Claim: Modern Ocean Acidification Is Outpacing Ancient Upheaval, Study Suggests

Rate May Be Ten Times Faster, According to New Data

The deep-sea benthic foram Aragonia velascoensis went extinct about 56 million years ago as the oceans rapidly acidified. (Ellen Thomas/Yale University)

From Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: Some 56 million years ago, a massive pulse of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere sent global temperatures soaring. In the oceans, carbonate sediments dissolved, some organisms went extinct and others evolved.

Scientists have long suspected that ocean acidification caused the crisis—similar to today, as manmade CO2 combines with seawater to change its chemistry. Now, for the first time, scientists have quantified the extent of surface acidification from those ancient days, and the news is not good: the oceans are on track to acidify at least as much as they did then, only at a much faster rate.

In a study published in the latest issue of Paleoceanography, the scientists estimate that ocean acidity increased by about 100 percent in a few thousand years or more, and stayed that way for the next 70,000 years. In this radically changed environment, some creatures died out while others adapted and evolved. The study is the first to use the chemical composition of fossils to reconstruct surface ocean acidity at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period of intense warming on land and throughout the oceans due to high CO2.

“This could be the closest geological analog to modern ocean acidification,” said study coauthor Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “As massive as it was, it still happened about 10 times more slowly than what we are doing today.”

The oceans have absorbed about a third of the carbon humans have pumped into the air since industrialization, helping to keep earth’s thermostat lower than it would be otherwise. But that uptake of carbon has come at a price. Chemical reactions caused by that excess CO2 have made seawater grow more acidic, depleting it of the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and calcifying plankton need to build their shells and skeletons.

In the last 150 years or so, the pH of the oceans has dropped substantially, from 8.2 to 8.1–equivalent to a 25 percent increase in acidity. By the end of the century, ocean pH is projected to fall another 0.3 pH units, to 7.8. While the researchers found a comparable pH drop during the PETM–0.3 units–the shift happened over a few thousand years.

“We are dumping carbon in the atmosphere and ocean at a much higher rate today—within centuries,” said study coauthor Richard Zeebe, a paleoceanographer at the University of Hawaii. “If we continue on the emissions path we are on right now, acidification of the surface ocean will be way more dramatic than during the PETM.”

The study confirms that the acidified conditions lasted for 70,000 years or more, consistent with previous model-based estimates. “It didn’t bounce back right away,” said Timothy Bralower, a researcher at Penn State who was not involved in the study. “It took tens of thousands of years to recover.”

From seafloor sediments drilled off Japan, the researchers analyzed the shells of plankton that lived at the surface of the ocean during the PETM. Two different methods for measuring ocean chemistry at the time—the ratio of boron isotopes in their shells, and the amount of boron –arrived at similar estimates of acidification. “It’s really showing us clear evidence of a change in pH for the first time,” said Bralower.

What caused the burst of carbon at the PETM is still unclear. One popular explanation is that an overall warming trend may have sent a pulse of methane from the seafloor into the air, setting off events that released more earth-warming gases into the air and oceans. Up to half of the tiny animals that live in mud on the seafloor—benthic foraminifera—died out during the PETM, possibly along with life further up the food chain.

Other species thrived in this changed environment and new ones evolved. In the oceans, dinoflagellates extended their range from the tropics to the Arctic, while on land, hoofed animals and primates appeared for the first time. Eventually, the oceans and atmosphere recovered as elements from eroded rocks washed into the sea and neutralized the acid.

Today, signs are already emerging that some marine life may be in trouble. In a  recent study led by Nina Bednaršedk at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, more than half of the tiny planktic snails, or pteropods, that she and her team studied off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California showed badly dissolved shells. Ocean acidification has been linked to the widespread death of baby oysters off Washington and Oregon since 2005, and may also pose a threat to coral reefs, which are under additional pressure from pollution and warming ocean temperatures.

