From the National Oceanography Centre (NOC), the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the University of Southampton, we have what looks to be a another Willis igniter.
Limiting ocean acidification under global change
Emissions of carbon dioxide are causing ocean acidification as well as global warming. Scientists have previously used computer simulations to quantify how curbing of carbon dioxide emissions would mitigate climate impacts. New computer simulations have now examined the likely effects of mitigation scenarios on ocean acidification trends. They show that both the peak year of emissions and post-peak reduction rates influence how much ocean acidity increases by 2100. Changes in ocean pH over subsequent centuries will depend on how much the rate of carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced in the longer term.
Largely as a result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels for energy and land-use changes such deforestation, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now higher that it has been at any time over the last 800,000 years. Most scientists believe this increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide to be an important cause of global warming.
“The oceans absorb around a third of carbon dioxide emissions, which helps limit global warming, but uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans also increases their acidity, with potentially harmful effects on calcifying organisms such as corals and the ecosystems that they support,” explained Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science (SOES) based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
“Increased ocean acidification is also likely to affect the biogeochemistry of the oceans in ways that we do not as yet fully understand,” he added.
It is widely recognised that carbon emissions need to be brought under control if the worst effects of global warming are to be avoided, but how quickly and to what extent would such mitigation measures ameliorate ocean acidification?
To address these questions, Tyrrell and his colleagues, in collaboration with researchers at the Met Office, used computer models to quantify the likely response of ocean acidification to a range of carbon dioxide emission scenarios, including aggressive mitigation. Collectively, these models take into account ocean-atmosphere interactions (such as air-sea gas exchange), climate, ocean chemistry, and the complex feedbacks between them.
“Our computer simulations allow us to predict what impact the timing and rapidity of emission reductions will have on future acidification, helping to inform policy makers” said Tyrrell.
Global mean ocean surface pH has already decreased from around 8.2 in 1750 to 8.1 today (remember than a decrease in pH corresponds to an increase in acidity). The simulations suggest that global mean ocean pH could fall to between 7.7 and 7.8 by 2100 if carbon dioxide emissions are not controlled.
“As far as we know, such a rate of change would be without precedent for millions of years, and a concern must be whether and how quickly organisms could adapt to such a rate of change after such a long period of relative stability in ocean pH,” said Tyrrell.
However, if an aggressive emissions control scenario can be adopted, with emissions peaking in 2016 and reducing by 5% per year thereafter, the simulations suggest that mean surface ocean pH is unlikely to fall below 8.0 by 2100. But even that represents a large change in pH since the pre-industrial era.
A clear message from the study is that substantial emission reductions need to occur as soon as possible and that further reductions after atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration peaks will be needed if ocean pH is to be stabilized.
“Over the longer term, out to say 2500, the minimum pH will depend on just how far the annual rate of carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced to,” said Tyrrell.
The researchers are Influence of mitigation policy on ocean acidification Dan Bernie (Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter), Jason Lowe (Met Office Hadley Centre, University of Reading), and Toby Tyrrell and Oliver Legge (SOES).
The research was supported by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme-funded projects EPOCA (European Project on Ocean Acidification) and MEECE (Marine Ecosystem Evolution in a Changing Environment).
Bernie, D., Lowe, J., Tyrrell, T. & Legge, O. Influence of mitigation policy on ocean acidification, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L15704 (2010). doi:10.1029/2010GL043181.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The most significant paragraph is the last. The one beginning “The research was supported by…”
Monterey Bay data shows a slight decrease in acidity, since they started taking measurements almost 15 years ago.
And tell us how the pH was measured in 1750. Model construction requires many iterations which puts the outcomes in the hands of the modellers.
Yup! This is the argument that the USEPA will use to slam in some nice carbon control regulations, count on it.
http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20100401-cwa-ocean-acidification
Clean Water Act vs. Clean Air Act. We are already well into public comment time period for this. Get ready.
New computer simulations have now examined the likely effects of mitigation scenarios on…. blah, blah, blah.
