The IPCC writes in the “leaked” SPM
It is very likely that oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 results in acidification of the ocean. The pH 44 (see 7) of seawater has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era, corresponding to a 45 26% increase in hydrogen ion concentration. {3.8.2; Box 3.2; FAQ 3.2}
later they say:
Earth System Models project a worldwide increase in ocean acidification for all RCP scenarios. The 1 corresponding decrease in surface ocean pH by the end of 21st century is 0.065 (0.06 to 0.07)12 for 2 RCP2.6, 0.145 (0.14 to 0.15) for RCP4.5, 0.203 (0.20 to 0.21) for RCP6.0, and 0.31 (0.30 to 0.32) for 3 RCP8.5 (see Figures SPM.6 and SPM.7). {6.4.4}
Here are the figures cited, SPM6C and SPM7D:
Gosh, just look at all that scary, red, burning, “acid”. What they fail to note is that the oceans still haven’t turned acidic at the end of their model projections. The pH has to be below 7.0, and a drop to 7.75 by 2100 still doesn’t qualify by the way the pH scale works. Note also, like the Richter earthquake scale, the pH scale is logarithmic, not linear, a drop of 1 unit in pH equals a ten-fold increase in acidity. So, there would have to be an acceleration for their model scenarios to become true. Note the normal ranges of for rainwater and streamwater flowing into the oceans are far lower than the model projections:
Meanwhile, while the IPCC is “virtually certain” a call goes out via the X-prize to design a pH meter actually capable of monitoring the projected change. The X Prize Foundation announced a $2 million competition September 9th to spur innovation in the equipment used to measure “ocean acidification”. Here is the announcement. Note what I highlighted in red.
=============================================================
Overview
The Challenge: Improve Our Understanding of Ocean Acidification
The Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPRIZE is a $2 million global competition that challenges teams of engineers, scientists and innovators from all over the world to create pH sensor technology that will affordably, accurately and efficiently measure ocean chemistry from its shallowest waters… to its deepest depths.
There are two prize purses available (teams may compete for, and win, both purses):
A. $1,000,000 Accuracy award – Performance focused ($750,000 First Place, $250,000 Second Place): To the teams that navigate the entire competition to produce the most accurate, stable and precise pH sensors under a variety of tests.
B. $1,000,000 Affordability award – Cost and Use focused ($750,000 First Place, $250,000 Second Place): To the teams that produce the least expensive, easy-to-use, accurate, stable, and precise pH sensors under a variety of tests.
The Need for the Prize
Problem
Our oceans are currently in the midst of a silent crisis. Rising levels of atmospheric carbon are resulting in higher levels of acidity. The potential biological, ecological, biogeochemical and societal implications are staggering. The absorption of human CO2 emissions is already having a profound impact on ocean chemistry, impacting the health of shellfish, fisheries, coral reefs, other ecosystems and our very survival.
The Market Failure
While ocean acidification is well documented in a few temperate ocean waters, little is known in high latitudes, coastal areas and the deep sea, and most current pH sensor technologies are too costly, imprecise, or unstable to allow for sufficient knowledge on the state of ocean acidification.
Solution
Breakthrough sensors are urgently needed for scientists, managers and industry to turn the tide on ocean acidification and begin healing our oceans. A competition to incentivize the creation of these sensors for the study and monitoring of ocean acidification’s impact on marine ecosystems and ocean health will drive industry forward by providing the data needed to take action and produce results.
Impact
Making a broad impact—one that reaches far beyond new sensing technologies—is critical to the success of the prize. It begins with a breakthrough pH sensor that will catalyze our ability to measure—and thus respond to—ocean acidification.
Source: http://oceanhealth.xprize.org/competition-details/overview
==============================================================
In the NBC News story I cited about the announcement there was this:
“It is only in the last decade where scientists have begun to study ocean acidification, so our knowledge is really limited still,” Paul Bunje, a senior director with the X Prize Foundation who is the lead scientist behind the ocean health competition, told NBC News.
