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”.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
168 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
E.M.Smith
Editor
December 29, 2011 8:30 pm

The floor of the ocean is covered with mega-tons of metal. In any attempt to acidify the ocean (meaning to actually get a pH smaller than 7) that metal will immediately start reacting and neutralize any acid.
The floor of the ocean has a constant rain of carbonate “gut rocks” from fish (dumping that excess alkalinity in which they live. Alkalinity properly meaning alkaline elements like the Calcium in those gut rocks). It also has a constant rain of carbonate shells from microscopic sea life and silicate shells as well. ALL of that acting to neutralize any attempt to become acidic.
It is simply not possible to make the ocean acidic with carbon fuels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule

Nodules lie on the seabed sediment, often partly or completely buried. They vary greatly in abundance, in some cases touching one another and covering more than 70% of the sea floor. The total amount of polymetallic nodules on the sea floor was estimated at 500 billion tons by Alan A. Archer of the London Geological Museum in 1981. They can occur at any depth, even in lakes, but the highest concentrations have been found on vast abyssal plains in the deep ocean between 4,000 and 6,000 m (13,000 and 20,000 ft).

So get back to me in 1/2 TRILLION TONS or so… BTW, the extant carbonate deposits on the ocean bottom make that number look like a joke…
There can be NO acidification of the ocean until all that alkaline and basic material is reacted. That simply is not going to happen.

December 30, 2011 1:52 am

E.M.Smith says:
December 29, 2011 at 8:30 pm
“There can be NO acidification of the ocean until all that alkaline and basic material is reacted. That simply is not going to happen.”
ACCKKII says:
December 28, 2011 at 5:23 pm
“Alkaline environment of the oceans can be neutralized by certain amount of CO2 ppm, that seems it has never happened at all and at least I have no idea about that.”
solar activities——->>CO2 release——->>Neutralization before rainfall——>>(A)
|—–>>CO2 release continuation…
(A)—>CO2 in the atmosphere—–>>CO2+rainfall back to the oceans(some parts depending on CO2 concentration).

December 30, 2011 2:12 am

In the rivers waters, alkalinity is different from the the seas and oceans. Imagine there is a river with a naturally neutral water that is joining to a sea and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is high enough, the rain is coming a perfect “neutralization” in a neutral water takes place, the river water pH would fall below 7. then the name isn’t neutralization.
This would happen of course in just rivers with sweet waters, I wanted to say the neutralization is generally a right name but it cannot be “absolute”.

JPeden
December 30, 2011 7:42 am

@Willis says:
“In other words, the acid does not break down proteins as easily.”
Thanks, JPeden. That’s an interesting observation, one I hadn’t heard.

Just fyi, an alkali or lye burn to the cornea or esophagus is a much more significant and fearsome problem as compared to an acid burn. With the exposure to a strong base like Drano, the esophagus can become perforated, producing a life threatening “mediastinitis” [spread of inflammatory damage + infection around the esophagus, in the chest directly behind the heart] or eventually scarred to the point of obstruction, and it is difficult to bypass or replace. The lye penetrates tissues much better than a comparable acid, the latter which can therefore also be more easily diluted out. The horror scenario occurs when a child swallows a strong base.

Rob Crawford
December 30, 2011 8:30 am

“First, day-to-night variations in pH are from the CO2 that is produced by the reef life as a whole.”
Also the CO2 that is consumed by the photosynthetic process.
Years ago I had a heavily planted aquarium that I fed with CO2. The rate of adding CO2 to the tank was constant, but the pH varied according to the time of day. When the lights were on, the plants consumed the CO2; lights off, the CO2 built up.

Rob Crawford
December 30, 2011 8:43 am

“The pH of the sea matters because it massively influences how easy it is for molluscs, corals an other shell-forming animals to build their calcium carbonate shells.”
Look into “kalkwasser reactors” for reef aquariums. People intentionally inject CO2 into their reef aquariums, using it to dissolve calcium carbonate so there’s a higher amount in the tank water for the corals and molluscs to acquire.
Now, look at the oceans. There are massive deposits of calcium carbonate on the ocean floors and on beaches. Adding CO2 to the water will dissolve some of that, putting more into solution for the corals and molluscs.
Given the experience of reef keepers, I suspect the experiments that show higher CO2 is bad for coral have been done without additional calcium carbonate in the system.
The “in-the-wild” examples I’ve seen have been clearly picked for their propaganda values, not their representative natures. For example, National Geographic had a photo essay showing a reef suffering “ocean acidification” — the seabed immediately around a volcanic vent was sterile, while just a few miles away there was a beautiful reef. Well, DUH! The CO2 levels from that vent were hundreds (thousands?) times more concentrated than anything we could pull off across the entire globe! They also didn’t bother to check if the nearby reef was being fertilized by all that CO2 — once the concentration drops to sane levels, I’m sure the phytoplankton was in heaven.

Pat Moffitt
December 30, 2011 12:04 pm

Rob Crawford,
I would anticipate that at least for a shallow water vent that the paucity of visible life had more to due with sulfides and temperature than CO2. Not much growing in close proximity to an actively outgassing volcanic vent on land either.

