Arctic Ocean 'acidifying rapidly'

[dorlomin]

The Arctic seas are being made rapidly more acidic by carbon-dioxide emissions, according to a new report.

Scientists from Norway's Center for International Climate and Environmental Research monitored widespread changes in ocean chemistry in the region.

They say even if CO2 emissions stopped now, it would take tens of thousands of years for Arctic Ocean chemistry to revert to pre-industrial levels.

Many creatures, including commercially valuable fish, could be affected.

They forecast major changes in the marine ecosystem, but say there is huge uncertainty over what those changes will be.

It is well know that CO2 warms the planet, but less well-known that it also makes the alkaline seas more acidic when its absorbed from the air.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22408341

[ChrisReynolds]

If we were trying to precipitate a total collapse of ocean ecosystems I don't think we could have devised a better plan.

Horizon - Death Of The Oceans.

[frankendoodle]

If we were trying to precipitate a total collapse of ocean ecosystems I don't think we could have devised a better plan.

I don't know if that's fair Chris. If you leave out the bleaching of coral reefs, the die off of reef flora/fauna due to loss of habitat, crustaceans unable to generate their shells, massive loss of apex predators, plankton die off, krill die off and a far more hostile environment to nascent marine creatures due to chemical/heat/carbon pollution thus breaking many creatures mating cycles; then the oceans are doing pretty well

[Bruce Steele]

Frankendoodle, The latest is foraminifera will follow extinction patterns of the PETM . The projections are based on BAU and starting within 80 years. I posted links on the science page. Some days there are research papers that show resilience of certain species, today's news ...   

[ChrisReynolds]

Frankendoodle,

I think the only rational response is black humour. 

Foraminifera:
I swear I have a paper somewhere that finds the decline in these organisms in the Mid Atlantic (?) is as great since the 1950s as was probably the case during the whole PETM. NB - talking surface not benthic if I recall correctly.

[Anonymouse]

Wow, Chris,
Thanks for my daily dose of despair  ....
OTOH, thank you for the Horizon link, very informative and useful. I will forward it to at least one of my favorite local deniers. Keep on truckin'...

[wili]

Since this is, after all, an Arctic Sea Ice Forum, I was wondering if anyone knew how acidification of sea water by carbonic might effect ice formation and melt? I could find nothing on the web in my first feeble attempts. (This is not, of course, to downplay the role it is likely to have on the food chain there.)

[Richard Rathbone]

Since this is, after all, an Arctic Sea Ice Forum, I was wondering if anyone knew how acidification of sea water by carbonic might effect ice formation and melt? I could find nothing on the web in my first feeble attempts. (This is not, of course, to downplay the role it is likely to have on the food chain there.)

The effect from changes in the quantity of dissolved species would be of the order of one millionth of a degree change in the melting point. You'd need to find a biological influence on ice formation or melt for it to interact with for anything noticeable to result.

[Bruce Steele]

Chris, there was a paper by Boyce and Worm 2010 in nature that claimed a long term decrease in phytoplankton but other long term time series ,continuous plankton recorder (CPR), Hawaii ocean time series( HOTS ), Bermuda time series ( BATS ) , and CALCOFI all show an increase in phytoplankton in the last 20-50 years.   The more recent paper on predicted foraminifera extinctions projected what will happen as tropical waters reach ( pH at 7.9 ) as they continue to acidify. We are still a few decades away. We are a few decades away from extinctions similar to foraminifera extinctions during the PETM.                                                                                                                                            http://c-can.msi.ucsb.edu/news/high-risk-of-extinction-of-benthic-foraminifera-in-this-century-due-to-ocean-acidification?searchterm=foram
http://spg.ucsd.edu/people/Mati/2011_McQuatters_et_al_Nature_09950.pdf

[ChrisReynolds]

Thanks Bruce,

It must be the Boyce paper, since I have a copy. I've got so many papers it can be hard to find things I've read unless they're in my main field of interest: Arctic sea ice.

Actually I think I've found the article that's the root of my previous understanding.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/29/206497/nature-decline-ocean-phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/
And I can recall not really being able to figure out how that claim tallied with the Boyce paper.

[Ice Cool Kim]

It is well know that CO2 warms the planet, but less well-known that it also makes the alkaline seas more acidic when its absorbed from the air.

Something can not become "more acidic" if it is not acidic to start with.

What they should state is that it is becoming less alkaline, possibly, one could say more neutral.

The oceans never have been and never will be "acidic".

Mind you,  science literacy never was strong point in climate reporting at the BBC, where they have adopted an official policy not to abide by their legal obligations of neutrality on climate reporting.

[Peter Ellis]

Something can not become "more acidic" if it is not acidic to start with.

A child can't ever get taller, only less short.  One whisper can't be louder than another, only less quiet.  You can't edit your post to be more intelligent, only less stupid.

