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.
Some time ago climate progress had a big rant on catastrophic ocean acidification. I asked what the Ph was and my question was deleted.
Corals evolved during the Cambrian, with CO2 at 4000 ppm.
The properties of Aragonite have not changed.
We don’t know what is going on but we know bad things will happen.
Sounds like superstition to me.
Charles Higley says:
August 21, 2010 at 12:34 pm
How does a proton know if it came from carbonic acid or sulphuric acid?
“……at any time over the last 800,000 years.”
Wow. That’s a big number and a long time. Sure impresses a guy like me who cannot remember what he had for breakfast this morning.
So they are trying to say the ocean would run out of alkalinity/buffer.
When you titrate sea water, that end point is ~4pH.
Bicarbonate is what corals, etc use.
What they are not explaining, is they are worried about Ca and Carbonate being in solution. The higher the pH, the lower the solubility of calcium carbonate. A falling pH increases the amount of calcium and alkalinity that can be kept in solution.
Animals that use Ca for structure get around all of this by using their symbiotic algae/dinos to raise their pH internally, causing Ca precipitation.
Which explains why these animals have been around as long as they have, and their whole worry about the oceans getting a tad less alkaline is way off.
Someone please tell me, how the echinoderms could possibly survive during the Paleocene and Eocene, when CO2-levels in the atmosphere and, hence, in the ocheans, were 5 (FIVE!) to 10 (TEN!) times higher than today, if an additional “acidification” of around 5 percent today was poised to have already devastating effects on them?
The kind of hubris expressed by these authors diminishes any real science they may have been doing and reporting on. Someone once said a little knowledge is dangerous. This paper and others like it exemplify that. When it comes to the oceans we are so ignorant that all we have is a very little knowledge. I strongly suspect that makes all of us dangerous when we make pronouncements about the unknown. On the other hand, perhaps it makes us good fiction writers.
“such as from sulfuric acid produced by SO3 dissolving in the seawater”
and until the sea ran out of Ca that would precipitate solids for no change in pH
@ur momisugly Charles Higley
You are right. The sea water can not be considered to be a pure water. It acts as a chemical buffer with it’s limited capacity. This is a basic requirement for life in a long time needed for the evolution.
“…we have what looks to be a another Willis igniter.”
Strange, I never knew Willis was flammable. Or is that inflammable? Well at least he’s not incendiary. Actually, come to think about it…
😉
No wonder the UK Met is up for sale!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Modeling predicts “ocean acidification mitigation”
They can, but you should more accurately always refer to it as decreasing alkalinity.
A man is subject to errors.
But, if you want to really screw things up, you need a computer!
rbateman says:
August 21, 2010 at 12:32 pm
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?
Why indeed!
This guy has probably the best ‘answer’ to that question:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Excerpt from the American Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson.
I find this ridiculous on it’s face. CO2 concentration has only changed by what 80 ppm? roughly 25%? pH is logarithmic. Oceans have a natural buffering mechanism (various salts). Natural variations predominate. Accurate measurement of pH is what…maybe 100years old.
I’m going to start a movement and every time someone comes up with this stuff, we are going to scream, “You must be f-ing s-ing me”!
rbateman says:
August 21, 2010 at 12:32 pm
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?
———
REPLY: RB, the USEPA is under the authority of the POTUS (executive branch). They make the regulation, he signs it, end of discussion. US Supreme Court gave them all the ammunition they need.
You haven’t see other industry-maiming regulations like CERCLA (Superfund) killed off, have you? Once EPA sets the regulation, it is cast in stone. Voters have no sway over this, they voted the Obama administration into power. See:
http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5623
The nation has already caved into such demands, sir. (or, madam?? My “C” is for “Chuck the DrPH!”). It is just a matter of time. SCOTUS is already more liberal, likely to become even more so.
Cap & trade? Don’t need it. They will follow the NPDES model of the Clean Water Act.
“a decrease in pH corresponds to an increase in acidity”…..surely it would be more correct to say it corresponds to a decrease in alkalinity.Words matter. An uncritical reader might conclude the oceans were allready acid.
Hi,
There have been numerous studies done on the ocean acidification issue without relying on models. Many, if not most, have found the acidification “issue” to be a non-issue. Obviously, marine life has thrived under conditions of much higher CO2 ppm levels and “acidification” will not likely be a threat.
Here’s a sample of the recent research:
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-becoming-acidic/
DirkH linked: The “50 Best Blogs Leading Ocean Acidification Awareness”
brought to you by…
Which links here…http://mastersinpublicadministration.com/50-best-blogs-leading-ocean-acidification-awareness
There # 3 Blog and why they like it:
3. Real Climate : This site is about climate change and penned by climate scientists. We love it because it leaves politics alone and focuses on the issues
Insert ROLF emote here….
“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.
No, it depends on the buffering capacity of all the limestone in the seas.
A pH change from 8.2 to 8.1? So, what? The pH changes in my reef tank from 8.3/8.4 to 8.0/8.1 and back again every day. Depends on the time of day I take the measurement (have I fed recently, is it the night cycle, day cycle, have I dosed recently).
Alvin says:
“Seriously, does the general public not know what pH 7.0 is?”
Good point. As the oceans are becoming more ‘acidic’ how will they be classified if they were to reach PH 7.0? Very acidic?
“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).”
No it doesn’t. A decrease in pH from above PH7.0 corresponds to a decrease in alkalinity, until it gets to PH7.0
Of course, it is pertinent to ask the question of whether organisms can deal with a rapid and comprehensive change in the PH level, whether alkaline or acidic. So, in reality there are several questions here.
Can organisms deal with a less alkaline ocean?
Can organisms deal with a neutral PH ocean?
Can organisms deal with rapid changes in PH level?
What happened to organisms in the past when CO2 levels exceeded today’s and were the oceans acidic or alkaline?
Huth says:
August 21, 2010 at 12:55 pm
“Dirk H,
So humanity doesn’t count as ‘life’?
An interesting viewpoint.”
Not as oceanic life, no. Humas are a mostly terrestrial form of life. They have no gills.
Stephen Skinner says:
August 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Alvin says:
Of course, it is pertinent to ask the question of whether organisms can deal with a rapid and comprehensive change in the PH level, whether alkaline or acidic. So, in reality there are several questions here.
=====================================================
Stephen, think estuary. (rain/acid, wind/mixing, phyto, etc) all things that rapidly change pH.
Yet even closed estuaries, with very little water volume, have remarkably stable pH. It goes right back.
and most sea animals choose estuaries to raise their young…..
I would like to see what information they put into their ‘model’.
They obviously missed some very important things.
We have a nick-name for them. We call them “coats”.
They graduate from some university, and think they are going to get to wear their little white coats all day. Not a one of them has one lick of common sense.
We tell them we’re got to find out what manatees eat, hand them a 5gal bucket, and tell them to have at it.
What they need to take in school is how to overhaul an Evinrude.
Now there they could make a living.
You know, this is interesting:
“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).”
We all know that phytoplankton increase pH, directly and indirectly by the uptake of inorganic carbon.
Anthony, posted a “study” showing that phyto levels have decreased.
Ignoring the whole CO2 nonsense, both of these could easily be explained as the nutrient levels in the ocean have decreased. Supporting less phyto.
Which could mean the oceans are releasing more CO2.
Which could also mean the oceans have gotten cleaner. It takes a dirty ocean to take up a lot of CO2.