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.
All. I have been talking to a number of Northwest scientists that are intimately involved in the ocean acidification issue. The bottom line is that they believe that a small change in pH will cause a major decline in a range of marine organisms, even if those organisms experience wide swings of pH in the natural environment. There is one paper they turn to more than any other: Bednarsek et al., 2014 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1785/20140123), Limacina helicina shell dissolution as an indicator of declining habitat suitability owing to ocean acidification in the California Current Ecosystem
N. Bednaršek, R. A. Feely, J. C. P. Reum, B. Peterson, J. Menkel, S. R. Alin, B. Hales
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0123Published 30 April 2014
Based on a few cruises, they found that the amount of shell dissolution damage for pteropods was highly dependent on pH/aragonite levels. They are claiming BIG EFFECTS already:
“Our estimates suggest that the incidence of severe shell dissolution has already more than doubled relative to pre-industrial conditions”
I am an atmospheric scientist and not a marine biologist. But it seems far fetched to me that organisms living in an environment with large swings of pH and aragonite levels would experience significant impacts when there is a small change due to anthropogenic CO2 increases. And keep in mind that the upwelled waters are old waters, exposed to the atmosphere 40-50 years ago when CO2 levesl were much lower. Thus, is would seem to me that organisms in upwelled zones would be LEAST affected. Can anyone, with a marine biology background, provide more insight into this…thanks, cliff mass
In 2011, they used measurements to estimate the aragonite saturation state off of the northwest coast of North America. This is an area distinguished by the upwelling of ancient bottom waters
Then they used models to estimate the aragonite saturation state in the year 1750 and 2100, and declared a disaster …
In addition, the model that they used to simulate the aragonite saturation state in the year 1750 is in itself based on the modeled aragonite saturation state in the year 1750 …
You’ll forgive me if I find that type of “turtles all the way down” analysis less than compelling … the paper I cited just above is much less than compelling, and using it to leverage the paper you cite doesn’t help things.
w.
Thanks willis, another fine post.
I am struck by the idiocy of the “acidification” fears, if subtle changes in phH were dangerous to life, tidal estuaries would be deserts.
Re Cliff Mass post: It makes you wonder what other variable could be changing, that effects shells in this way.
Is it CO2 because that is the only variable checked and it appears to correlate?
Steve, we don’t even know if it is affecting shells or not. They only looked at the situation once, in 2011. It could be getting better or worse or not changing. We have no evidence either way. None. This is the first study of those shells, so we only have one single lonely data point.
w.
Reporting pH without giving the temperature of the measurement is unhelpful The ionic product for water increases with temperature, thus the pHs for neutral water at 20, 25, and 30 C are 7.08, 7.00, and 6.92, respectively.
The pH data from the transect is given at 25ºC. “Both datasets, obtained at 25°C and reported on the total hydrogen ion concentration scale (pHT = −log[H+]T)”
On a semi related note. It is time to “terraform” the oceans. The official answer to over fishing seems to be to stop eating fish, but we could in fact greatly bolster fish stocks with more artificial (and real) reefs, as well as possibly with fertilizing areas that would readily support more life if nutrients werent so lacking.
Ive been through this topic in depth before, and of course PH can cause issues, but we appear eons from causing massive shifts in short periods or greatly changing the extremes. Amazingly the research over decades hasnt truly cleared any of this up.
Richard G January 3, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Egads, how could I have overlooked the movement of the “deep scattering layer”? Many thanks.
In the open ocean, the day-night vertical migration of millions of individuals of hundreds of species has been estimated to be the largest animal migration on earth in terms of tonnage. They often migrate from depths of 500-700 metres up to near the surface each night, and then return to the deeps during the day.
Per Figure 1, this would mean that they are being subjected to a change in pH of up to half a pH unit in 12 hours … and we’re supposed to worry about the effect on oceanic creatures of a change of 0.02 pH units per decade?
w.
