
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.

Interesting data, that provides more evidence for my hypothesis, soon to be elevated to the
Law of Environmental Nonsense
“Nothing that 21st Century environmental radicals (aka global warming alarmists) have written is valid. It is all fictitious nonsense, concocted to frighten the gullible public, and unsupported by facts.“
A trillion dollars of scarce global resources has been squandered on false alarms concocted by politically-motivated environmental radicals. It is time to put a stop to this wasteful (and truly anti-environmental) foolishness.
Yes, let’s all go back and (re-)read Willis’ December post here at WUWT. That is the one where Willis made the perfectly correct argument that it is not acidification simply by moving toward the 7.0 pH neutral state. It is NEUTRALIZATION, not acidification. It is total B.S. to call it acidification unless the pH goes below 7.0.
In Matt Ridley’s article JoNova quotes
7.8pH is still ALKALINE. Of course corals will not be affected. Are these alarmists daft?
Freshwater shellfish in lakes and rivers do fine and some of these lakes have had some acidification. When doing baseline enviro studies for mining development, one of the things done is to collect lake and stream species for study and count. I’ve never seen a situation where there were no freshwater clams, crayfish, etc. How do these critters do it.
Re:
Would you cite a source for this?
If increased CO2 causes acidification of the oceans which then leads to decalcification of corals and shellfish then what happened during the Devonian? The Devonian marked the greatest coral building the world has seen and shellfish where a dominate feature of the ocean. It was also a time when CO2 levels were 7 times higher than today. So why didn’t ocean acidification wipe out the oceans then?
Just a thought that occurred to me after visiting the Devonian Fossil Gorge recently.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Hi Willis: Your link brought me back to this post. Incidentally I read your “its not about me” – one of my best mates (and I) had many similar upbringing experiences, especially on and below the sea – kinda makes you a mate by default!
@Steve..”
“Empirical evidence. Ocean pH trending from pH 8.18 to 8.07, ”
I repeat. show me the actual measurements. Otherwise its just a theoretical hypothetical calculation with lots of assumptions
Do you seriously believe we can measure the whole of ocean pH, to 2 decimal places… roflmao !!!
and from that bastian of Climate furphies… Wikipedia
“In statistics, “empirical” quantities are those computed from OBSERVED VALUES, as opposed to derived from theoretical considerations.”
AndyG55,
Precise spectrophotometric procedures for seawater pH measurements started being developed in 1985 and were first successfully used in 1991 on a transect between Oahu and Kodiak. Since then literally hundreds of thousands of measurements have been taken and re-taken from all over our oceans. This empirical evidence ( combined with many other direct observations ) is the basis for our stated knowledge about ocean pH as a whole and can be found at:
http://cchdo.ucsd.edu/
It is a good place to start and hope it helps some of your questions on this thread.
To Bob Painting, 8:06 PM:
Please tell me your source for “corals took a pounding.” I don’t know what a “pounding” is scientifically. If you are talking about the very beginning of the Eocene, around 54 million years ago, CO2 levels were still around 2,000 ppm, sea temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were 20 degrees C and crocodiles were at the North pole. There are many differences between that world and this one; these differences, in addition to the high CO2, caused a much warmer world than today. Without evidence to the contrary, I agree that 2,000 ppm would likely be bad for many corals, although many corals appear to have survived through the P/E boundary. If I am wrong, I’ll admit to it, but I need to know your sources and what they say.
My point, however, had to do with the ability of corals to grow during the very late Eocene, when CO2 levels were about 1,100 ppm. For most of the Eocene, including the last half million years of it when CO2 was about 1,100 ppm, my understanding is that pretty much all corals survived and did well.
Corals have survived far longer than the 34 million years from the present back to the end of the Eocene. There are coral reefs in the Pacific that have been growing for 50 million years. The source is the link below, an article about confirming Darwin’s incredible and accurate notion that coral reefs had once surrounded volcanic islands, and that as the islands gradually subsided, the corals continued to grow up toward the surface. The article also says that the coral reef had been growing upward at a pace of 1 inch per millennium. That corresponds to 1,000 inches per million years, which is 83 feet per million years. Thus 4,200 feet of growth takes place in 50 million years.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/?q=0209/0209_feature.html
Ries et al. (“A nonlinear calcification response to CO2-induced ocean acidification by the coral Oculina arbuscula,” Coral Reefs, 2010) shows that these prominent corals showed very little harm or change between 400, 600, and 900 ppm, when grown for several months in a laboratory with the above CO2 levels and correspondingly lower pH levels. Since the aragonite saturation state at 990 ppm, from the article, is 1.6, and goes below 1.0 at far higher levels (at 2,850 ppm, it is 0.8), it is clear that at a little past 900 — e.g., 1,100 ppm — the aragonite saturation state would still be above 1.0, which is probably why the corals continued to grow well at 1,100 ppm at the end of the Eocene.
