shell-builders, tends to fall as waters become more acidic. The South Pacific Ocean is heavily oversaturated with respect to aragonite (in red) while the polar oceans (in blue) are less saturated, as shown in this February 2005 map. The pink lines represent approximate polar sea ice edges. (Takahashi)
Taro Takahashi has spent more than four decades measuring the changing chemistry of the world’s oceans. Here, aboard the R/V Melville, he celebrates after sampling waters near the bottom of the Japan Trench in 1973. (Lamont-Doherty archives)The vast tropical and temperate oceans, where most coral reefs grow, see the least variation, with pH hovering between 8.05 and 8.15 as temperatures fluctuate in winter and summer. Here, the waters are oversaturated with respect to the mineral aragonite—a substance that shell-building organisms need to thrive.Ocean pH fluctuates most in the colder waters off Siberia and Alaska, the Pacific Northwest and Antarctica. In spring and summer, massive plankton blooms absorb carbon dioxide in the water, raising pH and causing seawater acidity to fall. In winter, the upwelling of CO2-rich water from the deep ocean causes surface waters to become more acidic. Acidification of the Arctic Ocean in winter causes aragonite levels to fall, slowing the growth of pteropods, planktic snails that feed many predator fish. The maps reveal that the northern Indian Ocean is at least 10 percent more acidic than the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which could be due to its unique geography. Cut off from the Arctic Ocean, the chemistry of the northern Indian Ocean is influenced by rivers draining the massive Eurasian continent as well as seasonal monsoon rains.By analyzing long-term data collected off Iceland, Bermuda, the Canary Islands, Hawaii and the Drake Passage, off the southern tip of South America,
Takahashi finds that waters as far north as Iceland and as far south as Antarctica are acidifying at the rate of 5 percent per decade. His estimate corresponds to the amount of CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere, and is consistent with several recent estimates, including a 2014 study in the journal Oceanography led by Nicholas Bates, research director at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences.“This is exactly what we’d expect based on how much CO2 we’ve been putting in the air,” said Rik Wanninkhof, a Miami-based oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who was not involved in the study. “This is an important point for scientists to underscore—these calculations are not magic.”If the current pace of ocean acidification continues, warm-water corals by 2050 could be living in waters 25 percent more acidic than they are today, said Takahashi.
While corals can currently tolerate shifts that big, marine biologists wonder if they can sustain growth at lower pH levels year-round. “In the long run it is the average pH that corals see that matters to their ability to grow and build a coral reef,” said Chris Langdon, a marine biologist at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the study.<Ocean acidification is already having an impact, especially in places where the seasonal upwelling of deep water has made seawater naturally more acidic. In a recent study by researchers at NOAA, more than half of the pteropods sampled off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California showed badly dissolved shells. Ocean acidification has been linked to fish losing their ability to sniff out predators, and the die-off of baby oysters in hatcheries off Washington and Oregon, where more acidic deep water comes to the surface each spring and summer.By 2100, ocean acidification could cost the global economy $3 trillion a year in lost revenue from fishing, tourism and intangible ecosystem services, according to a recent United Nations report.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, has reached similar findings and recommended that President Obama create a research and monitoring program dedicated to ocean acidification.Other authors of the study: Stuart Sutherland, David Chipman (now retired), John Goddard and Cheng Ho, all of Lamont-Doherty; and Timothy Newberger, Colm Sweeney and David Munro, all of University of Colorado, Boulder.

“The oceans are growing more acidic as they absorb our excess CO2”
That implies the oceans are acidic. They are not. A more accurate statement would be
The oceans are growing less alkaline as they absorb our excess CO2. I guess that just doesn’t have the same impact tho.
yes…before the oceans become acidic, they first have to approach neutrality…they in no way can become “more acidic” until they first become acidic, which is really unlikely given that they are buffered by these huge deposits of calcium chloride. just saying.
Calcium carbonate?
I would rahther you use just facts to rebutt them.There are plenty without resorting to semantics.
Answer to Streetcred re. Calcium carbonate.
Back in 1976-78 when I worked with import to Sweden of many types of salt, including several mineralsalts, and also calcium carbonate (among many other chemical products) there were several tests using Calcium carbonate as well as tests using lime in micro-/medium- lake “resque” projects when Ph level had reach more acidic than wanted. In micro that’s a way to go. In medium – macro not. Too many other factors involved that’s make the possible solution costly and not as good as models suggested.
These folks need to get off the acid.
That would be carbonate.
It isn’t ‘semantics’, if, by semantics, you mean the phrases have the same meaning. ‘More acidic’ does not carry the same meaning as ‘less alkaline’. ‘Less acidic’ is an inaccurate description of the effect.
