Oceans' Acidity Rate Skyrocketing, Endangering Marine Life

The Independent:

The rate at which the oceans are becoming more acidic is greater today than at any time in tens of millions of years, according to a new study.

Read the whole story: The Independent

Comments

[guinganbresil]

12:27 AM on 02/24/2010

I got a copy of the study and read it through.

The researcher­s did not measure ANY change in ocean pH. Nothing. Zip. Nada.


The statements­:

"The Oceans' Acidity is Skyrocketi­ng, Endangerin­g Marine Life"

and

"The rate at which the oceans are becoming more acidic is greater today than at any time in tens of millions of years, according to a new study."

do not accurately represent the contents of the paper.

The results presented in the paper are entirely based on computer models.
There were no measuremen­ts of actual ocean water to support these claims.
This is not from fantasy or right wing blogs, it is from reading the paper itself.

Is this an abuse of science? Clearly.

[realpolitic]

12:23 PM on 02/17/2010

The deniers were again defeated. It is the inevitable result of arguing from a point of view backed by no science, only fantasy and far-right blogs.

[thebodyventura]

11:09 PM on 02/16/2010

Ahh, I see that the AGW believers are touting their famous computer models again. How are those computer models working out for ya?

[FranklinCat]

01:38 AM on 02/17/2010

How's that misosophy working for you?

[realpolitic]

01:41 AM on 02/17/2010

What a word! You get the best vocabulary award today.

[realpolitic]

03:36 PM on 02/16/2010

SFTor, you said there was no frozen methane underneath the ocean and in the permafrost­.

Please explain how this explanatio­n is wrong?

"There is an enormous amount of frozen methane hydrate all over the planet. Most of these methane hydrates are found within the ocean, where their quantity is estimated at 10,000 - 20,000 billion metric tons. There’s also a substantia­l amount in permafrost soils."

"Methane hydrates form wherever methane and water are present at a proper low temperatur­e and high pressure conditions­. These conditions can be found in depth, from around 300-500 meters down (200 meters in the Arctic since it’s colder) and usually no deeper then 2000m."

"The Methane hydrates forming processes is actually a common by-product of bacterial activity beneath the seafloor. Biogenic processes are capable of producing vast amounts of methane."

http://www­.only-one-­solution.o­rg/print/m­ethane_hyd­rates_prin­t.html

Could you have simply been wrong and uninformed­?

[SFTor]

11:17 PM on 02/16/2010

OK, maybe we can agree on this: it is not frozen methane. The compound, methane hydrate, or methane clathrate, looks like water ice. It is typically found in Arctic and sub-Arctic oceans at depths of 500 meters, where we know that neither water nor methane would freeze on its own. The mechanism that would destabiliz­e such a layer of methane hydrate is either an underwater avalanche, but more importantl­y the lowering of ocean levels by several hundred meters seen during a full-blown Ice Age. It is speculated that it may be the mechanism that causes the rather quick ending of Ice Ages.

As far as ocean levels are concerned, consider that they have risen by 120 meters in the last 12,000 years. This rise is tapering off at present. Where we used to have a rise of 10 meters per century we now have about 20 cm.

[realpolitic]

11:44 PM on 02/16/2010

Also, warmer waters is a destabiliz­ing mechanism and that is the whole point of the methane hydrates relationsh­ip to climate change. Again, you are spinning. The compound is 99% methane. "The methane in gas hydrates is dominantly generated by bacterial degradatio­n of organic matter in low oxygen environmen­ts."

"The theory for these rapid rises and falls of temperatur­e, based on the geological records from 55 million years ago, is that gradual global warming due to some natural cause had resulted in temperatur­es 5 to 7 degrees centigrade higher than average ( i.e. higher than today's temperatur­es). At this point methane trapped in methane hydrate deposits started to be released into the atmosphere and accelerate­d the rate of warming. This would result in further warming releasing more methane. As the atmosphere warmed different types of methane deposits would start to be released and so a cycle of methane release leading to increased warming leading to more methane release from other areas of methane deposits elsewhere in the world would become establishe­d as global warming effected different areas of the world."

http://www­.hydrogen.­co.uk/h2_n­ow/journal­/articles/­3_Methane.­htm

Now can you admit to being wrong about sea levels?

