Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Following up on my previous investigations into the oceanic pH dataset, I’ve taken a deeper look at what the 2.5 million pH data points from the oceanographic data can tell us. Let me start with an overview of oceanic pH (the measure of alkalinity/acidity, with neutral being a pH of 7.0). Many people think that the ocean has only one pH everywhere. Other people think that the oceanic pH is different in different places, but is constant over time. Neither view is correct.
First, here is a view of a transect of the north Pacific ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with Hawaii on the top left, Alaska on the top right, and depths shown vertically. ocean ph along transect
Figure 1. Variation in pH by latitude and depth. The graphic is taken from a previous post of mine regarding oceanic pH.
Note that in Hawaii, the surface pH is above 8.05, and in Alaska the surface pH is below 7.7 … and despite that, the marine environment in Alaska is much, much richer in life than the Hawaiian marine environment. This underscores a simple fact—alkalinity is hard on living creatures, much harder than acidity. For example, if you want to dissolve the victim of your latest murder spree, you’d use lye (a strong alkali) and not sulfuric acid (a strong acid). [Well, maybe not you, but your neighbor about whom everyone always said “He always seemed like such a nice man …]
Now, neutral on the pH scale is 7. In line with our bodies’ poor tolerance of alkalinity I just mentioned, we often eat things like lemon juice, which has a pH of around two, which is neutral minus five pH units … whereas the most alkaline foods that we can tolerate have a pH of around eight, which is only one pH unit above neutral.
That’s why fish often have a slimy kind of mucus that covers their entire bodies … to keep from slowly dissolving in the slightly alkaline ocean. And it’s also why a slight trend towards neutrality in the ocean is not worrisome in the slightest.
Having seen the spatial changes in pH from Hawaii to Alaska, Figure 2 shows the temporal changes in oceanic pH in a variety of other marine environments.
Figure 2. pH in different marine environments. DATA SOURCE: PLOS
Figure 2 shows not only the mean pH in these environments, it shows the variation in each environment over time. Note that while the open ocean shows a narrow pH range, a number of marine environments show a wide range over time. Coral reefs and kelp forests, for example, show a large variation in pH, which can be as large as a full pH unit in a single month. To quote from the underlying source for Figure 2:
These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100.
So we’re already experiencing what is supposed to terrify us, the so-called “acidification” of the ocean that is predicted for the year 2100.
For a real-world view of what that difference in variation means over time, Figure 3 shows the data from the Hawaii Ocean Timeseries (HOT) project, and the data from the Monterey Bay coastline.
Figure 3. Surface pH measurements from HOT open ocean and Monterey Bay upwelling coastline. The Hawaii data shows both measured pH (black) and pH calculated from other measurements, e.g. dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), total alkalinity, and salinity.
As you can see, it’s nothing for any one of the thousands of different species living offshore from me to go through a large rapid swing in pH. It doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest, they’ve been doing it for millions of years. Not only that, but as you can see from the Hawaii data, the slow drop in alkalinity is gradually moving the ocean towards a more neutral condition, which living organisms don’t seem to mind.
All of which is why I say that the gradual neutralization of the ocean from increasing CO2 is meaningless. It’s also why I say that calling the process “acidification” is merely an attempt to increase alarm. What’s happening is gradual neutralization, at a rate of something like 0.018 ± .001 pH units per decade (mean of seven multidecadal pH datasets) … color me unimpressed.
So with that as prologue, let’s take a look at the oceanographic pH data which I discussed in my recent post called pH Sampling Density. In that post I noted that there should be enough data in either the area around Japan or in the North Atlantic to form some idea about the usability of the dataset. To begin with, here is the Atlantic data, along with Hawaiian HOT data and the Monterrey Bay data.
Figure 4. Atlantic pH measurements from oceanographic transects (blue circles), Hawaiian single-location HOT pH measurements (red-calculated, black-observed), and Monterey Bay pH measurements (cyan, with the standard deviations shown by whiskers). Black line is the expected decline in oceanic pH due to the increase in CO2. “Trend 1970 onwards” is the trend of the Atlantic oceanographic pH data.
There are several interesting aspects of this. First, the decline in the HOT measurements is close to the calculated decline due to CO2. Now, I have estimated this decline using the measured average changes in dissolved inorganic carbon DIC due to the increased atmospheric CO2. To do this, I’ve used the R code located here.
And while this is only an estimate, it turns out that it’s quite close to both the decline in the HOT and other multi-decadal single-location measurements cited above, and is also matched quite well by the trend in the Atlantic post-1970 oceanographic measurements of -0.019. It’s also worth noting that prior to about 1960 the calculated decline in pH is so small as to be almost invisible.
Next, Japan. This area has quite a bit more data, but like the Atlantic, unfortunately there is little data from about 1940 to 1960. Figure 5 shows the Japan data in the same format as Figure 4.
Figure 5. pH measurements from oceanographic transects off of Japan, (blue circles), Hawaiian single-location HOT pH measurements (red-calculated, black-observed), and Monterey Bay pH measurements (cyan, with the standard deviations shown by whiskers). Black line is the expected decline in oceanic pH due to the increase in CO2. “Trend 1970 onwards” is the trend of the Japanese oceanographic pH data.
Once again we see the same pattern as we saw in the Atlantic data, with an increasing trend in the latter years of the data, and a post 1970 trend of the same order of magnitude as the average of the seven multi-decadal studies cited above.
So there you have it. The oceanographic dataset confirms the gradual decline in pH, but doesn’t provide enough data prior to about 1960 to tell us much of anything. As usual, the problem is that the changes due to CO2 are so small that they are difficult to dig out of anything but the most accurate of datasets. This doesn’t mean that we can’t use the existing oceanographic measurements … it just means that we need to be cautious in their use.
Regards to everyone,
w.
AS USUAL: If you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU OBJECT TO. Even with threading, it’s often quite difficult to determine what someone’s objection might be. Quoting their own words makes it clear just where your disagreement lies.
Lots of biochemists/biologists know that a pH change of 0.1 would generally not materially affect the cells that they grow in a laboratory, or their results (always with some exceptions). They (the cells) successfully manage their own internal pH which is usually a lower pH (more acidic, less alkaline/basic) than either pure water, the blood of the whole organism/creature, or the growth medium in which they are cultured.
And these cells/creatures are often far more pH sensitive than most life forms living in the ocean that experience much larger pH changes every day.
The CO2 “ocean acidification” scare was always a basic chemical and biological non-starter. That is why even the alarmists chose to focus on things like the inorganic chemistry of calcium carbonate (chalk), pretending that coral reefs will dissolve or not form.
