Guest essay by Jim Steele,
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
In 2002, Scripps’ esteemed oceanographer Walter Munk argued for the establishment of an Ocean Observation System reporting, “much of the twentieth century could be called a “century of undersampling” in which “physical charts of temperature, salinity, nutrients, and currents were so unrealistic that they could not possibly have been of any use to the biologists. Similarly, scientists could find experimental support for their favorite theory no matter what the theory they claimed. ” Due to that undersampling MIT’s oceanographer Carl Wunsch (2006) likewise noted, “Among the more troublesome distortions now widely accepted, one must include the notion that the ocean circulation is a simple “conveyor belt” and that the Gulf Stream is in danger of ‘turning off’.”
Another such favorite theory, mistakenly offered as a fact, speculates we are now witnessing increasing anthropogenic ocean acidification, despite never determining if current pH trends lie within the bounds of natural variability. Claims of acidification are based on an “accepted scientific paradigm” that “anthropogenic CO2 is entering the ocean as a passive thermodynamic response to rising atmospheric CO2.” Granted when all else is equal, higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations result in more CO2 entering the oceans and declining pH. But the ever-changing conditions of surface waters exert far more powerful effects. Whether we examine seasonal, multi-decadal, millennial or glacial/interglacial time frames, ocean surfaces are rarely in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. Relative to atmospheric CO2, seasonal surface water can range up to 60% oversaturated due to rising acidic deep water. Due to the biological pump, CO2 concentrations can be drawn down, leaving surface waters as much as 60% under‑saturated (Takahashi 2002). Thus we cannot simply attribute trends in surface water pH to equilibration with atmospheric CO2. We must first fully account for natural ocean cycles that raise acidic waters from deeper layers and the biological responses that pump CO2 back to ocean depths.
[note: in this essay I use “acidic” in a relative sense. For example, although the pH of ocean water is 7.8 at 250 meters depth and is technically alkaline, those waters are “more acidic” relative to the surface pH of 8.1.]
To appreciate the importance of pH altering dynamics, consider the fact that pure water has a neutral pH of 7.0. Rainfall quickly equilibrates with atmospheric CO2, and pH falls to ~5.5. Dark‑water rivers such as the Rio Negro drop to pH 5.1. In contrast, due to a combination of biological activities and geochemical buffering, the average pH of ocean surfaces (and some rivers) rises to ~8.1. In other words, after equilibration with atmospheric CO2, powerful factors combine to remove 99.8% of all acidifying hydrogen ions from rainwater. The balance between upwelled acidic waters versus carbon sequestration and export by the “biological pump” is the key factor maintaining high pH in oceanic surface waters, and the communities of plankton that operate that pump undergo changes on seasonal, multidecadal and millennial time scales; changes we are just beginning to understand.
In Bates 2014, A Time-Series View of Changing Surface Ocean Chemistry Due to Ocean Uptake of Anthropogenic CO2 and Ocean Acidification, they simplistically argued declining ocean pH is “consistent with rising atmospheric CO2”. But a closer examination of each site used in their synthesis suggests their anthropogenic attribution is likely misplaced. For example, at the Hawaiian oceanic station known as HOT, based on 10 samplings a year since 1988, researchers reported a declining pH trend. But that trend was not consistent with invasions from atmospheric CO2. An earlier paper (Dore 2009) had observed, “Air-sea CO2 fluxes, while variable, did not appear to exert an influence on surface pH variability. For example, low fluxes of CO2 into the sea from 1998–2002 corresponded with low pH and relatively high fluxes during 2003–2005 were coincident with high pH; the opposite pattern would be expected if variability in the atmospheric CO2 invasion was the primary driver of anomalous DIC accumulation.” (DIC is the abbreviation for Dissolved Inorganic Carbon referring to the combined components derived from aqueous CO2, including bicarbonate and carbonate ions.)
Those higher fluxes of CO2 into the surface likely stimulated a more efficient biological pump resulting in higher pH. That rise in pH is consistent with experimental evidence demonstrating CO2 is often a limiting nutrient (Riebesell 2007), and adding CO2 stimulates photosynthesis. That most photosynthesizing plankton have CO2 concentrating mechanisms suggests CO2 is often in chronic short supply.
The greatest concentrations of CO2 upwell from depth to invade surface waters. As seen below in the illustration by Byrne 2010 from the northern Pacific, the ocean’s pH (thus the store of DIC) rapidly drops from 8.1 at the surface to 7.3 at 1000 meters depth. Dynamics such as upwelling bring deeper waters to the surface reducing pH, while dynamics such as the biological pump shunt carbon back to deeper depths and raise surface pH. At the risk of oversimplifying a myriad of complex dynamics, oceans basically undergo a 4-phase cycle that determines the average annual surface pH. Any adjustments to this cycle will alter trends in pH over decadal to millennial time periods.
Phase 1: Varied rates of upwelling and winter mixing raises acidic water to the sunlit surface and
lowers pH.
Phase 2: Specific plankton communities, largely diatoms respond quickly to the arrival of
nutrients in the surface waters, and rapidly sequester and export carbon back to depth. Phase-2 productivity also generates dissolved and suspended organic carbon that is transported laterally to other regions. When community photosynthesis absorbs CO2 faster than respiration releases it or upwelling injects it, surface pH rises.
Phase 3: As available nutrients are depleted, diatom populations dwindle and other plankton
communities dominate such as coccolithophores and photosynthesizing bacteria. Instead of rapidly exporting carbon, this plankton community is better at retaining and utilizing nutrients. The utilization of suspended and dissolved organic carbon and increased grazing by populations of zooplankton increase respiration rates relative to new photosynthesis, so pH declines.
Phase 4: A “regional equilibrium” is established as accumulated organic carbon from previous
phases is depleted and new, but lower, levels of productivity are balanced by community respiration. That balance raises pH. This equilibrium is fleeting and lasts until a new burst of nutrients reaches sunlit waters. The supply of nutrients rising to the surface cycles seasonally as well as over decades, millennia and glacial/interglacial intervals, so that short interval trends are embedded in much longer trends. This is one reason why computed pH trends by Bates 2014 statistically explained only a minor portion of pH variability even after removing seasonal trends.
