
Reposted from Jo Nova, who did such a good job I decided there wasn’t any way I could improve on it, except to add the map at right. This needed the wide attention WUWT brings.
Scripps blockbuster: Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally
There goes another scare campaign.
Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed.
It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.
Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.
See Table 1 for details of locations
The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.
At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico’s easternmost state, on the Yucatán Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs. Each day the pH bottomed at about 10am, and peaked shortly after sunset. These extreme sites tell us that some marine life can cope with larger, faster swings than the apocalyptic predictions suggest, though of course, no one is suggesting that the entire global ocean would be happy with similar extreme swings.
Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that “Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.”
This paper is such a game changer, they talk about rewriting the null hypothesis:
“This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions””
Matt Ridley: Taking Fears Of Acid Oceans With A Grain of Salt
[GWPF] [Wall St Journal]
The central concern is that lower pH will make it harder for corals, clams and other “calcifier” creatures to make calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. Yet this concern also may be overstated. Off Papua New Guinea and the Italian island of Ischia, where natural carbon-dioxide bubbles from volcanic vents make the sea less alkaline, and off the Yucatan, where underwater springs make seawater actually acidic, studies have shown that at least some kinds of calcifiers still thrive—at least as far down as pH 7.8.
In a recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, corals and mollusks were transplanted to lower pH sites, where they proved “able to calcify and grow at even faster than normal rates when exposed to the high [carbon-dioxide] levels projected for the next 300 years.” In any case, freshwater mussels thrive in Scottish rivers, where the pH is as low as five.
Human beings have indeed placed marine ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and pollution. By comparison, a very slow reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans, well within the range of natural variation, is a modest threat, and it certainly does not merit apocalyptic headlines.
We also know that adding CO2 in a sense is feeding the calcifying organisms (like it feeds life above the water too). Co2 dissolves as bicarbonate, which marine uses to make skeletons and shells from. So yes, a lower pH dissolves shells, but the extra CO2 increases shell formation.
..
Figure 2. pH dynamics at 15 locations worldwide in 0–15 m water depth. All panels are plotted on the same vertical range of pH (total hydrogen ion scale). The ordinate axis was arbitrarily selected to encompass a 30-day period during each sensor deployment representative of each site during the deployment season. See Table 1 for details regarding sensor deployment.
…
Figure 3. Metrics of short-term pH variability at 15 locations worldwide, ranked by ascending values. Mean = geometric mean; Max = maximum value recorded; Min = minimum value recorded; SD = standard deviation; Range = Max – Min; Rate = mean of the absolute rate of change between adjacent data points.
There are caveats: possibly marine life is already operating at the “edge of it’s tolerances” (we don’t know), so pushing things further may be still detrimental. Also these extreme environments don’t have the same variety of organisms that less extreme ones do, so we don’t really want to convert the whole equatorial ocean into life as it exists in one Mexican Bay. But conditions in some places are changing more on daily basis than we are being warned to fear from a century long trend.
The bottom line is that claims that these pH changes are unprecedented, fast or unnatural are overstating things dramatically. Typical estuarine environments have an inflow from rivers (with a lower pH) that fluctuates wildly, so do areas with upwelling, and even the pH in kelp forests varies dynamically.
The alarmist headlines, fears of mass starvation, and satanic allusions are unjustified:
‘Scientists label this acid trend “the evil twin of climate change”.
Anthropogenic climate change set to trigger tipping points,
Ocean acid threatens food chain,
Bbc News – ‘Acidifying oceans’ threaten food supply, Uk warns,
What we don’t know vastly eclipses what we do. We need to study the effects of human emissions of CO2, but not at the expense of other far more pressing threats.
If we care about ocean-life (not to mention our food supply) we need to focus on things that threaten it now.
REFERENCES:
Hofmann GE, Smith JE, Johnson KS, Send U, Levin LA, et al. (2011) High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison. PLoS ONE 6(12): e28983. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028983 [PLOS paper and graphs sourced here]
Hat tip Brice Bosnich (who wrote the post: The chemistry of ocean pH and “acidification”).
================================================================
Matt Ridley: Taking Fears Of Acid Oceans With A Grain of Salt
Saturday, 07 January 2012, The Wall Street Journal (via the GWPF)
Coral reefs around the world are suffering badly from overfishing and various forms of pollution. Yet many experts argue that the greatest threat to them is the acidification of the oceans from the dissolving of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The effect of acidification, according to J.E.N. Veron, an Australian coral scientist, will be “nothing less than catastrophic…. What were once thriving coral gardens that supported the greatest biodiversity of the marine realm will become red-black bacterial slime, and they will stay that way.”
