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.
Chicken Little, meet your competition for panic story of the millennium. That the sky could fall is actually more possible than the oceans becoming acidic, let alone “more” acidic.
I ask again…
What is the ph of carbonated mineral water?
DaveE.
And just in case anybody missed it, there’s this piece of research which effectively puts the whole question to bed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-snap-co2-causes-ocean-critters-to-build-more-shells/
DirkH says:
August 21, 2010 at 2:41 pm
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.
Neither do whales or other aquatic mammals …
stevengoddard says:
August 21, 2010 at 11:21 am
“Monterey Bay data shows a slight decrease in acidity, since they started taking measurements almost 15 years ago.”
That should be “a slight decrease in alkalinity”? That is what the graph shows.
This type of complete, total and absolute BS makes me angry:
1. “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)” Pur-lease! Who was measuring global pH in the oceans in 1750?
2. CO2 in water forms carbonic acid, the weakest of all acids – it’s soda water!
3. The numbers don’t stack up – assuming all man’s current CO2 output of circa 27 billion tonnes per annum was absorbed by the oceans – in fact, only about half of it is, then:
Volume of oceans = 1.31 billion cubic kilometres, or 1.31 billion billion tonnes.
So 27 billion tonnes divided by 1.31 billion billion tonnes = 0.0000000206, or:
one part in 4,761, 905. This figure is around double the amount of CO2 actually being absorbed by the oceans each year, the rest stays in the atmosphere..
Put another way: over a century, the oceans’ concentration of CO2 will increase by one part in 47,612. In reality, the actual figure would be about one part in 100,000 per century. The numbers are clear: the effect of CO2 absorbtion in the oceans is far too tiny to be of any consequence whatsoever.
Even if all the CO2 was absorbed by the uppermost 10% of the ocean, the increase would only be around one part in 10,000 per century.
The term ‘climate scientist’ is clearly inappropriate and misleading, better ones might be: i) climate astrologist, ii) climate scientologist, iii) professional grant procurer, iv) scare mongerer for personal profit, or v) scam artist.
DirkH whales don’t have gills either, so I guess that makes them “a terrestrial form of life” too. That would explain the mass strandings of whales that occur every year in NZ. They are just trying to get home(on terra firma) but get stuck in the sand before they get to terra proper?
Alright so the Ocean is 8.1 more or less, and Neutral is 7.0, so acids are less than 7.0.
What would it take to make the ocean become less than 7.0 pH? Did the fellow mention that? I got bored with the story.
I find these research papers puzzling.
“Global mean ocean surface pH has already decreased from around 8.2 in 1750 to 8.1 today…”
How do they know what the pH of the oceans was in 1750? For that matter, how do they know what the “global mean ocean surface pH” is today? Did they calculate a global mean ocean surface pH from an assumed DIC which was estimated from atmospheric CO2? I’ll bet a beer that they did.
Flinders Reef may only be a tiny little reef in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef system, but Pelejero et al. were decent enough to derive a historical ocean surface pH from boron isotopes. Pelejero’s excellent geochemical data set is available in NOAA’s paleoclimatology library.
If you cross-plot Flinders Reef’s historical pH vs atmospheric CO2, you don’t get a meaningful correlation…. Flinders Reef pH v CO2
The Pacific Ocean’s pH has ranged from 7.8 to 8.3 for the last 6,000 years… 6,000 years of Pacific Ocean pH
That’s because oceanic pH doesn’t change a whole lot in response to changes in atmospheric CO2.
Average annual pH reconstructions and measurements from various Pacific Ocean locations:
The low pH levels from 60 mya to 40 mya include the infamous Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM); a period in which large scale subaerial and submarine flood basalt eruptions probably dislodged a massive volume of methane hydrates into the Atlantic Ocean, causing a shoaling of the lysocline (AKA ocean acidification). Even then, the oceans did not actually “acidify;” the lowest pH was 7.42 (still basic). PETM CO2 levels have been estimated to have been 1000 to 3000 ppmv from pedogenic carbonates… But fossil plant stomata suggest that CO2 levels in North America were not much different than today (300 to 400 ppmv).
Once again, the Chicken Littles, Gorebots and Warmistas are invoking an anthropogenic cause for a natural phenomenon varying within its natural parameters. It’s a perpetual case of “not seeing the forest for the trees.”
“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.
===================
IMHO, the good Dr. needs to take smaller bites.
Global warming, and ocean acidification, all in one sweeping statement is a bit much to digest.
“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.”
These guys are nuts! There is no way to do what they describe above without literally taking control of the world and imposing marshall law. Of course, that’s what they want, so would we expect to hear anything different?
They HAVE to yell louder and more and more shrilly because they know that the world is catching on to the fact that (1) manmade global warming is false and (2) the climate is cooling, not warming, despite their junk science claims and the fact that CO2 is continuing to rise quite steadily.
Good job the oceans are getting less alkaline. Those alkaline thingies can be really, really dangerous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lye
Did the back of the envelope sums on the annual anthropogenic CO2 mass and the ocean volumes a few months ago.
