NGO pleads for $15 billion "ocean acidification" monitoring system

Via Eurekalert, from the NGO Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans (POGO), a press release that says, “panic! please send money”. Here’s the punch line:

The Foundation says the average level of pH at the ocean surface has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 units, “rendering the oceans more acidic than they have been for 20 million years,”

Note that any pH lower than 7.0 is considered “acidic”. Distilled (pure) water has a pH of 7.0. Right now the ocean with a pH of 8.1 is considered “basic”.

Even more interesting is this map below from WikiMedia showing the change in global ocean pH over the last two hundred years. The map information says:

Estimated change in annual mean sea surface pH between the pre-industrial period (1700s) and the present day (1990s). Δ pH here is in standard pH units. Calculated from fields of dissolved inorganic carbon and alkalinity from the Global Ocean Data Analysis Project climatology and temperature and salinity from the World Ocean Atlas (2005) climatology using Richard Zeebe’s csys package . It is plotted here using a Mollweide projection (using MATLAB and the M_Map package). Note that the GLODAP climatology is missing data in certain oceanic provinces including the Arctic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the Malay Archipelago.

click to enlarge

So, with accuracy like this, and such small pH changes obviously measurable, and the pH not yet anywhere near acidic, why do we need a global $15 billion pH measurement system again? It seems all they need is a few places covered to infill some data.

Here’s the press release:

Speed installation of system to monitor vital signs of global ocean, scientists urge

‘It is past time to get serious about measuring what’s happening to the seas around us’

The ocean surface is 30 percent more acidic today than it was in 1800, much of that increase occurring in the last 50 years – a rising trend that could both harm coral reefs and profoundly impact tiny shelled plankton at the base of the ocean food web, scientists warn.

Despite the seriousness of such changes to the ocean, however, the world has yet to deploy a complete suite of available tools to monitor rising acidification and other ocean conditions that have a fundamental impact on life throughout the planet.

Marine life patterns, water temperature, sea level, and polar ice cover join acidity and other variables in a list of ocean characteristics that can and should be tracked continuously through the expanded deployment of existing technologies in a permanent, integrated global monitoring system, scientists say.

Caption: A mooring with a suite of ocean acidification and other environmental sensors at Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef is the latest tool in an expanding global network of ocean measurements, informing scientists of changes in ocean chemistry.

Credit: Dr. Bronte Tilbrook, CSIRO, Australia

The Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans (POGO), representing 38 major oceanographic institutions from 21 countries and leading a global consortium called Oceans United, will urge government officials and ministers meeting in Beijing Nov. 3-5 to help complete an integrated global ocean observation system by target date 2015.

It would be the marine component of a Global Earth Observation System of Systems under discussion in Beijing by some 71 member nations of the intergovernmental Group on Earth Observations.

The cost to create an adequate monitoring system has been estimated at $10 billion to $15 billion in assets, with $5 billion in annual operating costs.

Some 600 scientists with expertise in all facets of the oceans developed an authoritative vision of characteristics to monitor at a 2009 conference on ocean observations, (www.oceanobs09.net).

Furthermore, as documented in the forthcoming proceedings of the 2009 conference (to be published shortly by the European Space Agency), the value of such information to the world’s financial interests and to human security would dwarf the investment required.

“Although the US and European Union governments have recently signaled support, international cooperation is desperately needed to complete a global ocean observation system that could continuously collect, synthesize and interpret data critical to a wide variety of human needs,” says Dr. Kiyoshi Suyehiro, Chairman of POGO.

“Most ocean experts believe the future ocean will be saltier, hotter, more acidic, and less diverse,” states Jesse Ausubel, a founder of POGO and of the recently completed Census of Marine Life. “It is past time to get serious about measuring what’s happening to the seas around us.”

The risks posed by ocean acidification exemplify the many good reasons to act urgently.

Caption: Scientists explore on and beneath polar ice. Their aircraft remotely sense animals through properties of scattered light. Marine animals themselves carry tags that store records of their travels and dives and communicate with satellites. Fish carry tags that revealed their migration past acoustic listening lines. Sounds that echoed back to ships portray schools of fish assembling, swimming, and commuting up and down. Standardized frames and structures dropped near shores and on reefs provide information for comparing diversity and abundance. Manned and unmanned undersea vehicles plus divers photograph sea floors and cliffs. Deep submersibles sniff and videotape smoking seafloor vents. And nets and dredges catch specimens, shallow and deep, for closest study.