First consider that oceans store 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. A small change in the rate by which deep acidic water reaches the surface is the major determinant of surface pH trends. Nutrients, acidity, and density increase with depth, but not all depths contain a balanced supply of nutrients critical for photosynthesis. To bring denser water to the surface requires a significant input of energy that is primarily provided by the winds or tides (Wunsch 2004). Stronger winds generate more upwelling and winter mixing. Thus cycles of oceanic and atmospheric circulation that strength and weaken winds, raise varied combinations and concentrations of nutrients to the surface, which accordingly affects the biological pump and pH.
For example in temperate oceans, winter cooling of surface waters allows winds and storms to mix surface waters with CO2 rich waters from as deep as 500 meters. This lowers surface pH, so that relatively insignificant inputs from atmospheric CO2 are undetectable. (Takahashi 2002, 1993). Several researchers have observed significant correlations between winter mixing and the North Atlantic Oscillation (Ullman 2009, Steinberg 2012). A positive NAO is associated with stronger westerly winds and also correlates with a stronger subpolar gyre. Counter-clockwise gyres in the northern hemisphere increase regional upwelling when they strengthen. So changes in NAO-driven upwelling cause multi-decadal oscillations in the plankton communities and pH.
In the Pacific, El Nino years strengthen the Aleutian Low and the Pacific subpolar gyre, similarly increasing regional upwelling. In contrast during La Nina years, gyre upwelling decreases but trade winds speed up and intensify coastal and equatorial upwelling. The frequency of El Niño’s vs La Niña’s varies over 40 to 60 year cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Although periods of increased upwelling decreases pH, due to undersampling it is not clear how this extrapolates across the whole Pacific Basin during the 20th century.
Upwelling also varies on millennial scales. During the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and the Current Warm Period, La Nina-like conditions with stronger trade winds dominated (Salvatteci 2014) causing above average upwelling and higher productivity. During cooler periods like the Dark Ages and Little Ice Age, the Pacific was dominated by El Nino-like conditions with less upwelling and lower productivity. Claims that oceans have acidified since the Little Ice Age due to anthropogenic CO2 (Caldeira 2003) may be true, but the uncertainties are huge. It is just as likely increased upwelling caused more acidic modern oceans, or it is equally possible that modern oceans are less acidic if increased upwelling stimulated a biological pump that sequestered and exported enough carbon to offset acidic upwelling.
Global ocean acidification is determined by averaging sink regions with out‑gassing source regions. Opposing regional trends add significant uncertainty when determining global calculations. As illustrated by the yellows and reds in the Martinez-Boti (2015) illustration below, there are vast regions where so much DIC is upwelled, on average the ocean is exhaling CO2. Regions that are net sources of out-gassing CO2 experience lower pH solely due to upwelling of ancient waters, and the pH is lower than predicted from simple equilibration with the atmosphere.
Paradoxically, oceans also experience acidification if weakening winds reduce upwelling. For example due to changing locations and strength of the InterTropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), trade winds over northern Venezuela’s Cariaco Basin undergo decadal and centennial shifts in strength. When the ITCZ moved south during the Little Ice Age, upwelling and productivity in the Cariaco Basin declined. At the end of the LIA, the ITCZ began moving northward and upwelling and productivity increased (Gutierrez 2009). Recently the ITCZ moved further northward due to more La Niña’s and the negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and regional winds declined. Consequently researchers reported anomalously shallow seasonal upwelling that brought more DIC to the surface but fewer critical nutrients that reside at lower depths. This resulted in decreased productivity and a decrease in diatom populations. Less productivity and less carbon export did not offset upwelled DIC, so the regional pH declined (Astor 2013). Despite Astor serving as a co-author, Bates 2014 oddly failed to mention this pH altering dynamic, choosing to attribute Cariaco’s declining pH trend to rising anthropogenic CO2.
In contrast to the Cariaco Basin, a negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation increases upwelling along the Americas west coast, stimulating the highly productive/high carbon-export community of phase-2. Upwelled DIC is quickly sequestered and exported by large single-celled diatoms. With their relatively heavy siliceous shells, dead diatoms rapidly sink carrying carbon to the sea floor. Larger zooplankton graze on diatoms and their large fecal pellets and carcasses also carry carbon rapidly to depth. Diatom blooms along California and Oregon spark increased krill and anchovy populations, which attract feeding humpback whales from Costa Rica and seabirds like the Sooty Shearwater from New Zealand, confounding any attempts accurately measure the carbon budget.
As illustrated in the Evans et al graph below, coastal upwelling can over‑saturate the surface waters to 1000 matm, 2.5 times above atmospheric pCO2 (represented by dashed horizontal line). Within weeks the biological response sequesters and exports that carbon so that concentrations of surface water CO2 fall as low as 200 matm; a concentration that would still be under-saturated relative to the Little Ice Age’s atmosphere. Relative to these rapid seasonal changes in pH, fears that marine organisms cannot adapt quickly enough to the relatively slower changes wrought by anthropogenic CO2 seem overblown.
Still such fears filter researchers’ interpretations. Along the west coast of North America, planktonic sea snails called pteropods, begin life feeding on algal blooms ignited by seasonal coastal upwelling. As illustrated in scanning electron micrograph “a”, shown below from (Bednarsek 2014), pteropod shells are heavily dissolved during the first few weeks of life due to acidic upwelled water. Picture “b” shows a larger more mature shell with the outer part of the shell experiencing no dissolution. As the snails matured, either upwelled acidic waters subsided or the snail was transported seaward to less acidic waters by the same currents that promoted upwelling. The result is pteropod shell dissolution is a very localized, short duration phenomenon.