“But we do know that we don’t know enough, and we don’t have the tools needed to even begin to measure it sufficiently — much less to begin to respond, to adapt to it, to implement local policies that might allow ocean acidification to be less harmful,” he said.
…
The open ocean is acidifying at about .02 pH units per decade, according to according to Richard Feeley, a marine scientist and leading researcher on ocean acidification at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. “That means that you have to have an instrument that you can rely on to be both precise and accurate for a very, very long period of time, so that you can actually see that signal,” he told NBC News.
So, are the IPCC models based on uncertain measurements and an assumed trend? It sure seems so.
It’s like a bad acid trip.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


![184phdiagram[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/184phdiagram1.gif?resize=360%2C357)
“The pH 44 (see 7) of seawater has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era”
Where is the data?
Jim Steele Says;
“Oceanographers that I have talked with have great difficulty getting stable pH readings largely because there are so many transient factors that affect pH from hour to hour, season to season.”
A bit like surface temperature measurements, then.
Freshwater ecosystems do not contain an iota of buffering capacity that the oceans have but the cult has seemingly forgot to include them in their fantasies of doom. If the ocean’s pH has dropped by 0.1 and is already “having a profound effect on shellfish” then freshwater shellfish should have been dead yesterday, Whoops!
Perhaps they can find some evidence for their hypothesis and it will have the patina of genuine grassroots movement, rather than a big expensive NGO program, to boot. Neat technique.
IEEE is a fan of science by contest as well:
Submit a Smart Grid video for a chance to win $500
Deadline extended to 30 August 2013
• Submit a 1-3-minute video showcasing the benefits of smart grids or innovative smart grid
concepts.
• Videos will be posted on the IEEE SmartGridComm website for visitors to vote for the best
video.
• Winning video will be shown at IEEE SmartGridComm, where the winner will receive $500.
I have heard about the concern over “ocean assification” from the former PM of Australia, Julia Gillard. Has anyone started a contest to see if this “assification” has gotten into the drinking water in detectable amounts? Which populations are hardest hit by assification?
If the journalists were not the pires putains du monde the IPCC could not exist today.
Oh noes! Now we have “ocean acidification refugees!!” http://www.chinookobserver.com/free/ocean-acidification-refugees-move-to-hawaii/article_93fc713a-bdc2-58e4-88c3-477f344c86f1.html
Ocean acidification will be the last hope of this crowd, so be sure to watch for a flurry of reports, data etc. in coming weeks & months.
I actually do think there is some data to support the concept, but the white noise generated from dying polar bears, killer hurricanes etc. has overwhelmed any interest in the subject. It’s a pity that a potentially valid scientific issue has to become a volley ball in this squalid fight.
Here’s another: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/09/19/cantwell-questions-noaa-nominee-about-ocean-acidification/
‘acidification ‘ nice useful word , sounds scary means nothing , so you can see why the IPCC love it.
Pamela Gray says:
September 25, 2013 at 10:03 am
An infant fresh from the womb is becoming geriatric by age 5. An apple freshly picked from the tree is becoming rotten seconds later. Both true. And both utterly stupid statements to make. Yet we give scientists a pass on this kind of semantic crap?
Sadly, yes. However, that is not the entire tale. I’ve applied for an NSF grant and I can guarantee you, they were not helpful about it in any way. And the size of the grant is also an influence. You might apply for a small amount – say five thousand dollars – to do geological dating or radiocarbon work which you plan to publish. It’s regionally and scientifically useful information IF you can pay for it. Otherwise the discipline may wait another twenty years. Almost certainly that 5K request will not be granted. But ask for five million, bury the simple purpose in fluffy PC drivel, and there’s a much better chance of getting the grant. Remember, you couldn’t afford 5K out of pocket, but your regionally useful work is not funded. Dress it up, put some lipstick and perfume on it, fluff the research out in some improbable fashion (still the same pig) and instead of mortgaging the house for the dating work, you have to figure out just how to allocate that five million so that they won’t ask for it back. You absolutely have to express the “purpose” of the research in language the reviewer will “comprehend.” That means you either develop a very high grade of BS emitter, or choose a subfield where you don’t have to deal with bureaucrats – much.