Credit: E. Paul Oberlander / Census of Marine Life

POGO-affiliated scientists at the UK-based Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science recently published a world atlas charting the distribution of the subset of plankton species that grow shells at some point in their life cycles. Not only are these shelled plankton fundamental to the ocean’s food web, they also play a major role in planetary climate regulation and oxygen production. Highly acidic sea water inhibits the growth of plankton shells.

The Foundation says the average level of pH at the ocean surface has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 units, “rendering the oceans more acidic than they have been for 20 million years,” with expectations of continuing acidification due to high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Because colder water retains more carbon dioxide, the acidity of surface waters may increase fastest at Earth’s high latitudes where the zooplankton known as pteropods are particularly abundant. Pteropods (see links to images below) are colorful, free-swimming pelagic sea snails and sea slugs on which many animals higher in the food chain depend. Scientists caution that the overall global marine impact of rising carbon dioxide is unclear because warming of the oceans associated with rising greenhouse gases in the air could in turn lead to lower retention of carbon dioxide at lower latitudes and to potential countervailing effects.

Says Foundation Director Dr. Peter Burkill: “Ocean acidification could have a devastating effect on calcifying organisms, and perhaps marine ecosystems as a whole, and we need global monitoring to provide timely information on trends and fluxes from the tropics to the poles. Threatened are tiny life forms that help the oceans absorb an estimated 50 gigatonnes of carbon from Earth’s atmosphere annually, about the same as all plants and trees on land. Humanity has a vital interest in authoritative information about ocean conditions and a global network of observations is urgently needed.”

Ocean conditions that require monitoring can be divided into three categories:

  • Chemical – including pollution, levels of oxygen, and rising acidity;
  • Physical / Geological – including sound, tide and sea levels, as well as sudden wave energy and bottom pressure changes that could provide precious minutes of warning before a tsunami; and
  • Biological – including shifts in marine species diversity, distribution, biomass and ecosystem function due to changing water conditions.

Benefits of the comprehensive ocean system envisioned include:

  • Improved short-term and seasonal forecasts to mitigate the harm caused by drought, or by severe storms, cyclones, hurricanes and monsoons, such as those that recently put one-fifth of Pakistan temporarily underwater and left 21 million people homeless or injured. International lenders estimate the damage to Pakistan’s infrastructure, agriculture and other sectors at $9.5 billion. Improved weather forecasting would also enhance the safety of the fishing and shipping industries, and offshore operations such as wind farms and oil drilling. Sea surface temperature is a key factor in the intensity and location of severe weather events;
  • Early identification of pollution-induced eutrophication that spawns algal blooms responsible for health problems in humans and marine species, and harm to aquaculture operations;
  • Timely alerts of changes in distributions of marine life that would allow identification of areas needing protective commercial re-zoning, and of immigration by invasive species;
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
201 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kwik
November 1, 2010 6:54 am

Okay, Either
They have measuring equipment in place today that can satisfactorly measure pH and can therefore make this claim.
or
They dont.
If they can make the claim about pH, why do they need billions now?
If they dont have measuring equipment today, how can they claim they have measured anything?

Dusty
November 1, 2010 6:54 am

I don’t understand the WikiMedia map provided, in the context of “Estimated change in annual mean sea surface pH between the pre-industrial period (1700s) and the present day (1990s)”. Taking the most prominent change represented, that of 0.06 pH or thereabouts, and calculating the total change over the 200 year period suggested by “change in annual mean sea surface pH”, I get a result of 12 pH. Surely those who provide this eye-catching map don’t mean that, do they?
Elsewhere it is suggested the pH has become “30 percent more acidic today than it was in 1800”. This would mean, if I calculate correctly — change from a baseline of 7 pH — that in 1800, ocean pH was approximately 8.58 pH [((1.58-1.1)/1.58)*100=30.4%] Is that the pH discerned from the records for 1800?
Converting this 30% change to the attempt to present annual change in the WikiMedia map, would result in an mean annual change of 0.0024 pH [0.48/200=0.0024], rather than something around/above 0.06 pH.
What am I missing that otherwise would make sense of the information provided?