“Seawater carbonate chemistry is complex but the mechanism underlying ocean acidification is very simple,” said study lead author Donald Penman, a graduate student at University of California at Santa Cruz. “We can make accurate predictions about how carbonate chemistry will respond to increasing carbon dioxide levels. The real unknown is how individual organisms will respond and how that cascades through ecosystems.”

Other authors of the study, which was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation: Ellen Thomas, Yale University; and James Zachos, UC Santa Cruz.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
223 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alex
June 4, 2014 2:22 am

Siberian_husky says:
June 4, 2014 at 2:06 am
Thankyou Urederra- the first intelligent comment on this thread.
Wow! Really?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 4, 2014 2:27 am

Siberian_husky said on June 4, 2014 at 2:06 am:

Thankyou Urederra- the first intelligent comment on this thread.

Thanks for the insult. The best to you too, bud.
So which of the two urederra comments was the first intelligent one? If it was the second, in what ways were the first one unintelligent? If the first, does the second also pass your threshold for Sign of Intelligence?
Offhand I’d think someone bright enough to absolutely determine which was the first intelligent comment, would have been smart enough to say which comment that was. But that could just be me.

Dave N
June 4, 2014 2:31 am

Alex:
“Siberian_husky says:
June 4, 2014 at 2:06 am
Thankyou Urederra- the first intelligent comment on this thread.
Wow! Really?”
If you were thinking SH was referring to Urederra’s explanation of the 25% change, I expect it may actually have been Urederra’s first comment, regarding pH levels in other epochs; like in the Cambrian, for example, when corals evolved.

knr
June 4, 2014 2:35 am

Acidification a nicely scary sounding word
Less alkene , boring sounding but more accurate word s.
You decide which one you will use when you’re looking for funding .
Meanwhile once again using ‘proxies ‘ we are told how things can be ‘measured ‘ from millions of years ago and they ‘compared’ with actual valid measurements from observations now , BS of the first order .

Alex
June 4, 2014 2:41 am

Dave
which one of those two is worthy of the Nobel Prize?
I’m not saying there is anything wrong with those comments. I’m just wondering why those 2 comments are considered ‘the first intelligent’. I saw many other comments that were intelligent too. I’m getting the feeling that there are ‘sock-puppets on this thread.
urederra says:
June 4, 2014 at 1:24 am
So, what was the pH of the ocean during the geological epochs when atmospheric CO2 levels were over 1500 ppm?
What is the error in the measurement of pH levels?
2nd comment
urederra says:
June 4, 2014 at 1:46 am
For those who are wondering:
pH=8.2 gives a H concentration of 6.3095E-9
pH=8.1 gives a H concentration of 7.9432E-9
7.9432-6.3095=1.6337
(1.6337 · 100)/6.3096 = 25.89%

Nick Stokes
June 4, 2014 2:48 am

David Schofield says: June 4, 2014 at 1:10 am
“Seriously. Can someone explain to me how the warming oceans take up this carbon dioxide whilst at the same time giving it off??”

CO2 flux goes both ways. And there’s a seasonal movement – loss during summer, gain during winter.
On balance, more CO2 goes into the sea if the CO2 ppmv in air rises; less if the sea is warmer. Since CO2 in air has risen, and the sea has warmed, these effects compete. So far, higher CO2 ppmv has prevailed, and the sea has absorbed CO2, but your link says, for the reasons given, this may change.
Jeff Szuhay says: June 4, 2014 at 12:34 am
“A pH of 7.8… Uh, that’s still alkaline. Not acid until it goes below 7.0.”

pH 7 is the neutral point of pure water. Marine organisms never encounter pure water, so that is irrelevant. They have evolved in a sea of pH>8.
Human blood has a pH of about 7.4. If it drops to 7.35, that is acidosis = bad news. Blood pH 7 is not compatible with life.