“And in any case, if we can’t end a sentence with a preposition … then what are we expected to end it with?”
An example would be, using your sentence, “then with what are we expected to end it?”. 🙂 I like that way of writing as it’s more compact. I don’t mean ‘shorter’, I mean ‘more together’ if that makes any sense.
Hey, write the way you wish, Karim, every man to his own. If your words don’t sound good to you, they probably won’t sound good to others.
My only problem is when people start claiming that there’s some kind of rule when there isn’t. As Winston Churchill apocryphally said when someone busted him for ending a sentence with a preposition,
“This is pedantry up with which I will not put!”.
w.
Not quite “Canadian” replies, but what the heck, I can tell you are trying.
I also have the feeling it won’t last long 🙂
All the best.
Thanks, U. K./S. It’s a work in progress, and the requirements for the Canadian passport are pretty stringent, but I’m chipping away at it …
For some folks, however, I fear it’s like the old story of the guy who sells a mule, and tells the new owner, “He’ll do anything, just whisper it in his ear”.
So … the new owner tries whispering, with absolutely no success. He goes and complains to the previous owner, and demands that the previous owner shows him how its done.
The previous owner picks up a piece of lumber, smashes the mule over the head with it, and whispers in its ear. “I thought you said you only had to whisper to him!”, the new owner protests.
“Yeah”, says the old owner, “but sometimes you’ve got to get his attention first!” …
w.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Aside from Willis’ straightforward treatment here, there is the fact that CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in ages past, ages when coral reefs and shelled creatures of all types flourished just fine.
There is nothing happening now that hasn’t happened before many times. Life finds a way, and most of the time it doesn’t even hurt unless there is a politician or government regulator involved.
Lonnie, you are right, the CO2 level has been higher in the past, but it is a long time ago. According to The Smithsonian institute it is 35 million years ago. http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification
Many of the species now living on this planet did not exist 35 million years ago. Man is one of them. Many of the sea creatures have also adapted to the level we have had the last millions of years and no one knows for sure how they will react to a sudden increase in the CO2 and a sudden drop in the Ph level.
The geological records show that this planet experienced a sudden increase in temperatures and CO2 level 55.8 million years ago. We don’t know the cause of this, but we do know that it had devastating effects then because we can see that much of the shelled sea life disappeared and the sediment changed from primarily white calcium carbonate “chalk” to red-brown mud.
/Jan
Jan, I gotta admit, I find your point of view puzzling. You appear to believe that if something is in the universe of possibilities, regardless of the odds of it happening it is worth worrying about.
Case in point. Out of the entire history of the earth, something happened once 55 million years ago. We don’t know why, but it appears that a huge amount of methane was released into the sea, poisoning the oceanic ecosystem.
And as a result, you are worried it might happen again. We don’t know why it happened that one time, we don’t know what the precipitating factors might have been, and as far as we know it’s only happened once in the 3.5 billion year geological history of the planet. We also know that the geological CO2 levels have been much, much higher than they are today without the same thing happening, so current CO2 levels couldn’t possibly be of concern in that regard … but despite all of that, you are worried about it, and you want to convince us that it’s worth worrying about.
It’s not.
You also seem to think that the projected (not real but possible) change over an entire century of 0.1 pH units is worth worrying about, describing it as a “sudden drop in the pH level” …
Sudden drop? I’ve already shown that ocean creatures in Monterey Bay see up to three times that much change every couple weeks … and that both coral reefs and the creatures in the deep scattering layer around Hawaii see up to five times that much change in a DAY, not over a century but in a DAY. That’s a “sudden drop” in pH, Jan. What you are describing is a very gradual and small decline in pH … but you are worried about it.
Now, as other commenters on this and other threads have made obvious, at this point most everyone knows that no matter what might be forecast, Jan will be worried about it. If it happened once in the last 3.5 billion years, Jan will be worried about it happening again. If there is the slightest change of it happening, Jan will be worried about it … heck, given your worries about CO2, for all I know you walk around with your own personal lightning rod attached to your head with a grounding strap going to your feet, because everyone knows that many more people have been killed by lightning than by CO2.