KEN W
THAT is not semantics, It’s SCIENCE.
Interesting to see a map of ocean acidification where the color scale is entirely alkaline.
Whoa, it isn’t arguing semantics! Acids and bases have different properties. Decreasing the ratio of OH-:H+ ions in an alkali solution is not acidifying, or becoming acidic, not does it give it any acidic properties. That solution is still a base with basic properties. If the warmists can’t understand this then what DO they understand?
But acid level 8.1..!
That must be worse then acid level 7.
Acid level 7 sounds like the acid level of the seas round Switzerland.
Very good.
Excellent.
Maybe it’s my browser but I cannot see a single mention of the word ‘ALKALINE’ or variations of the word in the ENTIRE press release. I counted ‘ACID’ and it variations 24 times. I thought the oceans were alkaline. This tells you everything you need to know.
Bill Marsh, David Eisenstadt, Jimbo & MCourtney, you are spot on. Yep, there’s no mention of alkaline – and the coloured bar graph shows pH levels starts @ur momisugly 7.74 (alkaline) up to 8.4 (alkaline). So saying ‘more acidic’ is opinionated nonsense. Just to remind ourselves . . . .
Bleach pH 13.5 (alkaline)
Ammonia pH 10.5 (alkaline)
Sea Water pH 8 (alkaline)
pH 7 (neutral)
Urine pH 6.3 (acid)
Lemon Juice pH 2.2 (acid)
Hydrochloride Acid pH 0 (acid)
Until the oceans cross the pH 7 threshold, the article should be saying ‘The oceans are less alkaline’.
I don’t think accuracy is the goal, funding for the next “Ocean Acidification Report” is.
Oops ‘more acidic’
I love the use of a percentage increase with a lograthmic scale……
Yeh, That’s clever maths.
10^0.1 = 1.259 to 3 d.p. – so 30% is somewhat of an exaggeration.
So where does ALL THAT CO2 come from? We produce 3% of the total CO2 annual budget but the bulk is volcanogenic, ie., from volcanoes, sea mounts all of which were volcanoes, and the ocean ridge system where the tectonic plates are parting forming new oceanic crust. The ocean floor exhumes CO2 in parts as well. To blame us for ocean waters changing its pH is sophistry at best and lieing to force a false point.
See this story from WUWT. It’s about deep ocean upwelling of cold water saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen and low in oxygen. This event killed many shellfish off the USA.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/oyster-crisis-yale-360-wwf-eco-activist-elizabeth-grossman-wrong-again-about-ocean-acidification/
I spit and pee acid on this scaremongering report. The press release officers need to get back to basics or lay off the acid trips.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wtsJf28RIRs/UklFCk-7prI/AAAAAAAAATs/9ZJeX7KxKlo/s1600/phscale.gif
You are looking a biological activity signal. Winter in the Northern hemisphere? No light, but many organisms consuming oxygen and releasing CO2. The Arctic Ocean is already low in alkalinity. Why? Humans? Not necessarily. Alkalinity can be produced from two sources, N fixation in the ocean, and from rivers flowing into the ocean. Stream alkalinity is similarly likely a biological effect, although dissolved minerals would be another source. Long dark winters are expected to reduce photosynthesis and N fixation, since the fixation process requires energy input.
The second figure shows calcium carbonate concentrations in the ocean. The implication is higher atmospheric CO2 produced by man is leading to higher CO2 uptake in the ocean leading to reduced pH. Two points: 1) The highest concentrations of “aragonite” are red, and these are co-located with those economic powerhouses of the world – Australia and Cuba, not to disparage the land of Oz; and 2) aragonite, or CaCO3, is by definition alkalinity, or the basis of acid neutralizing capacity. Strangely enough, the highest levels are observed where biological activity is the highest.
No doubt the red and purple colors are scary. Thanks to public education (an oxymoron), people are easily duped. If you know what you are looking at, the observations are obviously natural, and not scary at all. In fact, it’s pretty amazing we can see nature in action now. And are we really surprised they left out the equatorial region? We can predict with confidence when these data are shown, it would become inconveniently obvious temperature and biological activity and aragonite levels correlate.
This study shows astounding biological myopia. They conveniently ignore the large arthropod subphylum, the Crustacea to which Krill belong. Krill have chitinous exoskeletons, a non-calcium polysaccharide N-acetylglucosamine. Krill thrive in the lower pH waters of the polar regions and other upwelling regions of the oceans.
“In northern winter, the Bering Sea, dividing Alaska and Siberia, becomes the most acidic region on earth…” ????