Volume of the global oceans = 1.3 billion cubic kilometres [ 1,300,000,000 cubic Kms ]
Mass the releases of annual anthropogenic CO2 = mass of just over 2 cubic kilometres of sea water.
Anthrogenic CO2 decreasing ocean PH?? Yeh! right! [/sarc]
““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. ”
Only if… the inputs are accurate, the program is 100% bang on and no homogeneous adjustments are made.
GI=GO
Mr. Richards,
The pH scale works like thus:
acid neutral base
1 13
So, a move from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 is an “increase” in acidity though it is a loss in pH. Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?
Dang. That is:
Acid Neutral Base
1 ———- 7 ———— 13
Sorry. Stupid markup language.
Here’s what the USEPA says about it:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2009/April/Day-15/w8638.htm
Sorry, folks, this is the sucker-punch from the EPA that I’ve long been waiting for. While Mann etc. have been focused on catastrophic temperature increases & all that blather, the chemists at EPA (some damned good ones over there) have been quietly researching this and gathering their evidence.
A colleague at the Scripps Institution recently emailed to me (May 25, 2010):
“Hello Charles, Scripps is trying to bring ocean acidification to the attention of the
broader community.”
With the utter collapse of the “Arctic Ice Death-Spiral Theory” and other CAGW hoo-hah, I expect you’ll be hearing a lot more about oceanic acidification in the near future.
Too bad that Mann, Jones etc. don’t have the right credentials to conduct & publish research in this realm! They put all their chips on atmospheric & meteorologic catastrophe. Poor climatalogists, now they’ll have to re-train as saltwater chemists & marine biologists!
Oh really?
This is complete and utter BS. Volcano emissions have increased above sea level.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm
http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=03
…and some estimates of young seafloor volcanoes exceed a million.
Common sense tells me that if the numbers and the volume of volcanic plumes has gone up above sea level, they surely have below sea level. So take a look at:
Volcanic Gases and Their Effects
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Its not hard!
Ian E
The lowest pH values are all on the left half of the chart. It was more acidic in the past.
Charles Higley says:
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.
Thus a difference of 0.1pH between two readings, taken 220 years apart, is meaningless. Even before considering accuracy of either reading.
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.
Such sources do exist, undersea volcanic vents can apparently go as pH 2.8.
This is pretty basic chemistry, but obviously way above the heads of the programmers.
What are the odds that their knowlage of programming is of similar level to their knowlage of chemistry 🙂
Another example of the march for further funding. Amplify the scare!!!
These scientists have no knowledge of geological history. During times of high atmospheric CO2 content, like the Ordovician or the Cretaceous coral growth was at its highest. In fact they really flourished. Corals seem to love CO2 and when the real ocean chemistry is studied it is obvious why. It is the bicarbonate feedback which provides the compound required for shell growth and raises the pH.
pH studies, which have not actually covered the total ocean content, is shown to vary from 7.9 to 8.3 naturally. Worries that 7.9 is acidifying the water is total alarmism since 7.9 is still alkali. It must also be remembered that it is the Southampton University scientists who, whilst carrying out studies into coral dissolution due to CO2 content, included hydrochloric acid into the mix to ensure that the corals actually dissolved. They could not get CO2 alone to do this.
Peter Miller says:
August 21, 2010 at 3:59 pm
3. The numbers don’t stack up – assuming all man’s current CO2 output of circa 27 billion tonnes per annum was absorbed by the oceans – in fact, only about half of it is, then:
Volume of oceans = 1.31 billion cubic kilometres, or 1.31 billion billion tonnes.
So 27 billion tonnes divided by 1.31 billion billion tonnes = 0.0000000206, or:
one part in 4,761, 905.
—————————-
Two huge errors here. First, you are assuming that the oceans are well mixed. There’s not. Most of the ocean has a mixed layer depth of less than 100m. On policy relevant time scales it is the acidification of this surface layer that is relevant. Second, it is the cumulative emissions that are a cause for concern, not one year’s of emissions.
“This type of complete, total and absolute BS makes me angry:”
If you don’t like it, don’t write it.
This Ex-Professor has some interesting inputs on the subject;
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-burning-of-fossil-fuel-significant.html
Basically its just another scam.
So, instead of being afraid of more Heat in the Pipeline, it seems that what ordinary people needs to be educated about, is all the Scams in the Pipeline.
It seems to be a Pipeline filled up with never ending Scams. Someone ( the Government and the Coorporations) wants a straw into your pocket, so the can drain your assets continously. This is such a straw.
(Setting the stage: 8.2 is 1.2 above the neutral level of 7. Multiplying by 10 to enable the example below to work brings it to 12; ground-level = 0.)
Let’s say I take an elevator from the 12th floor to the 11th. Would it be proper to call that an increase in my subterranean-ness or my underwater-ness?
No. Therefore the term used ought to be oceanic “neutralization,” not “acidification,” given that the ocean is never going to get below the neutral level. The fact that “acidification” is being used is a giveaway that the alarmists are framing the issue.