The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

There’s an interesting study out on the natural pH changes in the ocean. I discussed some of these pH changes a year ago in my post “The Electric Oceanic Acid Test“. Before getting to the new study, let me say a couple of things about pH.

The pH scale measures from zero to fourteen. Seven is neutral, because it is the pH of pure water. Below seven is acidic. Above seven is basic. This is somewhat inaccurately but commonly called “alkaline”. Milk is slightly acidic. Baking soda is slightly basic (alkaline).

Figure 1. pH scale, along with some examples.

The first thing of note regarding pH is that alkalinity is harder on living things than is acidity. Both are corrosive of living tissue, but alkalinity has a stronger effect. It seems counterintuitive, but it’s true. For example, almost all of our foods are acidic. We eat things with a pH of 2, five units below the neutral reading of 7 … but nothing with a corresponding pH of 12, five units above neutral. The most alkaline foods are eggs (pH up to 8) and dates and crackers (pH up to 8.5). Heck, our stomach acid has a pH of 1.5 to 3.0, and our bodies don’t mind that at all … but don’t try to drink Drano, the lye will destroy your stomach.

That’s why when you want to get rid of an inconvenient body, you put lye on it, not acid. It’s also why ocean fish often have a thick mucus layer over their skin, inter alia to protect them from the alkalinity. Acidity is no problem for life compared to alkalinity.

Next, a question of terminology. When a base is combined with an acid, for example putting baking soda on spilled car battery acid, that is called “neutralizing” the acid. This is because it is moving towards neutral. Yes, it increases the pH, but despite that, it is called “neutralizing”, not “alkalizing”.

This same terminology is used when measuring pH. In a process called “titration”, you measure how much acid it takes to neutralize an unknown basic solution. If you add too much acid, the pH drops below 7.0 and the mixture becomes acidic. Add too little acid, and the mixture remains basic. Your goal in titration is to add just enough acid to neutralize the basic solution. Then you can tell how alkaline it was, by the amount of acid that it took to neutralize the basic solution.

Similarly, when rainwater (slightly acidic) falls on the ocean (slightly basic), it has a neutralizing effect on the slightly alkaline ocean. Rainwater slightly decreases the pH of the ocean. Despite that, we don’t normally say that rainwater is “acidifying” the ocean. Instead, because it is moving the ocean towards neutral, we say it is neutralizing the ocean.

The problem with using the term “acidify” for what rainwater does to the ocean is that people misunderstand what is happening. Sure, a hard-core scientist hearing “acidify” might think “decreasing pH”. But most people think “Ooooh, acid, bad, burns the skin.” It leads people to say things like the following gem that I came across yesterday:

Rapid increases in CO2 (such as today) overload the system, causing surface waters to become corrosive.

In reality, it’s quite the opposite. The increase in CO2 is making the ocean, not more corrosive, but more neutral. Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity. That is the problem with the term “acidify”, and it is why I use and insist on the more accurate term “neutralize”. Using “acidify”, is both alarmist and incorrect. The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2.

With that as prologue, let me go on to discuss the paper on oceanic pH.

The paper is called “High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison” (hereinafter pH2011). As the name suggests, they took a look at the actual variations of pH in a host of different parts of the ocean. They show 30-day “snapshots” of a variety of ecosystems. The authors comment:

These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100.

First, they show the 30-day snapshot of both the open ocean and a deepwater open ocean reef:

Figure 2. Continuous 30-day pH measurements of open ocean and deepwater reef. Bottom axis shows days. Vertical bar shows the amount of the possible pH change by 2100, as estimated in the pH2011 study.

I note that even in the open ocean, the pH is not constant, but varies by a bit over the thirty days. These changes are quite short, and are likely related to rainfall events during the month. As mentioned above, these slightly (and temporarily) neutralize the ocean surface, and over time mix in to the lower waters. Over Kingman reef, there are longer lasting small swings.

Compare the two regions shown in Fig. 1 to some other coral reef “snapshots” of thirty days worth of continuous pH measurements.

Figure 3. Thirty day “snapshots” of the variation in pH at two tropical coral reefs. Bottom axis shows days.