“…signs of stress have appeared in corals, mollusks and other shell-builders living in regions with naturally more acidic water.”????
Give me a break.
” In the Southern Ocean, one species, the Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, makes up an estimated biomass of around 379,000,000 tonnes,[2] more than that of humans. Of this, over half is eaten by whales, seals, penguins, squid and fish each year, and is replaced by growth and reproduction.”-Wiki
We are doomed of course. Resistance is futile.
More CO2= more sugar!
So with all this new found”danger” from CO2 in water. Why then is it ok to peddle all those carbonated beverages to Humans?? Must be xtremely harmful.
“recommended that President Obama create a research and monitoring program dedicated to ocean acidification.”
I have never heard such utter over the top self serving crap.
Well I actually have.
I’m hearing it as their global warming grants are drying up.
Really, when will it end?
As one way to “milk” the cow becomes obsolete, they invent a whole new way to get a grip on the teat.
It has to stop!
Amen
This is the problem. People aren’t taught how and why the US Congress holds the purse strings. Somehow Obama has convinced everyone it’s his money to spread around so that’s who they ask. “Obama gonna put gas in my car.”
Obama is not a czar. It’s not his money.
Trey Gowdy is right about the president wanting to make the US Congress an anomaly using his pen and phone.
Something to be overcome, ignored or bypassed.
That’s just wrong.
Congress needs to do what we hired them to do and let the president be the party of no.
Somehow the press needs to get behind the country.
Our media are the US versions of Pravda (Truth – Russian translation) and Izvestia (News), pure party organs. They might tear Obama apart only to help elect Hillary. The old Soviet Russian joke is there is no news in the Truth, and no truth in the News. Same here.
“Congress needs to do what we hired them to do and let the president be the party of no.”
I agree with your sentiments — but for that to happen, we would have to have at least two different political parties. At present we only have one political party that simply gives two different speeches.
The problem is the research grant system that funds universities these days. If it wasn’t CAGW, it would be something else.
If I may. Before this, and continuing to this day, the vehicle has been fish. Over fishing. Right now, according to Pew, 90% of all sharks are gone. 100 million per year destroyed. 90% of tuna. Vanished. Its total BS. The donation campaign based on bad news, is thriving. That has been the something else. Best regards.
Leigh and replies: all excellent comments.
+1
“To what extent ocean acidification may harm marine life and ecosystems is still unclear”
And…
“By 2100, ocean acidification could cost the global economy $3 trillion a year in lost revenue from fishing, tourism and intangible ecosystem services, according to a recent United Nations report.”
How do you arrive at a 3 trillion dollar number when you’ve also pointing out you have no idea what is going to happen. Stunning. I suppose the escape hatch is “could”. Anything “could” happen.
We’ll have to have rubber boats to go out into the ocean.( Looking worried ) sarc
Not only are contradictory statements part and parcel of reports like this, but just plain nonsense is an added bonus.
It is almost like Takahashi is saying,
“Sure, it is unclear, but at this current level of uncertainty we can make certain predictions as to the state of the planetary eco-system about 90 years into the future. As the effects of ocean acidification become more unclear we will be able to have our predictions go out to 2150.”
Takahashi is a Bozo in terms of developing coherent conclusions, but his goals are financially driven, where he is gonna do alright with this alarmist nonsense. As far as just the data collection, after his mumbo-jumbo alarmist drivel, who can trust this guys data?
Maybe it’s because they made up the figure? Or maybe I’m badly mistake, so I apologize in advance. Anthony, is there a mistake?
I followed the UN report link above but could only find this:
I searched Google news but could only find 1 trillion a year by 2100.
The WUWT post looks like it comes from Earth Institute Columbia Univ mentions “$3 trillion a year” by 2100.
Mr. Watts please see my last comment.
After noting the lack of the use of the word ALKALINE / ALKALINITY in the press release, I looked at the abstract of the paper. Why didn’t the press release officers deem it fit to mention alkalinity ONCE? Here is the title:
Why didn’t the press release officers deem it fit to mention alkalinity ONCE?
Jimbo
It’s called money.
“By 2100, ocean acidification COULD cost the state of Ohio $3 trillion a year…”
“By 2100, Jim from Maine COULD have a net worth of $3 trillion…”
“By 2100, Anthony Watts COULD attain sainthood…”
All have the same degree of truth.
Here is what marine life and ecosystems have to put up with.
“becomes the most acidic region on earth (in purple) as shown in this February 2005 acidity map in pH scale. Temperate oceans are less acidic.”