Nonetheless in a study sponsored by NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program Bednarsek 2014 argued those examples of shell dissolution were caused by anthropogenic carbon writing, “We estimate that the incidence of severe pteropod shell dissolution owing to anthropogenic OA has doubled in near shore habitats since pre-industrial conditions across this region and is on track to triple by 2050.” But such “conclusions” are unsupported speculation at best. The study failed to determine if upwelled waters were any more acidic now than during any other seasonal or La Nina upwelling event. Most studies suggest upwelling declined during the Little Ice Age, and the resumption of stronger upwelling is the result of a natural cycle. But Bednarsek (2014) simply used a formula equilibrating past and present atmospheric CO2 to compute surface water pH. But such methodology is meaningless. No net CO2 diffusion from the atmosphere to surface waters occurs when upwelling has oversaturated surface pCO2, and as shown in the Evans et al graph, due to the biological pump surface waters remained undersaturated relative to both current and LIA atmospheric CO2. Shame on those NOAA scientists for such biased interpretations.
On all time frames, when upwelling subsides and nutrients and carbon become scarce, diatom populations dwindle and oceans transition to Phase 3. Coccolithophore and bacterial communities that were relatively minor constituents, begin to dominate. Smaller bacteria remain suspended in the surface layers and export much less carbon. Grazing on increasingly abundant bacteria and accumulated organic carbon, promotes greater zooplankton populations. As a result, community respiration rates increase, and higher CO2 concentrations lower surface pH.
Coccolithophores are large single-celled alga encased by several ornate calcium-carbonate “coccoliths”, so that sinking dead individuals do export carbon relatively quickly. However the construction of coccoliths metabolically increases surface pCO2, lowers pH and counteracts the “biological pump”. When calcium combines with carbonate ions to form coccoliths, the reaction releases acidifying CO2. Likewise the growth of pteropods’ calcium carbonate shells also increases CO2. It seems paradoxical that one of the greatest fears of ocean acidification is the dissolution of carbonate shells, yet the very process of creating those shells increases acidification and lowers surface alkalinity.
Several researchers suggest coccolith formation evolved to provide much needed CO2 for photosynthesis in under-saturated waters. Experimental evidence reveals higher concentrations of CO2 results in lower rates of coccolith formation but proponents of worrisome acidification argue this is evidence of acidification’s deleterious effects. However the same response would be expected if the rate of coccolith formation responds to the available supply of CO2 required for photosynthesis. Furthermore if they are so vulnerable to acidification, how did coccolithophores evolve and survive over 200 million years ago, when atmospheric CO2 was at least 2 to 3 times higher than today?
Without copious supplies of nutrients from upwelling, productivity in subtropical gyres is much lower and diatoms constitute a minor component of that plankton community. But they still undergo cyclic changes. In the Atlantic, Steinberg (2012) describes a 113% decrease in diatoms between 1990 and 2007 in contrast to stable coccolithophore populations and a rapidly increasing community of photosynthesizing bacteria. In turn rapidly increasing communities of small zooplankton graze on the bacteria resulting in increased community respiration rates. Three sites from Bates 2014 are located in subtropical gyres: HOT near Hawaii, BATS near the Bermuda and ESTOC near the Canary Islands. And all three are exhibiting these classic phase-3 patterns with increasing respiration rates (Lomas 2010, Gonzalez-Davila 2003, Peligri 2005, Steinberg 2012), which accounts for declining pH trends. As shown by Steinberg 2012, those trends are significantly correlated with multi-decadal climate indices – the North Atlantic Oscillation plus three different Pacific Ocean climate indices”.
Global pH decreased when oceans transitioned from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) to the current interglacial Teleconnections between the Atlantic and Pacific have been confirmed as warm periods in the Greenland ice core correlate with periods of extended periods of upwelling along the California coast (Ortiz 2005). Recent research also links simultaneous multi‑millennial cycles of upwelling and higher productivity in the sub‑Antarctic Atlantic and equatorial Pacific. Most research suggests that at the end of the LGM, Antarctic began to warm followed by a rise in atmospheric CO2. Although the precise mechanism of CO2 out‑gassing during the deglacial period has been under debate, there is a growing consensus that circulation changes caused aged waters rich in nutrients to upwell in subpolar Antarctic waters. Via oceanic tunneling, those deep Antarctic waters also upwelled in the equatorial eastern Pacific. Using foraminifera proxy data, the graphic below from Martinez-Boti (2015) shows periodic upwelling of subpolar Antarctic waters (on the left in blue) caused regional pH to decline from the LGM maximum of 8.4 to about 8.1 at the beginning of the Holocene. Due to the biological pump and/or reduced upwelling during the early and mid Holocene, pH rises and bounces between 8.25 and 8.15.
Based on CO2 concentrations determined from Antarctic ice cores, Martinez‑Boti also constructed a green “Equilibrium pH” trend indicating the surface pH if it had simply equilibrated with atmospheric CO2. For most of the past 20,000 years, surface waters were not in atmospheric equilibrium and more acidic, so those regional oceans were typically a source of out‑gassing CO2. The graphs on the right (in red) show the same pattern for the equatorial eastern Pacific but with data that extends further into the LGM.
Calvo 2011 examined ocean sediments to determine the strength of upwelling versus the biological pump plus the relationship between diatoms and coccolithophores over the past 40,000 years. Their research found lower productivity during the LGM and lower diatom abundance relative to coccolithopheres. As upwelling increased around 20,000 years ago so did ocean productivity and the proportion of diatoms. They concluded upwelling enhanced the biological pump but it was “not sufficient to counteract the return to the atmosphere of large amounts of CO2 delivered by the oceans through an enhanced ventilation of deep water.”
Finally examining sediments in the eastern equatorial Pacific, Carbacos 2014 found “a clear prevalence of dominant La Niña-like conditions during the early Holocene, with an intense upwelling and high primary productivity.” High levels of productivity persisted through the Holocene Optimum until productivity dramatically declined around 5,500 years ago. Since that time Carbacos 2014 reports, “An alternation between El Niño-like and La Niña-like dominant conditions occurred during the late Holocene, characterized by a clear trend toward prevailing El Niño-like conditions, with a low primary productivity.” During the past 5,000 years, that lower productivity coincided with increased dominance of coccolithophores and declining proportions of diatoms. That suggests the oceans have been in a phase-3 multi-millennial decline in pH superimposed on multidecadal cycles driven by the Pacific Decadal and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations.
