Via the Hockey Schtick:
A paper published Friday in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or “acidified” if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the “ocean acidification” scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry’s Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming.
Thus, if global warming resumes after the “pause,” ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:
“Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
Take your pick – REAL SCIENCE says you can’t have both.”
In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the “acidification” alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year! Summer months are of course associated with warmer temperatures and more alkaline, higher pH and winter months associated with colder temperatures and much more “acidified” lower pH values. Note also how pH varies widely over ~7.5 to 8.8 simply dependent on the depth at a given time, because colder deeper waters can hold higher partial pressures of CO2 than the warmer surface waters:
 |
| Second graph from left shows reconstructed pH over the past 280,000 years, third graph from left shows temperature reconstruction. Note how these move in sync, although the paper says pH lags temperature sometimes by up to several thousand years, i.e. just like CO2 lags temperature in the ice core records also by about 1000 years. |
“Comparison with pollen assemblage in Lake Biwa cores suggests that lake water pH was determined by summer temperature in low-eccentricity periods, while it was determined by summer precipitation in high-eccentricity periods. From 130 to 55 ka, variation in lake pH (summer precipitation) lagged behind that in summer temperature by several thousand years.”
These findings completely contradict the basis of the CAGW “acidification” scare and instead show that warming should make the oceans more alkaline, not “acidic.”
|
Clim. Past, 10, 1843-1855, 2014
www.clim-past.net/10/1843/2014/ doi:10.5194/cp-10-1843-2014 |
1Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University, Kita-10, Nishi-5, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan
2Faculty of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Kita-10, Nishi-5, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan
3Institute for Geothermal Science, Kyoto University, Noguchihara, Beppu, Ohita 874-0903, Japan
4Department of Environmental Systems Science, Doshisha University, 1–3 Tatara-Miyakodani, Kyotanabe, Kyoto 612-0321, Japan
5Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan
Abstract.
We generated a 280 000 yr record of water pH and temperature in Lake Biwa, central Japan, by analysing the methylation index (MBT′) and cyclisation ratio (CBT) of branched tetraethers in sediments from piston and borehole cores. Our aim was to understand the responses of precipitation and air temperature in central Japan to the East Asian monsoon variability on orbital timescales. Because the water pH in Lake Biwa is determined by phosphorus and alkali cation inputs, the record of water pH should indicate the changes in precipitation and temperature in central Japan. Comparison with a pollen assemblage in a Lake Biwa core suggests that lake water pH was determined by summer temperature in the low-eccentricity period before 55 ka, while it was determined by summer precipitation in the high-eccentricity period after 55 ka. From 130 to 55 ka, the variation in lake pH (summer precipitation) lagged behind that in summer temperature by several thousand years. This perspective is consistent with the conclusions of previous studies (Igarashi and Oba, 2006; Yamamoto, 2009), in that the temperature variation preceded the precipitation variation in central Japan.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
i never realized they settled the science on ocean geochemistry too. wow, they are amazing.
It’s important to consider all effects on pH, and one that often gets left out is the effect that adding or removing dissolved oxygen has. When oxygen is removed from water the pH decreases. This might explain some of the more localized effects concerning ocean acidification. We have a grand experiment going on here right under the noses of the Seattle Times. Puget Sound has the equivalent of a mid-size supertanker full of raw sewage dumped into it each week by the good citizens of Victoria BC – the only major metropolitan area on the left coast still doing this. They claim that this is ok since they have filtered out most of the “floaties” (gotta love those Canucks). However if you look at what is dumped into the Sound, most of it will readily bind with oxygen, and given the volume will significantly lower pH levels in the area. The chemicals in ground water that drains into the Sound also do the same. There is anecdotal evidence of this as divers I have spoken to tell me the difficulties the deeper dwelling animals are having in getting enough oxygen. Puget Sound is quite deep in areas, and famous for the Octopi that live there. Because it is a confined body, it is insulated from dilution somewhat. Tidal action eventually pulls this more acidic solution out to sea, where it makes a left turn and goes down the coast. This is where the shell fish farms are that were highlighted in the Times focus on acidification and its effects. They never explained how it was possible for one of the farms to move to Hawaii and get relief. If acidification were caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, it would be more universal, and you would not be able to move to Hawaii to get relief. They also do not explain how the shell fish we are concerned about could have established themselves on this planet a million years ago, when CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Why didn’t ocean pH wipe them out then?