That is rubbish too. The coral reefs are made of vast amounts of solid calcium carbonates accumulated over thousands or millions of years. Like the surface of the White Cliffs of Dover, that calcium is not going anywhere quickly. It is right where it is needed.
Which is why the educated alarmists retreated to the proposition that the new little baby coral polyps will not be able to form their little baby shells. Except that many corals do just that in more acidic environments. And so do little baby tiny creatures like E. Huxlei, one of the major photosynthetic calcifying organisms of the world’s oceans. They actually grow thicker coccoliths with increasing carbon dioxide levels. And ease off on their production of carbonic anhydrase which they use to harvest free carbon dioxide.
You can chase the CO2 alarmists from pillar to post, and they will still come up with another junior-high-school-chemistry-level argument about why carbon dioxide is bad and not good.
They won’t give up. But I don’t intend to give up either until I am dead or too ill to argue.
michael…they get glassy eyed when you tell them that organisms that lay down calcium or strontium skeletons….regulate their own CO2 internally…that’s how they do it
Michael. Your great comment captures Willis’s essay perfectly.
You say (at the end) “You can chase the CO2 alarmists from pillar to post, and they will still come up with another junior-high-school-chemistry-level argument about why carbon dioxide is bad and not good.”
Let’s face facts. Most AGW activists dropped Chemistry, Physics and Biology in favour of ‘Fashion and Fabric studies’, ‘Socialism and Politics’ and ‘Film, Drama and Theatre studies’.
PS. Willis, this excellent post and the wonderful comments prove again just how educational WUWT can be for us all. Again, I’ve learned a great deal. Thank you.
Other high school subjects in favour of a basic grasp of High School ‘Chemistry’:
‘Finance and Accountancy’, ‘Dictatorship Studies’ and ‘Wizardry and Witchcraft’.
Even Michael E. Mann cannot “live” up to the failed “life” of Lord John Whorfin / DOCTOR EMILIO LIZARDO”.
http://kumo.swcp.com/synth/text/buckaroo_banzai_script/
Studying the Hawaii-Alaska transect, I am skeptical to the nth degree that overall ocean pH change can be determined to any degree of accuracy.
Published peer-reviewed papers that have suggested ocean acidification are based on surveys done near Hawaii and the Bahamas and 2 other locations. However those surveys were done just 4 times very year. data from those surveys can be skewed by upwelling events, or changes in precipitations or the fact that samples are not examined for days, weeks or months during which time bacterial respiration can acidify the sample much in the same way bacterial decomposition acidifies the ocean’s lower depths.
Jim, meanwhile it is seven places and more samples, plus several fixed points by ship’s surveys. That are places in the open ocean where normally no deep ocean upwelling is:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_bates.pdf
and
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/kaiyou/english/oa/oceanacidification_en.html
One need gridded data in the same seasons (and very accurate data!) to show the very small trend in pH caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Indeed, and even the time of day matters as well to these PH samples.
Handle bleach or ammonia (Don’t mix them!!!) without gloves and your fingers will get slimy with dissolving skin.
Actually there is reason to panic over ocean PH changes.
Over a cosmic time scale the oceans will become like the dead sea from the accumulated alkali runoff from the land masses. That is unless there is a massive injection of acid into the oceans. There is not enough carbon on earth to do it.
Great post, Willis.
Willis wrote: “All of which is why I say that the gradual neutralization of the ocean from increasing CO2 is meaningless.”
Rising ocean pH is NOT meaningless. The solubility of CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) depends on the concentration of CO3(2-) (carbonate ion). The concentration of CO3(2-) depends on pH and other chemical species associated with dissolved CO2 (H2CO3 and HCO3-). Calcium carbonate is essential to coral reefs and many other species including some types of plankton.
I tried to work out some of the simpler chemical equilibria associated with carbon dioxide and calcium carbonate at Nick Stokes blog. http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/08/buffers-ph-and-ocean-acidification.html
Anonymous August 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM
My best estimate was that doubling CO2 would reduce ocean pH by 0.2 units at equilibrium in the presence of excess calcium carbonate (i.e. at a coral reef), but even this calculation is complicated and contains assumptions that may not be valid. Since CO2 has been rising 5% a decade, 15% (1/5 of a doubling) over the period in your Figure 3, the observed change in pH in Hawaiian is roughly consistent with my calculation. However, simple equilibrium calculations aren’t appropriate in complicated situations like upwelling in Monterey Bay. The ocean is not in chemical equilibrium; it is super-saturated in CaCO3 near the surface in many places. Temperature changes. The equilibrium changes with pressure/depth. (See calcium carbonate compensation depth).
My favorite reason for not worrying about ocean acidification is that coral and other species evolved more than a 100 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 was higher it will be in 2100 without emissions reductions. CaCO2-based marine species thrived planet with 1000 ppm of CO2. And, as you point our, natural variability in ocean pH is large. Unfortunately, neither fact proves that important existing species are capable of rapidly re-adapting to a more acidic environment.
“Researchers at the University of Miami and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) studied the effects of acidification on fish larvae – Rachycentron canandum. These large tropical fish are very busy and popular with anglers.
With the method, computed microtomography (similar to that which is subjected to hospital patients), the researchers observed that in water at low pH fish develop a greater otolity (pebbles Labyrinthine) – included in the hearing – than animals from the waters of lower acidity. The weight of these structures made of calcium carbonate in the acidic water increased by up to 58 per cent., And a mathematical model for their functioning even indicated a 50 percent extension of the hearing.
“Increased hearing sensitivity allows the use of it to navigate, avoid predators or communication” – said one of the scientists Sean Bignami of the University of Miami.”
They even thrived at 2000 ppm.
Frank, coccoliths, corals, etc, don’t use carbonate for their skeletons, they use bicarbonate. Which is about 90% at the current pH, 9% is carbonate and 1% pure CO2 + carbonic acid.
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/ecology.html
Along with the pH data, has anyone begun to collect carbonate, bicarbonate and carbonic acid concentrations at the pH sample sites? Lots of things can effect pH and alkalinity besides them. If we build such a data base it might help show whether or not CO2 is the big bad boogeyman it’s being made out to be.
(Just a layman’s thought.)
Also, how does the pH data compare with the CO2 measuring satellite data?
Are ocean pH numbers lower in those higher CO2 areas?
If CO2 is driving ocean pH lower then they should be.
Gunga, there are lots of measurements done for total carbon (DIC: dissolved inorganic carbon, the sum of free CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) many more than for pH, as that is easier to do and more accurate than pH measurements. It is possible to deduce the % of the different forms of carbon, if you know the pH via the Bjerrum plot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot
All these data can be found in the same database as the pH values.
