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
oeman50
November 1, 2010 10:19 am

In my previous life as a chemist, I had to do many pH measurements. That required buffering and restandardizing the pH meter every shift. It is not the most stable of instruments. So I am with Juraj V. in being concerned with measuring pH reliably within 0.1 pH units.
And drewski has a good point, why should we be afraid of real world data, if we believe in accepting the truth of wherever the data leads us.
But there lies the rub. I’m afraid all of the “gates” have us being not so naive any more, making us wary about providing the opportunity for more agenda-driven “science”. A quick search shows that POGO came out of Scripts and the Wood’s Hole institutions, long known for their (sarc on) even handedness in dealing with AGW issues (sarc off).

RC Saumarez
November 1, 2010 10:22 am

Sorry, I meant to say that I don’t this a very impressive change, especially as the the pK for H2CO3 +H2O = H3O+ + Hco3- is 6.1. Typically marine organisms regulate their pH at about 7.2, i.e. 10 times more acidic and this may vary by +- .15 pH units. I am not sure how much inorganic calcium salts are in the oceans, but an increase in CO2 will drive the reaction towards forming insoluble carbonates.

Peter Walsh
November 1, 2010 10:25 am

If I had 15 Billion US dollars to spend on the oceans, I would chose to spend it on buoys which could measure the temperatures (and other uselful information) all over the globe.
Mind you, if that happened, we would have such accurate figures recorded, that the CAGW crowd would have to fold up their tents and creep back into their holes.
Peter Walsh

Steve Oregon
November 1, 2010 10:31 am

Why do lefties buy every alarm farce their academia progressives gin up?
The ocean acidification tale can be revealed by any half wit simpleton and a google.
Just Google ocean acidification fraud:
And go look at Lubchenco’s absurd demonstration.

Too stupid
“The Moniker Osteoporosis of the sea”

Richard111
November 1, 2010 10:36 am

Isn’t the pH scale logarithmic?
i.e. a glass of tomato juice is 10 times more acidic than a cup of black coffee?

Dave Springer
November 1, 2010 10:37 am

David S says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:48 am

Whereas;
1) No part of the constitutuion authorizes spending for that purpose.

That depends on how you interpret “provide for the general welfare” below. My bold.
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Peter Miller
November 1, 2010 10:38 am

Any idiot can spend other people’s money, as this so amply proves.

Merrick
November 1, 2010 10:47 am

Actually, a disclaimer needs to go on the neutral pH marker. Water which was distilled in a CO2 free environment and kept isolated from CO2 (and at 25 C, as Phil points out) has a pH of 7.0. Under normal atmospheric conditions distilled water which has equilabrated with the atmosphere and is at 25 C has a pH of about 5. Dissolved CO2 reacts with water to form hydrogen and carbonate ions at a concentration of about 10^-5 (thus, pH 5). This is because carbonic acid is a weak acid. If carbonic acid were a string acid the pH would be more like 3.5, similar to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In sea water, however, there are basic cations at much higher concentrations than CO2 in the atmosphere, resulting in the fact that sea water is strongly buffered against pH swings. Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere HAVE to bring the pH down – slightly. But it would take a whopping amount of CO2 to make a significant difference.
Just for the record, I have maitained coral in tanks for years. The pH in my tanks is seldom above 8. Corals bleaching and other supposed horror results of slight lowering in pH is not in the offing.

Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2010 10:57 am

drewski says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:52 am
Talk about screwed up priorities — the majority of bloggers on this site don’t realize the importance of tools –NOT MODELS — such as this one to monitor the oceans. My first thought was why hasn’t this testing been done before? — considering how important it is to the welfare of billions of people.
Billions of people? LOL! It’s important for the welfare of the pocketbooks of the NGOs, “scientists” and other carpetbaggers studying this pseudo-problem, that’s all.
Yes indeed, “ocean acidification” could be a nice side line of non-productive make-work, as long as they play their cards right, and crank out sufficiently alarming-sounding reports the MSM can latch onto.

Over50
November 1, 2010 11:04 am

I admire the competence of scientists that can measure pH within 0.1 units for 1.3 BILLION cubic kilometers of water over hundreds of years. I mean, that’s extraordinary data collection.

