Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’m a long-time ocean devotee. I’ve spent a good chunk of my life on and under the ocean as a commercial and sport fisherman, a surfer, a blue-water sailor, and a commercial and sport diver. So I’m concerned that the new poster-boy of alarmism these days is sea-water “acidification” from CO2 dissolving into the ocean. Heck, even the name “acidification” is alarmist, because sea water is not acid, nor will it every be. What we are seeing is a slight reduction in how alkaline the sea water is.
There is a recent and interesting study in GRL by Byrne et al., entitled “Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean“. This study reports on the change in ocean alkalinity over a 15 year period (1991-2006) along a transect of the North Pacific from Hawaii to Alaska. (A “transect” is a path along which one measures some variable or variables.) Here is the path of the transect:
Figure 1. Path (transect) used for the measurement of the change in oceanic alkalinity.
I love researching climate, because there’s always so much to learn. Here’s what I learned from the Byrne et al. paper.
The first thing that I learned is that when you go from the tropics (Hawaii) to the North Pacific (Alaska), the water becomes less and less alkaline. Who knew? So even without any CO2, if you want to experience “acidification” of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska … you didn’t notice the change from the “acidification”? You didn’t have your toenails dissolved by the increased acidity?
Well, the sea creatures didn’t notice either. They flourish in both the more alkaline Hawaiian waters and the less alkaline Alaskan waters. So let’s take a look at how large the change is along the transect.
Changes in alkalinity/acidity are measured in units called “pH”. A neutral solution has a pH of 7.0. Above a pH of 7.0, the solution is alkaline. A solution with a pH less than 7.0 is acidic. pH is a logarithmic scale, so a solution with a pH of 9.0 is ten times as alkaline as a solution with a pH of 8.0.
Figure 2 shows the measured pH along the transect. The full size graphic is here.
Figure 2. Measured ocean pH from the surface down to the ocean bottom along the transect shown in Figure 1.
The second thing I learned from the study is that the pH of the ocean is very different in different locations. As one goes from Hawaii to Alaska the pH slowly decreases along the transect, dropping from 8.05 all the way down to 7.65. This is a change in pH of almost half a unit. And everywhere along the transect, the water at depth is much less alkaline, with a minimum value of about 7.25.
The third thing I learned from the study is how little humans have changed the pH of the ocean. Figure 3 shows their graph of the anthropogenic pH changes along the transect. The full-sized graphic is here:
Figure 3. Anthropogenic changes in the pH, from the surface to 1,000 metres depth, over 15 years (1991-2006)
The area of the greatest anthropogenic change over the fifteen years of the study, as one might imagine, is at the surface. The maximum anthropogenic change over the entire transect was -0.03 pH in fifteen years. The average anthropogenic change over the top 150 metre depth was -0.023. From there down to 800 metres the average anthropogenic change was -0.011 in fifteen years.
This means that for the top 800 metres of the ocean, where the majority of the oceanic life exists, the human induced change in pH was -0.013 over 15 years. This was also about the amount of pH change in the waters around Hawaii.
Now, remember that the difference in pH between the surface water in Hawaii and Alaskan is 0.50 pH units. That means that at the current rate of change, the surface water in Hawaii will be as alkaline as the current Alaskan surface water in … well … um … lessee, divide by eleventeen, carry the quadratic residual … I get a figure of 566 years.
But of course, that is assuming that there would not be any mixing of the water during that half-millennium. The ocean is a huge place, containing a vast amount of carbon. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatonnes of carbon in the form of CO2. The ocean contains about fifty times that amount. It is slowly mixed by wind, wave, and currents. As a result, the human carbon contribution will not stay in the upper layers as shown in the graphs above. It will be mixed into the deeper layers. Some will go into the sediments. Some will precipitate out of solution. So even in 500 years, Hawaiian waters are very unlikely to have the alkalinity of Alaskan waters.
The final thing I learned from this study is that creatures in the ocean live happily in a wide range of alkalinities, from a high of over 8.0 down to almost neutral. As a result, the idea that a slight change in alkalinity will somehow knock the ocean dead doesn’t make any sense. By geological standards, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently quite low. It has been several times higher in the past, with the inevitable changes in the oceanic pH … and despite that, the life in the ocean continued to flourish.
My conclusion? To mis-quote Mark Twain, “The reports of the ocean’s death have been greatly exaggerated.”
[UPDATE] Several people have asked how I know that their method for separating the amount of anthropogenic warming from the total warming is correct. I do not know if it is correct. I have assumed it is for the purposes of this discussion, to show that even if they are correct, the amount is so small and the effect would be so slow as to be meaningless.
[UPDATE] WUWT regular Smokey pointed us to a very interesting dataset. It shows the monthly changes in pH at the inlet pipe to the world famous Monterey Bay Aquarium in central California. I used to fish commercially for squid just offshore of the aquarium, it is a lovely sight at night. Figure 4 shows the pH record for the inlet water.