Conversely if you measure total alkalinity of seawater and DIC, you can calculate the pH.
Seawater reactions are quite well known and two variables + temperature and salinity are enough to calculate all other variables… That can help in looking for a trend over time when not enough pH samples were taken…
Ferdinand: Coral and other species use CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) to make their skeletons, not Ca(HCO3)2 (calcium bicarbonate). The reference you provided actually specifies that skeletons are made from CaCO3, but it uses an alternative mechanism for the formation of calcium carbonate from bicarbonate. This mechanism is probably relevant in the ocean where the pH is too low for significant amounts of CO3– to exists.
Equation 1: Ca++ + CO3– CaCO3 Ksp = [Ca++]*[CO3–] = 5*10^-9
Equation 2: Ca++ + 2HCO3– CaCO3 + H2CO3 + H2O Keq = [H2CO3]/[Ca++][HCO3-]
If you apply Le Chatelier’s principle to Equation 2, it is easy to see why more CO2 will drive the equilibrium towards the left – towards less solid calcium carbonate and more calcium in solution. (If you apply it to Equation 1, lower pH lowers CO3–, allowing more Ca++ in solution.)
The solubility product for Equation 1 and the equilibrium constant for Equation 2 are related by the first and second ionization constants for carbonic acid, K1 and K2:
Keq = K2/K1*Ksp
So it doesn’t make any difference whether one uses Equation 1 or 2 to generate calcium carbonate, one will reach the same equilibrium. The ocean, however, is not a situation where simple equilibrium considerations are always appropriate. Most of the ocean surface is supersaturated with calcium carbonate. See: http://www.jbc.org/content/58/3/649.full.pdf
If you don’t believe me, please read further before spreading mis-information about the importance of calcium carbonate.
Frank,
The sea pH and carbon equilibrium reaction changes are as you said, but as I said, that hardly influences the ability of the calcifying organisms to make their carbonate shells: carbonate is intracellular made from bicarbonate ions at their internal pH, not from carbonate in the oceans at the ocean’s pH.
Of course if the pH of the oceans gets low enough to dissolve carbonates at near surface, then there will be a real problem, but that still is far away.
Ferdinand says:
…if the pH of the oceans gets low enough to dissolve carbonates at near surface, then there will be a real problem, but that still is far away.
How far away would that be, Ferd? In either centuries or millennia, please. Eons or Ages OK, too…
Ferdinand Engelbeen: “Of course if the pH of the oceans gets low enough to dissolve carbonates at near surface, then there will be a real problem, but that still is far away.”
Much of the surface of the ocean is supersaturated with CaCO3, so all organisms need to do grow skeletons is catalyze the depositing of crystalline CaCO3. If they want to grow and keep skeletons in regions which are no longer supersaturated, that would require active transport of Ca++ and the expenditure of energy. The loss of supersaturated habitat could be the real issue.
If I’m not mistaken, the chemicals and their reactions with each other drive the pH, not the other way around.
Gunga, it is both: if you add a (stronger) acid like SOx (udersea volcanoes..) the pH lowers and more carbonates may dissolve and more bicarbonate and free CO2 is formed, which ultimately may escape to the atmosphere.
If CO2 in the atmosphere increases, more CO2 is pushed into the oceans and the equilibria are pushed towards more H+, thus the pH lowers…
Ferdinand, thanks for both of your replies.
I’m just a guy trying to apply what little I know to the CAGW induced hype.
Gunga Din: In traditional chemistry class, problems can be posed in a number of ways and with a number of assumptions. Most problems are chosen to be easy to solve. A simple problem might ask how much Ca++ can be present in solution below 0.0003 atm of CO2 at pH 8, without explaining how the pH is held constant at 8. For ocean acidification, a sensible question to ask is what happens when we double the amount of CO2 in an infinitely large atmosphere and when there is an excess of solid calcium carbonate present. This would be the situation for a shallow coral reef and possibly other places calcium carbonate is used for skeletons. This was the problem I tried to solve at Nick Stoke’s blog (see above) when I was unsatisfied with Nick’s analysis (:)). This problem has seven unknowns: CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, CO3–, H+, OH-, and Ca++. (Eight unknowns, if you want to count CaCO3, which I assumed is present in large excess. All solids have a value of 1 in such equilibrium problems.) The pH (-log H+) effects the concentration of all of the other species and they all effect pH. For example, CO2 from the atmosphere becomes H2CO3, which changes pH; but also may precipitate CaCO3, which increases pH more that H2CO3 in the absence of Ca++.
In the real world, however, there is far more CO2 in the whole ocean than the atmosphere. We burn enough fossil fuel every year to increase CO2 by 4 ppm (1%), but the equivalent of about 1 ppm “disappears” into the ocean (precipitated as CaCO3?) and 1 ppm disappears on land (dead plant material?). We have already burned enough fossil fuel to have doubled CO2, but some has already begun to equilibrate and we aren’t dealing with an equilibrium situation. “Toy problems” like the one in my calculation suggest principles that may be important, but they aren’t sophisticated enough to trust.
While i agree that acidification isnt a problem and have writtenon the subject many times. This post is correct the issuse raised isnt directly about pH its about carbonate and bicarbonate abundance.
The majority of studies replicate open ocean simulations or what happens with an open air glass of seawater with changing conditions. Adding in a large caco3 buffer and supersaturation complicates matters. As does adaptive framework.
Stating that alkalinity is harsh may be somewhat true but it dodges the oppositional argument in a way that im not comfortable with as a skeptic.
Me too. Although in retrospect this was not too surprising. Acid rains had joined Godzilla long before the heat and melt waters went missing.
Should ocean pH mainly be coupled to atmospheric CO2? As far as acidification of ocean water is an issue, locally or generally, the culprit ought to be searched elsewhere than atmospheric CO2 rising from 250 ti 400 ppm.
SOx, NOx, Cl- and others are produced in industrial processes and by volcanoes in significant amounts. They produce strong acids.
Saturated solution of CO2 in freshwater, like our SodaStream bottles, holds pH 3-4.
Combustion of, say, sulphur rich crude oil, may produce H2CO3, but also H2SO4. Which affects pH the most?
Diesels and many other high temprature combustion also produces NOx., which adds to acidification.(besides, like CO2 it is also a fertilizer, essential to plants)
Add some lemon juice to your SodaStrem and see what happens! Has none suggested that acidification of sea water might free CO2 to the atmosphere?