It is also worth noting, as seen in the graph below, throughout the Holocene changes in atmospheric CO2 did not correlate with temperature. However atmospheric CO2 did track changing plankton communities. During the early and late Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were relatively low and stable during periods of high productivity with higher ratios of diatoms. When ocean productivity crashed overall around 5,000 years ago, the proportion of CO2 producing coccolithophores increased and atmospheric CO2 likewise increased by about 20 matm. A similar annual increase in CO2 has been observed in modern oceans and similarly attributed to increased proportions of coccolithophores (Bates 1996).
So where are the oceans headed? If history repeats itself, declining solar insolation will result in less upwelling, lower productivity, a reduced biological pump and higher pH. Or perhaps higher levels of atmospheric CO2 will increase productivity as observed in several experiments, or perhaps rising CO2 will cause a deleterious decline in pH? The ubiquitous uncertainties from the current undersampling of oceans allows anyone to “find experimental support for their favorite theory no matter what the theory they claimed.” But I can say for sure, I would not trust any predictions that failed to account for changes in upwelling and the various responses of the biological pump.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
nobody has won the prize yet-
http://oceanhealth.xprize.org/about/overview
From the above link:
So, there is apparently no good data to make such a “staggering” claim.
Then immediately below the above declaration on the same page (emboldened mine):
So, um…our “VERY SURVIVAL” is drawn from what exactly?
Funny.
Plus, I love the bonus swipe at The Market.
“Rising levels of atmospheric carbon are resulting in higher levels of acidity.” Atmospheric carbon? They make it sound like the sky is turning black with soot.
It is drawn from the need for jobs for climate researchers. Theorize a potential crisis, and someone will buy it. Unfortunately it is the government that is buying it, due to the green energy lobby, and us taxpayer are footing the bill, and getting screwed by energy policy to boot!
Just pour a few hundred million gallons of sulfonephthalein into the ocean and voila the ocean is self pH indicating.
Mr. Steele,
Great information provided as usual.
If I understand what you’ve said correctly – the ability of ocean’s to process CO2 is actually a biological one. Existing processes already are limited by the availability of CO2, thus any significant pH changes (i.e. acidification) would require demonstration that there are some biological limits in oceanic flora/fauna to process CO2 rather than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Or in simpler terms – if the CO2 consuming flora/fauna of the oceans are already growing until accessible CO2 levels are too low for further expansion, then addition of CO2 should have no effect whatsoever on acidification unless there is some hard physical expansion limit.
With atmospheric CO2 levels of several thousand PPM during the Devonian. Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian one wonders why the abundant shelled mollusks and corals (preserved as fossils) that existed during those two hundred million years didn’t simply dissolve?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
The historic CO2 information seems consistent with what I believe Mr. Steele is saying: atmospheric CO2 levels are a relatively minor factor compared with biomass impact with regards to CO2 levels in the ocean.
Surface CO2 absorption is mostly consumed by biological organisms – these organisms then sequester carbon in non-CO2 form into the deep ocean as they die, or into the rest of the ocean biosphere as they pass up the food chain.
In more technical terms:
undersampling = underfunding
And their obligatory political equation:
underfunding = undertaxation
Other way ’round usually. Underestimate costs to get funding, limit sampling to meet budget, waste money on pointless analysis of inadequate data, submit report to policy makers.
Very well done listing of the complexities, and a nice theory (the 4 phases) advanced to try to group most of the complexities by their influence on pH. Makes recent attempts to plot pH trends look pretty simplistic.
One minor glitch–the reported “113% decrease” in something. Wouldn’t a 100% decrease bring anything to zero?
A 113% decrease is quite possible – in a computer model.
“In the Atlantic, Steinberg (2012) describes a 113% decrease in diatoms between 1990 and 2007 in contrast to stable coccolithophore populations and a rapidly increasing community of photosynthesizing bacteria.”
———————————————–
Does this work?
I agree there is something wrong with that percentage. It also gave me cause to pause and I apologize for not investigating it further. Originally I was going to use the graph from the original paper Lomas 2010 showing a sharp decline in diatoms but decide too many graphs get confusing. So I uncritically took the percentage from Steinberg 2012 who wrote, “Diatoms decreased in biomass by 113% from 1990 to 2007 based upon pigment analyses. Looking back at the original paper, Lomas reports a 113% decline in the “Period Change” but it is not very clear how that number was derived, but I assume he was comparing rates of change between 1990-1996 and 1997-2007. I am guessing but I imagine a 20% decline.year could decrease by 113% creating a 42.6% decline per year.
The purpose of that number was to illustrate the sharp diatom decline and that remains accurate.
Temperature, pH, ocean/air currents… time and time again, no baseline or range of variability is defined.
This is not science…
excellent treatment. Answers some questions I had.
I was going to complain initially about the term “acidification” but he dealt with that bit first thing! Still, it’s very interesting to read.
Still, the term should be corrected.
It is correctly used, adding H+ ions is defined as acidification by chemists. Interesting that while he mentions ‘upwelling’ frequently, on my first read of it I see no mention of the equal amount of ‘downwelling’ which occurs, a startling omission.
The essay was a tad long as it is, and it would require a few books to adequately address all the issues. Downwelling usually prevent nutrients and DIC from reaching the surface and decreases the biological pump. So does downwelling create canceling effects? I don’t know and have not addressed papers that address that issue other than the effects of El Nino. Do you want to share research about the effects of downwelling on surface pH?
You could check this for a start, downwelling plus the descent of organic remains etc. exceed the upwelling contribution and that the net flux is from the atmosphere to the ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_cycle_in_the_ocean.png
Two Labs
March 25, 2015 at 8:39 am
Still, the term should be corrected.
——–
That term exist and has a meaning only in the AGW “science”, as per the climatic context.
It can not really be corrected unless and until it completely disappears altogether with the AGW itself.