David S
November 1, 2010 11:15 am

Dave Springer
James Madison, the father of the constitution, answered the question of what the term “general welfare” means, in the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist #41 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
Basically he said it is common practice to describe something by first defining it in general terms and then spelling out the specific terms. The general welfare is a general term and the specifics of it are spelled out in the rest of that section. He asks what purpose there would be to even listing specific terms if the general term gives unlimited powers to the federal government.

David Davidovics
November 1, 2010 11:17 am

I’m just going to come out and say it.
“These guys need to go out and get a real job.”

D. Patterson
November 1, 2010 11:19 am

drewski says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:52 am
Talk about screwed up priorities — the majority of bloggers on this site don’t realize the importance of tools –NOT MODELS — such as this one to monitor the oceans. My first thought was why hasn’t this testing been done before? — considering how important it is to the welfare of billions of people.
$15Billion dollars is a paltry sum for a worldwide net of monitors to measure if the oceans are acidifying and, if so, could it harm the reefs?; is it linked to the “Dead Zones”– oxygen starved pockets of water that have popped up near Oregon?, does a change in PH help predict devastating algae blooms?, does it affect phytoplankton? — an absolutely vital link in the food chain.
The “whatsupwithyourthinking” mob scream bloody murder about the unreliable models of climate and now here is a tool for actual OBSERVATIONS and you ridicule that. A lot of you are long on comment, but short on logic.

If you want to spend your own 15 billion dollars to play make believe, go knock your self out. If you want my money, my fellow citizens’ tax monies, and changes in the laws to perpetrate a scientific hoax and a fraud, you will have to do without and swallow your disappointment. If you insist upon using force and imposing the spending on your scientific hoax, we will encourage the investigation, discovery, and prosecution of any fraud associated with your scientific hoax.
The Communist government of the Soviet Union bankrupted itself and starved its people with irrepsonsible management of its economy, resources, and environment. Now, the Marxists, socialists, Socialists, communists, communists, and so-called Progressives are trying to wreck the world’s other societies with the same types of irresponsible and deceitful schemes to wrest control of economies, resources, and the environment from the People and destroy them with mismanagement by central planning and controls based upon pseudo-scientific hoaxes and frauds. This proposal for a $15 billion dollar system for studying what we already have scientific reason to know is a non-existant problem deserves to be highlighted as a shining example of the scientific and political incompetence of the people proposing and supporting such a fraudulent scheme.

Shevva
November 1, 2010 11:19 am

Please show your workings, including that 8.2 is fine and 8.1 is crisis?

Buffoon
November 1, 2010 11:19 am

LESS DIVERSE
The new buzzword cometh.
Let none admit it to their hearts and minds.
Beware ye of it.

chris y
November 1, 2010 11:22 am

Milwaukee Bob-
I agree that spending $5B per year to monitor ocean pH is way too much, and that there are myriad other better uses for that money. However, I think some money should be spent to learn more about ocean pH, to at least provide enough understanding to thoroughly debunk the climate alarmist claims.
As I already stated, it can be done for much less than $15B + $5B/year, by piggybacking on the ARGO floats currently being maintained for $20 MILLION per year.
For example, here-
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/argo/welcome.html#float
“The annual cost of the worldwide Argo program is about $20 million,..”
It is always a good idea to collect and build a believable observational dataset. Right now the alarmists depend on lack of reliable observations to enable nonsensical adjustments that always favor a pending catastrophe.

Steve Oregon
November 1, 2010 11:30 am

One can google ocean acidification fraud and get plenty but watching Jane Lubchenco’s absurd demonstration is special.

It’s too stupid.
She like the “The Moniker Osteoporosis of the sea”

Steve Oregon
November 1, 2010 11:31 am

One can google ocean acidification farce and get plenty but watching Jane Lubchenco’s absurd demonstration is special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuttOKcTPQs
She like the “The Moniker Osteoporosis of the sea”

DesertYote
November 1, 2010 11:43 am

Bob from the UK
November 1, 2010 at 10:07 am
The PH of seawater is more stable then freshwater. One of my fields of study is fresh water ecology. I use to spend my weekends taking measurements of the local streams, ponds, rivers, and mud puddles. I confidently achieved an accuracy of 0.1 on my trusty hatch. I emphatically would not trust anyone else to take such precise measurements as it is a real pita! In the same river, the PH can go from 6.5 to 7.5 in a day at the same spot. I have taken measurement in still areas of 5.5 while in adjacent flowing areas the PH was 6.8!

