NOAA Headquarters
In first-of-its-kind research, NOAA scientists and academic partners used 100 years of microscopic shells to show that the coastal waters off California are acidifying twice as fast as the global ocean average — with the seafood supply in the crosshairs.
California coastal waters contain some of our nation’s more economically valuable fisheries, including salmon, crabs and shellfish. Yet, these fisheries are also some of the most vulnerable to the potential harmful effects of ocean acidification on marine life. That increase in acidity is caused by the ocean absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
100 years and 2,000 shells later
In the new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, scientists examined nearly 2,000 shells of microscopic animals called foraminifera by taking core samples from the seafloor off Santa Barbara and measuring how the shells of these animals have changed over a century.
Every day, the shells of dead foraminifera rain down on the ocean floor and are eventually covered by sediment. Layers of sediment containing shells form a vertical record of change. The scientists looked back through time, layer by layer, and measured changes in thickness of the shells.
“By measuring the thickness of the shells, we can provide a very accurate estimate of the ocean’s acidity level when the foraminifera were alive,” said lead author Emily Osborne, who used this novel technique to produce the longest record yet created of ocean acidification using directly measured marine species. She measured shells within cores that represented deposits dating back to 1895.
The fossil record also revealed an unexpected cyclical pattern: Though the waters increased their overall acidity over time, the shells revealed decade-long changes in the rise and fall of acidity. This pattern matched the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural warming and cooling cycle. Human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are driving ocean acidification, but this natural variation also plays an important role in alleviating or amplifying ocean acidification.
“During the cool phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, strengthened winds across the ocean drive carbon dioxide-rich waters upward toward the surface along the West Coast of the U.S.,” said Osborne, a scientist with NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program. “It’s like a double whammy, increasing ocean acidification in this region of the world.”
Scientists hope to build on the new research to learn more about how changes in ocean acidification may be affecting other aspects of the marine ecosystem.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…..20 shells per year ?
Add wind management to the policy agenda along with CO2 storage industries.
‘acidifying’ – as if any alkaline solution can magically become ‘more acidic’..
Indeed, in my chemistry book it is called neutralizing, the ocean is a buffered solution. And geology does not agree with an extinction story correlating with high co2 levels (c.f. Cretaceous)
Exactly.
A genuine scientific research project would at least correctly describe from the outset exactly what the research was focused upon.
In this case, it would have been “sampling the pH of the waters off California and comparing with changes at other areas”
And what’s this about “average acidity of oceans”?
Averaging of seawater alkalinity is nonsense, “acidity” of seawaters is absolutely risible.
They could at least use the correct term, pH, and the fact that it has changed perhaps from 8.25 to 8.2.
pH is highly variable in the oceans with depth, temperature, and winds. Their own research shows this.
That would probably be “average alkalinity” i.e. carbonate alkalinity. Which is a very stable equilibrium of 90% bicarbonate, 9% carbonate, 0.9% CO2 and 0.09% H2CO3.
This equilibrium is impossible to move because it is just that, an equilibrium.
Always have been, is today, and always will be. A million year ago, today and in a million years from now.
Bicarbonate with its 90% fraction is the buffer. The pH of this buffer is 8.1. Which is why our oceans average pH is 8.1.
NOAA has removed all their material that CO2 + CO3– + H2O -> 2HCO3- (or if you will, converts to bicarbonate).
Why? Because you can NOT reduce pH of a bicarbonate buffer by strengthening the bicarbonate buffer…
Oddgeir
So what you are saying is that if you could burn all the known sources of carbon on earth and put them in the ocean at once it could almost make it to a neutral state? Any acidification that might take place would eat at 2000 feet of “tums antacid” calcium carbonate lime stone that litters the bottom of the ocean restoring pH balance. To acidify the ocean it would literally take up all the sulfur to make sulfuric acid, and also all nitrogen to make nitric acid and perhaps then… Ever tried to dissolve a seashell in carbonated water? It doesn’t work. You must use vinegar.
““By measuring the thickness of the shells, we can provide a very accurate estimate of the ocean’s acidity level when the foraminifera were alive,””
An accurate estimate of zero is still zero.
No it worse food availability, chemicals and predators are all known factors that change shell thickness. Ask what control studies they ran to eliminate other factors. We are already laughing now but in years to come these will be case studies in how bad science gives stupid answers.
Any “scientist” that labels an alkaline solution as becoming more acidic as it becomes less alkaline should have their degree suspended until they pass at least High School freshman remedial chemistry. a happy little debunker might straighten them out. By the way, what other environmental factors influence the original shell thickness in forams? How do they control this study for those other factors? Didn’t? Can’t No pasa nada!
Correct. “acidic” is an abused and misused term.
May be good for grant money.
And media headlines.
Better yet, they seem to think the waters off California ate static, when in fact, it is an area of upwelling, which is why the waters are so cold and nutrient rich. This report is bogus.