Ries et al. (2010) is available on the net by googling the full title of the article.
If your point was about the very beginning of the Eocene, we can agree that we don’t want to go to 2,000 ppm CO2, pending further lab work which might show the contrary. But there doesn’t seem to be an issue I can see for corals at 1,100 ppm, both from current lab work, and from the history of corals through most of the Eocene.
@ur momisugly Nick,
Yes , I knew about that project, it is a very good project, but the data is still very sparse, especially considering the large variations bought to light in a few tested locations in the study in this thread.
Does the data from the CCHDO show any of these variations?
I remain highly skeptical about the ability to calculate “whole of ocean” pH to 2 decimal places, or even to 1 decimal place without fairly large error bars.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Let the record show that I reported on this same study, and came to much the same conclusions, in my post in December called “The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified” … Once again, WUWT is first off the starting line …
Seconded, because it makes me feel better! I was already
a little upsetwondering if anyone had noticed the record when I saw Jo’s post at her own site after seeing yours here. Or perhaps a little Valium instead?AndyG55,
I would disagree that the data is sparse, especially when combined with many other projects involving long term observations. As I said previously the data presented in this paper is interesting but such few stations and such short time frames are not that helpful to the overall picture, in fact the paper says as much; “…establishing uncertainty in sampling error requires a constant field presence to carry out a meaningful number of discrete samples over an appropriate period of time. Such validation is beyond the scope of the studies presented in this work”.
The CCHDO figures do show similar natural variations confirming other views on this thread that natural variation is nothing new to scientists, however there is most certainly a neutralizing trend that is apparent within this variation. This observed trend is undeniable. The best and most complete explanation we have is that we are the major cause of it. More knowledge is needed to assess exactly how bad (or good) it could be seeing as we have some conflicting small scale experiments at this stage. The major problem with “proving” it beyond all doubt is the “experiment” would have to be done with the whole ocean and I for one am not prepared to bet the entire ocean on an experiment they may very probably lead to its demise as we know it.
Yours (and others) skepticism is healthy, but how about a little dash of prudence in there too! 🙂
Piece of cake; the pH numbers aren’t changing at all. If you measure the pH out in the ocean, and put an x on the side of the boat so you know where you are.
Then you go back in a day, week, month year, to ther exact same GPS co-ordinates where you left the X, and voilla ! the pH has changed.
Well of course you are in the same X marks the spot; but the WATER isn’t.
Ocean currents meander, just like rivers everywhere; even the water running down your car’s windshield meanders.
That is what is wrong with the whole HADCRUD global Temperature data taken from buckets of water on ships over the last 150 years; even in the same place, the shi[p was never in the same water.
Oh, for the days when scientist were about the most truthful people you could encounter. But that was back when most of them were privately employed, and our education systems were state systems without federal control or funding. And we had the top rated education in the world instead of our current 35th place.
@Nick Kermode,
You have it so backwards. As a biologist it distresses me that people think a -very- slow, if even detectable, trend poses any danger to life, let alone of pH by 0.3 units!
Life has no problem with slow trends. Acclimation finds 0.3 pH units trivial. I know of no biological systems, even your internal blood chemistry, that is dangerously affected by 0.3 pH units (for instance, your blood pH can vary from 7.4 to 6.8 (7.8 is the high end for mammals, but I’m not sure if humans get that high), and this is a system which is far more sensitive to pH than marine organisms could ever be, as the oxygen carrying capacity of hemoglobin is exquisitely sensitive to pH; let alone a host of other processes directly exposed to these conditions).