Since the pH is above 7.0 don’t they mean least alkaline rather than most acidic?
“In northern winter, the Bering Sea, dividing Alaska and Siberia, becomes the least alkaline region on earth (in purple) as shown in this February 2005 acidity map in pH scale”.
Doesn’t sound alarming, now does it?
“””””…..In northern winter, the Bering Sea, dividing Alaska and Siberia, becomes the most acidic region on earth (in purple) as shown in this February 2005 acidity map in pH scale. Temperate oceans are less acidic. …..”””””
I see a typo there.
Temperate oceans are more alkaline….
Not even remotely acidic.
In chemistry it is proper to refer to things being alkaline and less alkaline. pH refers to the power of the Hydrogen ion.
Shouldn’t it be a ‘pH map’ not an ‘acidity map’?
Nigel,
Correctomundo. But if they want to play that game, it should be an alkilinity map.
I’ve heard about corals dying off for all of my life.
Wake me up when a reef has actually gone.
They just found a new coral reef off the California Coast, I think in Monterey Bay, but it’s 600 feet deep. Can’t be very tropical down there.
Speaking of tropical, I saw a T&V news bulletin about the “Tropical” storm up in Alaska, that is about to deposit a foot or so of sand in the Midwest.
Oops; excuse me, that is snow, and not sand, like in regular tropical storms.
Bleaching of the corals was due to temp rise due to El Nino 97-98. The corals recovered. In some cases more heat tolerant polyp creatures arose, in others the temps moderated. Bleaching obviously is an evolved reaction adaption measure for corals. The coral creatures can and did adapt. As it always has for countless hundreds of millions of years.
Look at the causes of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. If I got 1 Dollar for every time I heard ‘high sea surface temperatures’ and ‘oceans becoming more acidic’ I’d be richer than Bill Gates. OK, maybe not Bill but Al Gore.
Same paper in the news.
Yes…but STORMS!…greatest damage was done by STORMS…and as Al, Barak, and any other “green” with a mouth piece tells us, STORMS are caused by global warming…errr…cooling….errr…ummm…WAIT….
Gasp! The deadly threat of very, very slight “Ocean neutralisation”.
Well, I suppose the Big Wind subsidy farmers need to put their propaganda dollars somewhere….because with the advent of waterless fracking the whole anti shale gas propaganda push looks like a bust.
Pity about those ocean fossil records from times when CO2 was higher than today. Maybe they could try “excess bird and bat population problems” as their next excuse to save their ponzi schemes?
… and yet another set of impossibly precise and accurate metrics for the “global” alarmists to hype and blame on mankind’s evil industries… as if the variation in PH of +/-0.04 is even realistically measurable or abnormal.
Yes meaningfully measurable – measuring to hundredths when the margin of error is whole numbers seems rather a futile enterprise.
It’s like using a yard stick to measure the distance to the moon and claiming accuracy to 1/16 of an inch.
They should be able to measure to nearest 0.1 or 0.2. It is the number of measurements over the whole ocean and at different depths and for many years that is most important. This article makes it sound as if they have lots of measurements for 40 years. Would like to find out more about what they actually know and how well. I will have to read the paper, I guess.
@Bill W – Its been a while since I checked but there were no precise pH probes that could be used for sea water. It used to require measuring an equilibrium between SO2 and H2S03 in solution. I’m sure none were fitted to the Argo buoys so how many samples could they have taken?
Just read the abstract. pH is estimated from other measurements rather than measured directly.
@ur momisugly Robert B – other measurements – the marine equivalent of tree rings presumably? Sea rings?
Hiding the decline of [OH-]?
One of the most fundamental rules of “process control” is that you must sense and measure the variable which you wish to control, and then use feedback to force that set point. If you “infer” the value of the variable you wish to control, from some proxy variable, and then use feedback to force that variable to some set point, you do not end up with a controlled process.
They correct term for such a system is “BOMB.”
How could a trace amount of Atmospheric CO2 change the PH that much,when the same ocean waters already have 99% of the CO2 in the system?
The surface of the oceans (the “mixed layer”, the upper few hundred meters) are in direct contact with the atmosphere and exchange CO2 at a fast rate (1-3 years). Quantities in the mixed layer (around 1000 GtC) and atmosphere (800 GtC) are quite similar.
Because of chemistry, any change in the atmosphere gives a change in the ocean surface of about 10% of the change in the atmosphere.
The exchanges with the deep oceans are much slower.
Hi Ferdinand,
“Mike, the upwelling is seasonal and goes away in summer. The trend over the past decades is what is of interest and that goes down everywhere where is measured.”
Just trying to understand, what you are implying here..