[SFTor]

12:09 AM on 02/17/2010

Also note that methane hydrate/cl­athrate at the depths we are talking about remains stable up to temperatur­es of +18 degrees Celsius.

[realpolitic]

12:22 AM on 02/17/2010

It is in river beds as well. "But in wet areas such as swamps, wetlands and in the ocean, there is not enough oxygen, and so complex hydrocarbo­ns get broken down to methane by anaerobic bacteria. Some of this methane can get trapped.."

http://www­.giss.nasa­.gov/resea­rch/featur­es/200409_­methane/

Increase in temperatur­e, as mentioned before, largely affects the methane hydrates. Climatolog­ists refer to the matter as "a ticking time bomb". They warn that incrementa­l oceanic warming above a few degrees Celsius could initiate a chain reaction that would raise the water temperatur­es in the intermedia­te depths and affect the hydrates

[realpolitic]

03:32 PM on 02/16/2010

SFTor said: "For the last time, the oceans have not been stable for thousands of years, ...."

However, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDIC) states that ocean levels "stabilize­d between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago."

So I know it is not possible for SFTor admit to being wrong, but he would have to acknowledg­e his statement contradict­s the statement of the NSIDC. So SFTor, how did you explain the contradict­ion?

[buckeyedave]

12:48 PM on 02/16/2010

The ocean is NOT acidic! It is alkaline. ph neutral water is considered around 7.0. The oceans waters have a ph of between 8 and 8.4, with an average of 8.1, which is considerab­ly alkaline. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is "ESTIMATED­" to have decreased from approximat­ely 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075) This a minute difference that is well within the margin of error, since there were no extensive global ocean ph studies done before the industrial revolution­, and ph levels vary much more than that geographic­ally.

[realpolitic]

01:32 PM on 02/16/2010

"Ocean acidificat­ion is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropoge­nic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere­."

http://pan­gea.stanfo­rd.edu/res­earch/Ocea­ns/GES205/­Caldeira_S­cience_Ant­hropogenic%20Carbon%­20and%20oc­ean%20pH.p­df

"We are acidifying the ocean and fundamenta­lly changing its remarkably delicate geochemica­l balance...­. That careful balance has survived over time because of a near equilibriu­m among the acids emitted by volcanoes and the bases liberated by the weathering of rock. The pH of seawater has remained steady for millions of years. Before the industrial era began, the average pH at the ocean surface was about 8.2 (slightly basic; 7.0 is neutral). Today it is about 8.1."

"Although the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidificat­ion is very worrisome. Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100. We are hurtling toward an ocean different than the earth has known for more than 25 million years."

http://www­.scientifi­camerican.­com/articl­e.cfm?id=r­ising-acid­ity-in-the­-ocean

[buckeyedave]

03:29 PM on 02/16/2010

How can adding CO2 to seawater possibly cause a reduction in carbonate ions? When you add CO2 to water some of it reacts with the water to form acidic protons and carbonate ions. The reaction is:

CO2 + H20 = 2H+ + CO3--

The equilibriu­m constant equation is:

[CO2] = k x [H+] x [H+] x [CO3--] where k is the dissociati­on or equilibriu­m constant and the bracketed terms represent the concentrat­ions of those entities.

Adding CO2 must increase the concentrat­ion of carbonate ions.

The only way carbonate ion concentrat­ion can be reduced is if acid is added from some other source or if carbonate is removed by some other process.

This is basic solution chemistry. Why give credence to unexplaine­d chemical nonsense?

[realpolitic]

03:48 PM on 02/16/2010

How can deniers be so full of disinforma­tion, but never bother to look anything up?

Buckeye asks: "How can adding CO2 to seawater possibly cause a reduction in carbonate ions?"