Editor
November 1, 2010 11:49 am

Dave Springer says:
November 1, 2010 at 10:37 am
David S says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:48 am
Whereas;
1) No part of the constitutuion authorizes spending for that purpose.
That depends on how you interpret “provide for the general welfare” below. My bold.
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Fortunately, way back in 1788, several States were leery of the Defense and Welfare clause as it applied to Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes. In an effort to encourage ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton,James Madison and John Jay wrote a series of explanatory notes called “The Federalist Papers.”

The Federalist No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
Independent Journal
Saturday, January 19, 1788
[James Madison]
[…]
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…
[…]
If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
[…]

The General Welfare is not an “unlimited commission” for Congress to lay and collect taxes for whatever they deem to be in the interest of the General Welfare of the nation. Common Defense and General Welfare are the general purposes for which the Constitution grants Congress certain “enumerated powers.” The only enumerated power that good even remotely be construed as authorizing Federal funding of science projects is the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Which actually only authorizes Congress to issue patents, pass copyright laws and otherwise protect intellectual property.
The fact that our Congress has routinely exceeded its enumerated Powers, particularly since the 1930’s, does not justify further abuse of congressional Powers.

CodeTech
November 1, 2010 11:52 am

Peter Walsh says:

If I had 15 Billion US dollars to spend on the oceans, I would chose to spend it on buoys which could measure the temperatures (and other uselful information) all over the globe.
Mind you, if that happened, we would have such accurate figures recorded, that the CAGW crowd would have to fold up their tents and creep back into their holes.

Brilliant! However, for those who have never heard of them, these buoys are:
http://www.argos-system.org/welcome_en.html
Tragically, they do not show warming, or any other “bad” thing, therefore nobody talks about them. I don’t see any tents being folded up… sigh.

Dave Wendt
November 1, 2010 11:56 am

There have been several independent studies that show a long term multidecadal cyclic variation of oceanic pH between 7.9 and 8.3 mostly in sync with the PDO.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/EDIT.php
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/12/14/ocean-acidification-by-carbon-dioxide/
One of the most quoted recent studies of oceanic pH,
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848.full.pdf+html
did show a decline in pH over the 7 year period of the study, but it also showed up to 0.3 variation based on TOD and increasingly large ranges of variability for each temporal division on up to a 7.5-9.0 range for the seven year study. (See fig. 1 A & B. pg. 2)
If the oceanic biosphere was as sensitive to variations in pH as the alarmists suggest, the world’s oceans would have been as barren as the Antarctic icecap long ago.

November 1, 2010 11:58 am

@drewski
> … if the oceans are _acidifying_ and, if so, could it _harm_ the reefs?; is it
> linked to the “_Dead_ Zones”– oxygen _starved_ pockets of water that
> have popped up near Oregon?, does a change in PH help predict
> _devastating_ algae blooms?, does it affect phytoplankton? — an _absolutely_
> _vital_ link in the food chain.
Drewski. Dude. Drop the alarmist vocabulary and you’ll do fine here at WUWT. We’re not trying to deny or hide any warming (which is good), we just want someone (like you) to provide providing _convincing_ proofs of imminent ‘catastrophe’ caused by warming.
Mother Earth is a pretty tough old girl, resilient and adaptive to change. Oceans are not turning to acid. CO2 is not toxic. Warm is good. Else none of us would be around here to muse about it.

Mike from Canmore
November 1, 2010 12:00 pm

David Middleton:
Great! Then they don’t need $15 billion. That was more my point.

D. Patterson
November 1, 2010 12:03 pm

Dave Springer says:
November 1, 2010 at 10:37 am
See:
SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
Scope of the Power
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf
There has been a standing controversy in Congress over the meaning of “the General Welfare” ever since the U.S. Constitution was adopted. In the case of United States v. Butler the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Roberts wrote a decision favoring the more liberal interpretation favored by Alexander Hamilton and rejected James Madison’s interpretation of an enumerated powers limitation. The current Tea Party political movement in the United States is determined in part to reassert Madison’s interpretation and restrain the ability of Congress to tax, spend, and legislate without the consent of the electorate and/or unconstitutional trespasses upon the inalienable rights of the the minority guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9