So sometimes during the year there is a natural reason for this locally high acidification of the surface water ..I hate it when people (even climate experts!) use the term “ocean acidification”, its so wrong and unscientific, the oceans couldnt care less about the tiny anthropogenic CO2 amount.., but you are sure that the long term pH is only/mainly caused by anthropogenic emissions!? Sounds strange to me given that there is strong evidence for long scale ocean cycles in that region!
All in all there seems to be huge variations of the acidification over the globe (being inconsistent with a homogenous global reason for it)
“The surface of the oceans (the “mixed layer”, the upper few hundred meters) are in direct contact with the atmosphere and exchange CO2 at a fast rate (1-3 years).”
This number seems to change, I remember 5-10 years, with year being a likely candidate..
“Because of chemistry, any change in the atmosphere gives a change in the ocean surface of about 10% of the change in the atmosphere.”
Reverse engineering this statement with the 5% change expected per decade, does that mean, they really predict a change of 50% in the atmosphere per decade?
Cheers,
LoN
“the oceans (…) exchange CO2 at a fast rate (1-3 years).”
No. I exchange CO2 at a fast rate – 6-12 seconds.
LoN,
There are only some seven permanent stations which have longer time series at different places in the oceans. The rest of the Takahashi data are based on ships measurements, which were sporadic in the past, but increasing over time.
The seasonal influence and the trends for the seven stations can be seen in:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_bates.pdf
That humans are responsible for the longer term pH drop is clear to me, as I am quite sure that humans are largely responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…
That the pH drop is not uniform is because pH is not uniform too: pH depends of a lot of factors, including temperature, biolife, upwelling,… Ultimately, any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere gives an increase of DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon: CO2 + bi + carbonates), all other items in average equal, no matter if that is by less pCO2 difference at the upwelling places or more pCO2 difference at the sink places.
The 5-10 years is the turnover time, which is mainly caused by seasonal exchanges: about 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged each year with vegetation (~60 GtC in and out) and the ocean surface (~50 GtC out and in). That makes that for both the ocean surface (and vegetation) and the atmosphere, any change in one of them is rapidly spread over the other one(s).
The 5% mentioned by Takahashi is the change in [H+], alkalinity, while the 10% change vs. atmospheric changes is in [DIC]. The latter can be seen in the change of DIC at Bermuda and other stations, where the increase in DIC is about 10% of the increase in pCO2 (~ppmv) of the atmosphere over the same period. See fig. 3 in the above Bates e.a. publication.
Ferdinand:
Below you claim 7 million ship’s measurements but the study is based on modeling because ocean pH cannot be measured directly, and explains why deriving ocean pH figures is problematic. Plus the pH varies vary considerably because of upwelling factors.This throws doubt on your refrain about decreasing ocean surface pH, seen in your many comments.
mpainter, most pH “measurements” are derived from calculations based on other measured items (DIC and total alkalinity), as these are far better defined and easier to measure accurately. But where both pH is directly measured and calculated, the figures are quite similar. See e.g. fig 1 of
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf
The calculated and directly measured pH start to differ at a depth of 1000 meters.
The oceans are not a closed system like they pretend it is with the ocean acidification meme. This is where their cute little hypothesis completely falls apart in my opinion. This is why calcareous marine life not only lived through 2,000+ ppm CO2; they thrived, evolved, and diversified in these conditions.
so now I`m confused as to why the deep waters are more `acidic` than the surface waters as mentioned elsewhere if its the surface water that reacts rapidly to air CO2 change
Jono, a lot of biological life happens in the upper ocean layer where there is sunlight. The small plants (phyto plankton) consume CO2 and provide oxygen. The reduction in CO2 makes that the pH at the surface is higher than further down the oceans (also visible in the elevated 13C/12C ratio).
Dead plankton and/or rests of eaten plankton fall down and are oxidized at middle debts, reducing the oxygen content and increasing CO2 levels, thus reducing the pH.
That are parts of the natural carbon cycle, the trend at the surface is of a different origin and hardly influences the natural cycle, as CO2/bi/carbonates are abundant present in the surface of the oceans.
Also as mentioned here, cold, less alkaline fresh water rivers emptying into the ocean . There is a mechanism in place to account for the lack of alkalinity and lower pH of fresh water. If there wasn’t, over millennia oceans would become diluted and pH would decrease naturally anyways.
So, this “Human-Caused Ocean Acidification” is at a maximum just downwind of Kamchatka. Right.
That it drifts towards the poles seemed reasonable to me, assuming gases aren’t well-mixed. The winds blow the SOx away from the equator (and along it with the trade winds).