There’s a name for that point of view, Jan. It’s called “alarmism”, and regarding the climate, people are soooo over it. We’ve heard your kind of fears and their associated doom-laden predictions over and over, and not one of them has come true. No atolls have been sunk by climate change. No Alaskan villages have disappeared from climate change. The UN’s predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010 are nowhere to be found. Bangladesh is not underwater. The famines and mass deaths foretold by John Holdren and his pal, the dean of failed serial doomcasters, Paul Ehrlich, have not come to pass. The global surface temperature stopped warming eighteen years ago. The model predictions are now way, way off the reality. The drowning of New York which James Hansen confidently predicted is nowhere to be seen, in fact there’s been no acceleration of the rate of sea level rise predicted by so many folks of your alarmist mindset.
So how about you give your worries a rest, Jan? We’re all aware that you are worried that everything that might possibly happen could be catastrophic, you’ve made that more than clear. So maybe you could just take that as being understood, and you focus on the science instead? You strike me as quite an intelligent man, and you’re definitely a good guy, but I gotta tell you, your constant attempt to emulate Paul Ehrlich is way past its use-by date …
w.
There was some field research covered here on WUWT a year or so ago. The article, published in JGRL is here: “Coral Reefs in Palau Surprisingly Resistant to Naturally Acidified Waters”
http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/palau-corals
Overlooking the constant nods to “normal” coral reef “depauperization”, the young women from Woods Hole ventured outside their NSF funding (my guess), and WAY outside the standard talking points, to find healthy, diverse coral reefs at Palau under highly carbonated (acidic) waters. They explain the mechanism of acidification, which Bio Bob and others have noted above. As ocean water sits for lengthy periods in the labyrinths of coral reefs during tidal changes, HEALTHY coral respiration adds to the CO2 saturation of the water, which lowers the pH. The result of this:
I couldn’t find their supplemental information, but in an e-mail their press person explained the pH levels they found in their experiments:
From Willis’ Figure 5, above, I see that this is relatively low pH. If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that young, pretty scientists are finding the answers that the old, ugly ones haven’t cottoned to yet.
Thanks for the post.
Nice overview of why “ocean acidification” is nothing to worry about.
One nitpick however is the usage of alkalinity as being the opposite of acidity. The word alkaline is the opposite of acid but the word alkalinity is not the opposite of acidity. Alkalinity is a measure of a solutions resistance to changes in pH and has absolutely nothing to do with its pH. An acidic solution can have high alkalinity even though it can’t be alkaline.
http://water.me.vccs.edu/exam_prep/alkalinity.html
Arrrrg, chances was meant to be changes …. PEBCAK error.
John West January 4, 2015 at 1:13 pm
John, I fixed your typo … meanwhile, if not “alkalinity”, what is the opposite of “acidity”?
w.
Thanks for the correction.
That’s a good question. In general speech I’d say alkalinity is acceptable. More technically correct terms are basic and alkaline but lack the same sense for ease of use. Since all solutions are described by their pH as its “acidity” whether the solution is above or below 7 and since the same could be said for pOH, I propose the new word “hydroxity”.
LOL.
Whoa. After reading that over it seems a bit cryptic. Let me try again:
To a chemist the pH describes the hydronium ion concentration (i.e.: the acidity):
A solution with a pH of 4 has an acidity of 0.0001 H+ mol/L.
A solution with a pH of 7 has an acidity of 0.0000001 H+ mol/L.
A solution with a pH of 10 has an acidity of 0.0000000001 H+ mol/L.
Basicity or “hydroxity” would be the exact opposite for the hydroxide ion concentration on the pOH scale.