“Human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are driving ocean acidification”
There is no evidence that CO2 can alter the ocean pH, as seawater is a complex buffer and the pH thus difficult to alter.
NOAA even reports that they have located no areas of ocean pH outside of the normal range.
Few people know that the pH in bays and estuaries can rise close to or above 10 on a sunny day, as photosynthesis is an alkalizing process. And water passing through a coral reef during the day leaves with increased pH from photosynthesis and leaves the reef with a lower pH at night as metabolic processes tend to release organic acids. Ocean pH is far from constant, for sure, which is totally against the rigid idea of what people think the oceans should do or be.
Interesting, not once in either article did they state the actual pH. Not impressed, NOAA. Call me when pH actually drops into the acidic range.
“…caused by the ocean absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” There is no such thing as excess CO2 as far as the biosphere is concerned.
Yes, that would be like saying that Texas is more South than New York, when both are in the Northern Hemisphere. Rediculous!
Raw unprocessed urine and feces from CA streets will acidify the local waters
Nancy Pelosi calls it The New Brown Deal.
This is absolutely inane. pH from CO2 is hardly the single factor influencing shell thickness. Hmm, does this remind anyone of tree rings?
Pardon me, I have to find a bottle of carbonic acid and drink it straight.
It’s called soda water. And you can drink it straight indeed. Very refreshing.
Lace it with a little ethanol biofuel really feel good!
Another NOAA shell game – or is it gag!
Not without some ethanol.
It’s worse than insane….this article is absolute fr @ur momisugly ud…..no ocean’s pH has lowered enough to effect shell thickness…and the deeper the core, the more acidic..and that does dissolve them
“does this remind anyone of tree rings?”– I’ve been a forester for 47 years and I say it’s absurd that tree rings can be a proxie for temperature- countless variables effect the growth of tree rings- temperature may be one of the least significant.
That’s the problem. The people in Kalifornica have been shellfish for too long.
My table salt is becoming more acid as well, thanks to the CO2 in the air… 🙁
You win the intratubesthingy for the day!
Ya wanna know how tough I am? I only eat salt that has chlorine in it, *chlorine* , choke, choke!
(Actually the very point that convinced Patrick Moore that his fellow Greenpeacers had become dumba$$, er, not so smart).
Golly! What’s that ph got to now? 5? 6?
Clearly a new Californian business opportunity to harvest ocean acid and sell it for use in batteries for renewable storage … With the science ability in this field I am sure we can get a grant and get that off the ground 🙂
Another -Twice As Fast- Headline
They’re hitting the news Twice as Fast as all the other headlines. 😉
Andrew
Tony Heller recently did a i>”twice as fast” video exposé of this 2x propaganda meme.
What is apparent is the “2x meme” is an encouraged climate communications, group tested propaganda device.
The old newspaper headliner adage: “If it bleeds, it leads.” Global Warming is apparently a very bloody topic these days. 🙂
The Press isn’t chasing headliner eye catching Climate news for ratings. Nobody cares about climate and sea shell thickness.
The MSM is the main tool used for the propagation of the Climate Change Fraud propaganda for the Globalist Socialists. The MSM is single minded about Climate…it’s a willing tool for acquiring political power.
Every part of the world is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet!
Shells Hardest Hit.
It is unintelligent to dismiss papers from straight hand, but OTOH, this smells of fishy shells.
It is always correct to dismiss out of hand any EurekAlert! press release even tangentially touching on climate.
It’s to the point where I only need to read the headline to know that it will be EurekAlert! and ergo fallacious.
If the water PH and shell thickness vary with the PDO then most likely the observations simply reflect wholly natural warming since the Little Ice Age.
Nothing is shown which implies human causation. In fact, quite the opposite. A clear natural process is identified which adequately explains the observations.
One would expect more El Ninos relative to La Ninas during any natural warming period.
To prove their point one would need to have figures for shell thickness going back to the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period.
“…most likely the observations simply reflect wholly natural warming…” I can see you’ll never get funded for a CAGW study. Such a killjoy.
They are making the assumption that the natural cyclic rise and fall can not explain what they see now.
From the article: “That increase in acidity is caused by the ocean absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
If the air masses blowing across the Pacific onto California were allowing its CO2 to be absorbed by the ocean, then there wouldn’t be enough CO2 in California’s atmosphere to support agriculture nor some of the tallest trees n the world. But California’s atmosphere does support agriculture and some of the tallest trees in the world. … therefore air masses blowing across the Pacific Ocean aren’t allowing its CO2 to be absorbed by the ocean?
Also, what is ‘excess’ carbon dioxide?
Exactly what I was thinking Thomas. Considering that the Earth’s atmosphere has had much higher CO2 levels in its prehistoric past, how does Mother Nature know when there is “excess” CO2 in the atmosphere today?
I am not even a scientist, and this question leaves me suspicious.