Bit of a blow for those who think ∆[CO2] is the critical factor or alternatively that CO2 is well-mixed..
The weird thing for me is east of Brazil at about 30° South. That must be geological. A large undersea vent or volcano, perhaps?
Four decades of playing a Kabuki impersonation of Jacques Cousteau..What fun these science gravy-trainers have.
.”Hey Calypso I’ll spin you a story …” with apologies to the late messrs JC and JD
Four decades of his life wasted … this is what it must feel like to waste one’s life.
I’ve been getting paid to waste my life for a lot longer than that.
The Study of the Washington -Oregon-California pteropods was unbenchmarked. Nuff said.
Oh, and if the oceans are absorbing 25% of our “contribution” to CO2 (which is 3% and the rest of the changes are due to natural causes) then using their numbers we are responsible for 0.00075 lower PH to the drop in alkalinity.
I feel better now 🙂 When I read that, I thought “Surely that’s not what they meant to say?…”
What utter rubbish!
Horsefeathers
To be accurate and scientific, it should be described as the least alkaline region of the ocean.
But they drape a drive for political action in pseudo-science jargon all to instill fear.
The real question is … has science gone stupid?
Yes.
Well…
…it has gone political.
Which…
…I guess is similar to going stupid.
There are very likely huge errors due to upwelling and the modeling required to estimate pH. The Bering Sea is an area of high upwelling.
Here’s what Takahashi reported in “Climatological distributions of pH, pCO2, total CO2, alkalinity, and CaCO3 saturation in the global surface ocean, and temporal changes at selected locations” (2014)
“The most desirable way for computing pH and carbonate chemistry parameters is to use pCO2 and TCO…. While seasonal variability data for pCO2 are available for many locations in the global oceans, the TCO2 observations are too few to define seasonal changes other than those obtained at a few time-series stations. Consequently, the TCO2 data are not sufficient for establishing the global distribution of pH and other carbonate chemistry parameters, …”
“The carbonate chemistry in seawater may be also defined using a combination of pCO2 and the total alkalinity (TA). However, this scheme requires additional measurements for the concentrations of boric, phosphoric and silicic acids as well as the knowledge of the dissociation
constants for each acid species, in order to compute the carbonate alkalinity by correcting the contribution of these acids to the TA. Thus, the errors may be larger for high nutrient waters in high latitude and upwelling areas. “
re upwelling : The moment I saw the chart, I was sure that the more acidic areas away from the tropics were the areas identified many years ago as areas of upwelling. And yes, the Absttract says “ In the subpolar and polar waters of the North and South Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans, pCO2 and the concentrations Of CO2 and nutrients were much higher during winter than summer. During winter, the high latitude areas of the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Weddell Sea were sources for atmospheric CO2; during summer, they became CO2 sinks. This is attributed to the upwelling of deep waters rich in CO2 and nutrients during winter, and the intense photosynthesis occurring in strongly stratified upper layers during summer.“.
So the “acidification” (well that “acidification” anyway) is NOT from man-made CO2 but from water upwelling from the deep ocean. ie, water that got its CO2 etc etc many hundreds of years ago.
The upwelling areas are given I think in earlier Takahashi studies (from memory 1995 and 2000) but it would take me time that I don’t have right now to find them. If anyone asks, I’ll look when I can.
I have just noticed that “The Abstract” which I referenced was of a 2010 Takahashi paper, so somehow I actually did use an earlier Takahashi study. Someone must have given the link – thanks, whoever it was!
Mike, the upwelling is seasonal and goes away in summer. The trend over the past decades is what is of interest and that goes down everywhere where is measured. Here for Bermuda (fig. 5):
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
and here for Hawaii (fig. 1):
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf
Besides that, some 7 million ships measurements (regular and occasional), buoys and platforms add to the trends over time for a lot of ocean waters.
Why are you limiting interest to past decades, did oceans just come into being a few decades ago? How can we claim humanity being the driver of PH when we do not know how the planet worked throughout it’s history? What does a lot of the ocean mean? What does regular and occasional measurements mean? How can you trend random measurements taken from limited ocean locations, especially when you claim upswelling is seasonal and the reports you cite are regionally specific. I imagine a lot of behaviours related to the oceans varies seasonally and regionally as well as over decades and centuries regardless of how much CO2 humans are burning running computer models.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Upwelling undergoes a seasonal cycle but you would be mistaken to say it goes away in the summer. Mooring off the Oregon coast have observed several events of rapid increase in ocean pCO2 ranging from 500 to 1100 from June to September.