Alex
June 4, 2014 3:00 am

Nick
‘Since CO2 in air has risen, and the sea has warmed, these effects compete. So far, higher CO2 ppmv has prevailed, and the sea has absorbed CO2’
Can you point me towards some literature that can verify the last sentence?

observa
June 4, 2014 3:05 am

This sort of stuff just has to stop as it’s all most unsettling for earth scientists-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/fault_lines/

michael hart
June 4, 2014 3:05 am

Trenberth cannot even measure the temperature of the world ocean. What makes these people think they can measure the pH any more accurately?
There are also reasons to think increased CO2 will be beneficial:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229561219_ELEVATED_ATMOSPHERIC_CARBON_DIOXIDE_INCREASES_ORGANIC_CARBON_FIXATION_BY_EMILIANIA_HUXLEYI_%28HAPTOPHYTA%29_UNDER_NUTRIENTLIMITED_HIGHLIGHT_CONDITIONS1
The exoskeleton also grows thicker. Another study looked at genetic changes under elevated CO2 and found only decreased carbonic anhydrase expression. Again this suggests life becomes easier.

hunter
June 4, 2014 3:17 am

The physical evidence for the pH change is lacking. This study also does not offer any explanation why we should be worried about this derived alleged 0.1 reduction in pH in a system whose dynamic range is in reality much, much wider. Additionally, they offer no evidence that ocean absorption goes simply to physical chemistry of seawater and not to biological and geological processes.
Once again we see a marketing effort by the CO2 obsessed dressed up as science.

Nick Stokes
June 4, 2014 3:21 am

Alex says: June 4, 2014 at 3:00 am
“Can you point me towards some literature that can verify the last sentence?”
Yes. AR4 7.3.1 describes the carbon cycle. It gives many references. Key quote:
“Thus, the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans together have consistently removed 45% of fossil CO2 for the last 45 years, and the recent higher rate of atmospheric CO2 increase largely reflects increased fossil fuel emissions.”
michael hart says: June 4, 2014 at 3:05 am
“Trenberth cannot even measure the temperature of the world ocean. What makes these people think they can measure the pH any more accurately?”

pH is determined by equilibrium relations involving carbonates, which are much more abundant in the sea than H+ or CO2. Two quantities, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and total alkalinity, are easy to measure, are fairly stable, and pH can be deduced when you know them.

son of mulder
June 4, 2014 3:27 am

What I don’t understand is why during the last iceage (and previous ones) the ocean pH was just under 8.25, because then I assume the ocean was colder so would hold more CO2 per unit volume and hence make pH lower than the interglacial pH of 8.15, well before any anthropogenic influence. Similarly when sea-ice forms then CO2 is expelled so would tend to decrease pH as it is absorbed into the cooling ocean. see
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/ocean-acidification-25822734
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2011.00571.x/abstract
I could imagine if the carbon cycle slowed significantly then chemical action with rocks could become the predominant factor in reducing disolved CO2, and hence increasing pH. Is this the explaination?

June 4, 2014 3:52 am

About CO2 uptake and release by the oceans:
– seawater in equilibrium with the atmosphere gives 17 ppmv higher levels for each 1°C increase in temperature. See:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/CO2/carbondioxide/text/LMG06_8_data_report.doc
That is a dynamic equilibrium: some 50 GtC as CO2 goes in and out the oceans over the seasons (mainly in the mid-latitudes) and some 40 GtC/year is released at the upwelling places near the equator (mainly off the coast of Chili) and taken away near the poles (mainly NE Atlantic). A temperature increase augments the releases and depresses the uptakes, which leads to an increase in the atmosphere, until the new equilibrium is reached:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
– humans have emitted some 370 GtC over the past 160 years. The atmospheric increase is over 200 GtC (100+ ppmv).
An increase of 1°C since the LIA is responsible for maximum 17 ppmv (ocean only) or historically 8 ppmv (ocean + land vegetation), far from the measured 100+ ppmv increase.
Humans currently emit ~9 GtC/year (4.5 ppmv/year). The extra pressure caused by 100+ ppmv CO2 above equilibrium (for the current temperature around 290 ppmv) gives a net sink of ~4.5 GtC/year of which ~1 GtC/year in land vegetation, ~0.5 GtC/year in the ocean surface layer and the rest of ~3 GtC/year in the deep oceans. Other possible sinks are either too small or too slow…