In keeping saltwater aquariums, the basic understanding is that there is a pH ceiling of 8.3, after which CaCO3 precipitates out of solution. It’s also understood that pH alone doesn’t tell you much without also knowing the total alkalinity of a system.
It would be interesting to review the Royal Navy field data for total alkalinity over the past two centuries.
any time you question any of these people on ocean “acidification” (it is not acidification,its a lowering or fluctuating ph level) the standard reply is the literature is peer reviewed.
i will apologise to the scientists who contribute to this site with an open mind ,but the following statement applies to science in general.your peer review process stinks,it is corrupt and full of cronyism.
i and many others care for it not. if ALL scientists want to maintain ANY credibility when the cAGW hoax finally collapses ,you ALL need to get your house in order.
the answer ” its peer reviewed ” will not wash in ANY arena anymore. all it means is a group ,usually associated in some form or another agrees on another person or groups hypothesis or theory.
so in reality ,peer review means the grand sum of jacksh.t
It seems to me that every time they move the goal posts, we should respond by saying “so the science is NOT settled.” When the IPCC comes out with their 95% certain statement, we should write up all of the moving goalposts and ask which of the goalposts are they certain about and which are not covered by their statement.
Jim Steele says: September 25, 2013 at 10:11 am
“Oceanographers that I have talked with have great difficulty getting stable pH readings largely because there are so many transient factors that affect pH from hour to hour, season to season.”
Yes, pH is hard to measure, because H+ is present in such small quantity. But it’s also not what really matters. The key issue is that a chain of reactions leads to conversion of carbonate to bicarbonate, and that makes calcium carbonate more likely to dissolve.
What oceanographers have done for many years is measure two indicators – dissolved inorganic carbon (total C in CO2, HCO3- and CO3–) and total alkalinity (basically, result of titration). The measurements are more reliable, because the concentrations are much higher and the measurand is stable. Once you know those, pH and anything else you want to know can be worked out by well known equilibrium laws.
I’ve made an active gadget to show how this works. You can see how, when CO2 is added, pH, CO3– concentration etc all change in sequence. pH is just a symptom of the real problem.
The renewed focus on pH measurement is mainly for installing continuous monitoring equipment, which is possible with new solid state methods. It isn’t more reliable than the old methods (DIC and TA), but avoids lab analysis.
Al Gore and others have said that a rise in CO2 levels would cause a rise in surface temperatures. And that this statement is settled science. Now, a 30% rise in CO2 levels and no rise in surface temperatures. The “settled science” was wrong. So they move the goal posts and claim their new projections are settled science. No. When you find an error in your model and shift to a new untested model, it is not “settled science.”
Time for a law suit.
The claim, criminal conspiracy against humanity and the destruction of the economies of the West.
Nick Stokes:
You conclude your post at September 25, 2013 at 11:52 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/ipcc-on-acid-if-they-are-virtually-certain-about-ocean-acidification-why-does-x-prize-offer-a-reward-for-designing-a-proper-ocean-ph-meter/#comment-1426472
saying
but earlier in that same post you said
How do those two statements equate?
If both “dissolved inorganic carbon” and “total alkalinity” need to be known then how does knowing pH alone avoid lab. analysis to determine alteration of the carbonate buffer?
Richard
Assidification of the IPCC report?
Coral reefs around the world are doing just fine.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/coral-bleaching-on-the-gbr-no-evidence-of-net-decline/
If sea level rise were ever to accelerate, which it hasn’t, corals & their symbiont algae would thrive.
In the few areas of the global ocean that might actually be showing measurable warming, corals seem so far to like it. If it ever were to get too hot for them someplace, they’ll migrate during their motile larval phase.
higley7 says: September 25, 2013 at 10:17 am
“As seawater is a complex buffer system, it’s pH is quite difficult to alter, particularly by a weak acid such as the carbonic acid produced when CO2 dissolves in water.”