Ferdinand – The article begins “In northern winter, the Bering Sea, dividing Alaska and Siberia, becomes the most acidic region on earth (in purple) as shown in this February 2005 acidity map in pH scale. “. The cause of that is clearly upwelling, not man-made CO2. Yes, the major issue is the global trend, but who is to say that the upwelling is not a factor in the global trend – ie, the stuff that upwells may drift off somewhere else by summer so that it doesn’t show up at that place any more but it might still affect the global picture. Or maybe each year the winter upwelling isn’t completely counteracted in summer, so over the full year the pH cranks down a little notch. Fact is, we just don’t know, but the fact that such a dramatic area of “acidification” is naturally caused doesn’t seem to do a lot for the “man-made” idea.
Alx, there were some alternative pH “proxy” measurements in foramin shells, which show similar pH changes over longer periods, but human emissions mainly increased since the 1950’s and are increasingly increasing in the past decades, thus while the past is interesting, the current increase in emissions has far more influence than the longer past.
Jim, local upwelling can have a strong influence, but global upwelling and downwelling should be in equilibrium, as one can’t have much sea level difference… What that gives is an estimated 40 GtC continuous exchange of CO2 between the upwelling in the tropical Pacific (before the Peruvian and Chilean coasts) and the polar sinks, mainly in the NE Atlantic and back via the deep oceans (the THC – Thermohaline circulation).
Mike,
Unfortunately, there are no longer term continuous measurements in the North Pacific, but there are in the North Atlantic: Iceland and the Irminger Sea (between Iceland and Greenland). These show huge seasonal pH variations due to winter upwelling and summer consumption of the extra CO2 thanks to extra nutrients and therefore extra biolife. See Fig. 2 in Bates e.a.:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_bates.pdf
In Fig. 3 one can see that the increase in DIC (total carbon) over time is practically the same for all sites and everywhere, except the tropical one, the increase in pCO2 on site follows the increase in the atmosphere at a lower level: CO2 in average is moving from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse.
Ferdinand – Nothing you say is disputed (by me), but it’s not exactly relevant to what I was saying. The purple patches are upwellings, and therefore not human-caused. Interesting thoughts flow from that fact.
Jim Steele has put his finger on big problem this study has.
“We have established a global standard for future changes to be measured” said Taro Takahashi.
Is this the measure of Lamont-Doherty?
Blimey – Atmospheric CO2 up from three parts per ten thousand to four parts per ten thousand.
True believers seemingly highlighting a drop approaching pH 7.7 -well alkaline – in some areas of the Kurilles.
My kitten could do better.
Auto
I am having trouble with the ocean absorbing more CO2, just because there is more of it in the atmosphere. I think I recall from Henry’s Law in high school that the amount of gas liquids can absorb depends on temperature and pressure, the amount of gas absorbed varying inversely with temperature and directly with pressure. It shouldn’t matter how much atmospheric CO2 there is, should it?
If global warming resumes and ocean temperatures rise, won’t the oceans release more CO2 and become more alkaline, not acidic? This seems more consistent with the Henry’s Law.
Henry’s Law provides generally that the amount of gas held in solution depends on the equilibrium of the gas’s pressure with atmospheric pressure. The dissolved gas’s equilibrium pressure is a number (the Henry constant) that varies inversely with temperature (which controls molecular thermodynamics) and directly with atmospheric pressure. When temperature changes while atmospheric pressure does not, the Henry constant, or coefficient, shows (above) how warmer liquid, with more molecular activity, holds proportionally less gas than cooler liquid. So the oceans, under relatively constant atmospheric pressure, will release more CO2 as higher temperatures stimulate molecular activity that raises the dissolved CO2’s pressure above atmospheric, or equilibrium, pressure. Likewise, carbon dioxide in a warm carbonated drink sprays liquid when opened because the warm liquid’s equilibrium point is lower than the equilibrium point of the cooler liquid which could then hold more gas.
Maybe I am missing something here. It’s been 60 years since high school.
But if Henry’s Law holds for ocean acidification, warmer oceans should hold less CO2 in solution, resulting in less carbonic acid. The Hockey Schtick recently posted a paper that seemed to confirm that. Ajioka, T., Yamamoto, M., Takemura, K., and Kitagawa, H., published “Water pH and temperature in Lake Biwa from MBT’/CBT indices during the last 280 000 years,” in the journal Climate of the Past, on October 17, 2014. The Hockey Schtick summary reported that the pH of water from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years increased (became more alkaline) with warmer temperatures and decreased (more acidic) with cooling temperatures. It directly contradicts the assumptions of global warming theory’s “ocean acidification” scare.