Alex
June 4, 2014 3:54 am

Nick
Thanks for that link, but unfortunately I consider IPCC information as suspect. I will fall back on my high school science.
I learned that solids dissolve in liquids and the amount of solid dissolved in said liquid was temperature dependent. Excess solid would not dissolve. I am excluding super saturation because that requires special conditions.
With gasses in fluids it is a reverse effect. That is, higher temperatures lower the solubility of gasses. The effect is temperature dependent and not dependent on availability/excess gas. In other words if you had 5000 ppm CO2 in the air it would not dissolve more CO2 into water unless you changed the temperature of the water. In actuality the water would have to be colder to absorb more gas.
So I guess I am saying that with higher sea temperatures you would have less dissolved CO2 and therefore higher pH. With colder seas you would have more dissolved CO2 and a lower pH. It makes no difference how much CO2 is in the atmosphere because solubility is temperature dependent

rogerknights
June 4, 2014 4:08 am

The problem with the “25% more acidic” statement is that it implies that acidification has progressed 25% of the way to neutrality, which isn’t so.

Alan the Brit
June 4, 2014 4:25 am

We have an expression here in Blighty for such a study, & this one sounds absolute “bollocks”! Apologies, bad hair day!

Donald Mitchell
June 4, 2014 4:25 am

Please provide citations to non paywalled studies which include raw data that indicate our capability to estimate (i say estimate since only a fool would believe that we could actually measure it) the distribution of pH throughout the volume of the oceans. I would be very curious to see just what the spatial and temporal sampling of the data is along with reasons to believe that there is enough data to justify the estimated probable error bands. Would one sample from each thousand cubic miles be enough? If it would, you would only need a little over 320,000 samples to get spatial coverage. What about temporal coverage? How could you demonstrate that such sampling was adequate? My only experience in this area is running a plating shop where we had to control acid based plating baths. The biggest one was 1.3 cubic meters and we did not need to control it as close as 0.1 pH units but, after sitting overnight, it had to be thoroughly mixed before we could get a valid sample.
It would take quite a project to convince me that you could estimate the pH of San Francisco Bay to within 0.1 pH units. Then you would need to show that combining all of that data into one number was meaningful.

Nick Stokes
June 4, 2014 4:29 am

Alex says: June 4, 2014 at 3:54 am
“The effect is temperature dependent and not dependent on availability/excess gas. In other words if you had 5000 ppm CO2 in the air it would not dissolve more CO2 into water unless you changed the temperature of the water.”

No, that’s not true. Henry’s Law says that the amount dissolved is proportional to ppm. The constant depends on temperature.
Upthread, Ferdinand has said that ppmv CO2 in equilibrium with seawater rises about 17 for each °C rise in SST. That means that warming so far might raise ppmv CO2 by about 12. But our fossil fuel burning has raised air CO2 by about 120 ppmv. That dwarfs the warming effect and forces CO2 into the sea.

Leonard Weinstein
June 4, 2014 4:30 am

Nick Stokes Says:
Nick, comments of others asked how the average ocean pH was measured to an accuracy of 0.1 over 100 years ago, and how the global ocean average is known when only small parts of the worlds oceans are (and were) even measured. Both these issues make the claims absurd. Also it was pointed out that in the PETM, it appears the rising temperature preceded the Carbon pulse, which then caused a temperature spike. It appears there was a warming trend (at a level much warmer than present) that eventually resulted in a methane release at some point in the warming trend. Even after recovery from the effect of the Carbon induced pulse, the average temperature still continued to climb, to a level comparable to the peak of the pulse spike. It does not appear that you or I know what was going on, but it is fairly clear that Carbon is the main control knob is too simplistic. Yes is has an effect, and can cause heating, but other effects do also, and the sensitivity cannot be determined from the PETM data.