I guess these guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place. As long as their computerized Ouija boards give them the predictions they want, the funding keeps rolling in. If, however, the predictions are too easy to debunk or if they are not disastrous enough the funding shrinks and the enforcers of doctrine descend upon them.
pH of water in Danube river ranges between 7.8 – 8.5 during the year, sometimes from day to day.. call me unimpressed.
Seriously, does the general public not know what pH 7.0 is?
Interesting that at the bottom of the article source is this link:
http://noc.ac.uk/news/echinoderms-contribute-global-carbon-sink
, which discusses how any increased CO2 in the ocean might be mitigated by the echinoderms absorbing the CO2
As far as this ridiculous article – covering the ‘CAGW mantra” from ‘ the CO2 increase is man’s fault, that most scientists agree it will cause warming, we MUST limits CO2 emissions or else’, I am a bit curious about how much CO2 would be required to change the PH from 8.1 to to 7.8? (any ‘ocean chemists’ that could provide an answer?). Just wondering . . .
It’s too bad there wasn’t a ‘reply’ or ‘comment’ button on web page of the source article. They need a LOT of replies that their statements along the CAGW mantra are rubbish (something that I have began doing more . . . )
“Computer simulation.” which are assumptions on how the oceans and atmosphere work and interact.
I am NOT convinced.
Forgot to add, I can’t wait to see Willis’s comments on this . . !
“The oceans absorb around a third of carbon dioxide emissions, which helps limit global warming, but uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans also increases their acidity, with potentially harmful effects on calcifying organisms such as corals and the ecosystems that they support,” explained Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science (SOES) based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
Then life in the oceans should have gone extinct a long time ago, as sevaeral ages of intense vulcanism pumped C02 and S02 into the atmosphere in ginormous quantities, set the peat bogs and coal beds on fire, and choked the planet in a Gortoxic sludge.
“Our computer simulations allow us to predict what impact the timing and rapidity of emission reductions will have on future acidification, helping to inform policy makers” said Tyrrell.
Helping themselves to the piles of cash, for supporting the enforcement of energy denial upon the citizens who will now be known as neo-serfs. This isn’t about saving the planet, it’s about creating the Ultra-Elite, or so they think.
What happens after the success of the political agenda?
The knowledge base that empowers challenge to the new power is liquidated.
And so it goes.
You cannot model
Unpredictable feedbacks.
Big Blue Buffer Blooms.
==============
This is an exciting time for life. Will it adapt, or fall on its face and die? Or will it just not notice? And what about mankind? What will we do if nearly all sushi restaurants close for a lack of fish (except for a few very expensive ones that cultivate fish in tanks, obviously)? Eat something else? Adapt? Die?
Stay tuned for the next episode of the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme;and increase your Ocean Acidification Awareness in the meantime with:
The “50 Best Blogs Leading Ocean Acidification Awareness”
brought to you by
http://www.care2.com/news/member/682890945/2021967
Errata, public comments for EPA regulation of ocean acidification via CWA are now closed:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ac472a
Lots of “good” material in here for you to study! I expect a lame-duck session action in Congress to do something about all this (large point-source contributors of carbon dioxide will be regulated, ex. power plants, other industry).
My industrial clients inform me that they are gearing up for this in a big way, EPA carbon regulation seems unstoppable at this point. Crying won’t help, get ready….
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
August 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm
The EPA is carrying out orders that are reactionary.
It’s a reaction to the rejection in the Senate of Waxman-Markey, by order of the Chief.
A policy threat is held to the head of the recovery. Pass the crippling tax, or the economy gets it.
There will be no new jobs until they get thier ransom price… is inferred.
Therefore, the economy is the hostage.
Well, does the nation cave in to such demands?
Those darn computer models! They are NOT science and mean little more than the wet-dreams of the programmers!
Real world studies of the oceans show that there can be wide fluctuations in pH during the course of a day and always towards higher pH. A little “acidification” (pH 7.6 is still basic) would lessen the tendency of photosynthesis to make seawater alkaline (up to pH 10+).