The ignorance of the carbon cycle/buffering is amazing….
For those interested in the possible pH effects in salt water oceans, not a single fresh water lake, and also the scientific misconduct behind the Seattle Rimes utterly misleading series Sea Change concerning corals and oysters, read the essay Shell Games in the new ebook Blowing Smoke. The oyster part was previously guest posted at Climate Etc.
It seems a sensible conclusion that for a given CO2 concentration in the air, warmer waters will cause outgassing and thus increase pH.
However, how does the CO2 concentration in the water vary with increased CO2 concentration in the air? One would imagine that it increases.
So, with rising temperatures (not that we have been warming for 18 years) and rising CO2 concentration, there will be two competing factors at work to settle on the stable CO2 concentration and hence pH of the ocean – rising CO2 concentration in the air will tend to increase ocean CO2 levels and rising temperatures will tend to decease ocean CO2 levels.
Has anyone done any work to determine the combined effect of rising temp and rising CO2 concentration in the air?
Rising temperatures did give some 8 ppmv/°C over the past 800,000 years (ice cores). In the literature, the theoretical increase in ocean pCO2 varies between 4 μatm/°C and 17 μatm/°C, thus the 8 ppmv/°C equilibrium pressure (1 ppmv ~= 1 μatm minus the % water vapor present in the atmosphere) with the atmosphere isn’t far off.
The increase in the atmosphere is about 110 ppmv since ~1850. That is way above the ~290 ppmv equilibrium CO2 pressure for the current temperature. Thus the increase in the atmosphere is way higher than the equilibrium and more CO2 is pressed into the oceans. That is measured as an increase in total carbon (DIC) in the oceans and a decrease in pH.
[“DIC” is what “Dissolved ? Carbon” term? .mod]
800,000 years ago. right. you’ve got that certainty in your response that scares the living xxxx out of all of us. Tell me, is it going to rain tomorrow. Please tell me with such certainty that you know for a fact what the ppm of CO2 800,000 years ago was. Absolutely amazing.
And ladies and gentlemen come this way…. in this tent you can see the amazing draconica….she will bedazzle you with her ability to predict the future…. come and see the floods, the droughts, the tidal waves of destruction…
DIC = dissolved inorganic carbon = free CO2 + bicarbonates + carbonates
[Thank you. .mod]
Gordon,
I never try to predict the future, but one knows more about the past than you may realize.
Ice cores are quite reliable for CO2 levels: once the air bubbles are closed there is no measurable migration in the cold inland ice cores with the longest history. The only drawback is that there is a long period of open pores with the atmosphere which makes that the resolution varies between 10 and 600 years, depending of the snow accumulation rate, which is very high for coastal cores and very low for deep inland cores.
The 800,000 year Dome C ice core has a resolution of ~560 years and a repeatability of CO2 levels of ~3 ppmv (2 sigma). See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
The current increase of ~110 ppmv would be detected in all ice cores, including the worst resolution if that ever happened in the past in their period of measurement… Here the results of several cores over the past 1,000 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr.jpg
I actually think there have been localized reductions in pH, most especially in places like the Gulf of Mexico, the East Coast of the US, and the coast of Asia. However, I suspect the culprit is ag run off and the carbon cycle has zero to do with it.
“reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan, is this a fresh water lake?
Dissolved CO2 reacts quite differently in fresh water than in salt water. Just thought I would point that out.
It doesn’t appear that this paper has any bearing on the so-called ocean acidification. Note: “Because the water pH in Lake Biwa is determined by phosphorus and alkali cation inputs.” There is no mention of CO2.
I’ve never heard so much garbage from a bunch of sock puppets in my life!
Comments about greenery dropping vegetation into the lake, rain water feeding into the lake, infused with minerals, hinting it is a sample of one lake so the laws of nature may not apply elsewhere and so forth.