June 4, 2014 4:34 am

A good pH meter has .01pH accuracy. About 10X the noted change. So if it was done by measurement the numbers are valid +/-20% of the change. That is also dependent on calibration. Accuracy of temperature measurement. And possible confounding factors.

JK
June 4, 2014 4:40 am

Alex wrote:
‘Thanks for that link, but unfortunately I consider IPCC information as suspect. I will fall back on my high school science. … With gasses in fluids it is a reverse effect. That is, higher temperatures lower the solubility of gasses. The effect is temperature dependent and not dependent on availability/excess gas. In other words if you had 5000 ppm CO2 in the air it would not dissolve more CO2 into water unless you changed the temperature of the water.’
Surely you studied Henry’s Law? Quoting wikipedia:
“At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law – you can also find this on various school chemistry revision websites. Also e.g. Lubos Motl, a climate skeptic quotes the same definition – I don’t want to clutter this comment with too many links.)
Maybe I have this wrong. If so I would appreciate a link to an explanation.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 4, 2014 4:43 am

From Nick Stokes on June 4, 2014 at 3:21 am:

michael hart says: June 4, 2014 at 3:05 am
“Trenberth cannot even measure the temperature of the world ocean. What makes these people think they can measure the pH any more accurately?”

pH is determined by equilibrium relations involving carbonates, which are much more abundant in the sea than H+ or CO2. Two quantities, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and total alkalinity, are easy to measure, are fairly stable, and pH can be deduced when you know them.

pH has been accurately measured for quite some time now, using common laboratory things like precision litmus papers. But electronic pH meters are normally used. They need frequent calibration against reference solutions, for best accuracy you calibrate before every measurement. Don’t expect more than two decimal places of precision.
Out of the lab, there are pH meters suitable for processing equipment in industrial uses, where calibration is much less frequent, as well as inexpensive “home use” models for aquariums and hydroponics (example), +/-0.1 accuracy.
Where they are measuring, they can measure pH reasonably accurate with field-grade equipment.
But as with temperature, the issue is spatial coverage of the measurements. You don’t measure the pH of an ocean at one spot. Nor at twenty. You’ll need a heck of a lot more measurements, and we don’t have them, nor do we have long records of sufficient many measurements thus we lack temporal coverage for calculating changes and trends.
BTW, if anyone knows what Nick is chattering about and how that relates to measuring by simply sticking a probe into seawater, feel free to elucidate.

Eugene WR Gallun
June 4, 2014 4:43 am

From my poem — Al Gore American Bloviator
If acid rain scared you think about this!
Oceans acidic and warmer than piss!
Eugene WR Gallun

Nick Stokes
June 4, 2014 4:52 am

Leonard Weinstein says: June 4, 2014 at 4:30 am
“how the average ocean pH was measured to an accuracy of 0.1 over 100 years ago”

Measurement would be no problem. As I said above, all that is needed is DIC and TA. DIC is gravimetric (precip with BaCl2) and TA is just titration (methyl orange). To get pH to .1, that conventional chemistry has to be 25% accurate.
As to how widely this was done, I don’t know.
“it is fairly clear that Carbon is the main control knob is too simplistic”
Yes, but who says it is? This paper says that one particular CO2 pulse caused warming. But they don’t say all warming is caused by CO2, and few do. In fact events forcing CO2 higher, causing subsequent warming are not common. This methane pulse (if so) may have been one, and our mining fossil fuel is another.

John West
June 4, 2014 4:56 am

” more than half of the tiny planktic snails, or pteropods, that she and her team studied off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California showed badly dissolved shells.”
I’d like to know how a supersaturated solution such as surface seawater can dissolve shells. A decrease in pH merely decreases the amount of calcium carbonate (and alkalinity in general) that can be kept in solution without precipitation.