HaroldW
November 1, 2010 7:02 am

I love this one: “The ocean surface is 30 percent more acidic today than it was in 1800.” A statistic designed to mislead. Presumably the justification is that a 0.1 decrease in pH means that concentration of H+ ions has increased by ~30%. [I get closer to 26%, but then perhaps the claimed change in pH is 0.11.] But pH is expressed logarithmically for a reason, and no scientist would express it this way; it has to be a PR guy trying to oversell the situation.
And compare this to the natural spread of ocean pH. See wikipedia diagram here. The spread is about 0.3 pH units, with a small area being even more basic.
My goodness, the western coast of Mexico is “30% more acidic” than the average! Let’s start a multi-billion dollar program to dump lime into the Pacific there.

Editor
November 1, 2010 7:04 am

The Foundation says the average level of pH at the ocean surface has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 units, “rendering the oceans more acidic than they have been for 20 million years,”
[…]
Δ pH here is in standard pH units. Calculated from fields of dissolved inorganic carbon and alkalinity from the Global Ocean Data Analysis Project climatology and temperature and salinity from the World Ocean Atlas (2005) climatology using Richard Zeebe’s csys package .

Firstly… the oceans are not “more acidic than they have been for 20 million years.” Average annual pH reconstructions and measurements from various Pacific Ocean locations:

60 million to 40 million years ago: 7.42 to 8.04 (Pearson et al., 2000)
23 million to 85,000 years ago: 8.04 to 8.31 (Pearson et al., 2000)
6,000 years ago to present: 7.91 to 8.28 (Liu et al., 2009)
1708 AD to 1988 AD: 7.91 to 8.17 (Pelejero et al., 2005)
2000 AD to 2007 AD: 8.10 to 8.40 (Wootton et al., 2008)

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).
Over the last 20+ million years, oceanic pH has ranged from ~7.9 to ~8.4… It’s currently ranging from ~7.9 to ~8.4.
Secondly, They’re deriving pH from a function of DIC… So… Yeah… The calculated pH will decline as DIC rises. There’s nothing wrong with using the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation to calculate pH when you don’t have a handy direct pH measurement… But it is hugely disingenuous to assert a significant correlation between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic pH whne you are basically deriving pH from a function of atmospheric CO2.

Roger Knights
November 1, 2010 7:05 am

Louise says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:04 am
You guys aren’t quite so dumb as to think that ‘ocean acidification’ means that anyone thinks the oceans will turn to acid are you?

No, we realize that the denotation of the word is “moving in the direction of acidity.” but the connotation is “turning to vinegar.” So it’s a loaded, alarmist term.

What term do you expect to be used? How about de-alkalination?

How about “neutralization? That’s a neutral term. It’s never going to move beyond neutral.

Roger Knights
November 1, 2010 7:06 am

Oops–I failed to de-indent my own comments above, but indented them.

red432
November 1, 2010 7:09 am

There are probably some people involved who “have no shame” but for the most part this is a brainless self-reinforcing feedback loop. Those who don’t get with the program are weeded out via one mechanism or another very early on — probably because they are not “team players” among other things. The situation is similar to the pension fund managers who essentially predicted that Dow would reach 300K by 2015 some years ago in order to show they could meet their obligations. Anyone who raised any issues with that scenario was probably a “difficult person” and a “naysayer” who really should be working somewhere else. I blame Dale Carnegie, patron saint of obsequious spinelessness.

Dusty
November 1, 2010 7:14 am

Louise says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:04 am
Increasing (or decreasing) acidification refers to change in pH. pH is a log scale so a change of 0.1 is actually a change of 30%.
———–
Never mind my previous comment. It’s been a long time since I took chemistry and had forgotten about this.

Jean Parisot
November 1, 2010 7:17 am

Could you do this by measuring long term changes in long path sonar transmissions?