Philip T. Downman
You ask
Yes, I have been pointing that out for over a decade. Please see my post in another current thread and read my post from the past to which it links.
Richard
More CO2 on ocean surface means one less CO2 solubility and an increase ocean acidification.
ren
I am not avoiding your post but I cannot address it because I don’t understand it.
Richard
Yes, I see you have and acknowledge that. To further clarify what I mean is that CO2 could be freed from the oceans due to addition of H+ ions.(wherever they come from – industry, volcanoes, seasick guys vomiting HCl and so on)That’s how some buffer systems of the oceans work.
Philip T. Downman
I agree what you mean but point out the issue of magnitude.
Humans don’t emit much of anything.
Richard
As responded a few times to Richard, if the pH is lowered due to stronger (volcanic, industrial) acids, that pushes CO2 out of the oceans and total carbon (DIC) decreases in the oceans.
If CO2 increases in the atmosphere, more CO2 is pushed in the ocean surface, DIC increases and the pH decreases.
Thus it easy to determine which one of these two is dominating by looking at the trend of DIC.
In all cases where DIC is measured over time, DIC increases. A lot more easier to do and more accurate DIC measurements are performed than pH measurements.
See: http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_bates.pdf
It appears that in the case of hot oceans (in summer) decreases solubility. The situation is different at the equator by sea currents which ensure the exchange of water and nutrients. This enables the use of CO2 dissolved in water by diatoms and algae.
The major ions such as Chloride and Sulphate are referred to as conservative species because of the constancy of their relative concentration in sea water. This was first observed by Marcet in 1819 and confirmed by the results of the Challenger expedition by Dittmar in 1889. Despite richard’s misinformation the ocean acidity is not a function of sulphate. Ocean acidity is controlled by CO2, the concentration of which depends on the atmospheric composition..
Thank you Willis, its really nice you do these investigations!!
Besides: I love your work on Corals, atolls and more, very interesting and useful too! Bad guys must hate you 😉
Kind regards, Frank
As a regular non-commentator on the posts of this website, I am constantly amazed at the quality of the posts and the breadth and depth of the comments. and this one is a good example. i even find the mental exercise of deciding whether or not a comment should have had a sarc tag to be part of my daily enjoyment. My slight worry is that I have developed an addiction.
Here is something else. Large PH changes over a few hours and days as large as those expected for the end of this century. Don’t loose any sleep over ‘ocean acidification’.
So what you appear to be saying, Willis, is that taking the known effects of CO² throughout the planet’s system it :
Warms the planet and encourages plant growth
reduces the alkalinity of the oceans and encourages sea creature growth
So, overall then, it is a very, very dangerous chemical.
Perhaps it affects climate scientist’s meagre brains.?
The only site where one can calculate anything is Station ALOHA (22°45’N, 158°00’W) with its Hawaii Ocean Time-series (acronymed “HOT”, which is nothing but pure propaganda). Ocean pH variability is way too high anywhere else where measurements were taken.
At this site in situ measured pH trend is -0.016 pH units/decade during the last 25 years.
The only open question is why CO₂ partial pressure in sea water increases at a rate of about 20 µatm/decade at ALOHA while atmospheric partial pressure trend is 28 µatm/decade?
Berényi Péter, thanks for the calculations…
Have you looked at the transect that the Japanese frequently sample, including 3 fixed points:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/kaiyou/english/oa/oceanacidification_en.html
NOAA has somewhere a database for repeated transects…
This ocean pH debate is very interesting, and enlightening.
What is totally clear is that the claim ‘the oceans have become 30% more acidic’ due to increased atmospheric CO2 is unreasonably alarmist and clearly intended to persuade the gullible that the oceans are becoming acidic enough to dissolve corals and sea shells, and anything else based on calcium carbonate. This alarmist deception amounts to a lie in my view.
What is totaly depressing is to see scientific bodies promoting and justifying this lie. As in this NOAA ‘Primer on pH’. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
They are very very naughty in there use of alarmist language and agruments. For example:
“Why are scientists concerned about such a seemingly small change in pH?: Many organisms are very sensitive to seemingly small changes in pH. For example, in humans …a drop of 0.1 pH units in human blood pH can result in rather profound health consequences, including seizures, heart arrhythmia, or even coma (a process called acidosis).” [get in there with scary health stories. A change of just 0.1 pH unit – ie, like in the ocean – can cause all these terrible things. Omit to mention we can tolerate much greater ranges of pH in what we touch or consume, with no ill effect, and our own stomachs create a mucher lower pH]
“pH decrease of 0.11 corresponds to approximately a 30% increase in acidity, which is an exact change in acidity (H+ concentration) of 28.8% when calculated in this way.” [explain this 30% applies to H+ ions, not pH, but still justify ‘legitimate but totally misleading to the layman’ use of the term ‘30% more acidic’]
“Just as we describe an increase in temperature from -40°F to -20°F as warming, even though neither the starting nor the ending temperature is “warm,” the term “acidification” describes a direction of change (i.e. increase) in the level of acidity in the global oceans,” [=justifying the ‘ ‘legitimate but totally misleading to the layman’ term ‘acidification’ for a pH change from 8.2 to 8.1]
They talk of the human body’s PH. I understand that it’s between 6.0 and 6.8, slightly acidic.
Hi jimbo, – Blood pH is different than human tissue pH. When we go to sleep at night our connective tissue stores by products of metabolism which are generally low pH. At sun-up on an empty stomach a lot of our body tissue cell’s pH is down somewhere below 7; so your less than or equal to 6.8 pH would be valid.
At that pH (yes, below blood pH; incidentally arterial vs. venous blood pH’s differ as well & each moves in it’s own range of pH) our morning hormones activate. There is a bi-phasic reaction from the movement of protons (H+ ions) whereby a short term action of the hormones leads to a cascade of gene expressions (turn on some & off some). This can be up-regulation of neurotransmitters & enzymes (for example, the up-regulation of the enzyme hyaluronidase sets loose the “acidic” by products of metabolism in connective tissue & aging people might ache more upon arising).
Urine pH & saliva pH are confounded by the proteins in those solutions; so they usually have a lower pH than the blood anyway. Morning urine’s pH is normally lower in the morning due to the the clearing of “acid” metabolites from connective tissue & by the close of day the urine’s pH has usually risen due to all the food
derived electrolytes that will buffer the urine. Of course those with medical conditions confound those measurements of pH.
Old people are often needing to urinate frequently at night & this depletes their electrolytes; so when parsing their pH (organ/connective tissue/blood) should bear this in mind. They often get up very early & the surge in “wake-up” neurotransmitter levels from their tissue cells’ lower than normal (young) tissue pH is a downstream result of induced proton movement.