In a natural climatic context (a long term), the oceanic pH can be considered as a variation but it will be so insignificant as to be considered no any different from a constant,,,,,,,but then there again comes along the AGW and claims THE MERIT OF SUCH AS A TERM TO BE REGARDED….and then there again a furore about the meaning and definition of such a term bursts out…….
cheers
Apparently the figure and associated reference didn’t load properly, here’s a different route to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_carbon_cycle#/media/File:Carbon_cycle_in_the_ocean.png
I guess wordpress doesn’t like png files, just click on the ‘?’
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Carbon_cycle_in_the_ocean.png
Phil, and you provide any instances of where a solution in an acidic state becoming less acidic, is referred to as “alkalination?”
spren March 25, 2015 at 9:56 pm
Phil, and you provide any instances of where a solution in an acidic state becoming less acidic, is referred to as “alkalization?”
Not personally, since in titrations adjusting pH is usually done by adding acid to the basic solution the term ‘acidification’ is the appropriate one. The term ‘alkalization’ is apparently used in some medical treatments and remarkably in processing of chocolate powder!
http://www.fpnotebook.com/Renal/Pharm/UrnAlklnztn.htm
http://www.omanhene.com/tag/alkalized-cocoa-powder/
There seems to be a “startling omission” regards downwelling in the graph. So what is the point of the graph. It is not clear what it adds to the discussion.
jim Steele March 26, 2015 at 12:24 pm
There seems to be a “startling omission” regards downwelling in the graph. So what is the point of the graph. It is not clear what it adds to the discussion.
I’m not sure which graph you’re looking at, the one I posted shows net flux from atmosphere to surface of 2Pg, and downwelling of 33Pg from the mixed layer to below the thermocline. With the export of the soft tissue to below the thermocline the net transport downwards exceeds the upwelling by 2 Pg.
Yes I see that downward transport, so I think you have been using the word downwelling incorrectly. Downwelling refers to mass transport caused at convergent boundaries. Downward transport can occur for many reason but mostly in this case it is governed by the sinking rates of post mortem organisms and fecal pellets which I discussed extensively. So your mention of a “startling omission” is really just your misunderstanding.
jim Steele March 27, 2015 at 1:38 pm
Yes I see that downward transport, so I think you have been using the word downwelling incorrectly. Downwelling refers to mass transport caused at convergent boundaries. Downward transport can occur for many reason but mostly in this case it is governed by the sinking rates of post mortem organisms and fecal pellets which I discussed extensively.
Downwelling also covers downward transport by Thermohaline circulation. As is clearly indicated in the diagram I posted 33 Pg is transported by downwelling (which you do not address) as opposed to the 11 Pg of ‘post mortem organisms and fecal pellets’, so the transport is not mostly governed by the latter.
Upwelling transport of sea water must be matched by downwelling due to continuity.
What term would you use to describe a reduction in pH? “Neutralization”? Neutralization of a basic solution is accomplished by acidifying the solution . . . acidification. Something else? “Ocean pH reduction”? A bit verbose wouldn’t you say? Again. Isn’t the process of pH reduction accomplished by acidifying the solution? If you consider the term inaccurate or wrong, that is fine. Please provide an alternate that is not obtuse.
There really is not an alternative. But, the problem is that the general public does not understand the characterization … they “know” that acid is harmful and therefore acidification is a bad thing in ALL cases.
Any report or discussion that is intended for people with little or no understanding of the nomenclature/process needs to include clarification so as to keep the reader/listener/audience from being misled (intentionally or unintentionally).
ANY discussion of “ocean acidification” is going to put a little scare into the general public unless there is adequate qualification showing that “acidification” is not the same evil that most people think it is.
You may get tired of the repeated statements “its not acidification”, but it is necessary if you want anyone outside of your circle to understand what’s going on.
(scratch the last paragraph and add):
We may get tired of the repeated statements “its not acidification”, but it is necessary if you want anyone outside of your circle to understand what’s going on.
Less Alkaline
Adding acid to a basic solution was always referred to as neutralising the solution. ‘Less basic’ or ‘more acidic’ are the same technically and were once more informative because, before this BS, you only used the latter to indicate that the pH will drop to less than 7. All chemists understood this. Do not lie about it.
It gets warped into the oceans are becoming acidic eg “I’m very passionate about the oceans becoming acidic”, so the term neutralising should be used instead. If advertisers have to abide by the “moron in a hurry” rule, then so should scientists.
An early source of my skepticism was an understanding of the buffering capability of the oceans and carbonates and hydrocarbons for any aliquot of CO2 man might inject. It was only later that I understood just how key the response of the biome is. Surely unthought of feedbacks are recruited in rising atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels, and known ones enhanced.
====================
I think Dr. Steele’s post is an excellent description of processes and pH variability. Most of the “acid ocean” scares ignore normal variability.
Although Dr. Steele recognized that “acidic” didn’t really mean acidic by pH definition mentioned only two cases in which water was actually acidic (pH<7), as a chemist I found the use of the term meaning "lower pH" to make the reading more difficult. The use of the term acidic is misleading. Under this use pH 13.9 is more "acidic" than pH 14.0 because it contains about 26% more "hydrogen ions" (as does pH 0.9 compared to pH 1.0.) The use of the term "acidic" when discussing some upwellings made me pause and wonder if it was really pH<7, or just a lower (basic) pH than the upper water. In all the years I did chemistry things, if something was "acidified" you looked for a pH<7, now we could just be talking about pH 14 to pH 13.9.
I agree that the use of “acidic” is needlessly confusing; the proper words already exist, so use them.
But perhaps being needlessly confusing is the goal! Which sounds more terrifying, and like it requires yet more funding and more control of peoples’ behaviors?
— The oceans are becoming more acidic.
— The oceans are become less alkaline.
Phil is correct (elsewhere) about pH vs total alkalinity.
In response to someone’s comment, “A more correct and reasonable term would be ‘reduction in alkalinity’,” Phil said, “No it would not, the total alkalinity does not change when CO2 is added to seawater even if the pH changes.”