The paper is at:
http://www.clim-past.net/10/1843/2014/cp-10-1843-2014.pdf
http://www.clim-past.net/10/1843/2014/cp-10-1843-2014-relations.html
Tom Anderson – “the ocean absorbing more CO2” could well be correct. Although a warming ocean will emit CO2 if the atmosphere is otherwise unchanged, it can still absorb more CO2 if at the same time the atmosphere has been acquiring CO2 from elsewhere. It’s the pCO2s that determine the direction of flow of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere.
Tom,
Henry’s law is for each type of gas in the atmosphere on its own, not for the atmosphere as a whole.
If the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases from 300 μatm (~ppmv) to 400 μatm, then the oceans will absorb 33% more CO2 as free CO2, no matter if that CO2 is in 1 atm of air or in near full vacuum…
But as free CO2 is only 1% of total carbon in seawater, that would be an increase of only 0.33% of total carbon. In reality, due to the equilibrium reactions with bicarbonates and carbonates, the real increase is 3.3%, or about a factor 10 higher. That is called the Revelle/buffer factor.
The reference to a lake in Japan was extensively discussed here at WUWT too: that is a fresh water lake and fresh water has no/much less buffer capacity than seawater. The behavior of CO2 in a fresh water lake is not comparable to the oceans… See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/new-paper-debunks-acidification-scare-finds-warming-increases-ph/
Yes, see Ferdinand’s comment below. It is the partial pressure of each gas.
Freshwater lakes and oceans have very different chemistries. Changes of pH in a lake have essentially no relevance for conditions in an ocean.
Human caused – clearly visible. Caused by a burgeoning population explosion in the Aleutian Islands.
Yeah, yeah – we’re doomed.
*YAWN*
Hhhmmmm. . . the ‘Vast Bering Sea’ ( . .as narrator Mike Rowe would say – from the tv show ‘Deadliest Catch’ . .) is the most acidic . . ? I wonder if that is affecting the King Crab and Opelio Crab populations. Maybe these scientist publishing the maps ought to check with the crab fisherman up there, and see how the crab appear to be doing.
AND, do we think this DIDN’T happen during the Medieval Warm Period ? Why should it be an issue now? Let’s just see what the temperatures do in the next decade or two, then IF it’s an issue begin to address it . . .
One wonders: Where did all that CO2, from the eras where it was 2000 ppm and above, go to?
By these scientists standards the oceans should have absorbed so much you could practically fill your ca’rs batteries with sea water.
Most are deposited as carbonates: see the white cliffs of Dover and a lot of other parts of England and other places in the world…
Reading this is a puzzling experience. Aragonite and Calcite are the two physical forms of calcium carbonate, just as soot, graphite and diamond are the three physical forms of carbon.
Aragonite does not exist in solution, only calcium ions and carbonate ions.
Saying “The saturation state of the mineral aragonite”is like calling the carbon content of air the diamond content.
Weirdly imprecise writing, it reminds me of greenies talking about “megawatts per hour”
My thoughts, too. The terminology of the post is screwy in that regard. There is no such thing as “aragonite” in solution. Aragonite exists only in crystal form.
Saturation refers to a solid/liquid equilibrium. In this case, it is aragonite vs dissolved CaCO3. Calcile would have a different equilibrium point.
Not quite so. Look at : Falini, G. et al, Control of Aragonite or Calcite Polymorphism by Mollusk Shell Macromolecules, Science 5 January 1996: Vol. 271. no. 5245, pp. 67 – 69
Many mineralizing organisms selectively form either calcite or aragonite, two polymorphs of calcium carbonate with very similar crystalline structures. Understanding how these organisms achieve this control has represented a major challenge in the field of biomineralization. Macromolecules extracted from the aragonitic shell layers of some mollusks induced aragonite formation in vitro when preadsorbed on a substrate of -chitin and silk fibroin. Macromolecules from calcitic shell layers induced mainly calcite formation under the same conditions. The results suggest that these macromolecules are responsible for the precipitation of either aragonite or calcite in vivo.
Reblogged this on SasjaL and commented:
Do they avoid the salinity level deliberately? When the salinity level drops, then the water becomes more acidic or more accurately less alkaline … The water in the northern regionhave normally low salinity, so …
Warm water is not capable of dissolving as much CO2 as cold water. The fact the very slight decrease in alkalinity is concentrated in the equatorial region suggests the source of acidification is not CO2 – more likely volcanic sulphuric acid.
I think the article cites the arctic as the least alkaline. It mentions the Indian ocean but adds that this is probably due to its geography, ie river inputs.