Teens can sleep under a CO2 monitor & not wake up; I suspect their tissue cells’ pH is less than 7 but higher than in the elderly (arterial & venous blood pH likely in standard ranges). Their growth consolidation uses so much of food’s nutrients (metabolic organs work better/efficient than when old) they stash fewer acid metabolites in their connective tissue & they’ve enough electrolytes that they don’t ache when wake up (or so I remember from long ago). Of course malnutrition would alter things like electrolytes.
Babies urinate frequently in part because they are metabolizing rapidly & thus generating acid byproducts of metabolism. Babies’ sleep is not linked to day/night (& young children fall asleep daytime too) so they experience multiple incidents of bi-phasic proton cascades. They usually wake up crying (neurotrasmisssion) when wet themselves as cleared their acid metabolites & then they are “goo-goo-gooing” (hormones activated by acid pH have prompted growth) for about 4 hours before ready to eat again. I expect their tissue cells’ (not blood) actually use wider swings in tissue cells’ pH (they’ve not enough cellular mass to spread the acid residues of metabolism, nor muscle connective tissue mass to stash that in) & this is precisely why their growth rate is so high – the protons (H+, a.k.a. acid ion) are triggering all kinds of hormonal phase shifts.
As for citrus pH being acidic my take is that the citric acid has the type of synergistic effect on tissue cell pH (irregardless of blood pH); it stimulates protons inside tissue cells than lead to changes in gene expression.
It’s anti-oxidant & systemic effects are another subject.
As for “alkaline” water all I can say is that I measured one product’s pH, then held some in my mouth & let it pour back out. The pH changed downward to close (specific data long lost) to neutral pH.
As a conclusion then, it appears that the ocean “neutralization” claims of the scientists are probably close to correct.
The trends identified by Willis (-0.019 to -0.03 pH units per decade from 1970) indicate the ocean pH has changed from something like 8.27 pH unit in the pre-industrial to something like 8.2 units in 1970 to something like 8.1 pH units today (CO2 from 280 ppm to 325 ppm to 399 ppm today).
In the ice ages, the ocean pH might have been as high as 8.47 pH units (although noone seems to think that).
When we get to 710 ppm CO2 in the year 2100 or 2020, the ocean pH will have changed to something like 7.6 to 7.7 pH units.
This is all calculated with a linear formula (while it might be exponential or logarithmic or something else although I can’t seem to find one).
Logically the affect would likely be decreasing, as the greater the difference in PH between ocean depths due to surface neutralization, the greater the buffering affect would be as the ocean waters overturn, injecting more alkaline waters. Once again negative feedback is more likely, and the purported harms are ever more unlikely is observational evidence is examined.
Bill, your pH calculation makes the same mistake that AR4 made. Because of ocean buffering, the neutralization process is highly nonlinear. For 710 ppm CO2, the ‘correct’ decline in pH would be about 0.18, not 0.4. AR5 made this correction, but buried it obscurely and then went off anyway on negative coral and oyster impacts based on papers including from Feely at PMEL which are so bad they constitute academic misconduct. You can look up the details in essay Shell Games in Blowing Smoke.
Excellent article with lots of good comments as well: A couple of quibbles
I agree with at least one other person that the color choice for plotting pH seems backwards. Not sure why. Maybe indicator strips have blue at the high pH end and red at low? Can’t remember. Probably not your choice of color anyway
I think probably Hawaii’s high pH is a symptom of lack of nutrients, and that that lack rather than high pH is the cause of the poor productivity compared to Alaska.
FWIW California’s Mono Lake has a thriving if somewhat unusual ecosystem despite a pH around 10. Mostly algae and aquatic arthropods. But abundant enough for a lot of migrating birds to stop off and feed on their way through. OTOH, I believe that it has no native fish.
Hey Willis…
Got a citation for the following assertion?
“despite that, the marine environment in Alaska is much, much richer in life than the Hawaiian marine environment.”
That question was answered in the comment right above yours. Posted an hour and a half earlier.
It’s also something most of us learned in grade school. Cold Polar waters teem with life and diversity.
Sock rats has not come here to make up for his lack of understanding. Sock rat has come to cut and paste from Hot Whopper/Topic, SKS, and wherever.
Sock rats: if you wish to wring your poor hands over CO2, you will need to find another reason besides “acidification” (gasp!) of the oceans.
Well if you believe NOAA Alaska’s total catch(commercial and recreational) as of 2013 was 5.2billion lbs to Hawaii’s 29million lbs. It’s not even close.
Willis replies to ‘socrates’:
…you’ve provided … well, just your big mouth.
That comment could apply to just about every D. Socrates comment. Some of them have a few factiods, but most are just annoying.
The alarmist contingent cannot explain anything, because most of their beliefs are based on misinformation. I’ve suggested to Mr Socrates that reading the WUWT archives, keyword “CO2” for a few months, would help him get up to speed.
But as usual he doesn’t listen to good advice.
Well, I was gonna reply to David but folks beat me to it. Me, I based that claim solely upon having fished extensively in both places … it’s one of my longcomings, for a lot of these questions I’ve been there and done that.
The obvious difference is in the color of the water, with Hawaii having blue, clear water, and Alaska having green, opaque water. This is because the Alaskan waters are full of phytoplankton, the tiny green critters that are the base for all oceanic life. They are a rich green soup that supports and sustains everything from zooplankton all the way up the food chain to whales.
The blue oceanic waters, on the other hand, are a desert as far as life is concerned. This is because the upwelling coastal waters around Alaska are full of nutrients, while the Hawaiian waters are nutrient poor.
Alternatively, as Gonzo said,
All the best,
w.
Data on commercial fishing bears little relationship to being “richer in life”.
For example, Kansas grows a lot more human food than tropical Amazon, but the Amazon has is much “richer in life” than Kansas.
Secondly, fishing in both place doesn’t really pass peer review. Again, can you provide some kind of citation that backs up your claim to coastal Alaska being “richer in life” How about a count of fish species in both areas?
Sock rat:
Where have you been?
Citation?
Okay, try a primer in oceanography. It will educate you on why upwelling produces such an abundance of marine life.
Thank you mpainter.
…
I found this, and it doesn’t show the Alaska coastline as a major coastal upwelling area.
..
http://www.seos-project.eu/modules/oceancurrents/oceancurrents-c04-p04.html
How come there is no major upwelling around Alaska?
