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”.
I suggest that you remove the mention of the layer of mucus on saltwater fish to protect against pH, most, possibly all, fresh water fish have thick layers of mucus also.
The amount of mucus seems be more related to where the fish mainly dwells (as opposed to feeds, most fish are predominantly bottom feeders), bottom dwellers tend to have more mucus then upper layer swimmers. Perhaps more of a layer to protect against injury and fungal attack when injured, then pH.
Since colder water can hold more CO2 it stands to reason that there is more CO2 in the deeper waters of the ocean, lower pH probably.
Last time I read about the deep oceans they were teaming with life, including shell bearing life, and researchers are always astonished by how much life there is deep down. So how much harm can CO2 cause, yes I do realize that the upper layers have evolved with less CO2 hence it may upset the balance, but it does not appear to be harmful to ocean life deep down.
Arguably both terms are correct IF the pH of the ocean is indeed dropping.
Laboratory models to show what should happen with more CO2 in the upper layers of the oceans is more akin to CAGW, Computer Aided Global Warming.
But as mentioned earlier, acidification is much scarier. And if it increases we have caustification of the oceans, and no doubt that is bad too.
“Natural variability” does not produce funding.
The really good line with all the warming research is that any report always ends with: “more research is needed to conclude the conclusions” or words to that effect.
In other words: more funding please.
Acidity is no problem for life compared to alkalinity
Ha ha, good one. Try drinking a pint of sulphuric acid, and then say that again.
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.
If you want to really make sure that people are aware of your ignorance of the scientific literature, keep on making absurd claims like this.
JJ says:
December 28, 2011 at 8:41 am
Gosh, you sure proved that “silly statement” was wrong, the idiotic claim that “life doesn’t mind acidity at all.” That was a slam dunk.
Only problem is … you were the one who invented that silly statement out of your own imaginings, and you were the only one in the thread to make that silly statement. I said nothing of the sort.
So now you have something that, to use your lovely word, “disproofs” your own statement, the statement no one made but you.
Your momma must be very proud, not everyone can disproof their own statements. I suspect that any day now you’ll start to think you can disproof the statements of others.
In that regard I must warn you, however, that disproofing other people’s statements is much harder than disproofing your own statements, so don’t get disappointed if you encounter an early lack of success.
w.
Dr K.A. Rodgers says:
December 28, 2011 at 8:50 am
Thank you, Dr. K. You are certainly correct. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I’m not sure why it’s relevant. What does saying “the scale is logarithmic” change when discussing increasing or decreasing alkalinity or acidity due to changes in atmospheric CO2?
w.
Several people have objected to the idea that alkalinity is worse for living creatures than acidity. A typical comment was:
Pat Moffitt says:
December 28, 2011 at 9:56 am
If that were the case, we’d eat equally from the acid and the alkaline.
But although we eat things all the way down to a pH of about 2, way below seven, we (and almost all mammals) only eat things with a pH up to about 8.5, scarcely into the alkaline range at all.
Finally, consider that we eat the roots and fruit and bodies of a host of plants and animals … and since we eat mostly acids, that means that their bodies are overwhelmingly acidic. There are plenty of kinds of trees that produce fruit that is three units on the acid side of neutral. But I know of none that produce fruit three units on the alkaline side of neutral.
The bodies of the things we eat are acid, we eat many very acidic things and almost no alkaline things, our bodies contain strong acids but not strong alkalies … I don’t see how you can claim that they are just “different states” that are somehow equal. Life comes down on the side of acid.
w.
Alan Statham says:
“Try drinking a pint of sulphuric acid, and then say that again.”
The more you comment the more foolish you look. That is the most far fetched analogy I’ve seen this week. And that’s saying a lot.
Global warming is not due to greenhouse gases, its due to the earth’s orbit around the sun destabilizing, you have been lied too. Please read my blog at: orbital-decay1.blogspot.com.
Outtheback says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:15 am
Outtheback, the term “inter alia” means “among other things”. Read my quote again. You say exactly what I said, in your last sentence, that among other things the mucus is to protect against pH.
w.