Seawater is a complex buffer which would be difficult to overcome. Also, protons released by the formation of carbonic acid cannot affect the solubility of calcium carbonate as it is part of an extended equilibrium from CO2 to calcium carbonate and cannot affect itself. Only an outside source of protons, such as from sulfuric acid produced by SO3 dissolving in the seawater, could affect the equilibrium. This is pretty basic chemistry, but obviously way above the heads of the programmers.
Yet another zombie scare story drags itself upright and shambles towards us, horny hands reaching out, only to be met by the same silver bullets that made it bite the dust last time.
C’mon modelers! Is that the best you can do? Why not dust down “CO2 abducted my Grandma” or “CO2 causes ED” and try with one of those?
The amount of grant money you are milking from taxpayers, you might have thought one of you could come up with something (a) plausible and (b) which a reasonably bright ten year old couldn’t debunk.
Even Bob Ward wouldn’t believe this crap.
Sensationalist theories are generated by scientists who have evolved into professional alarmists who can influence the IPCC and reap rich rewards in research grants and fame. The trouble is that the only way to protect this position – and transmit their message of doom and gloom – is for the little coterie of élite climate comrades in the UK and United States to ignore geology, archeology, history, astronomy and solar science. You see, these are all the things that don’t fit.
The reality is that the Earth has been here before, it has been here through worse and it is still, resolutely, here today. Climate-change theory and the dire prognosis given by its proponents is just wrong.
Five of the Earth’s ice ages saw a far higher atmospheric carbon-dioxide content than at present. So carbon dioxide could not have caused past climate changes. Indeed, early Earth had 1,000 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now – yet there was no runaway “greenhouse” effect, “tipping points” or “acid oceans”.
Dissolving carbon dioxide in ocean water has not created ocean acidity. The constant chemical reactions between ocean water and sediments and rocks on the sea floor have kept the oceans alkaline. When we run out of rocks on the sea floor, then the oceans might become acid. I’m not holding my breath.
Why is this story contrary to what we hear? Because sensationalism is so much more lucrative. A climate catastrophe was provided for an anxious public by scientists who had everything to gain by frightening us. They put forward an ideology that is blind fundamentalism, unrelated to scientific facts. Politicians build new bureaucracies and pose as environmental saviors knowing that they will never have to face the consequences of their actions.
For another point of view on the cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean see:
http://notrickszone.com/
Tomorrow!!!
stevengoddard says: “Monterey Bay data shows a slight decrease in acidity, since they started taking measurements almost 15 years ago.”
I may be misreading the chart, but it looks like a slight decrease in pH to me – i.e. a slight INCREASE in acidity (or decrease in alkalinity if you prefer).
(remember than a decrease in pH corresponds to an increase in acidity).
This is the ultimate non-scientific statement. How in hells name can reduced pH 8.2 to 8.1 be an increase in acidity. Complete buffoons. <7 =alkaline< 7 = acidic. Idiots, idiots, idiots.
This is another case of teasing a trend out of noisy data in which the supposed trend is smaller than measurment precision and accuracy; and normal variability is many times greater.
Dirk H,
So humanity doesn’t count as ‘life’?
An interesting viewpoint.
Huth
“The researchers are Influence of mitigation policy on ocean acidification Dan Bernie (Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter), Jason Lowe (Met Office Hadley Centre, University of Reading), and Toby Tyrrell and Oliver Legge (SOES).”
Are you there David Cameron? Sacking this lot of childish idiots will help the structural deficit.
Politically driven drivel of the worst kind. I cannot believe that most people will be gullible enough to fall for this nonsense.
This sentence alone is a dead giveaway.
“Increased ocean acidification is also likely to affect the biogeochemistry of the oceans in ways that we do not as yet fully understand,”
Translates as. “We have nothing but we will use any uncertainty as a propaganda tool to keep the grant money coming.”