David Socrates January 3, 2015 at 4:08
Kansas grows very little food. Humans grow a lot of food in Kansas. Humans grow little food in the ocean. Since you don’t understand the difference, I fear I can’t help you with that pathetic attempt at equivalence.
Why on earth not? If there were great masses of fish in Hawaii, as there assuredly are in Alaska, don’t you think somebody would be catching them?
No thanks. Nothing that I could do would possibly pass your faux “peer review”. Trying to please you is a fool’s errand, and while I have plenty of faults … being a fool is not among them.
So I’ll leave it as an exercise for the student.
w.
Humans harvest a lot of food in Kansas, and humans harvest a lot of food from the oceans. The equivalence is quite sound, and the analogy stands.
“Why on earth not?”
…
For the same reason that a person that claims to have been abducted by aliens doesn’t pass peer review.
“No thanks. Nothing that I could do would possibly pass your faux “peer review”. ”
…
Classic deflection. In other words, you can’t back up your claims with any reviewable data. I see.two possibilities. One is you don’t have any data, the second is you know what the data shows.
David Socrates January 3, 2015 at 6:00 pm
David, believe what you want. In fact, in response to your question someone has already posted reviewable fishing data from both areas to back up my claim … and you’ve provided … well, just your big mouth. No data at all.
And as someone remarked, any introduction to marine biology explains why the blue open ocean is a much less productive ecosystem than the green northern seas. If you don’t care to read them, that’s your business.
And regarding your return to the Kansas example, as I said, if you can’t tell the difference between humans growing food and humans harvesting naturally grown food, you’re beyond my poor powers to add or detract from your willful ignorance.
So no, I’m not going on a snipe hunt just so you can say something like ‘sorry, your “reviewable data” is not good enough’, just as you’ve done with the perfectly valid fish landing data … if you truly believed your nonsense, YOU would have been able to provide a host of data backing up your ridiculous claim.
But what the heck. Let me take one last stab at it. As I’ve said elsewhere, I write for the lurkers, even if you can’t follow the bouncing ball.
I’ve worked as a commercial fisherman a good deal in my life, and I’ve fished extensively, both in the opaque green waters of the coasts, and the clear blue water of the open ocean.
In the ocean, what sustains and supports a mid-water full of a complex variety of oceanic life is the green “grass” of the ocean, the phytoplankton. Almost alone among the various forms of life, the phytoplankton are able to convert sunlight to edible food. Almost all of the rest of the oceanic life, from zooplankton through fish and up to the apex predators like killer whales and big sharks, depends either directly or indirectly on the phytoplankton. They form the base of the entire mid-water oceanic food chain.
So when you see green water like you find in Alaska, you can be sure that there are copepods and anchovies and squids and fish and all the other creatures that inhabit the mid-water ecosystem.
And when you see the clear blue waters of Hawaii, you can be sure that without the phytoplankton, the amount of mid-water life will be very small compared to the life in the green water.
It’s just like on land. Where you see lots of grass and plants, you get lots of life … and where you see bare desert earth stretching for miles, you get much less life. It’s bozo simple biology, David—plants are at the bottom of the food chain, both on the land and in the ocean.
Now, every fisherman who has fished both types of water knows this. And the fish landing data posted above supports this. Satellites can measure the amount of ocean life from space by analyzing the wavelengths of the chlorophyll in the phytoplankton. And the introductory marine biology texts that I’ve seen all discuss this at some length. In fact, just about everyone with a clue about the ocean knows this …
… and then there’s you.
So since it’s obvious that you won’t believe me, go and google it. Start with something like “blue water desert marine life”, you’ll find hundreds of references to the question, all of which agree with me. Here’s one (emphasis mine):
Like I said, most everyone knows this … except for you, it seems.
w.
Sock rats:
Why does it not show “major upwelling”? Because you are a would-be scientist with no faculty of judgement.
By the way, sock rats,
Alaska Gyre, Alaska Current, Aleutian Current.
Junk science is bad for the brain.
Here you go Mr Eschenbach….
.
As an “expert” fisherman, I think this paper will be enlightening for you…
..
” Our findings suggest that the contribution of species diversity to a range of ecosystem functions varies over large scales, and imply that in tropical regions, which have higher numbers of species, each species contributes proportionally less to community-level ecological processes on average than species in temperate regions.”
…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7468/full/nature12529.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130926
In other words…..if you want to fish somewhere “richer in life”…..the tropics is where you want to be.
..
David Socrates January 5, 2015 at 7:04 pm Edit
Since I have never to my knowledge claimed to be an “expert” fisherman, your attempt to put words into my mouth is nasty and underhanded. I ask people to QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS to protect myself from people’s misinterpretations. However, you’ve taken it another and uglier step. Instead of simply not quoting me, you’ve made up a quote out of your sick imagination and have tried to use it to impugn my character.
Not a good start, David …
As to the diversity discussed in your link, that is the diversity of tropical reefs, which are only a tiny part of the tropical ocean, and not the part under discussion. We were talking, if you recall, about the green waters around Alaska and the blue waters around Hawaii. You know, the waters we were discussing that were shown in Figure 1. I’m more than aware of the awesome color and diversity on the reefs themselves, having spent hundreds of hours diving on them, both scuba and snorkel, both day and night, and surfing over the top of them … complete with occasionally getting pieces of the reef embedded in me when I didn’t make the wave … but then we weren’t discussing the reefs.
Finally, you’re unsuccessfully trying to move the goalposts. We were talking about ecosystem productivity, not about species diversity.
In other words, in addition to unsuccessfully and unpleasantly trying to stuff words into my mouth, you’ve gone off on your own tangent which has nothing to do with my original statement.
Thanks, but no thanks …
w.
OK Mr “expert” fisherman….you want direct quotes…..here ya go…
“I’ve worked as a commercial fisherman a good deal in my life, and I’ve fished extensively, both in the opaque green waters of the coasts, and the clear blue water of the open ocean. “
Mr Expert Fisherman
You demand direct quotes???
Here is an “appeal to my own authority”
“I’ve worked as a commercial fisherman a good deal in my life, and I’ve fished extensively, both in the opaque green waters of the coasts, and the clear blue water of the open ocean. “
PS….
…
You post ” We were talking about ecosystem productivity”
…
Great….
….
But you didn’t acknowledge how “productive” Kansas is.
David Socrates January 7, 2015 at 2:44 pm
An “appeal to my own authority”? You unpleasant little man, I never said that either. Once again, that’s all you.
Do you understand what the quotation marks are for? They indicate that you are quoting someone’s exact words … except in your case, where they indicate some fantasy statement of yours that you’d like to convince folks that I said.