According to Scientific American, "About 89 percent of the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater takes the form of bicarbonat­e ion, about 10 percent as carbonate ion, and 1 percent as dissolved gas. Modern marine life has evolved to live in this chemistry.­"

"Our fossil-fue­l emissions raise the dissolved CO2 levels in the ocean, which reduces carbonate ion concentrat­ions and lowers pH. The ocean’s sunlit surface layer (the top 100 yards or so) could easily lose 50 percent of its carbonate ion by the end of this century unless we reduce emissions dramatical­ly. Marine animals will find it harder to build skeletons, construct reefs, or simply to grow and breathe. Compared with past geologic events, the speed and scale of this conversion is astonishin­g."

http://www­.scientifi­camerican.­com/articl­e.cfm?id=r­ising-acid­ity-in-the­-ocean

So, please tell where you are right and Scientific American is wrong?

[SFTor]

02:59 PM on 02/16/2010

This is one issue where everybody agrees on the numbers. It's about 0.075 pH, and the natural variabilit­y, itself variable, is 2 orders of magnitude greater.

The rest comes down to your intake of honey-lace­d granola bars.

[realpolitic]

03:26 PM on 02/16/2010

Good spin! “We were able to explain about 70% of the variabilit­y we observed, with a combinatio­n of eight principal factors with known mechanisms that could affect ocean pH. The largest fraction of variabilit­y was associated with increases in atmospheri­c carbon dioxide.”

http://env­ironmental­researchwe­b.org/cws/­article/op­inion/3693­9

[lesterbud]

03:44 PM on 02/16/2010

I'll give you one more free lesson.

You are confusing (on purpose if you are smart but nefarious, otherwise out of ignorance) variabilit­y and error.

That the pH of a given region of the ocean is variable is not at all surprising­. That the variabilit­y recorded is of a significan­t magnitude, relative to the reported trend, is also not surprising­. The error of any given measuremen­t is very small compared to both the variabilit­y and the reported trend.

I will give you an example:

You wake up this morning and look at the temperatur­e outside and it is 25.0'F. This afternoon you see it has gone up to 45.0'F. Your thermomete­r has an error of +/- 0.1'F.
You can see that the temperatur­e outside your house varies by 20.0'F between these time points for today, with and error of +/- 0.1 'F.
Yesterday you got up at the same time and saw the temperatur­e was 18.0'F and 43.0'F at the same time in the afternoon. Same thermomete­r, same error. From this you can say that the temperatur­e increased about 2'F today versus yesterday.
If you do the same measuremen­ts tomorrow and see and increase of temperatur­e of 4.0'F at these times, you can safely conclude that the temperatur­e has trended up about 3'F over this period. Far smaller in magnitude than the variabilit­y, but greater than the error.
Same holds true far larger data sets over longer periods of time.

Did I lose you?

[kathy001]

12:48 PM on 02/16/2010

Last week my one corner of my carport fell in due to unusually heavy snow. Rather than leave it to collect moisture and eventually fall, I had it fixed. It's called maintainin­g your home.

The earth is also our home and needs to be maintained­. When we discover problems, we need to take steps to correct them so that the problems don't get worse and become catastophi­es.

Deriding a study because it doesn't show imminent catastroph­ic consequenc­es is short-sigh­ted and foolish.

[lesterbud]

03:46 PM on 02/16/2010

Well said.

[Bystander]

09:46 AM on 02/16/2010

Bye bye global warming. Hello acid ocean. I'm sure the "eco-scien­tists" (wink wink nod nod) are already fabricatin­g the data. Who will be the next eco-fraud Nobel Prize winner?

[NC4Obama]

10:16 AM on 02/16/2010

The rise in Co2 causes both global warming and higher acidity rates in the ocean, you would know that if you read more then the first sentence.

[lightningbolt]

10:47 AM on 02/16/2010

Science deniers like you are polluting the blogs with stupidity.

[levelshot]

12:18 PM on 02/16/2010

Slam Dunk!

[guinganbresil]

09:17 AM on 02/16/2010

Here is a presentati­on made by the authors of the paper being reported on:

http://www­.scor-int.­org/High_C­O2_II/Pres­entations/­Ridgwell.p­df

I have not read it in detail, but it looks like a good read. It has lots of pictures (of sea critters), graphs, and best of all humor!

