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.


![184phdiagram[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/184phdiagram1.gif?resize=360%2C357)
snarkmania:
Identify the so-called “misquote”. Cut and paste it here, verbatim. If you are right, I will apologize. But I suspect you are mistaken.
dbstealey says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Empirical [real world] evidence shows that the claims of ‘ocean acidification’ are bogus nonsense.
OK in which case you’ll be able to produce some of that evidence… !
We can add ‘ocean acidification’ to all the failed predictions that are contradicted by empirical facts, some of which are:
So let’s see those documented claims and the evidence which refutes them.
Phil. can argue sulphates all day long, but the basic premise he is unable to defend is his Belief that the global climate is acting in an unusual way, or that what is being observed is unprecedented. Neither of those Beliefs is true.
There you are again claiming to know what I believe, nice job of changing the subject and ignoring the science. I must admit though that you did make me laugh preaching to snarkmania/Follow the Water about ‘sock puppetry’, that was amusing!
snarkmania:
Please do not be deterred from collating and analysing the data by the ilk of Phil.. If you are wrong then that will be determined at the peer review or post publication stages (I acknowledge the ‘gate keeper’ problem). Whether you are right or wrong the collation will provide useful reference.
Richard
snarkmania says:
“what is ‘sock puppetry’? I honestly don’t know.. but I like sock puppets!”
Phil. doesn’t understand, either, so I will explain.
A ‘sockpuppet’ is someone who posts using multiple different screen names at the same time, in an effort to make it appear that a single commentator has the support of others [his ‘sockpuppets’], when in reality it is only one person posting as many.
In the past I used a different identity, so as usual Phil. is grabbing onto any tiny nitpicking excuse to try and make a point.
But as usual, Phil. is wrong, because I have never used multiple identities at the same time. I don’t need to, I have the facts, as confirmed by Planet Earth: AGW is so small that it cannot be reliably measured, so it can and should be completely disregarded.
My screen name changeover happened a couple years ago, following to Anthony’s request that I use my real name, and I complied.
Phil., of course, uses an anonymous screen name, thus qualifying him for the appelation of “anonymous coward”.
snarkmania,
In response to your claim that I misquoted you, if you will re-read the post you are referring to, you will see that I did not quote you [or your other identity] at all.
I wrote: Thank you for posting your wild-eyed alarmist link, which contains easily deconstructed hyperbole like this:…
I then cut and pasted a portion of the link you provided, thus quoting whoever wrote it. But I never quoted — or misquoted — you.
I think it was just a misunderstanding, and I trust this will put the matter to rest.
snarkmania says: September 28, 2013 at 3:44 pm
I too think it is a good idea to evaluate the historic record. It is indeed extensive.
Wallace collects a lot of references, but I would read it with caution. I note a claim there that the Royal Society report stated a current pH of 8.2, which he seems to regard as part of a refutation of recent fall.
The RS report is an excellent and informative document, but it did not say that. It says in its summary and conclusion, and in several other places, that there has been a fall of 0.1 in recent times. It does refer in sec 1.2 to oceans having an average pH of 8.2, but in the same para it says, again,
“This dissolution of CO2 has lowered the average pH of the
oceans by about 0.1 units from pre-industrial levels”
and in Sec 2.62 it explicitly identifies 8.2 as the pre-industrial value.
Nick Stokes says:
September 26, 2013 at 9:36 pm
You wrote:
“If you add CO2 to the air, it forces CO2 into the ocean directly (Henry’s Law). It also causes warming, which as a secondary effect causes outgassing. The question is whether that counters the primary absorption.”
‘It also causes warming’ Do you have documented evidence of this assertion?
Babsy says: September 28, 2013 at 6:01 pm
“‘It also causes warming’ Do you have documented evidence of this assertion?”
Yes. The AR5 WG1 has already been mentioned on this blog.
Nick Stokes says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:07 pm
Babsy says: September 28, 2013 at 6:01 pm
“‘It also causes warming’ Do you have documented evidence of this assertion?”
You wrote:
Yes. The AR5 WG1 has already been mentioned on this blog
Is this AR5 WG1 the documented evidence that they have 95% confidence in? Where is the experimental evidence demonstrating the rise in temperature (warming) from adding a quantity of CO2 to a parcel of air?
richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2013 at 3:54 pm
snarkmania:
Please do not be deterred from collating and analysing the data by the ilk of Phil.. If you are wrong then that will be determined at the peer review or post publication stages (I acknowledge the ‘gate keeper’ problem). Whether you are right or wrong the collation will provide useful reference.
Quite so, what made you think I was trying to deter him?
snarkmania says:
“db, I’m not sure where you obtained what you say you cut and pasted, but so far as I know, it didn’t come from my link or anything associated with it.”
Then let me help out. I got the cut and pasted quotes directly out of your own link, which linked in turn to this site:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf
You need to pay some attention to your own posted links, because those quotes are “associated with” what you posted. [But you should be happy to know I read your posted link, and the links within it.]
You will find that peer review on this site is like that. If I was wrong, as I promised I would have apologized to you. But you can check the link for yourself. I try to be accurate at all times. On the rare occasions when I am wrong, I admit it. In this case, I’ve proven beyond any doubt that those verbatim quotes were taken from the link you posted.
I trust that verifying my quotes in your source puts this matter to rest once and for all. We can still be friends, though, if you like.
snarkmania says: September 28, 2013 at 7:41 pm
“…type of perjury classification…”
“someone get me a paper bag”
I encourage the endeavour. There’s a lot of data; you aren’t the first to look at it, but more can’t hurt. But a calm scientific, genuinely inquisitive spirit would help.
