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.

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;
Rent-Seekers at the trough.
That’s great. The oceans are totally in the alkaline range and will be for the foreseeable human future.
I’d like £15billion for my dandruff problem.
Of course, solving the dandruff will be a tiny fraction of that, but at least I could say it was £10 well spent.
NGO? Only the government would think of calling an organization which:
1.) takes $15Billion dollar checks and
2.) advances its own policies
a “Non Governmental Organization.”
Ha ha ha ha.
I was hoping someone would have brought this up by now, but as no one was, I guess I will. The reason PH is a log scale is because its physical effect is logarithmic. A PH of 0.1 sounds small because it is small. Calling it a 30% change is just misleading rhetoric to make it sound like it is big.
Greenies are all a bunch of liars. The proof that they resort to such nonsense should be proof to everyone that these guys can not be trusted with anything more complicated sweeping floor, and only that with supervision!
As Oliver Twist says “Please sir can I have some more”
Important distinction:
Madison elaborated on the restrictive interpretation prior to the ratification of the Constitution.
Hamilton elaborated on the expansive interpretation after the ratification when he was Treasury Secretary.
If someone is trying to get you to sign a contract and they make a written assurance of something before you sign and then renege on that assurance after you’ve signed that contract, you have been defrauded.
I know it’s late in the post, but an interesting paper here by Tim Casey on volcanoes CO2 output in which he notes that 139,000 active submarine volcanoes affect the CO2 budget more than anything else, and “could partly explain the recent increase in ocean acidification discussed by Archer (2009, pp. 114-124)”
George E. Smith says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:08 am
So did I learn Martian Chemistry in school or what; isn’t “Baking Soda” just sodium bicarbonate. So what is it that you get when CO2 dissolves in sea water ? So why does baking soda drive the pH up, and not down.
—————-
They’re totally different beasts George. If you add up the atoms, NaHCO3 is CO2 + NaOH. So if you put that in water, the OH- in the equilibrium makes the pH go up.
From Wikipedia:
Aqueous solutions are mildly alkaline due to the formation of carbonic acid and hydroxide ion:
HCO3- + H2O → H2CO3 + OH−
CO2 just forms carbonic acid, without the OH-
I have some old litmus paper at the back of a cupboard. Happy to donate it to the Great Project.
But I fear it will still turn blue (alkaline) when seawater is tested. Not red (acidic).
Come to think of it, this project cost as much as 2 Large Hadron Colliders, the LHC is to date still the most expensive scientific instrument ever build.
The Grid is going to provide the internet infrastructure with the much needed means to increase capacity of the internet, just like CERN had done in the past and pretty much started the Internet as we enjoy it today.
What are these boffins (the acid guys, not the LHC) on their POGO-sticks going to give us other than more unsubstantiated scare stories about impending doom if we don’t act now?
Has anybody supporting the 15 billion measuring system ever tried to calculate what it would take to inflate the PH of the oceans towards a complete neutral level , we do not talk about acidity , a ph of 7 . It would require such a huge amount of added acids that may be it would take a minimum of 10.000 years to raise it with a only fraction .
The alarmists really have no idea what they are talking about and want the world to share their fears . A healthy person will make compliments when he is presented a critical well thought way of reasoning . Where are the compliments of the alarmists for a person showing dedication and a critical personal contribution to the discussion ?
What did you experience Anthony ?
tty says:
November 1, 2010 at 10:14 am
As for that 0.1 change in ocean pH since the 1700′s it is worth remembering that the pH scale wasn’t invented until 1909, and the formulation for it used today is from 1924.
==========================================================
They proxified it tty….
……..they found this one snail that was really really old
———————————
“Mike Jowsey says: November 1, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I know it’s late in the post, but an interesting paper here by Tim Casey on volcanoes CO2 output in which he notes that 139,000 active submarine volcanoes affect the CO2 budget more than anything else, and “could partly explain the recent increase in ocean acidification discussed by Archer (2009, pp. 114-124)”
———————————
Thanks and that is very interesting to me at least.
I’ve always wondered how many undersea thermal vents and volcanoes there were. I know the ocean is huge but you can heat a lot of water with that many vents. I’ve also been curious if the rise and fall of the number of vents could be correlated with any cyclical patterns as that could be a possible source of el-Nino and possibly long term climate changes.
Cheers
G. Karst says:
November 1, 2010 at 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”
It is amazing to see how many posters make fools of themselves by propagating misinformation when they could simply look things up on Wikipedia and get things right.
The account of pH given by the above poster is his own invention and totally wrong.
pH =- log(10) of the hydrogen ion concentration.
If pH= 8, the concentration of hydrogen ions = 10-8
The ratio of the difference in hydrogen ion concentration between ph 8.1 and ph 8.2
i= 10^-8.1/(10^-8.2) =1.26.