There are a couple of things of note in Figure 3. First, day-to-night variations in pH are from the CO2 that is produced by the reef life as a whole. Also, day-to-night swings on the Palmyra reef terrace are about a quarter of a pH unit … which is about 60% more than the projected change from CO2 by the year 2100.

Moving on, we have the situation in a couple of upwelling areas off of the California coast:

Figure 4. Thirty day pH records of areas of oceanic upwelling. This upwelling occurs, among other places, along the western shores of the continents.

Here we see even greater swings of pH, much larger than the possible predicted change from CO2. Remember that this is only over the period of a month, so there will likely be an annual component to the variation as well.

Figure 5 shows what is going on in kelp forests.

Figure 5. pH records in kelp forests

Again we see a variety of swings of pH, both long- and short-term. Inshore, we find even larger swings, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Two pH records from a near-shore and an estuarine oceanic environment.

Again we see large pH changes in a very short period of time, both in the estuary and the near-shore area.

My conclusions from all of this?

First, there are a number of places in the ocean where the pH swings are both rapid and large. The life in those parts of the ocean doesn’t seem to be bothered by either the size or the speed these swings.

Second, the size of the possible pH change by 2100 is not large compared to the natural swings.

Third, due to a host of buffering mechanisms in the ocean, the possible pH change by 2100 may be smaller, but is unlikely to be larger, than the forecast estimate shown above.

Fourth, I would be very surprised if we’re still burning much fossil fuel ninety years from now. Possible, but doubtful in my book. So from this effect as well, the change in oceanic pH may well be less than shown above.

Fifth, as the authors commented, some parts of the ocean are already experiencing conditions that were not forecast to arrive until 2100 … and are doing so with no ill effects.

As a result, I’m not particularly concerned about a small change in oceanic pH from the change in atmospheric CO2. The ocean will adapt, some creatures’ ranges will change a bit, some species will be slightly advantaged and others slightly disadvantaged. But CO2 has been high before this. Overall, making the ocean slightly more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity but doesn’t mind acidity at all.

Finally, let me say that I love scientific studies like this, that actually use real observations rather than depending on theory and models. For some time now I’ve been pointing out that oceanic pH is not constant … but until this study I didn’t realize how variable it actually is. It is a measure of the “ivory tower” nature of much of climate science that the hysteria about so-called “acidification” has been going on for so long without an actual look at the actual ocean to see what difference a small change towards neutrality might actually make.

My best regards to everyone,

w.

NOTE: For those hard-core scientists that still want to call adding a small amount of acid to a basic solution “acidifying” the basic solution, and who claim that is the only correct “scientific terminology”, I recommend that you look at and adopt the scientific terminology from titration. That’s the terminology used when actually measuring pH in the lab. In that terminology, when you move towards neutral (pH 7), it’s called “neutralization”.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

168 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
spangled drongo
December 28, 2011 3:16 am

Willis, with huge numbers of desal plants coming on stream won’t this have an increasing alkalinity effect?

richard verney
December 28, 2011 3:35 am

JJ says:
December 28, 2011 at 2:03 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////
I have to agree with almost all that is said in that post. They are points well made.
It is the terminology in this debate that irks me, I can see the concern behind the issue raised, But like the entire global warming issue, this particular topic raises issues of natural variation, hasn’t all of this happened in the past and yet life contines and adaption with some species evolving others succumbing to natural extinction.
I can vouch from my own personal experience on how harmful alkalines can be on human tissue. Back in the 70s, I got some alkali in my eyes and this significantly scarred the tissue such that in one eye I now see 20 or 30 images all slightly out of alignment such that for all practical purposes in that eye I can only see differnt concentrations of light which can be corrected only by the use of hard contact lenses. Glasses or even soft contact lenses will not correct the signt since what I require is a completely smooth surface on which the light falls to stop it defrecting. As JJ notes, it depends upon the sensitivity of each part of the body. Of course, if I had got that alkali on my hand it would not have caused any problem nor long term scarring.

December 28, 2011 3:35 am

Kev-in-UK – “it’s all in the implied ‘problem”
Yes, the repeated the coral reef extinctions and collapses which pepper the paleo record, connected with rapidly rising CO2, imply the current unprecedented rate of CO2 rise might be wee bit of a problem.