This is a common view. The Natural Resources Defense Council has called ocean acidification “the scariest environmental problem you’ve never heard of.” Sigourney Weaver, who narrated a film about the issue, said that “the scientists are freaked out.” The head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calls it global warming’s “equally evil twin.”
But do the scientific data support such alarm? Last month scientists at San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other authors published a study showing how much the pH level (measuring alkalinity versus acidity) varies naturally between parts of the ocean and at different times of the day, month and year.
“On both a monthly and annual scale, even the most stable open ocean sites see pH changes many times larger than the annual rate of acidification,” say the authors of the study, adding that because good instruments to measure ocean pH have only recently been deployed, “this variation has been under-appreciated.” Over coral reefs, the pH decline between dusk and dawn is almost half as much as the decrease in average pH expected over the next 100 years. The noise is greater than the signal.
Another recent study, by scientists from the U.K., Hawaii and Massachusetts, concluded that “marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions,” and that “in many freshwater lakes, pH changes that are orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the 22nd-century oceans can occur over periods of hours.”
This adds to other hints that the ocean-acidification problem may have been exaggerated. For a start, the ocean is alkaline and in no danger of becoming acid (despite headlines like that from Reuters in 2009: “Climate Change Turning Seas Acid”). If the average pH of the ocean drops to 7.8 from 8.1 by 2100 as predicted, it will still be well above seven, the neutral point where alkalinity becomes acidity.
The central concern is that lower pH will make it harder for corals, clams and other “calcifier” creatures to make calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. Yet this concern also may be overstated. Off Papua New Guinea and the Italian island of Ischia, where natural carbon-dioxide bubbles from volcanic vents make the sea less alkaline, and off the Yucatan, where underwater springs make seawater actually acidic, studies have shown that at least some kinds of calcifiers still thrive—at least as far down as pH 7.8.
In a recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, corals and mollusks were transplanted to lower pH sites, where they proved “able to calcify and grow at even faster than normal rates when exposed to the high [carbon-dioxide] levels projected for the next 300 years.” In any case, freshwater mussels thrive in Scottish rivers, where the pH is as low as five.
Laboratory experiments find that more marine creatures thrive than suffer when carbon dioxide lowers the pH level to 7.8. This is because the carbon dioxide dissolves mainly as bicarbonate, which many calcifiers use as raw material for carbonate.
Human beings have indeed placed marine ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and pollution. By comparison, a very slow reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans, well within the range of natural variation, is a modest threat, and it certainly does not merit apocalyptic headlines.

Ocean acidification?
Lady Life Grows had it right; the title is just adding to the hype.
[” All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”…”]
Saying a change of 0.3pH is ‘acidification’ is like saying an obese person who loses a few pounds is becoming ‘more anorexic’.
Corrosive anyone ?? Ha ha ha.
Hello Rob Painting, Lazy Teenager, and Steven Mosher even ????
Let me say it again – corrosive corrosive corrosive, so that Googlers can put that cretinous sh!t to rest.
ps.. I’m guessing that the pH on the Great Barrier Reef (Australia) might have been quite affected by the 2010 floods, being that stormwater run-off is generally somewhat acidic, and there was one heck of a lot of it. So if measurements were made later in 2010, a residual effect might easily account for a slight de-caustification of the ocean water.
Thank you Anthony
Ocean acidification is a term, used for its ‘scare factor ‘ not for its scientific validity. That is being used at all shows how much this idea is about science and how much its really about gaining public support for ‘the cause ‘
The term “acidification” has always rather bothered me. This sounds like we are turning the sea into a giant acid bath. A more accurate term would be “de-alkalinization”. Words matter – they frame the debate.
I like the word “caustic”, not the weasle words “basic” or alkaline”
CO2 could make the oceans “LESS CAUSTIC”.