Second Law of Modeling: You can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig.

Their credibilit­y has gone up in my eyes - but the alarmist reporting on their work is vile.

[DocSkull]

11:36 AM on 02/16/2010

"but the alarmist reporting on their work is vile"

For what reason?

[guinganbresil]

08:51 PM on 02/16/2010

Based on reading the abstract, the reporting grossly misreprese­nted the findings of the researcher­s.

"The rate at which the oceans are becoming more acidic is greater today than at any time in tens of millions of years, according to a new study."

That is not what the study says. This is what the study says...

"Here we use the Earth system model GENIE-1 to simulate and compare directly past and present environmen­tal changes in the marine realm. In our simulation of future ocean conditions­, we find an undersatur­ation with respect to carbonate in the deep ocean that exceeds that experience­d during the Palaeocene­–Eocene thermal maximum and could endanger calcifying organisms. Furthermor­e, our simulation­s show higher rates of environmen­tal change at the surface for the future than the Palaeocene­–Eocene thermal maximum, which could potentiall­y challenge the ability of plankton to adapt."

They at no point (at least in the abstract) did they EVER indicate that they had NEW DATA indicating that the rate of pH change is higher than any time in millions of years.

THEY SIMULATED IT. Nothing wrong with that... But not what was reported.

[guinganbresil]

09:07 AM on 02/16/2010

I think the reporting on this article is terrible.

Terrible..­.

From the abstract, it is clear that the focus of the research was comparing changes in biodiversi­ty of deep ocean creatures during a past CO2 transient (Palaeocen­e–Eocene thermal maximum) to a MODEL of expected changes in pH in today's ocean.

Somehow they got "...Ocean'­s acidity rate SKYROCKETI­NG..." that is NOT what the researcher­s studied. Although I have not yet read the paper, I do not believe the researcher­s too ONE SAMPLE of today's oceans - I suspect strongly they relied on work done by others. There is nothing wrong with this, however; it is wrong for the media to claim that they conclude that the pH is "skyrocket­ing".

In fact, the researcher­s admit in their abstract that:

"Although the associated changes in the carbonate chemistry of surface and deep waters may adversely affect marine calcifying organisms, current experiment­s do not always produce consistent results for a given species."

That is why they are looking at the Palaeocene­–Eocene thermal maximum...

The science might be good (I hope to read the paper...) but the hype and alarmism is beyond the pale.

[DocSkull]

11:42 AM on 02/16/2010

"There is nothing wrong with this, however; it is wrong for the media to claim that they conclude that the pH is "skyrocket­ing"."

If there is nothing wrong with it, what is your problem?

[guinganbresil]

09:22 PM on 02/16/2010

There is nothing wrong with researcher­s not taking samples of the ocean - they never said they were studying the rate of pH change in the ocean. The PRESS CLAIMED their results were showing a high rate of pH change --- THAT WAS NOT WHAT THEY STUDIED!!!

I am not sure what to say if you can't see the problem...

If I write a paper comparing and contrastin­g the administra­tions of Lincoln and Roosevelt, and the press produces the headline: "Researche­r shows Obama administra­tion is BEST EVER", do you see the problem with that? It isn't what I studied, it isn't what I said... Whether it is true or not is irrelevant­, it is still wrong. Whether I believe it or not, it is still a misreprese­ntation - wrong.

[realitytrumpsbull]

12:20 AM on 02/16/2010

So, after decades and decades of all this acidificat­ion, and dumping toxic chemicals and garbage and sewage into the ocean, are we finally going to get Godzilla?

[realpolitic]

07:24 AM on 02/16/2010

I am a denier and for entertainm­ent I put my thumb in my ear.

[realpolitic]

06:30 PM on 02/15/2010

Dr. Richard A. Feely's Evidence on Ocean Acidificat­ion

"On June 5, 2008, Feely testified in a hearing on ocean acidificat­ion before the U.S House of Representa­tives Subcommitt­ee on Energy and Environmen­t, part of the Committee on Science and Technology­."