Mark
December 28, 2011 3:39 am

crosspatch says:
Our planet and the species alive today are actually pretty CO2-stressed. Most are living toward the bottom edge of the CO2 range required for them to thrive even with the additional of human produced CO2 emissions.
So much so that there are devices to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in commercial greenhouses. Indeed this would be the most meaningful way to refer to it as a “greenhouse gas”. It’s rather strange that using the emissions from a combustion power plant (or other industrial plant which produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct) to enrich the atmosphere in greenhouses is not more common. For one thing it would be simpler and cheaper than trying to pipe it under the ocean or into disused mines.

Merrick
December 28, 2011 3:41 am

Actually, pH can be lower than 0 and higher than 14. pH is the negative log10 of the hydrogen ion concentration, so for instance, a 10 molar concentration of a strong acid like HCl would have a pH of -1. Similar argument for a strong base at high concentrations.
Someone also mentioned acidity related to tooth decay. In fact, the normal pH of your mouth (saliva) is slightly basic. Almost all foods disrupt that for a short time (plaque is the real villain) but chewing gum can help a lot – especially a gum with xylotol or a similar sugar. Incidentally, because saliva is both basic and has some buffer capacity, one of the most effective cures for heart burn is to chew a stick of gum. Far better than a lot of other chemicals going in.

Mark
December 28, 2011 3:52 am

Don K says:
The specific issue raised by acidification alarmists is the affect of lower pH on marine creatures that have shells/skeletons made from Calcium Carbonate. And they do seem to have a point. Excess alkalinity may be tough on the critters themselves, but it won’t harm the shells. Excess acidity on the other hand makes it harder to form shells/skeletons and tends to dissolve existing shells. That’s oversimplified to begin with and is exacerbated when the acidifying (neutralizing) agent is CO2 which not only acidifies but supplies Carbonate and Bicarbonate Ions. The chemistry of Calcium Carbonate in sea water looks to be exceedingly complex. The “system” consists of solid Calcium Carbonate, Calcium Ions, Magnesium Ions, Carbonate ions. Bicarbonate Ions, Hydrogen Ions, and Hydroxyl (OH-) ions. It is very difficult to analyze. And it is temperature sensitive.
The chemistry is complex without even considering that biochemistry is very complex.
IIRC When experiments have been done with actual animals a slight reduction in pH (especially due to added CO2) is no problem at all. Indeed some actually appear to be better in such an environment.

December 28, 2011 3:53 am

Willis Eschenbach – “The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2”
Which in other words means the pH is declining and the oceans are becoming acidified.

DocWat
December 28, 2011 4:02 am

Great plain language post. Illustrative examples are great for us without PhDs.
Don’t think neutralization is going to catch on with the AGW crowd… far too neutral.

Labmunkey
December 28, 2011 4:10 am

@JJ, are you aware that you’ve made the same generalisation mistakes that you’re accusing willis of?
Willis, i greatly enjoy reading your pieces, they are well thought out, well written and often very insightful. I get the impression we’d have some interesting chats over a dram or two…
That said, you’ve left yourself open to some legitimate criticism here in this piece which i think detract from the main and 100% correct points made.
Your assertions that alkalinity is of more concern than acidity, is not wholly safe. Both have issues and as ever, it’s the dergee and the ‘site’ of the acction that matters, i.e. the pH and the area- (skin or stomach lining, fish scales or eyes etc etc).
I can understand why you’ve written it such, but it think it could do with tightening up slightly.
Finally, your points on the terminology are bang on. It annoys me greatly (as a scientist) to see people misunderstanding or worse, willfully conflating scientific terminiology to suit their position. The ‘acidification/’neutralisation’ point is a prime example of this.
That’s my two pence any way- feel free to disregard 🙂
Happy holidays all!