It wasn’t measured. It was calculated from assumed atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
I have had the good fortune to have been able to observe at close quarters and over some 50 years two very different salt water estuarine systems. The one in West Wales the other on the South coast of England. The Western Welsh estuary has a daily tidal range of up to 25ft (+/_), while the Solent estary has 4 tides a day, but with a much lower range, typically 12ft(+/-). The Welsh harbour has a stream running into it that drains an area of marsh land formed on impermeable non-calcareous rock where peat is forming and there are pools of standing water. The river is therefore of a lower ph level than might be expected. On the other hand, the Solent area estuary carries run off from the southern chalk uplands, typically giving a higher than average ph. I have noticed that many of the flora and fauna of the two estuaries are remarkably similar, there are differences, of course, but the mussels, barnacles, blennies, sea wracks, mackerel, harbour crabs etc etc. are the same. The ph of the two estuaries could hardly be different, yet there seems to be more similarities than differences between the visible life forms.
Several years ago on blog enRomm they posted a histronic article on this topic. No where did the article show actual values. I asked the question of actual ph measurements and my question was erased.
The global warming movement raises alarms , like glacier melts. total cessation of snows in the winter and wait to be debubnked while truimping other end of the earth claims. One of my favorites was the jet liner that landed in the Atlantic. It was declared as caused by warming before the crash was investigated.
Did these studies ever test a fish tank? The fish can take a Ph change of a large degree. The plantes not so mutch. Suvirers adapt. Unlike “Scientist”. Grants =Political Correctness. Most objective people have come to the view that the golable warming scare is a scame. Can scientist adapt to this new peridime? Another G&T. See Ya.
Great stuff, we finally have real world information on natural variability of pH in the oceans.
Additional analysis that does with this Scripps study shows that several calcifiers actually do considerably better at lower pH than today. See Ries et al., Geology, 2009. “Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification.”
Ries et al show look at the calcifying response of 18 marine calcifiers from diverse families, exposed to the pH levels associated with 600 and 900 ppm CO2. At these levels, some calcifiers actually grow shell considerably faster than today, some grow a bit slower, but none appear to suffer serious consequences — defined by the more fearful and credulous among us as “dissolution.” A slightly lower pH doesn’t dissolve these critters for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that there are protective coatings on the carbonate shell (e.g., lobsters) and that many actually calcify faster (because with more CO2 in the water, there is more bicarbonate, which is used as the building block for building shell and coral.
At levels of 2850 ppm CO2, some species do have far lower growth rates, and I would guess, might well go extinct. If we were to get to those levels of CO2, yes, I will be quite concerned. But at levels up to 900 ppm, three times pre-industrial, there seems to be little problem for calcifying creatures. And it isn’t just this study by Ries et al, there are many more showing surprising ability to deal with lower pH.
This real world study by Scripps shows why creatures can do surprisingly well at lower pH: oceans naturally have considerably lower pH than we have previously been told.
Why can calcifiers deal with higher CO2 and lower pH levles? Because they have survived time periods when CO2 was far higher, such as the end of the Eocene, 34 million years ago, when CO2 was typically around 1,100 ppm.
@ur momisugly David Middleton
“It wasn’t measured.”
ahhh.. another model result.. sweeeet !!
Neutralization is rechristined as acidification.
Recent, now-ceased mild warming becomes global and unprecedented.
The Urban Heat Island doesn’t matter.
Warming is climate, colding is weather.
Bad weather is climate, good weather is, well, only weather.
Cargo-cult ‘science’ marches on, heedless of facts, spurning data,
spewing incessant propaganda.
As with all self-deceivers, they’re supremely sincere too.
Saw a fascinating film on the National Geographic channel the other night of a voyage of the vessel Tangaroa which undertook a voyage in 2008 to the Ross Sea in Antarctica carrying a group of scientists from New Zealand and other parts of the world. There were multi-scientific tasks including the measurement of acidification:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2E60DC02-08EB-4425-A3D1-8397ACC5A9DD/0/TheBite_LifeinAntarcticwaters.pdf
There are also some very interesting comments in the emerging results:
It seems that bacterial microbes may be more important than phytoplankton at driving ocean primary productivity, contrary to what has been traditionally believed by scientists.
Recent studies have shown that the bacterial biomass in the ocean is greater than the combined biomass of all the other types of sea-life, including whales, seals and penguins. The ecological role of this unseen living mass of material is to control the breakdown processes of other living material and has a strong influence on the release of nutrients and minerals back into the system. It is therefore a key driver of ocean productivity. Experiments were conducted during the voyage to assess the effects of acidification on bacteria. Increased acidity affected the bacterial biomass, and possibly the type of bacteria able to function.