.
I have one thing to say to anyone who thinks they are talking about a puddle.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lake+Biwa,+Japan/@35.3456394,135.3277006,8z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x60010acfc4ac3edb:0xee09cf98c31a940f
.
Another point about Henry’s law. Yes, CO2 has increased so you expect under Henrys law the CO2 levels to increase in respect in the lake… BUT so has temperature. The partial pressures of ph/temperature of water is well known.. Prove my assertion plain wrong.
.
Once again, people were bridling the horse backwards on the cart and not knowing their error..
Andyj
You write
“The partial pressures of ph/temperature of water is well known..Prove my assertion plain wrong.”
Unfortunately nobody will be able to prove your assertion wrong because your “assertion” makes no sense. It is both linguistically and scientifically nonsense. It comes in that famous category “not even wrong”.
Ferdinand Engelbeen has a nice series of comments, some of which I’ve linked below. He is correct and what’s more Nick Stokes agrees with him, as do I.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/new-paper-debunks-acidification-scare-finds-warming-increases-ph/#comment-1767246
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/new-paper-debunks-acidification-scare-finds-warming-increases-ph/#comment-1767401
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/new-paper-debunks-acidification-scare-finds-warming-increases-ph/#comment-1767359
Nick Stokes
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/new-paper-debunks-acidification-scare-finds-warming-increases-ph/#comment-1767280
Oh well, that settles it.
acementhead Ironically all your responses you timely and carefully covered have been answered. So there you go. You wasted your time by being flat wrong 😀 haha.
What in English does “not even wrong” assert? Then you say my assertion is incorrect.
Amazing!
Interesting to read through all of these comments and see that the idea of partial pressure equilibrium with the surface layers of the ocean is opposed like it was some sort of communist propaganda. Thanks to Ferdinand for his patience.
Thanks! I always wonder why people who call themselves skeptics are so violently attacking anything that may be right, if it remotely may support the AGW meme and accept without any skepticism what is said if that “debunks” the AGW theory…
I am as skeptic to both sides of the fence, which makes that I have friends and foes at both sides…
You are a skeptic? Fine, so am I.
What other natural processes lower ocean pH? And have you quantified these? I will wager the answer is no.
In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the “acidification” alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year!
Yes, 10^1.3 is ~20X increase in H^+ but that’s in fresh water, the buffering capacity of sea water is much greater hence the paper says nothing at all to debunk ‘ocean acidification’.
Peter Miller October 21, 2014 at 3:54 am
At the end of the day, if you do the maths, you will find at the current rate of CO2 absorbtion, the CO2 absorbed by the oceans will be approximately one part per million parts of water over the next century.
Sounds impressive until you realize that at a pH of 8 the oceans have 10 parts per billion of H^+ ions!
When the only variable is temperature, warming water reduces its CO2 content and its pH will rise. However, the concern over ocean acidification is from the most significant factor being increased concentration of atmospheric CO2. As concentration of a gas over a liquid increases, the equilibrium concentration of dissolved gas in the liquid also increases.
You’ve repeated this like so many and correctly. So tell, does the tail wag the dog?
According to that paper, no it doesn’t.
Of course, this paper is wildly “off message” so an unconnected press release (on the imminent threat to anglers due to the threat of reduced lugworm sperm count due to a model of ocean cuprification due to global warming) suddenly appears by the deadly duo BBC (Roger Harrabin, UEA Correspondent) and the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser(Sir Mark Walport). Sir Mark Walport. They’re getting desperate! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29746880
This paper is a red herring. ““the water pH in Lake Biwa is determined by phosphorus and alkali cation inputs”. This means that the pH of the lake is not determined by atmospheric CO2, but by acids and alkalis washing into the lake. The pH history of the lake can therefore not tell us anything about the relationship between pH and atmospheric CO2, either of the lake or of the oceans. It may tell us something about the rainfall patterns and how they affect the flows of acids and alkalis into the lake. Hence “the record of water pH should indicate the changes in precipitation and temperature in central Japan”. Nothing about CO2.