[Jim Pettit]

It is well know that CO2 warms the planet, but less well-known that it also makes the alkaline seas more acidic when its absorbed from the air.

Something can not become "more acidic" if it is not acidic to start with.

What they should state is that it is becoming less alkaline, possibly, one could say more neutral.

The oceans never have been and never will be "acidic".

Mind you,  science literacy never was strong point in climate reporting at the BBC, where they have adopted an official policy not to abide by their legal obligations of neutrality on climate reporting.

Yeah, I remember Watts and some of the other denialist geniuses out there rambling on and on about this some time ago. It's an argument akin to demanding that instead of saying the planet is warming, we must say it's becoming less cool. But in point of fact, Watts and those denialists--and you, I'm afraid--are simply wrong.

The oceans are, indeed, alkaline, as they have a pH above 7. Before we started pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the environment, that pH was about 8.2; since then, that number has dropped about 0.1 units, which reflects a 26% gain in acidity. IOW, the oceans are being acidified. I suppose the painful truth means it might be more comfortable for some to call that a decrease in alkalinity. But I prefer to refer to it the same way chemists do.

[Ice Cool Kim]

since then, that number has dropped about 0.1 units, which reflects a 26% gain in acidity.

Could you explain how you get to 26% and what units of "acidity" this refers to?

[DrTskoul]

It is well know that CO2 warms the planet, but less well-known that it also makes the alkaline seas more acidic when its absorbed from the air.

Something can not become "more acidic" if it is not acidic to start with.

What they should state is that it is becoming less alkaline, possibly, one could say more neutral.

The oceans never have been and never will be "acidic".

Mind you,  science literacy never was strong point in climate reporting at the BBC, where they have adopted an official policy not to abide by their legal obligations of neutrality on climate reporting.

Are you speaking as scientific literate yourself? How would you else describe the reduction of the pH which is the negative logarithm (base 10) of the proton (H+) concentration?  Increasing H+ concentration makes something more 'acidic" or "less basic". As well known pH is antithetical to pOH (14 - pOH at normal conditions for pure water). Do not throw stones in a glass house.

[Ice Cool Kim]

As well known pH is antithetical to pOH (14 - pOH at normal conditions for pure water).

Indeed, so something that has equal pH = pOH = 7 is neutral, neither acidic nor basic.

Brine is alkaline and can only be more or less alkaline. Saying it is becoming more acid is like saying someone driving backwards a 20 mph who slows to 10mph is advancing quicker. It's perverse.

It's a word game. OMG the alkaline seas are becoming more acidic. Saying they are becoming less alkaline does not have the same impact.

Enough on that.

[Bruce Steele]

ICK,  I am a fisherman. I also have been very outspoken about the threat of ocean acidification. I have tried to warn of an impending change in ocean pH that will have impacts on the viability of important fisheries worldwide. I try to communicate my concerns with other fishermen, fisheries regulatory agencies, water quality agencies, and the public via a NOAA advisory agency. In over eight years of explaining ocean acidification to the public I have never had problems with the term "acidification." The public gets that part. I get a lot more resistance when I explain that acidification events in the past have resulted in extinction events.   So could I ask a question about whether you think arguing about semantics is more important than trying to present a reasonable explanation to people who are willing to think about the risks involved?   You can take this over to the carbon cycle page if you would like. 

[Neven]

It's a word game.

Exactly, but the game doesn't change the fact that the direction of developments isn't good for aquatic life, and that we depend on that aquatic life. Which you, as a self-proclaimed environmentalist, know very well of course.

Enough on that.

Couldn't agree more. No word games.

[ChrisReynolds]

If the ocean is becoming less alkaline it is acidifying with respect to the ecosystems used to its previous pH.

What a waste of space. 

[Whit]

It is well know that CO2 warms the planet, but less well-known that it also makes the alkaline seas more acidic when its absorbed from the air.

Something can not become "more acidic" if it is not acidic to start with.

What they should state is that it is becoming less alkaline, possibly, one could say more neutral.

The oceans never have been and never will be "acidic".

Mind you,  science literacy never was strong point in climate reporting at the BBC, where they have adopted an official policy not to abide by their legal obligations of neutrality on climate reporting.

You suggest more neutral as nomenclature, while calling the correct use of the term acidification a word game?

Less alkaline or more acidic are in fact synonyms. The word games are the ones that are usually being performed by less than knowledgeable "skeptics" or pure bullshit-artists (as defined by Harry Frankfurt). Why you are echoing this semantic pedantry is a mystery, as the labels we put on the process is completely irrelevant to the outcome.

The facts are clear. Whether we call the process of lowering the oceans pH de-alkalinisation or acidification is irrelevant. The reduction in ocean pH is faster than any other event we know of, and the chemical processes behind them are well known.