Phil.:
My actual words to snarkmania were;
“Please do not be deterred from collating and analysing the data by the ilk of Phil..”
At September 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm you respond by asking me
“what made you think I was trying to deter him?”
I did not say “trying”, and I answer,
your every post in this thread.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 29, 2013 at 12:34 am
Phil.:
My actual words to snarkmania were;
“Please do not be deterred from collating and analysing the data by the ilk of Phil..”
At September 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm you respond by asking me
“what made you think I was trying to deter him?”
I did not say “trying”,
Then I don’t see the point of your remark (strange usage of ‘ilk’ by the way, did you mean ‘likes’). Especially since I had actually asked for data rather than the handwaving offered up by stealey.
and I answer,
your every post in this thread.
You haven’t answered this one yet:
Phil. says:
September 28, 2013 at 11:45 am
I await your reply with interest.
Sorry for the formatting error in the post to Richard:
“and I answer,
your every post in this thread.”
was a quote from Richard’s post.
Phil.:
You say in your post to me at September 29, 2013 at 7:31 am
I cannot imagine why you “await” it because I thought your post was too silly to answer.
However, since you have pressed the matter I do reply to it here.
And I now understand comments to me from Latitude on another thread and which I answered.
My pertinent replies to Latitude there are at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/#comment-1429767
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/#comment-1429800
Those replies bluntly refute your nonsense about biota not providing sulphate in the ocean surface layer.
Also you assert that hydrothermal vents don’t emit sulphate so undersea lava flows cannot emit sulphate. Frankly, that assertion is plain daft. The lava contains sulphur compounds and it cools to solidify.
Indeed, pillow lavas emit sulphate when the lava flows into the Pacific from Kiluea, and that is why Kiluea acidifies the ocean where the lava meets the sea; your statement that Kiluea being 4 km high somehow makes this different from lava flowing beneath the sea is also daft.
Now perhaps you understand what I meant when I advised snarkmania not to be deterred from his work by people of your ilk. Closed minded bigots always use spurious assertions in attempt to shut down investigations of matters which don’t fit their beliefs. I only point this out because you have pressed me to do it.
And perhaps you can now also understand why I chose not to answer your silly post until you pressed me for an answer.
Richard
I swear I will tell your father when he gets home if you kids don’t stop fighting!
Calgon, take me away.
Pamela Gray says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:31 am
I swear I will tell your father when he gets home if you kids don’t stop fighting!
Calgon, take me away.
You have your wish, since I can’t reply to Richard’s nonsense anymore.
richardscourtney says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:13 am
Phil.:
You say in your post to me at September 29, 2013 at 7:31 am
September 28, 2013 at 11:45 am
I await your reply with interest.
I cannot imagine why you “await” it because I thought your post was too silly to answer.
However, since you have pressed the matter I do reply to it here.
I see, referenced scientific facts are ‘too silly for you to answer’, I guess that shows who has the ‘closed mind’.
And I now understand comments to me from Latitude on another thread and which I answered.
My pertinent replies to Latitude there are at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/#comment-1429767
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/#comment-1429800
Those replies bluntly refute your nonsense about biota not providing sulphate in the ocean surface layer.
Actually they don’t address it at all.
Also you assert that hydrothermal vents don’t emit sulphate so undersea lava flows cannot emit sulphate. Frankly, that assertion is plain daft. The lava contains sulphur compounds and it cools to solidify.
I don’t assert that I provided links to scientific sources that show that.
Indeed, pillow lavas emit sulphate when the lava flows into the Pacific from Kiluea, and that is why Kiluea acidifies the ocean where the lava meets the sea; your statement that Kiluea being 4 km high somehow makes this different from lava flowing beneath the sea is also daft.
Clearly Kiluea is not a submarine volcano, your failure to understand that the same gases released into water at ~5ºC and over 100atms pressure will not behave the same chemically as when released into air at less than one atmosphere pressure, indicates your ignorance of chemistry!
Now perhaps you understand what I meant when I advised snarkmania not to be deterred from his work by people of your ilk. Closed minded bigots always use spurious assertions in attempt to shut down investigations of matters which don’t fit their beliefs. I only point this out because you have pressed me to do it.
Like your spurious assertion of nonexistent variation of SO4 ion concentration to explain the change in pH rather than accept that it is caused by CO2 because that does not fit your belief?
And perhaps you can now also understand why I chose not to answer your silly post until you pressed me for an answer.
Yes it’s clear that you had no credible answer so would rather avoid doing so, as you have before!
Sorry Pamela but I can’t let this nonsense go unrebutted.
Could a simple experiment be done as a baseline to measure the rate of change of ph with a a gallon of seawater and air in an enclosed non reactive pail to limit evaporation and co2 at in the air above the water level maintained at 400 ppm and check the ph over a years time?
tg, of course you could do that, but it wouldn’t prove anything. The ocean is the antithesis of a closed system. An easier and more useful activity might be to 1. acquire a pH meter. 2. go to an ocean, and 3. measure the pH according to the instructions provided with the meter. 4. repeat when and where you can. 5. keep a good journal and 6. keep reading up on pH to learn more about other experiments and measurements and the like
Snarkmania
I’ll start with #6. I could argue the human body is the antithesis of a closed system but things are broken down, positive and negative feedbacks are explored. Ideas change with time. My main problem with ocean “acidification” is the minutes amount of carbon in the atmosphere are leading (according to some) major changes in vast oceans. It would seem to me to be improbable but my understanding is limited