However despite searching* I have been unable to find any follow up to this statement. I am sure that there is a paper somewhere, or one being written amplifying, what seems to be one of the most critical discoveries of the voyage which affects the entire food chain of marine life.
Don’t get me wrong, there was some very necessary research done on this trip and I am sure that analysing results does take time but it is now more than 4 years since the voyage and if everything in the sea is going to be affected by CO2 we all need to know. Perhaps I have missed something somewhere or is another voyage called for to obtain more evidence?
http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Environmental/Seabed+Protection+and+Research/IPY+CAML/default.htm
http://ipy.antarcticanz.govt.nz/projects/caml/
“So yes, a lower pH dissolves shells,”
At what pH do shells dissolve? It can’t be just at any pH below present unless we are saying that pH 7 is caustic and more acidic than current levels?
Ian says:
January 9, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Just to note that pH is a logarithmic scale so a change from pH 8.1 to pH 7.8 is a greater increase in acidity than it may appear from the small change in the numbers.”
Please, from pH 8.1 to pH 7.8 is a lower alkalinity, not an increase in acidity. Are you suggesting that pH 7 is acidic?
Back in November of 2011, water samples South of La Restinga were reported to have pH levels as low as ≈ 5.0. This was in the vicinity of the ongoing undersea eruption of El Hierro. It’s become one of the longest eruptions in the Canaries, which started around 10 October.
Yes, ‘decaustification’.
At any rate, AnthroCO2, will lower pH. Apparently even in the high CO2 panic scenarios, critters will adapt. There is only moderate likelihood of the high CO2 scenarios, and there are unknown unknowns in the chemical buffering and biologically fedback buffering which will manifest themselves as the pH edges down.
I’d yawn if I weren’t starting to shiver.
=================
The oceans hath a plethora of buffers.
Alkali or die?
What happens to all those nice little nitrates and sulfates from those wonderful catalytic converters? A result of if you can’t see it ….
If the Puerto Morelos mentioned as a sensor location is the Puerto Morelos on the Carribean in the territory of Quintana Roo, Mexico, which is the sea port for Isla Mujeres than just offshore is the second longest barrier reef in the world. When I swam out to it in 1971 it looked to be in magnificent shape. If it’s the drainage from the land that is lowering the PH then the PH was probably about the same in ’71 as it is today.
Ocean acidification, as a result of rising atomospheric CO2 levels, is typical alarmist nonsense.
If you do the maths and take 40% (current estimated rate of ocean absorbtion) of the 32 billion tonnes of CO2 we produce annually and put that into 1.34 billion cubic kms of ocean, you get an increase of CO2 in the ocean of about one part per million per century! if you restrict the CO2 going into the 18% of the ocean above the main thermocline, then the figure rises to five parts per million per century.
CO2 absorbed by water creates an incredibly weak acid, which basically does almost nothing.
If the ocean is acidifying a tiny bit – a huge if – you need to look at the real cause: man’s nitric (nitrates) and sulphuric acid (sulphates) production finding its way into the environment.
In a worse case scenario, if there is a tiny increase in ocean acidity, life will adapt just as it has done for the last few hundred millions of years.
However, as we all know, alarmists routinely put their faith in their computer models (usually ones with pre-determined conclusions) and ignore actual observations, unless they have been suitably cherry picked/filtered/manipulated/tortured.
It would be really interesting to know the amount of grant funding this ocean acidification BS has generated over the past decade.
Many people, including myself have often commented on this. The idea that the pH of particular places in the ocean would be basically static is preposterous. Who, in their right mind ever believed such an absurdity? I guess I’m glad some one actually did the leg work, but, other than the lunatic fringe, did anyone ever take this serious? We’ve known for some time the oceans intake gas and outgas on various occasions. Did they think the pH remained the same? When fresh water sources increase or decrease, (Mississippi flooding for instance) did they believe pH remained the same? Currents and oscillating events? We need to start adding this stuff into the cost analysis of this stupidity. There’s no reason on earth why someone should have felt compelled to actually go out and prove the pH balances don’t remain static in the oceans. The depravity of the loons knows no bounds. Or, maybe they really are just that stupid.
Same old story with environmental alarmism – the hysteria is usually killed off quickly by the injection of facts.
Yes, but we need something in the ocean to go wrong, otherwise we won’t be invited to climate conferences. Perhaps we can dredge up some plankton scares.