I ask you to quote my words, and once again you invent some bogus quote I never said.
Pathetic.
In addition, I never claimed to be an “expert fisherman” in any sense. What I said was:
“I’ve worked as a commercial fisherman a good deal in my life, and I’ve fished extensively, both in the opaque green waters of the coasts, and the clear blue water of the open ocean. “
Show us where in there I claimed to be an “expert”. You have anointed me an expert. I never did.
You go on to say:
David Socrates January 7, 2015 at 2:46 pm Edit
Since the discussion was about OCEANIC pH with respect to productivity, specifically the difference between the clear blue slightly more alkaline waters surrounding Hawaii versus the opaque green slightly less alkaline waters around Alaska, I fear that the productivity of Kansas is immaterial.
If you want to write about the pH of Kansas that’s your business. I’m under no obligation to follow in your footsteps, particularly since it has nothing to do with the subject of this post
w.
““I’ve worked as a commercial fisherman a good deal in my life, and I’ve fished extensively, both in the opaque green waters of the coasts, and the clear blue water of the open ocean. “
…
Your post buddy
“Kansas grows very little food”
…
“We were talking about ecosystem ”
…
Make up your mind.
…
Excellent post, Willis. Thanks.
The ‘acidification’ scare is mostly to the biome, which as Jim Steele points out is complex and non- unitary. And as Michal Hart pointed out, most of the harm arguments (e.g. hindered calcification) dont pass high school level chemistry and biology muster .
Which is why when the Seattle Times published Sea Change (reporting on disastrous acidification impacts on corals and oyster spat) it took some digging into the cited peer reviewed papers to find the unbelievable deceptions at their cores. It amounts to scientific fraud and academic misconduct. Rxposed in essay Shell Games in Blowing Smoke. The oyster portion (knowing deception from NOAA PMEL still promulgated on their website despite complaint letters) was guest posted at Climate Etc. under the same title.
More on the Seattle Times Sea Change report here …
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/search?q=oyster
“This is all calculated with a linear formula (while it might be exponential or logarithmic or something else although I can’t seem to find one).”
All the calculations relating pH to CO2, temperature, depth and alkalinity for seawater can be made with CO2Sys
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/co2sys/
I’m moderately familiar with the excel Version
Willis I may well have missed it but did you note that the pH scale is logarithmic so small changes in pH values represent quite a considerable change in H+ concentration?
Thanks, Ian. While that is true, the scale is logarithmic for a reason … and the reason is that it takes “quite a considerable change in H+ concentration” to change the effect of the substance in the real world.
w.
What an excellent article. Hard data and beautiful graphs in an easy to understand format. Thanks Willis.
I just want to express an alternative view here. What we do know is that no one can say for sure whether a decrease of the average Ph of seawater will be a problem or not.
We can do some assumptions based on the Ph variations on life in general, look at different districts and in different geological periods, but this cannot give a proof of whether a decrease by let us say Ph 0.3 will have only negligible effects or horrible effects.
Some indicators of a change of 0.3 are quite disturbing; if your blood Ph, which is normally between 7.35 and 7.45, should drop to 7.1 you could fall in coma or die.
Just as an example.
To a more relevant example from seawater:
The geological records show, according to the Smithsonian, http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification, that there are 35 million years since we had CO2 levels as high as they are today, and nothing bad happened then. However, when the temperature and CO2 level rose quickly 55.8 million years ago, much of the shelled sea life disappeared. We can see this because the sediment changed from primarily white calcium carbonate “chalk” to red-brown mud.
But no one can say for sure that anything of this will happen now
So since no severe effect can be proved, there is no reason to do anything to prevent a decrease in the seawater Ph to happen or what?
And the reason for the richer sea life around Alaska is that cold water contains more oxygen, it has nothing to do with Ph.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen January 3, 2015 at 10:40 am
Dear heavens, I answered this objection yesterday … do try to keep up.
w.
Willis
There is a lot of conjecture in this article. The generalisation that “acidity is better than alkalinity” for example. Near neutrality – which the oceans are – is best for most life. The affect of weak acid/alkaline depends on what part of the body you’re talking about (e.g. teeth vs skin). So if you have calcareous exoskeleton then slightly alkaline conditions are better than slightly acidic ones.
The choice of acid is also important sulphuric acid is a strong acid (high – almost complete – dissociation) but tends to form CaSO4 coatings when reacting with Ca based compounds. This barrier arrests the reaction.
In terms of oceans, the bicarbonate buffering system would suggest that, were this is the only buffering mechanism, calcareous shell thickness/growth would indeed be affected by a lowering of pH. But the whole thing is complicated by further buffering systems. In rich ecosystems with high levels of biological activity, organic acids (produced during deification, decay etc.) add to the “buffering mix” (most are weak acids with typically larger pKa – acid dissociation constant) and then there are all the other weak inorganic acids such as silicic acid. How these and the various cocktails of conjugate bases and salt parings interact, makes things far too complicated to make simple theories about how biology will adapt to what are very modest changes in pH, never mind what the affect of increasing atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, would this be a problem in a warmer ocean which would lead to degassing anyway.
On top of all this one must add the acidifying influence of rain and fresh water, which can due to buoyancy, can affect surface, oceanic pH 100s of miles out to sea.
cd January 3, 2015 at 11:21 am
Since you are the only person in this thread to say that “acidity is better than alkalinity”, I fear that you are merely erecting a straw man in order to destroy it … not impressed, sorry.
Also, putting words in quotes when nobody has said them is deceptive and underhanded … some people will indeed be fooled by that into thinking you are responding to an actual quote, rather than responding to your own imagination.
w.
Willis
This underscores a simple fact—alkalinity is hard on living creatures, much harder than acidity
Is this not consistent with:
The generalisation that “acidity is better than alkalinity” for example
Perhaps I should’ve have made it clear when using the quotations as I was paraphrasing. Although if the summary statement is consistent with the original meaning then there seems little need to make the type of accusations you have.
putting words in quotes when nobody has said them is deceptive and underhanded
Oh Jeez, take a chill pill and get a sense of propriety – it’s a blog for God’s sake.
some people will indeed be fooled by that into thinking you are responding to an actual quote, rather than responding to your own imagination
I don’t. You’ll find most reports use paraphrasing and are free from litigation because the sentiment is wholly accurate. I take all inline – whether correctly or incorrectly – quotations as paraphrasing.
cd January 3, 2015 at 1:14 pm
I don’t let anyone put words in my mouth, whether it’s in a blog or a scientific paper. Quotes mean that you are QUOTING SOMEONE, and since I’m the someone who wrote the head post, you are claiming I said something that I never said. That is deceptive and underhanded. Perhaps your friends put up with it, but I won’t let anyone pull that trick on me. I’ve been misrepresented far too much to allow that kind of nonsense.