This is not strictly true. Both acidity and alkalinity have both common meanings and related but separate technical meanings. A solution that is alkaline has a chemical property called alkalinity which can be measured as the difference between the sum of the charge of the anions of strong acids (Cl-, and SO4– principally) subtracted from the sum of the charges of the cations (Na+, Ca++, Mg++ etc), the difference being made up in natural waters by carbonates principally, but also borates, flouride, phosphate and more. This alkalinity is commonly measured by titration with HCl. Most natural water, but not all, has positive alkalinity
There is an analogous term acidity or mineral acidity, where the sum of the charges of anions exceeds the sum of cations, excluding H+ (charges must balance in total). This is very unlikely to occur in ocean water, but can occur in acid ground water, mine drainage or rain.
Addition or loss of dissolved CO2 from solution does not change the alkalinity, but will change the pH.
If you know any two of CO2 concentration, pH and alkalinity, (along with temperature, salinity and pressure) you can calculate the third.
Some people behave like that Willis, but I’m not one of them as I will show below.
No, that is not what I said.
The point is that we are on the course to change the Ph level more in one or two centuries than it has changed naturally for many millions of year. The question is then whether this change may cause any harm or not.
No one can answer that with certainty. However, we know that something similar happened 55 million years ago, and the effect was devastating then.
Scientists don’t know why this happened, but there are several possibilities, for instance intense volcanic activity or breakdown of ocean sediments.
I am not sitting here and worrying about whether intense volcanic activity or breakdown of ocean sediments will happen again right now. But I think it is worth being concerned about whether the anthropogenic CO2 release we see now may have some of the same effect as the sudden CO2 release 55 million years ago, because it definitely has some similarities.
I am talking about global averages and then a drop of 0.1 units over a century is sudden compared to millions of years. To argue that this is not sudden because the level in Monterey Bay changes more in some weeks is similar as to argue that the global temperature rise we experienced in the 1990-ies was not fast because the temperatures in my backyard changed more every day.
We agree that Ehrlich was a clown Willis, and I also agree that we see far too much unfounded alarmism in the media, but I think you are wrong in labeling every concern whatsoever with regard to climate as alarmism.
Perhaps you should worry a little less yourself. You seem to worry much about the problems associated with carbon free alternatives. I think you underestimate mankind’s ingenuity in creating good economically sound carbon free solutions.
/Jan
Relax, Jan, sudden increases in temperatures have been commonplace during the Pleistocene. You wring your poor hands over one that occurred 55 million years ago.
Well, this planet experienced a much more precipitous increase only 11,000 years ago.
Why take fright at the PETM?
Perhaps you overestimate the effect of your existence.
Would another windmill cure your anguish.
It’s never enough is it ?
All the man-made CO2 that went to the oceans since 1750 is not enough to decrease the pH of seawater by 0.1
Even if you mix it with only the top 500 m layer. This should be easy to calculate by college level chemistry students. Yet we still hear this ‘ocean acidification’ nonsense. If true, it has a natural cause
Great article!
Jan Kjetil Andersen as you seem inordinately worried by changes in pH (note I use the word “seem” as it is my interpretation of what you have written and may not in fact accurately represent your thinking on this) I have included the following paragraphs from a study of oceanic pH reported by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/1875. The paper, “High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison,” was published in 2011 in PLoS One. I hope reading this lessens some of your concerns. The publication on the Scripps page is headed:
Comprehensive Study Makes Key Findings of Ocean pH Variations; Some organisms already experiencing ocean acidification levels not predicted to be reached until 2100
and summarises key points of the PLoS One paper. I’ve only included a small part of what is written but you may well like to read the rest.
The researchers “found that in some places, such as Antarctica and the Line Islands of the south Pacific, the range of pH variance is much more limited than in areas of the California coast subject to large vertical movements of water known as upwellings. In some of their study areas, they found that the decrease in seawater pH being caused by greenhouse gas emissions is still within the bounds of natural pH fluctuation. Some areas already experience daily acidity levels that scientists had expected would only be reached at the end of the 21st Century”.