Yes, it is. The point of buffering is that the pH remains fairly stable as other things change. In particular, the solubility of calcium carbonate.
The bloodstream is similarly buffered. Bicarbonate keeps the pH between about 7.35 and 7.45. Below 7.35 you have a problem called acidosis (yes, at pH>7). At the (harmless, neutral) pH of 7, you’re dead. The reason isn’t H+ ions. It is that they indicate that your circulation can no longer perform a fundamental task – picking up CO2 from the cells and releasing it in the lungs. It can release just fine, but can’t pick up.
This is analogous to what happens in the sea. pH shift indicates a shift in carbon species solubility. I’ve written about the chemistry here.
It is becoming fashionable to assume the missing heat went into the deep ocean and is hiding there. Unfortunately, Houston, we have a problem with that.
There is no other way to accomplish such a feat than assuming a much higher rate of deep turbulent mixing than it was previously thought. However, in this case dissolved CO₂ gets mixed down as well, that is, its concentration in seawater can only increase much slower, because it has to play against all the carbon dioxide already dissolved from surface to bottom, at least 50 times more than we have in the atmosphere.
You simply can’t have it both ways. If there is an energy imbalance indeed, well hidden from plain sight by mechanically driven ocean processes, rather than a slight increase in SW albedo or decrease in fractal dimension of water vapor distribution, then ocean acidification is not a problem.
Those guys are shooting themselves in the foot again, I think.
richardscourtney says: September 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm
“If both “dissolved inorganic carbon” and “total alkalinity” need to be known then how does knowing pH alone avoid lab. analysis to determine alteration of the carbonate buffer?”
You need to know two things, and then the equilibrium relations will let you work out the rest, as I’ve tried to illustrate with the gadget. pH will give you one. They can use dissolved inorganic carbon as the other – it is relatively non-varying, being a total mass measure. DIC measurements would still be needed, but not as frequently (in space or time).
Dear Mr Watts,
on 15th August I posted.
London247 says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:33 pm
How about
A- Anthropogenic ( because it is all humankinds fault)
C- Climate ( the average of exteme weather measurements)
I- Instability ( because the climate changes ( which is an oxymoron as climate is the average of weather). Therefore is is the weather that varies, not climate, as climate is effectively the first differential product )
D- Dilemma ( a problem that needs resolving by govt. intervention (how much we can tax before people get wise?)
Maybe not the best suggestion but I rather like the potnetial headline
” IPCC on acid.” 🙂
Just over a month later it becomes true. I am flattered that you have used the headline and I will not dispute the right to use it as long as there is the following comment by Gail Coombs is also included
Gail Combs says:
August 15, 2013 at 3:53 pm
London247 says: @ur momisugly August 15, 2013 at 12:33 pm
…Maybe not the best suggestion but I rather like the potential headline
” IPCC on acid.” 🙂
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[Gail sings]: “I can see Leary now; my brain is gone.”
Keep [up] the good work and all the best
London247 🙂
Is Richard Feely a real name? It sounds like something that would give the South Park classroom the giggles.
Nick Stokes:
Thankyou for your answer at September 25, 2013 at 12:23 pm to my request for clarification at September 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm.
Your reply concludes saying
Yes! And that was my point.
You were arm-waving when you asserted at September 25, 2013 at 11:52 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/ipcc-on-acid-if-they-are-virtually-certain-about-ocean-acidification-why-does-x-prize-offer-a-reward-for-designing-a-proper-ocean-ph-meter/#comment-1426472
Such monitoring equipment would NOT remove the need for lab. analysis. And it would NOT reduce the need for dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) measurements.
Continuous pH monitoring would enable interpolation of data between times when the samples for DIC determinations were made at a measurement site so the lab. measurements could be conducted on the samples.
And that interpolation would be based on pH data containing such large diurnal variability that the interpolated data would be open to almost any desired result by selection of the statistical method applied to the data.
sarc on / This pH monitoring is another example of climate science at its best. /sarc off
Richard
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/chicken-little-of-the-sea-visits-station-aloha/