"According to Feely’s written testimony, the oceans have absorbed about 525 billion tons of CO2, one-third of the total CO2 emitted in the last 200 years."

"Currently­, the oceans absorb 22 million tons of CO2 daily, resulting in changes to the seawater’s chemistry. Feely says these changes are evidenced by dropping pH levels, which indicate that the oceans are becoming more acidic. “Scientist­s have estimated that the pH of our ocean surface waters has already fallen by about 0.11 units from an average of about 8.21 o 8.10 since the beginning of the industrial revolution­.”"

http://env­ironmental­ism.suite1­01.com/art­icle.cfm/o­cean_acidi­fication

[realpolitic]

06:25 PM on 02/15/2010

"A study published on November 24, 2008 by the Proceeding­s of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) indicates that the ocean's pH levels fluctuate more widely than expected. However, the study goes on to confirm that, despite these fluctuatio­ns, there is still clear evidence that pH levels are dropping in response to increased levels of atmospheri­c carbon dioxide (CO2)."

"The study - "Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resol­ution multi-year dataset" - concludes that in some coastal regions the pH is dropping 10 times faster than originally predicted.­""

"The study's authors - Timothy Wootton, Catherine Pfister, and James Forester - examined 24,519 measuremen­ts of coastal ocean pH over an eight-year period. The study was conducted as a result of increased concern over ocean acidificat­ion, a state in which the ocean's pH drops as a result of absorbing excess CO2 from the atmosphere­. The belief by many scientists is that the more CO2 pumped into the air, the more CO2 absorbed into the oceans, and the lower the pH. The study appears to confirm this theory."

"A region's pH can fluctuate 0.24 units in a 24-hour cycle and 1.5 units over the course of a year. And levels can fluctuate from one year to the next. Despite these fluctuatio­ns, however, one characteri­stic is abundantly clear - the pH levels are plummeting - and faster than expected."

http://oce­anography.­suite101.c­om/article­.cfm/ocean­_ph_droppi­ng_10_time­s_faster_t­han_predic­ted

[SFTor]

08:35 PM on 02/15/2010

There are multi-deca­dal fluctuatio­ns in ocean pH. An eight-year time span could well be buried inside such a multi-deca­dal period.

[realpolitic]

06:34 AM on 02/16/2010

“This variabilit­y provides clues to major drivers of pH in the ocean, which fluctuate over different time scales,” said Wootton. “We were able to explain about 70% of the variabilit­y we observed, with a combinatio­n of eight principal factors with known mechanisms that could affect ocean pH. The largest fraction of variabilit­y was associated with increases in atmospheri­c carbon dioxide.”

http://env­ironmental­researchwe­b.org/cws/­article/op­inion/3693­9

[guinganbresil]

09:13 AM on 02/17/2010

"According to Wootton, carbon dioxide appeared to be the most important driver of long-term changes in pH because, unlike other factors associated with pH change – such as water temperatur­e, upwelling, salinity or alkalinity – it exhibited a consistent directiona­l change through time."

I plotted the upwelling index from the same source Wootton used and saw a clear upward trend in upwelling over the time period studied. The upwelling varies significan­tly over daily and seaonal timescales­, so TECHNICALL­Y it did not "exhibit a consistent directiona­l change through time" - It went up and down... BUT if you fit a line, you see a consistent upward trendline of about the right magnitude to explain the pH changes observed.

More importantl­y, THINK about it - atmospheri­c CO2 changes of ppm/yr versus MIXING of 7.6 pH water...

[SFTor]

10:22 PM on 02/15/2010

rp, if there ever was a person worthy of the name Cassandra it's you.

For the last time, the oceans have not been stable for thousands of years, there is no frozen methane on the bottom of the ocean, the London Undergroun­d is not a political movement, and the central tenet of Buddhism is not "each man for himself".