Bob Shapiro
November 1, 2010 7:22 am

I’m not an oceanographer, but I can understand a map, and I can infer at least part of what’s going on.
According to the map, most of the pH change is occurring near the poles, with less effect toward the equator. The text explains that these are the pH changes, in the sea surface (not the entire volume of the oceans), since the 1700s.
Since the 1700s, the earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age. As the ice at the poles has melted, and continues to melt, fresh water flows into the salty ocean.
Because of density issues, the fresh water tends to stratify on the surface, with some slow mixing with the salt water already there (and below).
The pH of ice tends to be very close to 7, while the sea water of the 1700s (according to the text) was around 8.2. From basic chemistry, when you mix two fluids of different pH, the resulting fluid will have a pH between that of either starting fluid.
The bottom line is that since the LIA, melting polar ice has mixed with nearby sea water, lowering its pH. The melt water also will affect tropical ocean sea surface pH, but since this long distance mixing takes longer, the effect is delayed.
So, tell me again, why does this have anything to do with CO2?

pyromancer76
November 1, 2010 7:22 am

My question is who are these NGOs and where have they received funding in the past. I would be interested in the list. My guess is close to what Kramer says (5:33 am ): “Has anybody ever noticed how many NGOs there are that support leftist causes? There’s a lot of them and they play a fairly large role in getting their causes implemented.” Chris Y (6:14 am) suggests that with a price-trag of $15B plus $5B per year, the UN is somehow involved.
My guess is that with the global economic slow-way-down, the Chinese are the funders of last resort. Therefore, Beijing. What will the NGOs include that will make it palatable for the Chinese to fund this boondoggle? The UN is billions in arrears, I have read, and not just from U.S. non-payment. The marxist-left funders of global-pseudo-environmental NGOs like Soros and others of his ilk are having trouble keeping their sinking U.S. ship afloat. If the above assumptions are correct, this move is one of pure desperation. Let them sink under the increasingly cold financial waters.
Best idea. Can the ARGO buoys be outfitted with additional sensors, e.g., ph monitors? I would go for this and its funding if, and only if, more that one center of “authority” reads and records the data with all raw data maintained in a public record.

stephen richards
November 1, 2010 7:23 am

Louise says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:04 am
You are being misled. One could talk about an increase or decrease in pH rather than alkalisation and acidification but relative pH can’t be made to sound alarming enough. It would take an unbelieveable amount of CO² to get anywhere near acidification and that’s if the oceans could absorb that much being as it is controlled by so many parameters. partial pressure, sea temp etc.
Secondly, pH is unbelieveably difficult to measure and to measure consistently down to 0.1 over a prolonged period nearly impossible.*
Thirdly, what the H is that sum of taxpayer’s money per annum for operating it. That is just absolutely ridiculous.
I think we have got to the stage where our universities are producing so many sub standard graduates that they all spend their time touting for money in order to stay at school.!!

November 1, 2010 7:31 am

The $15B is absurd when it is clear there is already the capability to monitor. Unlike the warming associated with increased CO2 emissions, the impact on the ocean is real. While emissions play a small part in the overall CO2 cycle, the emissions are adding CO2 into the oceans at an increased rate.
It is disingenuous to show the pH scale that includes gastric acid. pH is a log scale of the OH- and H+ ions in a water solution. Considering the size of the ocean and a log scale of ratio’s it would not be expected to show over a large range. That the CO2 is likely changing the pH shows that it is significant.
The stated threat is alarmist, but the oceans are the one actual place where the emissions could have a negative impact and that should be studied. The one problem is that all large natural variations in CO2 have also been associated with rapidly rising or dropping sea levels which causes many other disruptions to the oceans. Separating the impacts of coral when they are all dead from being exposed above sea level from changes in pH is kinda difficult.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic

November 1, 2010 7:36 am

I love the ocean and going boating, so it is always sad when you see how poorly most people/countries treat the ocean. People don’t think twice about dumping trash and waste, with few countries making an effort to police anything beyond their shore.
When you consider all the horrible things that happen to the ocean, like the recent BP spills or all the waste being dumped off the coast of Africa, it is not surprising to hear that the ocean is changing significantly. Definitely sad, but not very surprising 🙁

G. Karst
November 1, 2010 7:44 am

There seems to be some confusion as to calculating percentage, with regard to pH H+, logarithmic scale.
To calculate a percentage, the entire H+ range must be used on the logarithmic scale.
ie 100% H+ = pH 0
—50% H+= pH 7
—- 0% H+ = pH 14
Of course the opposite (OH-) calculation is useful.
ie 100% (OH) = pH 14
—50% (OH) = pH 7
—- 0% (OH) = pH 0
This then gives one a LINEAR 0-100% scale to apply percentage calculations.
It is now plain to see, that a 0.1 change in pH is minute, percentage wise. GK

Harold Pierce Jr
November 1, 2010 7:50 am

these NGO’s want money? No problem. We will pay their grants with pennies, nickels and dimes which can be delivered by cement trucks.