The entire point of claiming the oceans aren't acidifying is to belittle the huge problems several oceanic foodwebs will be facing. We have clear parallels in freshwater systems, where trout, charr and salmon have been eradicated completely in huge areas in southern Norway. Not only did trout disappear. Their main food, small crustaceans and several species of aquatic insects disappeared much earlier than the fish were unable to breed successfully. Fish growth was stunted, both due to lack of food, but also due to changes in water-chemistry. We are still fighting this problem, long after acid rain was reduced. The only solution seems to be adding chalk to the water, year in and year out. And we probably have to keep at for decades to come. We have seen the destruction of entire ecosystems caused by acidification. That is why the term carries such weight.

I am sorry for piling on but this issue provokes me. The word game is one of denial of the underlying chemical process and the inherent dangers to most major ecosystems on the planet. It is being performed on blogs, by politicians, and is clearly reverberating through the internet and in other media.

The mass extinction we are laying the ground for by changing the compostion of the atmosphere and oceans will be of cataclysmic proportions long before the oceans become acidic. They are still acidifying, and the problems persists, no matter what we call the process. If the process stops at an average ocean pH of 7.6 the oceans are still alkaline. And the mass-extinction event caused by such an acidification will be inevitable.

Word-games indeed.

[vox_mundi]

This doesn't sound good; and there's a lot more in the pipeline ...

Alterations To Seabed Raise Fears for Future

The ocean floor as we know it is dissolving rapidly as a result of human activity.

Normally the deep sea bottom is a chalky white. It's composed, to a large extent, of the mineral calcite (CaCO3) formed from the skeletons and shells of many planktonic organisms and corals. The seafloor plays a crucial role in controlling the degree of ocean acidification. The dissolution of calcite neutralizes the acidity of the CO2, and in the process prevents seawater from becoming too acidic.

But these days, at least in certain hotspots such as the Northern Atlantic and the southern Oceans, the ocean's chalky bed is becoming more of a murky brown. As a result of human activities the level of CO2 in the water is so high, and the water is so acidic, that the calcite is simply being dissolved.

The McGill-led research team who published their results this week in a study in PNAS believe that what they are seeing today is only a foretaste of the way that the ocean floor will most likely be affected in future. 

Olivier Sulpis et al, Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018) 

[Ktb]

It has been mentioned in other threads but I feel it pertinent to bring up once again:

The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History has an entire chapter on ocean acidification. We have seen that as oceans become more acidic, the species counts drop exponentially. This has been measured directly by studying thermal vents that produce CO₂ and the species that are within certain ranges of those vents.
So in layman's terms: as the ocean becomes more acidic, less species live there.

[magnamentis]

thanks for the chuckle and enlightenment gathered from this page recently.

it's so much showing the greatest problem of humanity when it comes to tackle real world problems, we humans have big issues to agree on terms even when we agree on what is meant and/or the facts in question.

politics are greeting, listening to parliament debates where everyone is saying "no but" and then is repeating the same thing. (not 100% but very very often)

after all i learned to chuckle quite a bit and enjoy the positive parts of any exchange as long as no rudeness finds place.

[sark]

Welcome to the Cretaceous 2

[Shared Humanity]

Since we are doing very little to reduce CO2 emissions currently and I expect this to continue for a couple more decades, geoengineering (Goddess help us!)is our future. Looks like we will be mining a lot of Calcite.

http://www.softschools.com/facts/geology/calcite_facts/374/

[Bruce Steele]

Sorry SH but the shoaling rate of the calcite compensation depth will continue at it's current 4 meters per year for centuries not decades. All the carbon released as the existing deep water calcium carbonate dissolves will be labile DIC and will have the opportunity to reenter the atmosphere when it is upwelled in the Eastern Tropical Pacific in the following thousand year time period. Unless the atmospheric CO2 returns to 280 ppm the compensation depth will shoal. Even after the atmospheric CO2 returns to preindustrial levels it will take up to 100,000 years for terrestrially supplied alkalinity to be carried back into the oceans in quantity enough to push the compensation depth back where it was 200 years ago.
 It is the rate of CO2 emissions that drive ocean acidification and the current rate of CO2 emissions and acidification are unpresidented. If we keep it up long enough we threaten to unleash positive feedbacks that will nail down trigger and kill mechanisms for a vast percentage of ALL life on earth...
 Yea us !  Not feeling so empathetic to a creature that willing wreaks such havoc. Us
 

[DrTskoul]

Sorry but mining will create more CO2 emissions that the once you hope to abate...

[Phil.]

since then, that number has dropped about 0.1 units, which reflects a 26% gain in acidity.

Could you explain how you get to 26% and what units of "acidity" this refers to?