Jessie
December 28, 2011 4:11 am

Willis,
A story and news clip for you – acidic, alkaline or plain stupidity…….
Happy New Year to you and your family, thank you for the great posts in 2010.
Learning much, with chuckles.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/elvis-the-crocodile-charges-at-zookeepers-who-use-lawnmowers-as-shields-at-the-australian-reptile-park/story-e6freooo-1226231757395

vincent
December 28, 2011 4:12 am

I’ve published quite a bit in this area and yes willis is right it seems a mild alkalosis is generally more toxic than a mild acidosis. BTW human blood pH is very very tightly controlled at 7.4 which for us biologist is “neutral” as disctinct to 7.0 for lab people.Anyway one example is the conversion of non-toxic NH4 (not lipid soluble) to very toxic NH3 (lipid soluble by just a slight rise in blood pH . This probably occurrs in oceans as well re fish and ammonia. This is just one example.. there are probably thousands more in biology

Mariwarcwm
December 28, 2011 4:41 am

Crosspatch – I am very interested in your idea that species have died because of the drop in CO2 from 3500ppm to the present level. No one seems to ask why dinosaurs, for example were so very large, and the vegetation on which they lived equally large. All that lovely CO2 perhaps? Then, about 55 million years ago when CO2 dropped below 3500ppm, the dinosaurs and their vast vegetation died out and everything got a lot smaller. What was the plant that caused a sharp drop during the next million years?

random non-scientist in the USA
December 28, 2011 4:58 am

I like the comments in this one. They got me thinking critically about the post. My only question would be: Although it is lower pH toward Neutral, would life that is accustomed to, say a pH of 8, feel or have an effect that 7 is Acidic, even though 7 is defined as neither? Maybe the premise of this argument is incorrect as it feels like wordplay and relativism.
I believe Mr. Eschenbach’s point was that “acidification” is an incorrect term as well as hyberbolic for the masses whom are more familiar with acid, with a second point being that there are natural fluctuations that are almost never mentioned. Well done on those points. What is the term was changed to “declining alkalinity” as opposed to “acidifying”? I only believe that would inform better, yet would have absolutely the same effect for the activists, which are inflexible as on every other issue.
-took a short detour to wikipedia-
I had been under the assumption most of my life that water-life was guided by salinity levels. I see they have different physiology, therefore changes mean they can expand their typical locations. I also found that salt is generally an alkali. Is this what makes the majority of alkalinity in oceans? If so it would correlate to sea levels, which in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida don’t seem any closer to A1A or the condos than where it was when I was a kid 20-30 years ago. Does alkalinity vary at various depths? various temps?
Seems I came up with more questions. I can’t do anything about the fancy equations and charts put up; but this feels like some basic science within my grasp. Feel like a kid again getting one of those science kits with litmus paper strips in it. For the ocean, I usually only worry about man-o-war’s, sewage leak, an wayward sharks…I guess riptides too, but I consider that more a challenge that threat.

philincalifornia
December 28, 2011 5:20 am

Mark says:
December 28, 2011 at 3:52 am
Don K says:
The chemistry is complex without even considering that biochemistry is very complex.
IIRC When experiments have been done with actual animals a slight reduction in pH (especially due to added CO2) is no problem at all. Indeed some actually appear to be better in such an environment.
=======================================
This link, that summarizes the state of knowledge (i.e. empirical data) on the above, was posted by Streetcred over on the other thread:
http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php
Thank you Willis. Clearly there are some people who you will never get to admit that above pH7 is not acidic, but such propagandists will never be able to use the “science is settled” blindsiding argument against non-scientists for this topic thanks to prominent articles like this.

P. Solar
December 28, 2011 5:28 am

excellent article, I am much wiser on this subject now. Thanks.
The interesting bit is the upwelling of deeper ocean water is the most significant of all. Deeper, colder water, with more CO2 is more acidic (sorry , more neutral 😉 ).