Interesting … as always … always grounded in common sense.
Eggs … alkaline. Hmmm … when we’re not taking them scrambled or over easy they serve as little “incubators” for the life that later emerges. So those little chicks swim in a mini alkaline sea.
James of the West says: “…all of the ocean animals dont swim into neutral river systems – because they are suited to the alkaline ocean not the neutral river.”
Uh, James, salmon do this all the time. And you call yourself “James of the West?” West Kansas, is it? And it’s not the neutrality that keeps most fish out at sea–it’s the lack of salt. . There’s hundreds of time more salt than bicarbonate ion in seawater.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:35 am
“Finally, consider that we eat the roots and fruit and bodies of a host of plants and animals … and since we eat mostly acids, that means that their bodies are overwhelmingly acidic. There are plenty of kinds of trees that produce fruit that is three units on the acid side of neutral. But I know of none that produce fruit three units on the alkaline side of neutral.”
===========
To take your observation even farther, many plants survival depends on producing tasty fruit that will be consumed, thereby dispersing the seeds contained within.
“Both are corrosive of living tissue, but alkalinity has a stronger effect.”
I was taught that on an equal basis of acid to “alkali”, the latter “denatures” the final, “tertiary”, structure of proteins, which involves their individual chains [several chains comprising one protein, kind of twisted together] associating with each other via indirect bonding, while the acid does not do this, In other words, the acid does not break down proteins as easily.
Willis is absolutely correct to push back against the use of the term acidification. Its use by the regulatory agencies and NGOs is nothing more than an attempt to frame the issue within the context already established in popular culture – acid is bad. EPA and NGOs have some thirty years invested in selling this message which first started with acid rain. Ocean acidification simply replaces SO2 with CO2- builds on the Public fear already created- allowing the NGOs to boost donations, regulatory expansion, and academics to get grants -while continuing their attacks on their hated enemy- fossil fuels. We as usual get to pick up the tab.
As Willis pointed out all rain is acid- always has been- always will be. The term acid rain was picked by NGOs to frame the debate and freeze out scientists trying to put the issue into context. The press was able to tell the Public that every scientists believed in acid rain just as they later correctly claimed every scientist believed in climate change. Acidification follows this same ugly and deceptive tradition of framing.
Regarding survival of coral species, a Nov. 2011 study looked at what kinds of corals (if any) grew near a natural CO2 seepage into the ocean, in Mexico. The study is “Calcifying coral abundance near low-pH springs: implications for future ocean acidification,” by Crook et al. The pH varies between about 6.3 and 7.3 (today’s open ocean pH is about 8.1, down from about 8.2 a century ago), and pH levels which alarm the most fearful of alarmists can be as high as 7.9, while somewhat more sober scientists worry more about 7.7 or 7.6.
The study found, surprisingly to many observers, that three scleractinian coral species could grow in these waters, extremely “acidic” by the standards of the alarmists — a pH of 6.3 actually IS acidic. Other corals, including the main reef building corals, were absent.
There are three take aways from this article for me (Abstract pasted below). The first is that you have to do the science, period. The second is that some corals can grow as well as survive at far lower pH than expected. The third is that there are some limits of pH below which some corals can’t grow. We are very far from those limits, but they do exist, probably well above 1,000 ppm of CO2 based on other published research.
“Abstract:
Abstract Rising atmospheric CO2 and its equilibration with surface ocean seawater is lowering both the pH and carbonate saturation state (omega) of the oceans. Numerous calcifying organisms, including reef-building corals, may be severely impacted by declining aragonite and calcite saturation, but the fate of coral reef ecosystems in response to ocean acidification remains largely unexplored. Naturally low saturation (omega * 0.5) low pH (6.70–7.30) groundwater has been discharging for millennia at localized submarine springs (called ‘‘ojos’’) at Puerto Morelos, Mexico near the Mesoamerican Reef. This ecosystem provides insights into potential long term responses of coral ecosystems to low saturation conditions. In-situ chemical and biological data
indicate that both coral species richness and coral colony size decline with increasing proximity to low-saturation, low-pH waters at the ojo centers. Only three scleractinian coral species (Porites astreoides, Porites divaricata, and Siderastrea radians) occur in undersaturated waters at all ojos examined. Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. The growth of these scleractinian coral species at undersaturated conditions illustrates that the response to ocean acidification is likely to vary across species and environments; thus, our data emphasize the need to better understand the mechanisms of calcification to more accurately predict future impacts of ocean acidification.”