Figure 4. pH measurements at the inlet pipe to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Inlet depth is 50′ (15 metres). Light yellow lines show standard error of each month’s measurements, indicating a wide spread of pH values in each month. Red interval at the top right shows the theoretical pH change which the Byrne et al. paper says would have occurred over the time period of the dataset. Photo shows kids at the Aquarium looking at the fish. Photo source.
There are several conclusions from this. First, the sea creatures in the Monterey Bay can easily withstand a change in pH of 0.5 in the course of a single month. Second, the Byrne estimate of the theoretical change from anthropogenic CO2 over the period (red interval, upper right corner) is so tiny as to be totally lost in the noise.
This ability to withstand changes in the pH is also visible in the coral atolls. It is not widely recognized that the pH of the sea water is affected by the net production of carbon by the life processes of the coral reefs. This makes the water on the reef less alkaline (more acidic) than the surrounding ocean water. Obviously, all of the lagoon life thrives in that more acidic water.
In addition, because of the combination of the production of carbon by the reef and the changes in the amount of water entering the lagoon with the tides, the pH of the water can change quite rapidly. For example, in a study done in Shiraho Reef, the pH of the water inside the reef changes in 12 hours by one full pH unit (7.8 to 8.8). This represents about a thousand years worth of the theoretical anthropogenic change estimated from the Byrne et al. paper …
The sea is a complex, buffered environment in which the pH is changing constantly. The life there is able to live and thrive despite rapidly large variations in pH. I’m sorry, but I see no reason to be concerned about possible theoretical damage from a possible theoretical change in oceanic pH from increasing CO2.
[UPDATE] I got to thinking about the “deep scattering layer”. This is a layer of marine life that during the day is at a depth of about a thousand meters. But every night, in the largest migration by mass on the planet, they rise up to about 300 meters, feed at night, and descend with the dawn back to the depths.
Looking at Figure 1, this means they are experiencing a change in pH of about 0.4 pH units in a single day … and alarmists want us to be terrified of a change of 0.002 pH units in a year. Get real.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.




In a Chemistry lab, it would be called ‘neutralization’ (like distilled water).
Temperature doesn’t have any kind of identifiable ‘set point’ like that.
And you know just as well as I do, that this is just alarmist rhetoric.
/dr.bill
Thanks, Willis, here’s a dissenting viewpoint from our friends in France:
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/biogeochem_cycles/reading_list/orr_nat_05.pdf
I’ve personally long been concerned about the chemical nature of fossil fuel production, especially in terms of mercury and radionuclide emissions from coal plants. I tend to give acidification more credence than any problems due to warming.
Then again, I’m but a humble biologist, drifting in a warm sea of discontent….
BTW, Happy Father’s Day to you dads out there!
So if we were to raise CO2 enough to make the ocean ten times as acidic as it is now, aside from being unable to breathe, we would be as acidic as mother’s milk and maple syrup. Something to think about.
flyfisher says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:53 pm
One other thing to consider: what is the standard error of their equipment? I’d be astounded if their measurement device was accurate below 0.01 pH Units.
Perhaps you should have read the paper (specifically Data and Methods):
“Measurement precision on both transects was on the order of ±0.001”
Any scientist that uses the term “Acidification” to describe changes in the ocean ph above 7.0 really needs to go back to kindy and start over again.
looks like sea surface temps are in free fall
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps be prepared for some big falls in mean surface temps in coming months
Flyfisher:
They are using spectrophotometric pH measurement and claim a precision of 0.001 pH units. Byrne, the cited study’s author, also holds several patents on the system and method for spectrophotometric pH measurement.
I agree with you- any of the more conventional pH measurements methods would suffer significant drift in a large scale field application (at best +/- 0.02)
Anyone with any info on whether this equipment actually performs in the field as claimed?
I found this:
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/consequences-of-high-co2-and-ocean-acidification-for-microbes-in-the-global-ocean/
“It was the view of the experts that experimental approaches should rely heavily on existing environments where higher CO2 and lower pH occurs naturally, such as zones of high respiration, particularly where respiration is much higher than primary production, and in cold polar seas, which have lower calcium carbonate saturation state. Freshwater lakes and estuarine waters offer exceptional opportunities since they are less well buffered than the oceans and experience daily to seasonal changes in hydrogen ion concentration that can be orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the oceans in the next century. Coastal and estuarine environments also experience substantial pH variations over short time and space scales. An important question is whether marine microbes have lost the metabolic flexibility of their freshwater counterparts because they have experienced relatively constant pH for 20 million years.”
Willis, thank you for this. It was very informative and written entertainingly.
A thought – aquariums (the large public kind, not living-room sized) often have displays of tropical fish and corals. These are often in areas of colder (less alkaline) water (e.g. Seattle Aquarium). Presumably these use local seawater, filtered and heated, which may change the pH. While such large tanks are hardly natural ecosystems, corals don’t seem to ‘struggle’ in such environments. OK, perhaps they carefully control the pH and pCO2. Can anyone provide an insight?
Smokey says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Sweet, Smokey, I love data. This is an excellent dataset, because it is from the Monterrey Bay Aquarium inlet pipe. I love the place, I used to fish squid commercially right offshore from the aquarium.