“This study is important for identifying the complexity of the ocean acidification problem around the globe,” said Scripps marine biologist Jennifer Smith. “Our data show such huge variability in seawater pH both within and across marine ecosystems making global predictions of the impacts of ocean acidification a big challenge. Some ecosystems such as coral reefs experience a daily range in pH that exceeds the predicted decrease in pH over the next century. While these data suggest that marine organisms may be more adapted to fluctuations in pH than previously thought much more research is needed to determine how individual species will respond over time. Importantly, these new sensors allow us continuously and autonomously monitor pH from remote parts of the world and thus provide us with important baselines from which we can monitor future changes caused by ocean acidification.”
Because many in the marine chemistry community have expressed concerns that ocean acidification could happen too rapidly for some organisms to adapt, the researchers said that this finding is an important step toward identifying the mechanisms some marine organisms have developed in order to cope. They also said that knowledge of actual pH ranges in various ecosystems should improve assumptions about future pH levels that can only rely on broad generalizations about seawater chemistry. Furthermore it could guide future lab and field studies that investigate the limits of resistance and resilience in various marine communities.
Thank you for showing me this interesting study Ian.
I think uninterrupted growth in CO2 emissions as we see today will cause problems sooner or later, but I am not seeing myself as “inordinately worried by changes in pH”. The reason for that is first and foremost that I think mankind will gradually change to carbon free, or at least less carbon intensive, alternatives before the worst consequences of the CO2 emissions will occur.
/Jan
Thank you Mr Eschenbach, I appreciate your comments, good humour and insight.
If I could please trouble you on a few questions.
Is the historical pH data set in either its raw, filtered or homogenized form good enough to be used to determine ocean acidity trends?
When the measuring instruments and methods “changed” during the 80’s, was it acknowledged THEN, that the 2 data sets could not be tied together?
Regards
I hope someone (with knowledge) is still active on this thread. I have had a problem with the concept for a long time now. I have known for some time carbonic liquids expell less CO2 when colder than warmer. Looking at this data, without questioning homogenizations issues already discussed, clearly in Hawaii the oceans are more alkaline than Alaska. Without putting SST/ OHC data side by side, I think we can all agree that the oceans are cooler around Alaska as compared to Hawaii, by personal observation I can attest to that. Putting this all together, knowing that CO2 is ‘well mixed’ within the atmosphere, we can assume there is equal CO2 available to enter the oceans in both locations. So if the oceans are less alkaline in cooler waters, then this begs the question….
If the oceans are warming and raw data certainly questions how fast they really are warming. How can the oceans be changing towards a more acidic pH?
Here are my further assumptions and I hope I can properly explain them.
1. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and oceanic CO2 levels is a long term complex relationship.
2. Prior to the Industrial revolution, the oceans would have taken in the ‘maximum’ dissolved CO2 chemically possible, the oceans did not have a crystal ball in which they planned on extra CO2 in the coming centuries and left ‘extra space’.
3. If the oceans have generally increased in energy/ temp in the past decades. No matter how much CO2 is added, the oceans would be expelling CO2 that can no longer be disolved… In the same manner an ‘ice cold’ coke removed from a cooler on the 4th of July, expells CO2, to give you the ‘sqssshhht’ sound when you pop the top, if left in the sun.
So I am asking for constructive comments on where my assumptions are flawed, thanks.
Brian Meteorolgy Student
Brian
Imagine three scenarios. The start position is equilibrium between ocean and the atmosphere, and then we look at these scenarios:
1. The ocean has unchanged temperature but we add some anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere.
Result: Some of the extra CO2 goes down into the ocean until a new equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere is reached. We end up with increased CO2 content in both the atmosphere and the ocean.
2. The ocean temperature increase but no anthropogenic CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
Result: The warmer ocean will release CO2 to the atmosphere and we end up with less CO2 content in the ocean and more in the atmosphere.