Willis
Thanks for your reply.
And so it shows that everyone reads and interprets everything differently which is possibly why there are always such a variety of responses to any post.
Of course we can take all the “perhaps” and “possible” etc out of everything but as nothing is certain other then death and tax we would all be wrong from the first word we write.
The way I read that part of your post is that you place the emphasis on the mucus being there as pH protection and in particular alkaline pH and other things are less important. To me it also reads in a way that it is primarily an ocean fish issue.
What I am trying to say is that the mucus is not there so much for pH protection, if at all, but injury protection being the primary reason and both fresh and salt water fish have mucus.
As such I feel that that particular comment is out of place.
Regards
jorgekafkazar says, December 28, 2011 at 10:59 am
James of the West says: “…all of the ocean animals dont swim into neutral river systems – because they are suited to the alkaline ocean not the neutral river.”
Uh, James, salmon do this all the time. And you call yourself “James of the West?” West Kansas, is it? And it’s not the neutrality that keeps most fish out at sea–it’s the lack of salt. . There’s hundreds of time more salt than bicarbonate ion in seawater.
Thanks for picking this up.
James of the West might like to look up “euryhaline”- it ain’t just salmon who are euryhaline species.
Out of curiosity, and since I don’t follow him closely, has Obama run this one up the flagpole yet ??
I remember Julia Gillard and her “Ocean assification”, but is it going to be big meme here next year ??
I think he has enough sense to stay with “energy security”, but I could be surprised.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:18 am
Gosh, you sure proved that “silly statement” was wrong, the idiotic claim that “life doesn’t mind acidity at all.” That was a slam dunk.
Only problem is … you were the one who invented that silly statement out of your own imaginings, and you were the only one in the thread to make that silly statement. I said nothing of the sort.
For F@ur momisugly#$ Sake Willis, you did too. Read your own post. Own your words.
You do some good things here, but you are an argumentative SOB who will choose to die on the tiniest of hills rather than admit error.
Grow up.
I hereby declare- I am no longer an environmentalist- I quit!
I want nothing to do with people, scientists or organizations willing to sacrifice the opportunity for resolving our natural resources challenges in the interest of tenure, grants, donations and regulatory self interest while smugly patting themselves on the back.
The immoral practice of hijacking real environmental challenges to fit and support the environmental narrative must be made to stop. The chances for Atlantic salmon restoration were destroyed as a result of being made the poster animal for Acid Rain. And Acidification is now hijacking the hopes for shell fish restoration especially the oyster- a critical key stone specie. It will joint a depressingly long list of other hijackings across terrestrial and aquatic environments.
The environmental narrative cared nothing about the fact most of the oysters on both U.S. coasts crashed by 1920 due to over harvest and the associated destruction of their shell reefs. We have spent next to nothing over the decades trying to find a cure for the oyster plagues- MSX, Dermo and Vibrio that hit these already suffering populations – reducing their numbers from 20% of historic values in the 1920s to perhaps only 1 to 2% today.
A recent post by Anthony on the Pacific oyster demonstrates oyster survival are already being repackaged as a CO2 issue. One would think the forces that caused a decline in 98 to 99% in oyster numbers would and should be the primary focus of our efforts. No- the environmental movement will “allow no crisis to go to waste” in serving regulatory and NGO self interest.
I have become so tired of being called anti-environmental because I choose to focus on restoration versus protection or for the belief that resources must be directed to known problems rather than theoretical problems. I am particularly fatigued being repeated told that only the politically correct narrative will be tolerated. And I’m tired of being tired. A new movement must be built- one that eschews Public deception and champions science as tool for improving our natural resources. And it must start today.