Therefore, I should rephrase my post to read:
Which sounds more terrifying, and like it requires yet more funding and more control of peoples’ behaviors?
— The oceans are becoming more acidic.
— The oceans are becoming less basic. [vs alkaline]
Thanks Phil!
* * * * *
Science Demonstration: The Difference Between pH and Alkalinity
Max,
Thanks for that video. It shows that the trace gas CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly cause measurable change in ocean pH, due to the oceans’ practically infinite buffering capacity.
And another fake climate scare bites the dust…
The oceans are becoming less basic.
=======
how about less caustic as the opposite of more acidic?
A chemist refers to the solution as less alkaline. Low alkalinity is referred to as acidic
Only when below pH 7.0.
it’s biology…..chemistry is easy…..chemical biology is hard
Perhaps ‘complex’ would be better choice.
they need to figure out where the carbon in calcium carbonate comes from….and it’s not from rocks
Latitude, some of it does come from rocks. Most of it comes from biological processes. Some of it from the rocks were previously biological. Complex is the word. The biology itself is incredibly complex because organisms with appreciable tenure on this wanky planet have developed access to carbonate through multiple biochemical pathways. This biochemical heritage is stored in multiple adaptive mechanisms as specific as prions and as general as genetic variation.
Oh, heck, something went wrong with blockquotes. Try again…
Richard Feynman once observed that if one chooses carefully the beginning and ending points of an argument, then almost any explanation is potentially consistent. He was arguing about classical explanations of magnetic properties of materials, but his point applies to almost everything else as well.
Very interesting.
Dr. Steele wrote: “the ocean’s pH (thus the store of DIC) rapidly drops from 8.1 at the surface to 7.3 at 1000 meters depth”.
This raises two questions: Why does the pH depend on depth? Why does lower pH imply lower DIC? If I dissolve CO2 in water, I lower the pH and raise the DIC. So I am guessing that what is going on is removal of carbonate as calcium carbonate. That would lower DIC and lower alkalinity, resulting in lower pH. Can anyone confirm that? Can anyone point me a source that describes the processes involved?
In the meantime, I am going to see if I can find data on the DIC, alkalinity, pCO2 and pH as functions of depth.
temperature.
“[note: in this essay I use “acidic” in a relative sense. For example, although the pH of ocean water is 7.8 at 250 meters depth and is technically alkaline, those waters are “more acidic” relative to the surface pH of 8.1.]”
No! Slightly less alkaline but still alkaline is not more acidic. The only time I have heard “acidic” used that way is by catastrophic global warming alarmists.
Using such terminology is intended to alarm. For the uninitiated, less alkaline might sound like a good thing. More acidic doesn’t. Should scientists be propagandists? I don’t think so.
If normal for the ocean is 8.0, then 7.5 is acidic for the ocean. Just like -2C for the antarctic is warm.
the choice is not acidic and basic. It is acidic, neutral, basic.
the ocean is becoming more neutral. if it is hot and the forecast is for a degree or two less, the weatherman will say “less uncomfortable” or “more comfortable”. he/she will not say “colder”.
the issue is that the change is so small as to be insignificant, so the terminology must match.
Only acid is acidic, c’mon people lets get it together
If the pH of the ocean was 6 and climbing, scientists would say the ocean was growing more alkaline, they would not say less acidic. Would you consider that to be propagandist?
When the peak temp is 100F and the forecast is for a peak of 90 the next day, does a meteorologist say “we forecast a less warming trend”? Of course not, they say cooling, even though technically it’s still warm.
Chris,
The point is moot because there are no verifiable, testable measurements showing that ocean pH is changing. Error bars are far wider than any putative changes, so the whole “acidification” scare smacks of alarmist propaganda.
Wake me when you (or anyone) can prove that ocean pH is changing outside of the error bars.
dbstealey,
If the point is moot, why are so many climate change skeptics posting comments on this very issue, including the one I replied to?
Maybe a fundamental misunderstanding, Chris ? … go back a review the Hanna video … alkalinity is not a measure of pH, it is a buffer against acidification.
In reply to ‘climate ‘scientist(s) could find experimental support for their favorite theory no matter what the theory claimed’.
Climate science is chock full of urban legends. For example the hypothesis that the North Atlantic drift current is the reason for warm European winters is an urban legend. The hypothesis that insolation changes at 65N due to the orbital changes causes the glacial/interglacial cycle is an urban legend. Basic analysis in peer reviewed papers and all of the new findings concerning climate sensitivity to forcing changes unequivocally supports the assertion that both hypotheses urban legends, which have filled the theoretical void as the truth is climate scientists do not know what is the cause of the glacial interglacial cycle.
Another of the long list of urban legends is the notion that there is a conveyor belt of deep cold water. Detailed experimental data indicates that hypothesis is an urban legend. Only 8% of the North Atlantic sinking water moves into what was assumed to be the deep ‘conveyor’. If one is sampling the deep ‘conveyor’ and it contains only 8% of the sinking water then there could be a significant under estimate of the amount of CO2 that is moving into the deep ocean.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf
Question for Jim Steele: Wouldn’t pH changes driven by upwelling, or by biological activity, produce changes in the ratio of total alkalinity to salinity?
But the HOT data show a nearly constant ratio of total alkalinity to salinity.
‘First consider that oceans store 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.’
Isn’t that foregoing statement somewhat overblown. True, the atmosphere obviously must surround 100% of the globe. But the oceans cover 70% of it. And true, the atmosphere can be considered as extending well above 100,000′ but at those altitudes it’s clearly quite rarefied. And, the ocean depths can extend to 35,000′. But, here’s the big thing: Isn’t the density differential between the oceans and the atmosphere something on the order of 1,000:1? So, a 50:1 storage differential between the oceans and atmosphere, in consideration of the foregoing, to me seems to represent, if anything, an actually surprisingly low level of CO2 in seawater compared to the atmosphere. Moreover, the atmospheric CO2 is measured in parts per million. Finally; some level of free CO2, before forming calcium carbonate, must still exist in seawater for life itself to exist. So, what’s the problem? Now, I’ll say that I stand open to correction by any commenter who’s more knowledgeable about this issue than I am since my knowledge is not particularly extensive.