In addition, as I said above,
As a result, I (foolishly) assumed that you were quoting someone, and giving us the exact words that you objected to … but instead, you were just erecting a straw man by pretending to quote someone. Sorry, not buying.
w.
And to your specific point, cd, you said:
No, one is not “consistent” with the other, at least on my planet. I pick my words very carefully. I wouldn’t ever say that “acidity is better than alkalinity”, for example, because it’s too vague. I was specifically talking about the effects on living tissue, not whether one was “better” than the other in general.
More to the point, I’m not interested in your attack on something that you speculate is “consistent” with what I’ve written. Your “generalization” is specifically what I’m trying to avoid. THAT’S WHY I ASK PEOPLE TO QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH! I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your curious “generalization” of my words.
Why is this simple, polite request to quote my exact words so onerous that you feel the need to pretend to comply with it by quoting words that I never said?
w.
it’s in a blog or a scientific paper
I didn’t know you were published. But if I were quoting you from a paper then you’d be linked to.
Quotes mean that you are QUOTING SOMEONE
OK I wont do that again to you.
As a result, I (foolishly) assumed that you were quoting someone, and giving us the exact words that you objected to … but instead, you were just erecting a straw man by pretending to quote someone. Sorry, not buying.
No as I said I was paraphrasing you – there was no alterior motive. I wrongly used quotations but then it is an informal discussion and it was addressed to you – the comment will be up today and forgotten tomorrow. You’re probably the only one who is ever likely to read it anyway. This may come as a shock to you but I’m not sitting at home and work planning some Machiavellian scheme to undermine you – no really!
one is not “consistent” with the other…
Well you’re entitled to your opinion…
at least on my planet
Oh you were.
I can’t defend your curious “generalization” of my words.
Well let’s look at your exact words.
This underscores a simple fact—alkalinity is hard on living creatures, much harder than acidity
The FACT! Are you serious? So what evidence or what body of research is this FACT based? The ones you referenced – you didn’t reference any? So what evidence do you present to support this assertion of fact:
For example, if you want to dissolve the victim of your latest murder spree, you’d use lye (a strong alkali) and not sulfuric acid (a strong acid).
Did I quote you accurately? Now tell me was I wrong in my opinion of conjecture. I think it’s a fair judgement others can form their own opinion.
I hope that you are having fun, CD, because you sure make a poor impression.
cd January 3, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Pass. I’ve made my points clearly, and I’m not playing that no-win game, so I’ll leave you to play with yourself.
w.
Jan Kjetil Andersen January 4, 2015 at 1:55 am Edit
Jan, I have neither the time nor the interest in the issue to make it worth my while discussing it with a man who starts out by ignoring my request to QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS. Instead of quoting what I’d said, he made up fake words and pretended that I said them, and when I called him on it, he defended his actions.
Now, if he were discussing an important issue, something central to the post, it might be worthwhile putting up with that kind of ugliness. But he’s picked a trivial issue, one that is meaningless to the question at hand, which is whether the oceanographic pH data helps us understand the gradual neutralization of the ocean. The issue is not acidic versus alkaline, it’s alkaline vs. more neutral … acidity isn’t even in the picture.
As a result, I’m not interested in providing him with more opportunities to pursue his deceptive ways. Instead I invited both you and him to continue the discussion with folks like yourself … and I notice that to date you seem just as reluctant to discuss the issue with him as I am.
As to whether this will “waste the credibility this place has gained”, that’s just the usual nonsense from the species of internet denizen known as a “concern troll”. How about you worry about your own credibility, which is at an all-time low because of your spirited but ludicrous defense of the IPCC as a source for “solid science”, and let me worry about my own credibility?
In the meantime, I hope that you enjoy your discussion with cd, I know that I didn’t …
w.
I disagree
I think cd has some good points here. He /she? has said that she will not use a quotation mark again in this way so it is no reason to go over that again.
One of the points made by cd is worth answering, the correct quote from the article:
This is to my knowledge, not a fact. Cd has a good point there.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen January 4, 2015 at 12:30 am
Fine. In that case, Jan, you and cd can have what I’m sure will be a fascinating and enlightening discussion on the subject. Count me out, however. I’ve no time for such wonderful things.
w.
Cd seems to be a person with good knowledge of acidity and alkalinity effects on ecosystems and I think is a bit disappointing that you turn down a discussion with him/her.
You see, most people will turn away and not come back if they are just met with insults. A certain way to waste the credibility this place has gained is to scare ordinary people away and be left with a group of angry men with similar minds cheering each other up and using most of their time in front of a computer.
/Jan
Jan:
Go back to your fellow warmers. It is becoming more and more obvious that you have no worthwhile contribution to make here.
Jan
Thanks for your kind words. It’s “he” by the way 😉
As for reasonable discussion, you get it with some posters and not with others. I’ll let you decide where Eschenbach sits.
Jan if you wish to address any of the points I actually made, ones he seems to think are trivial I’d be delighted to have a discussion. To reiterate:
But the whole thing is complicated by further buffering systems. In rich ecosystems with high levels of biological activity, organic acids (produced during deification, decay etc.) add to the “buffering mix” (most are weak acids with typically larger pKa – acid dissociation constant) and then there are all the other weak inorganic acids such as silicic acid. How these and the various cocktails of conjugate bases and salt parings interact, makes things far too complicated to make simple theories about how biology will adapt to what are very modest changes in pH, never mind what the affect of increasing atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, would this be a problem in a warmer ocean which would lead to degassing anyway.
On top of all this one must add the acidifying influence of rain and fresh water, which can due to buoyancy, can affect surface, oceanic pH 100s of miles out to sea.
There is huge body of literature on such issues but you wouldn’t think it given the above ‘article’ – e.g. do a search for marine humic acids. I can’t see how one could possibly explain trends in sea surface pH both in a temporal and spatial sense without an in-depth discussion of these areas of complexity. Even something such as seasonal dust storms need to be looked at – they provide external sources of weak organic acids.
Willis
Thanks for your informative graphs and comments.
The 0.4 pH unit decline from equator to Arctic seems to correspond to CO2 and declining ocean temperature with latitude. See the meridional ocean circulation graph in:
Closure of the meridional overturning circulation through Southern Ocean upwelling John Marshall, & Kevin Speer Nature Geoscience Volume:5, Pages:171–180 Year (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1391