Another brilliant, common sense based article Willis. Love that comparitive pH graph!
Seems that ‘acidification’ threat to the oceans is as dire as the radiation threat of bananas.
Good post, Willis. It appears many people are getting wrapped around the axle about your discussion about the differing biological preferences for acidic or alkaline environments. I took those as general illustrations to counter the negatives heaped upon “ocean acidifcation” by CAGWists. Since this topic is often cited as the next avenue of attack on human production of CO2 after the temperature gig falls on its face, it is useful to shed some light on the issue.
It is also apparent from some of the comments here that pH/acidity/alkalinity and the effects of CO2 on them are not well understood, even by an audience as technically savy as this one. For example, I once did a pH calculation for water at the temperature and pressure of a nuclear reactor core. Neutrality is actually at a pH of about 5, not 7. And the pressures of the deep oceans, the flux of CO2 and other acid producing gasses moving from surface waters and volcanic floor vents all have an effect on pH that I do not think are well understood. Does that situation remind you of anything, like maybe the understanding of the mechanisms of how the climate varies?
The first step to controlling thought is to control language. As long as there some people who want to change the way other people live their lives, language will be the first tool used to achieve that end..
@Kev-in-UK December 28, 2011 at 12:08 am:
This is the same as with CAGW – without doing a thorough empirical study of the other individual forcings, all of a sudden, Hansen, early on, jumped to the conclusion that human activity is throwing the balance of nature off. (Read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” for a good synopsis of what happens when we intend to affect the “balance of nature” in a positive way – and screw it all up.) A thorough scientific approach would be to measure all factors and determine their relative contributions to both the stability and the variations that occur. Only after having all this in hand is any attribution of human blame a logical conclusion.
THIS is one of the true crimes (I use the word advisedly) about the whole anthropogenic CO2 issue. While all these billions have been spent on studying CO2 and its supposed damages – and future moneys will far exceed what has been spent so far – there are so MANY things that we could be getting measurable positive results from.
Bjorn Lomborg has it right – we should be addressing real, tangible problems of today, not trying to cool the Earth 0.01C by the year 2100 on the say so of some computer model results. No matter HOW good the models are, 0.01C reduction isn’t worth spending a dime on, much less $250 billion annually for the next 90 years. I can think of SO many other things that need fixing.
Willis Eschenbach says:
Several people have objected to the idea that alkalinity is worse for living creatures than acidity. A typical comment was:
Pat Moffitt says…………
It was not my intent to say that acid systems were worse.The soils of most forest systems are acidic and in fact if they were alkaline it would totally restructure the biome. The bog communities must be acidic by definition. Wetlands are acidic as are most waterlogged soils. However many freshwater aquatic systems are more productive in neutral to alkaline conditions. And the natural fire cycle- now suppressed-once created huge swings in pH and in fact was a key element in the long term pH range of an ecosystem.
I was trying to comment in part on the value judgements associated with the pH chosen. As an example if we were trying to optimize salmonid populations a pH below 5 generally prevents the survival of anything but a few charr species. Anadromous Atlantic salmon seem to need a pH greater than 6.5 to stay healthy-putting their survival often in conflict with the bog communities needing acidic conditions to survive very. And freshwater productivity (yes lots of value judgement here) seems to be enhanced by neutral or slightly alkaline conditions.
My intent was to avoid complex resource management issues from becoming a singular focus on the “right” pH – alkaline or acid. We have far too many other things to worry about rather than the theoretical potential of a few hundredths or tenths of a pH unit result change to a highly buffered marine environment. On that I think we can agree.
Willis –
I would NEVER think of moving toward a 7.0 pH as being acidifying or “alkilinizing.” I can only think that the term “acidifying” was chosen in order to mislead people. More neutral is a less dangerous state, and acidifying can only be used to give the impression of a more dangerous state.
An equivalent would be that reducing high blood pressure would be called “vacuumizing” the blood.
They must really think very little of the intelligence level and gullibility of the average person on the planet. I mean, SOME of us paid attention in science class.