However, I feel quite strongly that the term ‘ocean acidification’ is deeply misleading. A more correct and reasonable term would be ‘reduction in alkalinity.’
surely – “becoming less base”
A more correct and reasonable term would be ‘reduction in alkalinity.’
No it would not, the total alkalinity does not change when CO2 is added to seawater even if the pH changes.
My understanding is that pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. How could the pH change if pH is a measure when the thing being measured doesn’t?
I’m not issuing an argument. Just a question.
Tom J,
Since ocean pH remains within the error bars, there is no change. Therefore, there is ipso facto no change in pH. Anyone who argues otherwise does not understand what ‘error bars’ means [the hint is in ‘error’, as in ‘margin of’].
The ‘acidification’ scare is not science. It is Belief, based on the runaway global warming scare; AKA: CO2=CAGW.
Tom J March 25, 2015 at 10:12 am
My understanding is that pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. How could the pH change if pH is a measure when the thing being measured doesn’t?
I’m not issuing an argument. Just a question.
pH is a measure of H+ ions, total alkalinity is something different and is usually defined as ‘the excess base’ in seawater, or the sum of excess proton acceptors, and includes carbonate, bicarbonate, borate, hydroxide, phosphate, silicate, nitrate, dissolved ammonia, the conjugate bases of some organic acids and sulfide. Ocean total alkalinity buffers, changes in ocean pH because of the presence of many different acid-base pairs. Total alkalinity remains constant when CO2 is added to seawater because the charge balance of the solution remains the same, because the number of positive ions generated is equal to the number of negative ions generated by these reactions.
E.g.
Here is the equation for Alkalinity:
AT = [HCO3−] + 2[CO3−2] + [B(OH)4−] + [OH−] + 2[PO4−3] + [HPO4−2] + [SiO(OH)3−] − [H+] − [HSO4−] − [HF]
Also CO2 + H2O → HCO3− + H+
So the H+ changes the pH but the alkalinity is unaffected because the H+ is cancelled by the HCO3− (bolded terms). HTH
I’m not arguing with Phil. [for a change☺], but viewing Max Photon’s video upthread, it is crystal clear that there is not nearly enough CO2 in all the world’s unburned fossil fuels to measurably change the oceans’ pH.
Thus, the ocean ‘acidification’ scare is another false alarm. It would have to rain pure vinegar for 40 days and 40 nights to move the pH needle…
It would have to rain pure vinegar for 40 days and 40 nights to move the pH needle…
Interesting analogy since rain has about the same pH as apple cider vinegar. 🙂
Tom J . No, you are mistaken to argue the CO2 is diluted over a greater volume. When CO2 outgasses it happens locally and can only happen when the pCO2 at the surface is greater than the pCO2 in the atmosphere.
Which is defined by Henry’s Law.
Thank you all for the education. My knowledge (or lack thereof) is based on my old aquarium hobby days.
Best wishes.
Tom … I’m an old marine aquarist (still am) this is fundamental to understanding marine aquarium water chemistry 😉
We are fortunate in Broome off the NW coast of Australia, where massive 30 foot spring tides expose a mud sediment reef with the most amazing array of invertebrate critters, fish and plant-life. The colour of the sea is unusual here due to the suspended sediments, pushed around by a very strong at times, tidal flow. http://pindanpost.com/2015/03/25/low-tide-exposes-mud-reef/ It would be impossible to quantify, due to the many layers life present. There are no nearby large rivers to cause any large changes in salinity or alkalinity, but during summer, evaporation is very high, and the temperature can get too cold to swim in winter. http://pindanpost.com/2015/03/26/cable-beach-at-low-tide/ Many more photos can be seen here by searching “mud reef”.
Thanks, Jim, an excellent article, makes a lot of sense.
Good paper. Very interesting, and the primary point — that the oceans are enormously undersampled — applies just as strongly to flawed global temperature anomaly estimates, especially in the remote past. The simple fact of the matter is that we know a lot less about the state of world than we pretend that we do. This applies to the present, and is true, in spades, about the past. What we are hearing is much closer to a mythological narrative than sound science, with assumptions stated as fact, an utter contempt for error bars, without the vaguest semblance of proper statistical argument, and with grandstanding of egregious claims for severity of consequence that, in fact, have no proper foundation.
rgb
This is a point that needs to be stressed: The temprature instrumental record is under sampled. It is mostly a function of human habitation, and only starts with the advent of the Farenheit scale in 1726. Humans prefer maritime and riparian habitat and the temperature sample reflects this bias. Just look at a map of population density:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File:Population_density_with_key.png
Jim Steele
Thankyou very much indeed for your clear explanation of the issues that deserve much more public exposure than they get.
For years I have been pointing out repeatedly and in many places (including WUWT) that the available data on ocean chemistry is far too sparse to enable conclusions on mechanisms of carbon exchange to and from the surface layer (both with the air and the deep ocean) especially when biological effects are significant and may be dominant. However, the common response is the mistaken assertion that Henry’s Law describes everything which – as you explain – is clearly not the case.
Again, thankyou.
Richard
Mike M.:
The solubility of gases increases with pressure. So any CO2 saturated water at increasingly greater depths will have a lower pH than above. But that is just a physical property. The increasing pressure will also stress the equilibrium between water CO2 and carbonic acid and cause and increase and carbonic acid and H+ ion, further decreasing pH.
My comments: I appreciate Dr. Steele pointing out how complex the ocean pH issue is, those that want to characterize it as a simple Henry’s Law calculation are doing it a disservice. I would have thought those with scientific backgrounds would appreciate the complexities. But when they are more interested in pushing an agenda, having a sound bite with inaccurate information serves that purpose better.