So the ph is going up and down, and a little more down than up.
How is this affecting the fish and corals?
Or hasn’t anyone thought of asking them yet?
They did conduct a survey but they found they couldn’t read the results on the wet paper and the corals had trouble manipulating the pen. They are seeking a grant to research what to do about the problems.
Keep an eye on the Government Enviromental Agencies around the world, and see how many complain to their pliant media that their coastal waters are acidifying “twice as fast as the rest of the world”
Ummm….
Cold water dissolves more CO2 than warm water.
So why are they surprised that when the PDO was cold the PH was lower, and vice-versa?
Fake science.
They weighed the tests and measured area (not volume?) to create a metric they called Area-normalized shell weight (scientific term is test not shell). So there’s some confusing “science” there already, foram tests are 3-D and they have estimated total carbonate density based on a cross-sectional area? Anyone with an elementary understanding of geometry immediately knows that the direction and place the cross section is taken will lead to wildly different results, even on the same test.
There are no mentions of post deposition processes which occur quite rapidly in carbonate sediments and effect both weight and area. The major processes are boring algae which use the tests as food, cementation, and recrystallization. Then when you go access the data and graph the empirical data yourself – because they only show the highly doctored statistically warped data – you can clearly see that there are no statistically significant trends in test weight, diameter, or cross sectional area. Only in their highly imaginative area-density that they have conjured via cross sectional area and diameter is there a trend, and it shows a difference of 0.00002 micrograms per micrometer – a 20 picogram difference.
Obviously the fake science methods is what have lead to the highly questionable results. And then they also contradict entirely empirical based and recent research that they didn’t even bother citing.
https://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1725/2012/bg-9-1725-2012.pdf
Great analysis! Thanks
They created the metric they needed to support their preconceived conclusions. “Climate Science” 101.
Several problems with the logic. Oceans are not acidic or becoming acidic. They are basic with pH consistently above 7 (neutral pH). Oceans have substantial complex buffer systems which don’t allow recent changes in atmospheric CO2 to cause significant changes in actual pH likely to show up as altered growth. Studies have shown less alkaline sea water does not necessarily reduce shell formation and, as per geologic history, shell fish have survived much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in the past many times without interrupting the high productivity of the seas. Finally – what is the evidence supporting the idea that shell thickness is a reliable proxy of minuscule changes in ocean alkalinity and not some fo the other significant changes that may well affect the health and growth of sea life such as the ocean cycles, food abundance, temperature changes, prevalence of disease etc.?
…you can’t lower the pH until you deplete the buffer
Latitude
That is not quite accurate. There can be small changes in pH, but not of the magnitude that would occur in the absence of a buffer. Once the buffer is depleted, then large changes can occur. However, it isn’t just the (bi)carbonate buffer system at play in the oceans. Borates also play a minor role in resisting the changes in hydronium ion concentrations.
Andy
Different organisms have different optimal pH ranges for calcification, which relates to the energy expenditure the creatures are burdened with. Only looking at on specie is only getting part of the picture.
California has several major sources of superheated CO2. Two are San Francisco and Sacramento. Until those sources are eliminated, nothing will improve in California.
How long until we have reports from that oceans everywhere are acidifying twice as fast as everywhere else?
I’m sure it will happen … twice as fast as everything else.
One of the most productive estuaries in the world, with pH variable, but much closer to real acid. Clams sometimes buried in real acid sediment. Otvos, E. G., Jr. 1978. Calcareous benthic foraminiferal fauna in a very low salinity setting, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 8(3):262-269.
This is what is going on there. “FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY: Regional Vulnerability Assessments for Ocean Acidification | Letters of Intent Due January 24th, 2020…..This funding opportunity will not support the collection of new chemical or ecological observations or species response data. Social science data collection is permitted.” Is their paper like that? Acid fisheries science settled? Not so!
https://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/
Social Science data collection is permitted?! What does Social Science have to do at all with the study of ocean ph?
I’ll file this with all those stories and “research” showing how one region or country is heating twice as fast as the rest of the planet. And there is one of these for every region, it seems.
What was the ocean acidity when CO2 was 7000 ppmv?
About as reliable as measuring temperature with tree rings. You measure aqueous pH with a calibrated pH meter.
So what? Go back 2000 years with the exercise and get back to me…
What exactly does “a very accurate estimate mean?
It means that every single time they do it, they make the same unvarying assessment of a specific situation.
Readers should look at the paper itself — this concerns the California Current and its real finding is that the PDO is the primary forcing factor with pH in this ocean current — modified (maybe, slightly) by atmospheric CO2.
Be aware that they are not measuring past pH — they are measuring something else and guessing at past pH.
Guessing at the past then allows guessing at the present’s relationship to the past, and then project a possible relationship in the future.
“Human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are driving ocean acidification, but this natural variation also plays an important role in alleviating or amplifying ocean acidification.”
Kip, they said emissions were driving it