I have posted the information as an [UPDATE] at the end of the head post. Take a look.
Thanks again,
w.
Joel says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Good questions, Joel. A number of sea creatures are wide ranging, with tuna being the champions, wandering all over the Pacific from the tropics to the far north. In addition, see my update at the end of the head post. Even creatures that live in one place regularly see changes of the same magnitude as the Hawaii-Alaska difference. Next, most sea creatures have fairly short lifespans, and thus can adapt in much less than a million years. Finally, the ocean is always changing, and as a result oceanic creatures are used to those rapid changes.
pH of water in Danube river oscillates during the year between 7.9-8.5 and life just go on. Are there any pH proxies for ancient times? You know, when the bad CO2 was at 6,000ppm, runaway warming killed all life and oceans turned to dead acid marshes.
Derek B says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:29 pm
I’d call it a drop in alkalinity …
The term “acid” is reserved for solutions under a pH of 7. Would you call a chance from a pH of 3 to a pH of 4 “alkalinization”? The point is that the term is alarmist, because people who don’t know better will think that the ocean is going to be acidic. It is not.
Not true. See my [UPDATE] at the end of the original post.
Back of the envelope calculations? The numbers that you refer us to are estimates. My numbers are based on actual measurements, one of the first large-scale measurements of the changes in oceanic pH. If you don’t like the numbers, don’t complain to me. Write to the guys who made the measurements. The rate of reduction of the alkalinity of the oceans is what it is measured to be, no matter what the atmosphere is doing.
Derek B says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:29 pm
We should also consider the natural variations in ocean ph from hour to hour, tide to tide and day to day.
Some of the most productive areas of the oceans are the upwelling zones (nutrients rise with the upwelling) these zones contain some of the most diverse and abundant species of all. These zones are also substantially less alkaline and the ph fluctuates greatly.
Areas at and around river outflows are also abundant with species and organisms. The ph levels of these areas vary relatively substantially from tide to tide and river discharge highs to lows.
In short, we shouldn’t sell “short” the resilience of the planets species. Just because WWF and Greenpeace say “delicate” and “finely balanced”, doesn’t make it so.
Mike Hall says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Deep ocean water is coming to the surface constantly. It is called “upwelling”, and it is happening all over the planet. Sure, if the ocean were to flip like a pancake tomorrow so all the bottom water came to the top at once, we’d freeze our coconuts if we went swimming in Hawaii … but the thought of that happening doesn’t keep me up at night.
Peter says:
June 19, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Thanks, fixed. Running too fast.
Something I’ve not seen discussed in these studies of “Ocean Acidification” are the human emissions of far more potent acidifying gases – especially SO2 and NOx.
This absence is puzzling, since these emissions were politically controversial in the ’70s and ’80s, with places like Sweden complaining loudly about acid rainfall with a pH of ~4, largely caused in those days by coal burning in the industrial countries of Europe. While Europe may have cleaned up its act somewhat, the rise of the Asian economies has ensured that global levels of SO2 emissions are still around the 150M metric tons per annum level. (See http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=all&variable_ID=812&theme=3&country_ID=all&country_classification_ID=all) NOx emissions seem to be increasing, also.
Much of these emissions eventually ends up in the oceans. Might not this have a measureable impact on the oceanic pH? Surely this needs to be considered when studying ocean acidification?
“Figure 3. Anthropogenic changes in the pH, from the surface to 1,000 metres depth, over 15 years (1991-2006)”
And the proof for this statement is where exactly???
Just because something changes in the environment, it doesn’t mean the cause is anthropogenic.
As usual an interesting post Willis.
As to the depth vs. pH question, could relate simply to the change in CO2 solubility with pressure and temperature?
I just compared the monthly changes in pH at the inlet pipe to the Monterey Bay Aquarium to the HADcru global temperature record. An uncannily good match.
It loks like the release of co2 from the top layer of the ocean tracks the variation in temperature very accurately and quickly.
Thanks for a great post Willis.
I am speculating here but would not the ‘melting’ freshwater ice caps and glaciers end up in the oceans thus dilluting the water as well. What would the net effect be?
M White says:
June 20, 2010 at 12:59 am
I am taking the findings of the paper at face value for purposes of discussion. If you’d like to know how they determine the anthropogenic component, please read the paper itself, where they describe it in some detail.
w.
One of the oddities of the paper that I noted is that their algorithm for determining the anthropogenic component shows that the deeper parts of the ocean are becoming more alkaline as a result of increasing CO2 … that I didn’t understand in the slightest. It was curious that they didn’t show what they claimed was the anthropogenic effect on water below 1000 feet …
They are using spectrophotometric pH measurement and claim a precision of 0.001 pH units.
I claim to be the smartest person on earth. But it may not be true.
In any case, even if they can now measure to 0.001 units, the previous measurements were not taken with this accuracy. Any changes are just as dependent on the initial state. And a change of method may well introduce new errors on its own accord. To be accurate a change should be measured using the same equipment.