Pat Moffitt
December 30, 2011 1:39 pm

Rob Crawford says:
“Now, look at the oceans. There are massive deposits of calcium carbonate on the ocean floors and on beaches. Adding CO2 to the water will dissolve some of that, putting more into solution for the corals and mollusks.’
Perhaps even more important are the massive and finely grained marl (CaCo3/organic) mud flats that are often associated with coral reefs. (Bone fish anyone?) In fact for many of them I’m sure as groundwater percolates up through these sediments (or even tidal flux and bioturbation) -especially in the higher organic marls- we would see substantial fluxes from the carbonate dissolution coupled to sulfate reduction and oxidation of H2S. . Don’t know if I’ve ever seen any work quantifying the flux but can’t believe that CaCO3 could ever be limiting to a reef in close proximity to a marl flat.
When these marl flats turn in to non calcareous organic muds- I’ll start worrying about atmospheric CO2.

Pat Moffitt
December 30, 2011 3:19 pm

prjindigo says:
December 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm
HELLO? SCIENCE?
Pure water is NOT pH 7.0.
It is at 25C.

Gareth
December 31, 2011 9:24 am

Willis says “Acidity is no problem for life compared to alkalinity”
As a health professional for many years I can say categorically that this statement is completely wrong. There are many examples that have already been quoted, but it is the site of the ph that matters, not the ph in itself.
Apologies Willis in advance if I have the incorrect font for your statement.

JJ
December 31, 2011 12:22 pm

Willis,
“JJ, you continue to miss the point. I will not allow you to put a false quotation into my mouth.”
[SNIP— I also will not allow you to keep missing the point, in more and more memorable ways. Go away, all you have shown to date that you are unwilling to admit you tried to pass off a false quote as something I had said.
I am through with it. If you have science to talk, fine. Otherwise, I’ll just continue to snip the non-scientific, ugly, spite-filled parts of your ramblings.
w.]

SteveE
January 3, 2012 8:26 am

Mariwarcwm says:
December 28, 2011 at 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?
—-
The dinosaurs died out 10 million years earlier I’m afraid.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
January 5, 2012 5:22 pm

Willis, I hope you’re still keeping track of this thread. I’ve been away from the site, now playing catch-up.
Willis Eschenbach said on December 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm:

prjindigo says:
December 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm

HELLO? SCIENCE?
Pure water is NOT pH 7.0.

HELLO? SCIENCE? HOW ABOUT A CITATION FOR THAT CLAIM?
I’m a huge fan of the scientific method, and I’m always willing to learn. My understanding has always been that pH of 7 was that of pure water.
If I’m wrong, hey, I’m willing to learn. But SHOUTING AT ME WITH NO CITATIONS is no way to go through life, my friend.
w.

prjindigo is probably referring to “common” pure water. Freshly distilled in a clean system and bottled in glass with no atmospheric exposure, absolutely pure water is 7.0 pH. But as soon as the atmosphere touches it, the water soaks up carbon dioxide and you get a weak carbonic acid solution. Here’s a Googled mention, they also use that yellow background pH chart you used, attributing Environment Canada:
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/aq/global/acidrain.htm

Rain uncontaminated by any pollutants has a pH of 5.0 to 6.0. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources investigators consider rain with pH less than 5.0 to be “acid rain.”

Thus “pure water”, as with “pure rain”, is slightly acidic. Even in a lab, you’re not going to see a 7.0 pH reading with water universally normally accepted as lab-grade pure.

LazyTeenager
January 5, 2012 11:03 pm

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”
——————
Willis I don’t care what you call it because I can figure what you mean. My argument is with people who claim that the term acidify is wrong or a lie or stupid. And then make up some BS story around this wrong assertion.
My BS story is that the journalists who report on these things typically have some kind of science background, often in fields where the acidify terminology is the convention. When writing their articles they are not going to use terms like pH ,which are more neutral, because they are considered technical.
Furthermore they are not going to sidetrack their article by running a science lesson on pH.
And they are not going to make a boring non-dramatic story.
These things alone are sufficient to explain why the acidify terminology is in use in magazine articles.
If any one feels the need they can verify what I say about acidify being a terminology convention by simply surveying the scientific literature as far back as you want to go. If it precedes the interest in climate science and ocean CO2, that would prove it has nothing to do with some climate science plot.

LazyTeenager
January 5, 2012 11:26 pm

Steve Keohane says:
December 28, 2011 at 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.
—————–
Nup. At pH 7 the OH and H ions are equal concentrations. Above pH 7 there are more OH and less H and vice versa. There are never none. [H+][OH-] = 10^-14 defines the relationship. In other words the concentrations multiplied together equals 0.00000000000001

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
January 6, 2012 9:38 am

From LazyTeenager on January 5, 2012 at 11:03 pm:

Willis I don’t care what you call it because I can figure what you mean. My argument is with people who claim that the term acidify is wrong or a lie or stupid. And then make up some BS story around this wrong assertion.

Ref: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acidification

a·cid·i·fy
tr. & intr.v. a·cid·i·fied, a·cid·i·fy·ing, a·cid·i·fies
To make or become acid.
—–
a·cidi·fia·ble adj.
a·cidi·fi·cation n.
a·cidi·fier n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

It’s not acid until it’s less than 7.0 pH. It’s not acidification unless the process goes below 7.0 pH.
Science terminology, ref: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/acidification

acidification [ə‚sid·ə·fə′kā·shən]
(chemistry)
Addition of an acid to a solution until the pH falls below 7.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

It’s not acidification unless you’re making an acid, which as defined is lower than 7.0 pH.
That’s the scientific terminology, which Willis has used correctly. The oceans are not acidifying if they’re not dropping below 7.0 pH. Period, end of story. Casual incorrect usage of the terminology, even by scientists, doesn’t make Willis wrong and you right.

1 5 6 7