Do you not recognize that individual cells have extensive pH balancing mechanisms, and can be at a pH level far away from the actual pH of the medium (Pichia pastoris is an example, which can lower the pH of its growth medium to 2! And yet it grows completely fine, and maintains a favorable internal pH)? And did you know that the internal pH of cells is also variable, especially based on what suite of proteins are being expressed or signal transduction cascades are in process (such as Ca+ signaling, or voltage gated channels)?
0.3 pH units will have no impact on life, especially over a CENTURY of gradual change, if it happens at all. Even a full pH unit would be overcomeable since we’d still only be near pH 7, true neutral. All any organism will need to do is express slightly more buffering and catalytic proteins to overcome any effects 0.3 units could make; and that’s well within the ability of individual acclimation let alone genetic variation of populations due to sexual reproduction. People who purport 0.3 pH units in the ocean as being dangerous surely show an incredible disregard, if not contempt, for biology.
The only thing that is dangerous to life is SUDDEN changes that are extreme and beyond the individual level of adaptability. Populations are FAR more adaptable than an individual. And here in this paper we see comparatively extreme pH shifts (such as that bay and CO2 vents) which are not causing any damage to the ecosystems; ecosystems found in other more stable pH regions too. If life has no problem with these day by day swings, 0.3 pH over a century is not even remotely noteworthy.
This whole catastrophy fantasy nausiates me. Are other scientific fields this badly educated about basic biology and chemistry? Even protein biochemistry scoffs at such a minute change, unless we’re right at the isoelectric point of the protein in question.
So, I will say to you again: if life has no problem with rapid, day to day, season to season, swings, it has even less of a problem with a slow TREND. For it is the slow TRENDS, that life is so exquisitely designed to deal with.
Ged,
The “slow trend” that you talk about is happening possibly 100 x faster than at any other time in the record and a changing pH is just one of the many effects that OA will probably have on the oceans. Your analogies and comparisons are nearly irrelevant, however lets take your blood comparison for a second. You say that small changes (pH scale being logarithmic remember, so .3 isn’t such a small change as it looks) in blood pH aren’t dangerous (which of course they can be), and blood can safely vary between 6.8 and say 7.4 for humans (which is disingenuous as major symptoms would occur before reaching either of those numbers).
The big problem with your analogy (which is full of them) is that one of your many assumptions is that the oceans pH is right in the middle of its standard variable. What if it isn’t (which it isn’t)? So back to the blood…. Say I am an near the low end for your human “range”. I would already be exhibiting symptoms (which the oceans are) and a further change, at any rate, of .3 pH would cause IRREVERSIBLE cell damage to me. And again, pH is by no means the whole story for the oceans!
Making sweeping broad assumptions with TOTAL certainty whilst adopting or disowning information depending on if it fits your preconceived certainty gives the impression that you are a “head in the sand” denier (which I hope you aren’t). There is plenty of information, observations and research that gives us great cause for uncertainty and to even the finest mines in the field. Don’t you think yourself arrogant to be so certain when people (much smarter than you) have major concerns. As I said in the previous post I believe skepticism both ways is very healthy, but like many others on this site you seem determined to apply it selectively.
Nick Kermode says:
January 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“I would disagree that the data is sparse, especially when combined with many other projects involving long term observations. As I said previously the data presented in this paper is interesting but such few stations and such short time frames are not that helpful to the overall picture,…”
Two other works that support the notion of large scale natural variability of oceanic pH
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2204.full
Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH
See this graph
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2204/F2.expansion.html
And this paper
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848.full.pdf+html
Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining
ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset
which measured pH values over a range from 7.45 to 9 over eight years with the range expanding through every timescale from TOD to full term. See fig. 1 A and B.
Dave,
Thanks a lot for those references. I was familiar with the Wootton et al 08 paper and there are many others, hence my statement disagreeing the data is sparse. I also stated that natural, quite large variations by season, week or day are nothing new to many scientists (not obviously Jo Nova though). Two things all the research I have read and the papers you referenced have in common is, a declining trend in the data (“The decline is significant” Wootton et al) that is currently most completely explained by the increasing CO2 levels as a result of our energy production etc and no suggestion that our oceans will be fine if the current physically observed trend continues as expected.
Thanks Dave.
Necessarily so. Intrusion of any checkable factual assertions would just lead to more cross-checking, and {POOF!} the whole soap bubble collapses!
Nick;
Calcium rulez! CO2 servez!
See, there’s this reeeaallly big bicarb buffering system out there ….