So the concentration of hydrogen ions increases by 26%.
This is not a miniscule change in concentration percentagewise.
It also seems that no one has read the article that Anthony so kindly printed in total, and have invented a straw man to beat up. What is requested is a comprehensive monitoring system that will do much more than simply look at the pH of regions that are not currently being measure. The scientist quoted in the article clearly says:
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.
It seems that the overwhelming majority of posters here are so intent on bashing scientists, that they don’t even bother to understand any of the basic facts before they start posting. So many minds here are driven by avoiding cognitive dissonance, that facts don’t seem to matter.
Personally, I would like a complete break down by this NGO of where each and every penny is spent and if they can not justify every penny then no deal. But that is wishful thinking because they would not want anyone to know where the money is going!
$15 Billion dollars…
Isn’t that money enough for NASA to send humans back to the moon a couple of times?
Phil. says: November 1, 2010 at 5:29 am
Note that any pH lower than 7.0 is considered “acidic”.
At 25ºC, at lower temperatures the neutral pH is higher, 7.47 at 0ºC.
Also -0.1 is an increase in [H+] of 25%.
At ph 8.2 [H+] = ~[.00000000631]
at ph 8.1 [H+] = ~[.00000000794] or 26%
At ph 7.5 [H+] = ~[.00000003388] or 437% or 16. 8 times as much.
Scary stuff there.
What’s your point Phil?
Robinson says:
November 1, 2010 at 5:37 am
I’m thinking of moving to another planet, because a lot of the people on this one are insane.
Why should we move to another planet, we don’t think it needs fixing based on pseudo science, why not make those who think the planet is ruined move to Mars and create their own “Utopian Society.”
Just my two cents.
As for the subject of this, I think its stupid and worthless, but we are already spending much more then this amount on windmills, which to me is basically throwing your money into the air for an energy source that is 3-4 times less efficient then other forms of power on top of killing birds and being a NIMBY problem since it causes people to have sleep issues due to the noise. Give me coal or nuclear in my backyard any day, but please leave those poor birds alone.
The ocean surface is 30 percent more acidic today than it was in 1800,
So it will be neutral in say ~3059 years.
#
#
eadler
November 1, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Boy you’re dull. What almost all of the posters who are not greeny trolls are denigrating is not science, but the political motivation of activists that want to spend an astronomical amount of money so that they can apply a patina of science onto preconceived ideas. I have no problem with instrumenting the ocean. Instrumentation is my business. I love instrumentation. On the other hand, making up scare stories to extort $15 billion, rightly gets those who can see past their greeny addled minds, a little peeved.
eadler says:
November 1, 2010 at 1:57 pm
“It seems that the overwhelming majority of posters here are so intent on bashing scientists”
THATS CORRECT EADLER !!!! And guess why……
DesertYote says:
November 1, 2010 at 2:44 pm
#
#
eadler
November 1, 2010 at 1:57 pm
<i."Boy you’re dull. What almost all of the posters who are not greeny trolls are denigrating is not science, but the political motivation of activists that want to spend an astronomical amount of money so that they can apply a patina of science onto preconceived ideas. I have no problem with instrumenting the ocean. Instrumentation is my business. I love instrumentation. On the other hand, making up scare stories to extort $15 billion, rightly gets those who can see past their greeny addled minds, a little peeved."
You rant didn’t reply to the substance of my posts, which is that the facts don’t matter , to the posters who are denigrating scientists, for whatever reason. They don’t know understand the significance of the pH change, and missed the purpose or the $15B, which is not to measure pH, but rather to make comprehensive studies of the Ocean, not simply measure pH at more places.
Also they are making theassumption that scientists who are proposing this are wrong to ask for this money, that they somehow don’t really believe in what they are asking for, and are doing it simply to earn more money. There is no real evidence for this assumption. The scientists do have evidence of damage to the ocean ecosystem and it is more than just acidification due to increases in CO2.
Sitting here, the other side of the pond, and having just watched Jane Lubchenco’s video I think you have a serious problem with corrupt science in NOAA coupled with a lack of morality.
I cannot see how Jane Lubchenco could defend herself against charges that she is deliberately misrepresenting science. Was her Doctorate in a science-based subject or was it in Marketing/PR ?
Thank you to all contributors for the factual information provided.
eadler says:
November 1, 2010 at 1:57 pm
for fear of going over this topic again – even the royal society in the UK leave out the crucial calculations and formulae on this matter to prove ocean acidification- here’s a link instead:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
eadler
November 1, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I was right. You are dense. I hate to break it to you but, some of the posters here actually do know something about the subject. All you know is propaganda. BTW, I use to go out on boats taking PH measurements. I dislike marine ecology because it is so friggin stable and boring. That is why I switched my interest to fresh water. And guess what, green one, acid rain was an overblown myth too!