3. The ocean temperature increase and we add CO2 to the atmosphere.
Result: It depends on how much CO2 we add and how much the ocean temperature increase.
If we add a small amount of CO2 to the air and the ocean temperature for some reason increases many degrees, we will have a situation quite like point 2.
However, if we add so much CO2 that the level increases 40% and the ocean temperature only increase about 1 degree Celsius, the situation will be quite like point 1. This is what we see now.
/Jan
Thanks Jan, I appreciate that response, I do have one major problem with your comment. The oceans and atmosphere are not in equilibrium, they may appear to be for short periods of time. However on measurable timescales of thousands of years they are constantly changing based on the temp of the oceans. I think we can all agree that at least the past 400k years the CO2 levels have been governed by the oceans. At different Geological time periods it may have been governed by outside inputs but at least the past 400k years most likely it has been the oceans.
Let’s put a specific date for the industrial revolution of 1850. On Jan 1, 1850 there was approx 280ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were holding exactly how much CO2 they could handle for that OHC and that set the level of 280ppm. Now by Jan 1, 1900 that atmospheric level had increased (don’t have time to research exactly) to let’s say 288ppm. The oceans chemically were already holding what they could hold, if they also began to increase in OHC then they should have started to expell the excess CO2 it could not hold. The oceans should be more alkaline. This is where I have my problem….
Thanks though for those thoughts…. I need to spend some researching how CO2 or better put the mechanisms of transfer for games in the atmosphere, specifically CO2. I know certain gasses simply escape our atmosphere over time but can heavy gasses such as CO2 simply fall out of suspension in the atmosphere over time? I just can’t buy the idea that by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere you can chemically change the oceans ability to dissolve CO2…. you can put as much sugar as you like in coffee, however once you reach a certain point, no more sugar will dissolve period. In this case the sugar gets there by dumping/ gravity but does not chemically dissolve with the liquid. So I need to understand better the mechanism of how CO2 enters the oceans, is it simply mixing when the wind blows, if so once you reach saturation/ equilibrium no more will enter no matter how much extra you have. If it falls out of the atmosphere through some sort of gravity mechanism then you could add extra via seeding.
I wanted to clarify my comment, I was writing on tablet that was excrutiatingly autocorrecting me, trying to get out the door for work. My problem with the concept of a warming ocean becoming more acidic simply because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere is because alarmist want/ NEED us to believe the residence time for CO2 is upwards of 300 years to in some papers 1000 years. Chemically, on Jan 1, 1850 the atmosphere and oceans were as you said in equilibrium and the oceans were holding as much CO2 as they could for that OHC. The oceans do not care how much CO2 is in the atmosphere until… they continue to cool (if that is the situation) and the atmosphere has no CO2 left for the oceans to disolve, at this point the oceans would not be at saturation, there simply would not be sufficient CO2 to attain saturation. We know this situation has not happened for (100% certainty) at least 400K years and most likely ever in the history of Earth, I am simply trying to drive home my understanding of the chemical relationship of CO2 and H2O.
Now if we are to believe alarmist that residence time for CO2 is upwards of 300 years… The oceans SHOULD not becoming more acidic from CO2 simply falling out of suspension (not sure of the correct terminology for a gas, so I am using the term for a solid) into the oceans, we are only halfway through the residence time for the original CO2 added via industrialization.
Finally I have read different articles/ papers on how carbonic acid forms. These seem to conflict on whether or not the CO2 has to be disloved to form carbonic acid. Which brings us full circle with the concept of mixing/ OHC/ saturation. If the oceans were saturated/ in equilibrium for that OHC on Jan 1 1850. Then simply adding CO2 to the atmosphere could not disolve more CO2, finally once the oceans begin to warm, which I truly believe they probably have to some extent. Then the oceans MUST expell CO2 that it cannot hold is solution which lowers the availability of CO2 for carbonic acid formation. Less acidic