@Mike M. “Why does the pH depend on depth? ”
In a word Gravity. Suspended DIC doesn’t sink and diffusion should bring more CO2 to the surface and outgas to the atmosphere. However the sequestering of CO2 via photosynthesis into heavy organic carbon compounds now carries the carbon downward. Rapidly sinking organisms like diatoms and coccolithophores will sink post mortem at rates of 200 to 500 meters per day. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria remain suspended but grazing zooplankton can aggregate them into sinking fecal pellets. Fast sinking rates deposits their remains in the ocean sediments. Likewise some organic compounds are “refractory” and are not be broken down further. Much of the ocean’s proxy data takes advantage of those compounds which are specific to certain plankton species.
Notice in the first graph that the northern Pacific pH minimum happens around 1000 meters depth. This typically coincides with oxygen minimum zones marking the boundary where bacterial decomposition of sinking organic material leads to greatest extend of “re-minieralization” of organic molecules. The lack of oxygen also causes denitrification promoting the diffusion of molecular nitrogen back to the atmosphere. But to complicate things nitrogen fixing bacteria thrive in minimal oxygen zones.
When upwelled those oxygen depleted waters cause temporary die-offs of benthic dwelling organisms. And of course that natural phenomenon is blamed on global warming.
Jim Steele,
But if the sinking organisms are “re-mineralized” (that means converted back to inorganic carbon?) at depth, would that not increase the alkalinity at depth and increase the pH? And if they sink all the way to the bottom, that has no effect on the water in between. Does alkalinity decline with depth? If so, what causes that?
You lost me at “ocean acidification” since what they’re talking about is the ocean becoming slightly less basic. Precison counts in science.
I’m really, really fed up with this annoying comment, which comes up ad nauseam every time we discuss pH.
I’m totally relaxed, as a sceptic, about the use of ‘acidification’ in this context, and I don’t see it as a “loaded” useage particularly associated with the AGW community. I can’t see any chemist being offended by it: the useage seems perfectly correct to me. Please, let it be! Hold your fire for the real issues.
Nice post, Dr Steele. Once again, we see the astonishing capacity of the natural world to accommodate, adapt to, and usually to restore the global environment. The gaia idea has considerable utility.
The correct term may be “mulatto” but you would only use that term to describe POTUS if you had some hidden agenda, wouldn’t you?
When they use the term “acidic” for the purpose of driving irrational fear for an agenda, that’s not science.
Yes, Mike. The fact is that the oceans are still very basic. If anyone believes that a change in an atmospheric trace gas will cause the oceans to become acidic, then they are commenting out of ignorance.
It’s like being outdoors in a t-shirt when it’s 40ºF, and saying saying that you’re cold. If the temperature goes up to 42º, you wouldn’t say you were “warm”. Most folks wouldn’t even say they’re “warming”. And that would be a bigger change than what is being claimed for ocean pH.
Same with any putative change in pH. The oceans are still very basic. Further: there are no verifiable, testable measurements showing that ocean pH has changed at all — as shown in the very first post in this thread.
@ur momisugly Mike M. “Wouldn’t pH changes driven by upwelling, or by biological activity, produce changes in the ratio of total alkalinity to salinity?”
Indeed regional alkalinity and salinity track each other closely, and researchers will used salinity as a proxy for alkalinity. Carbonate ions form about 9% of the total DIC, and that is what organisms use to produce their calcium carbonate shells. If you read the paper I linked to Bates 1996, they observed a change in alkalinity that diverged from what salinity predicted and attributed that change to blooms in coccolithophores that pump alkalinity to lower depths. The biological dynamics is thus called the alkalinity pump.
Also understand that there are cyclical changes in salinity. The North Pacific Gyre Oscillation is a measure of changing salinity over a period of about 18 years.
Solar insolation is the amount of solar irradiance (the entire spectrum) reaching Earth’s ocean surface. Your conclusion includes a reference to decreasing solar insolation, “If history repeats itself, declining solar insolation will result in less upwelling, lower productivity, a reduced biological pump and higher pH”. What reconstruction are you using to say that insolation decreased in the past (I would like to know this since I am unaware of such a reconstruction)? And did the TOA solar irradiance decrease in the past? And if you think it did, what reconstruction are you using to say that solar irradiance decrease may have been a part of history? I have posted some references to this issue:
Here is an earlier paper describing the complicated search for connections.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000081668_2000118140.pdf
Here is a current powerpoint describing whether or not correlations exist in reconstructions
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-the-Earth.ppt
Here is a work in progress describing extreme ultraviolet reconstructions (an important discussion because several commentators have reasoned that since the more variable solar EUV penetrates deeply into the ocean, this could be a cause of ocean warming)
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1834-2014.pdf
Mr. Steele
Nice job! Bookmark worthy for sure.
I am a little concerned with your use of “acidic” even though I think your note makes it clear to most any reader how your using the term. Technically, “acidic waters” would have to be waters less than 7 pH whereas ‘more acidic waters’ would be water with a lower pH regardless of pH (relative).
Pamela I used the term solar insolation to include all dynamics by which solar energy reaches the surface including changes in solar irradiance, orbital effects and changes in cloud cover such as observed during El Nino/La Nina cycles, as La-Nina like conditions correlate with increased solar output. Granted there is much debate about the solar connection and to what degree solar irradiation changed, but most would agree that during the Little Ice Age there was a drop in solar irradiation as well as a drop during the Last Glacial Maximum. I would have to go back to each of those papers before I can tell which reconstructions they used.
I know which ones they used. I was wondering which ones you used to support your statement.
Regards my use of the term acidification. I totally understand that it has been used to evoke alarm. But when discussing the issue with warmists, they are not swayed by the technical accuracy. To them pH is declining and nitpicking the word is irrelevant and often seen as slippery denial. In contrast, arguments that declining pH can be driven by upwelling and biological cycles gave them pause to stop and reconsider. So I chose not to battle with the common, but incorrect usage of “ocean acidification” and focus on the more important mechanisms, so hopefully someone searching the internet to learn about “ocean acidification” will get a balanced perspective.
See above as to why ‘acidification’ is the correct term for the addition of H+. So why did you not discuss the role of downwelling in that process, omitting it does not constitute a ‘balanced perspective’?
I replied to your earlier post on this issue.
And I have responded there.