Richard111
December 28, 2011 5:51 am

Some time ago when Lake Nyos killed all those villagers with “poison gas” (CO2), I looked for effects of underwater volcanic release of CO2 and found this informative web page:
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Nyos.html
Scroll down to “triggering mechanisms” and you will find this quote:
“”It had been known for years that the water in Lake Nyos was extremely enriched in dissolved CO2. The lake overlies a volcanic source, which appears to release CO2 and other gases. However, most of this gas does not escape into the atmosphere, but rather dissolves into the bottom waters of the lake. At a depth of over 200 meter, the sheer weight of the upper lake levels exerts considerable pressures on the bottom waters. This confining pressure allows CO2 to dissolve into the bottom waters without escaping to the surface, in much the same way that the cap on a carbonated beverage prevents CO2 from bubbling out of its container. At a depth of 200 meters, water can hold 15 times its own volume in CO2. It has been estimated that every liter of water in the lower part of the lake may have contained between 1 to 5 liters of CO2!””
I understand that there are in the order of ten thousand undersea volcanoes continuously venting CO2 into the oceans at depths far greater than 200 metres. Are these effects taken into account? Does it impact on the much quoted figure of 50:1 for dissolved CO2 in the oceans?

Pamela Gray
December 28, 2011 5:53 am

The reason why we could “run out” of fossil fuel is not for lack of raw product but for political reasons. Something that is within the control of the greater populous having the courage to demand fossil fuel production. And the key word is courage. If our collective and free will vote cannot bring it to bare, then a little revolution might be in our future, something US citizenry are taught to honor and uphold.

December 28, 2011 6:02 am

Since 1980 pH of the Oceans & Seas did NOT changed more or less 0.10 pH. The Climate WAR WILL BE WON by those who have Oceans & Seas Analysis since 1980.

Editor
December 28, 2011 6:11 am

For give me for not doing the obvious search, but this might be a good discussion point.
I learned that low pH was corrosive and high pHs were caustic. In between, perhaps “meh” would be a usful use of that neologism. I forget what we called cars rusting out quickly thanks to road salt. (I think Japan called it a sales opportunity and after cars like the Ford Fiesta and Chevy Vega, Detroit called it catchup. “Ford Motor Company hates rust” in commercials. Was Bill Cosby the spokesman? Too long ago.)
All that was in regard to metals and inorganic chemistry. What does corrosion mean to organic chemistry and shellfish?

Editor
December 28, 2011 6:22 am

Rob Painting says:
December 28, 2011 at 3:53 am
Willis Eschenbach – “The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2″
Which in other words means the pH is declining and the oceans are becoming acidified.
DocWat says:
December 28, 2011 at 4:02 am
Great plain language post. Illustrative examples are great for us without PhDs.
Don’t think neutralization is going to catch on with the AGW crowd… far too neutral.

Certainly looks that way. A serendipitous pair of adjacent comments!

Steve Keohane
December 28, 2011 6:29 am

Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought an excess of H ions was acidic, an excess of OH ions alkaline, and you have one or the other. An alkaline solution doesn’t become acidified until there are no OH ions, when pH<=7.0.

richard verney
December 28, 2011 6:38 am

Rob Painting says:
December 28, 2011 at 3:53 am
////////////////////////////////////
No No No No
As a matter of correct terminology, they would only become acidified once the ph falls below the 7 mark. .

December 28, 2011 6:38 am

JJ says:
December 28, 2011 at 2:03 am
“… Living things have an optimum pH that they can operate with for various functions, and those pH optimums differ from function to function and from species to species…”
JJ we are talking about the oceans or did you miss that. So your sentence above is what he was talking about. ie. The life in the oceans are not harmed by the small variation caused by a change in pH from CO2 because they started there.
I like pickled beets but not biscuits with too much baking soda.

December 28, 2011 6:42 am

Rob Painting says:
December 28, 2011 at 3:53 am
Rob how can you read this and not understand I have to assume it is a willful and deliberate misunderstanding IT IS NOT ACIDIFYING it is NEUTRALIZING please learn the difference between those words and stop regurgitating whatever the HIGHpriests of CAGW spout in other words THINK FOR YOURSELF. To Willis another home run despite people latching on to side points and missing the real point.

Roger Knights
December 28, 2011 6:42 am

Rob Painting says:
December 28, 2011 at 3:53 am

Willis Eschenbach – “The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2″

Which in other words means the pH is declining and the oceans are becoming acidified.

In other words the oceans are becoming like lemon juice, is what your double-speak implies. But they aren’t. They’re becoming like fresh water–neutral.