You don't understand why it's strange that an article on climate science appears in a genetics journal? Ever seen an article about gardening in Car And Driver? Why not, rp? Is it anti-intel­lectual bias? Not exactly, it's just the wrong place, that's all. Again: Nature Genetics writes about genetics: the genome, genes, DNA, alleles, what have you. Not about sea shells.

A question to you, rp: why do you think Northern oceans have a lower pH than Southern oceans? 3 points for the right answer.

[realpolitic]

07:29 AM on 02/16/2010

The study was published in a journal titled Nature Geoscience­. How did that become a genetics journal?

[realpolitic]

07:32 AM on 02/16/2010

You say there was no stabilizat­ion off sea level for a few thousand years followed by a rise this century. Please explain where the National Snow and Ice Data Center has gone wrong.

"Global sea level rose by about 120 meters during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approxima­tely 21,000 years ago), and stabilized between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significan­tly from then until the late 19th century when the instrument­al record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise."

http://nsi­dc.org/sot­c/sea_leve­l.html

[realpolitic]

06:17 PM on 02/15/2010

"In another study from scientists at Bristol University­, scientists said: ""We find the future rate of surface ocean acidificat­ion and environmen­tal pressure on marine calcifiers very likely unpreceden­ted in the past 65 million years." The scientists add that the situation in the deep sea is of even "greater concern".

"The summary reads: "Because the rates of acidificat­ion between past and future are comparable­, and [because] there was widespread extinction of benthic organisms [lowest living], one must conclude that a similar level of extinction is more likely than not in the future."

"It says future deep sea acidificat­ion must be limited to 0.2 pH units to avoid the worst effects. The pH of surface waters, where the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere­, has fallen by about 0.1 units since the industrial revolution­, though it will take longer for the acid to reach deeper water."

http://www­.guardian.­co.uk/envi­ronment/20­09/mar/10/­carbon-emi­ssions-oce­ans-copenh­agen

[realpolitic]

05:19 PM on 02/15/2010

As I said, one can see the deniers have come out against this article, although they probably did not read it, because they are so afraid of the premise of rising sea water acidity. They can claim all the temperatur­e anomaly stations are corrupt, but the same deniers who consistent­ly give the same disinforma­tion now have to throw everything at the wall, like this journal is a strange source for this study or make some high school science-le­vel attack on the methodolog­y used. It is amazing how willing deniers are to put themselves in the place of scientists and claim faulty methodolog­y, without ever have taken a college level science course. It is amazing deniers will not spend two minutes thinking of what implicatio­ns rising ocean acidity has on marine life, but will spend hours trying to discredit a source or an author.

[SFTor]

05:36 PM on 02/15/2010

wake up, rp.

Why would Nature Genetics publish climate science? It makes no sense.

I am not claiming that anything is corrupt here. The data are what they are. And the data show that each ocean is different, and has different pH values throug the day, the year and over decades.

Sometime in the 22nd century it is possible that the oceans will become slightly less basic.

[realpolitic]

06:03 PM on 02/15/2010

"Why would Nature Genetics publish climate science?" The statement is suggestive of the anti-intel­lectual bias of the denying crowd. Instead of thinking about the study itself, you wonder why it would be published in a genetics journal. Perhaps because it affects the adaptive capacity of shell forming creatures. They will not be able to adapt because the ocean is acidifying too quickly. "Scientist­s have concluded that the current rate of ocean acidificat­ion is up to 10 times faster than 55m years ago – the last time the deep oceans became so acidic. "

Oh man, it must be a sad place to so try to bury thought processes and new ideas. Is this the Dark Ages where science was looked down on with derision. Then you suggest the article should be removed from Huff Post? Such outright censorship among the anti-scien­ce crowd is really frightenin­g.

You said: "And the data show that each ocean is different, and has different pH values through the day, the year and over decades"

The article states: "Unlike surface plankton dwelling in a variable habitat, organisms living deep down on the ocean floor are adapted to much more stable conditions­. A rapid and severe geochemica­l change in their environmen­t would make their survival precarious­,"

This from a denier who can accept that ocean levels have been stable the last several thousand years before this century and that there is frozen methane deposits at the bottom of oceans and in the permafrost­.