D. Patterson
November 1, 2010 7:57 am

Louise says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:04 am
You guys aren’t quite so dumb as to think that ‘ocean acidification’ means that anyone thinks the oceans will turn to acid are you?
What term do you expect to be used? How about de-alkalination?
Increasing (or decreasing) acidification refers to change in pH. pH is a log scale so a change of 0.1 is actually a change of 30%.
Does anyone really think that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean, and that this in turn will have no effect on life in the oceans?
If you truly believe this, you need your bumps feeling.

Corals, sharks, and most of the other predominant marine genera evolved during the Phanerozoic Eon when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were 3000 to 4400 ppmv in the pre-Carboniferous and 1200 to 1400 ppmv post-Carboniferous epochs. The last 20 million years of the present and ongoing ice age has seen the lowest concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide ever experienced by the Earth. If anything, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are dangerously low because they risk the potential of a mass extinction of all macroscopic life by falling below the minimum level required to sustain photosynthesis in plant life during a natural catastrophe.

Robuk
November 1, 2010 8:06 am

15 billion.
Not after the mid term elections.
Obama environment agenda under threat from incoming Republicans.
Environmental agencies brace themselves for aggressive investigations after expected Republican majority in midterms
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/31/republican-onslaught-obama-environment-agenda

Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2010 8:10 am

Louise says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:04 am
Does anyone really think that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean, and that this in turn will have no effect on life in the oceans?
The question is, in what way is it a problem? What effects are you talking about, like the fact that algae love C02, and krill love algae? Oops, wait, that would be a good effect, not bad.
“Ocean Acidification” is the Alarmists fall-back position. Trouble is, even they know it’s completely bogus.

ShrNfr
November 1, 2010 8:19 am

Quick everyone stop pissing. All that Ph 6 stuff is going to lead to global catastrophe. Also stop eating. That Ph 1 gastric acid a real hazard. But sorry, there is no way I will do without my coffee.

Mike
November 1, 2010 8:23 am

Ocean life is adapted to the current Ph. If it changes in either direction some life forms my not be able to adapt.

k winterkorn
November 1, 2010 8:28 am

Don’t the POGO people know that they have met the enemy and it is them?
The governments are bankrupt and do not have billions of dollars to give these people to calm their self-promoted hysteria.

Mike from Canmore
November 1, 2010 8:36 am

How do they know PH moved from 8.2 – 8.1 if they don’t already have a PH monitoring system? Things that make me go hmmm.

Milwaukee Bob
November 1, 2010 8:40 am

chris y said at 6:14 am
The fact that POGO is asking for $15B to purchase assets, followed by $5B per year in perpetuity, shows that an adequate monitoring system does not exist today.
While I agree with most of the rest of your comment, i.e., “…funding an upgrade to ARGO to add pH and perhaps spectrally-resolved turbidity measurements…”, a request for funding – on to itself – is NOT proof of a need.
And beyond the questions of “What would this monitoring system tell us that we NEED to know or that we do not already know” and “What is the definition of adequate” – how many gallons of bleach will $20 billion (1/2 of the above costs) buy over the next 5 years? Dumped into the ocean it’s more than enough to offset…..
All right, that’s a back of the envelope calculation and a silly idea but is it any more silly than spending $40 billion on a ocean monitoring system say as compared to – – -? Speaking of water, did you know 20,000+ people (mostly children) died yesterday because of a lack of fresh/clean water? Oh yes, and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that, ….. Now it costs less than $300 to put in a well that can supply a whole village with clean water almost anywhere in the world. Back of the envelope says that’s about 130,000 wells. So the question for the POGO folks is: “Is the data that you would get from the monitoring system more important to you (and the rest of the world) than the lives of 35 million people – mostly children – over the next 5 years?
But hey, if the answer is “yes” and you folks over in the UK where POGO is HQ’ed want to spend billions of YOUR tax money on this, who I’m I to question your priorities?

Andrew30
November 1, 2010 8:40 am

“The Foundation says the average level of pH at the ocean surface has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 units”
Seems like a small range or values, perhaps they should be asking for money to research the lack of acidic diversity.