It refers to the H+ concentration, pH is -log([H+]), to become more acidic means to increase the hydrogen ion concentration.  An reduction in pH of 0.1 means that the concentration has increased by 26%.  To go from pH 8 to 7 is to increase [H+] by a factor of 10. 
A solution is neutral when [H+]=[OH-], this is pH=7 at 25ºC, and pH=7.47 at 0ºC

[sidd]

10^(0.1)=1.26

sidd

[sark]

that's a lot of disalkalescence

[Sterks]

Well, the pH is a logarithmic scale for a good reason (one can get extremely acid or alcaline mixtures in the lab, and reaction equilibria can vary slowly or wildly as they depend on exponential parameters). But I would think that life is pretty sensible to tiny changes in acidity.
Humans may seem pretty resilient to acidity in their body, but the tiny blood acidification that happens to diabetics due to chronic hyperglycemic blood can end your vessel walls basically 20 or 30 years too early.

[SteveMDFP]

Well, the pH is a logarithmic scale for a good reason (one can get extremely acid or alcaline mixtures in the lab, and reaction equilibria can vary slowly or wildly as they depend on exponential parameters). But I would think that life is pretty sensible to tiny changes in acidity.
Humans may seem pretty resilient to acidity in their body, but the tiny blood acidification that happens to diabetics due to chronic hyperglycemic blood can end your vessel walls basically 20 or 30 years too early.

Yes, normal blood pH is tightly regulated between 7.35 and 7.45.  Mammals essential keep a modified ancient seawater bathing all our cells constantly with our bloodstream. 

Chronic metabolic acidosis can play havoc with metabolism.  Diabetes doesn't generally cause metabolic acidosis, the accelerated atherosclerosis has a different mechanism.  Our kidneys typically have to excrete a lot of acidity, so renal insufficiency is a fairly common cause of metabolic acidosis.  One of the prime symptoms is, essentially, slowly dissolving bones. 

Just as acidity in the oceans dissolves carbonate minerals, the same thing can happen in our bodies.

[Bruce Steele]

https://www.biogeosciences.net/6/2661/2009/bg-6-2661-2009.pdf

Aragonite saturation horizon shoaling at 4 meters per year
" Based on this rate of shoaling and the local hypsography each year 800 square kilometers of sea floor becomes exposed to waters that have become undersaturated with respect to aragonite."

This is the only paper I remember that tries to quantify the area of ocean floor that is annually exposed to undersaturated conditions. It is for the Iceland Sea. It would be interesting to see the worldwide numbers and some sort of qualification of the amount of the calcite oozes lost per year. And how much carbon is returned into the DIC pool.

[Bruce Steele]

Current calcite dissolution at the sea floor caused by anthropogenic CO2.

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/ocads/oceans/ndp_099/ndp099.html

[Feeltheburn]

I read recently that there is not enough fossil fuel to create the necessary CO2 required to dissolve all the calcite at the bottom of the ocean. So rest assured the oceans ability to hold CO2 and buffer pH are intact. On the other hand if ocean temps are warming they will expel CO2 through a shift in solubility, which will raise the pH and form more calcite.

[Bruce Steele]

Feel the Burn, There is plenty of info out there on what happens if we burn all the proven reserves or burn all the proven reserves and add in unconventional hydrocarbon. Caldeira and Wickett 2003 or other Caldeira work. Here is some reading for you.
http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/ocean_acid/Caldeira%20and%20Wickett%202005.pdf

If you start to look at potential carbon releases from peat burning, tundra carbon releases as it warms, permafrost carbon stores, Arctic lakes, Antarctic carbon stores, Amazon burning,etc. you might begin to worry about how the ocean fares as earth responds to our recklessness.
 We are already seeing biological impacts from a .1 pH surface ocean shift. That in combination with ocean heat absorption will destroy most of the earth coral reef systems. I don't know if I can explain this to people willing to listen let alone the vast majority of humans who view the ocean and it's processes as a total mystery. I am no mental giant, I just wanted to understand better how the ocean works. Now I am better informed and very sad . Too bad for me.
 Maybe you think as I do we will not burn all the carbon stores because we will never be able to economically get it all out. The buried carbon stores I mentioned above will continue emitting  for a very long time after civilization crashes however. Quantifying the amount of carbon in those sources and what the temperature triggers are that will release them is still guesswork. When we find out the answers I am certain some people will continue to prefer ignorance.
 

[magnamentis]

I read recently that there is not enough fossil fuel to create the necessary CO2 required to dissolve all the calcite at the bottom of the ocean. So rest assured the oceans ability to hold CO2 and buffer pH are intact. On the other hand if ocean temps are warming they will expel CO2 through a shift in solubility, which will raise the pH and form more calcite.

not saying anything about whether that's true or not while i doubt that, but beside fossil fuel there are many more CO2 and other greenhouse gas producers like:

7, 8, 9 .... billion humans

cattle to feed them,

all other oxygen breathers

then the forests that would absorb a big part of CO2 are getting smaller and smaller

then the water that warms up will release more vapor and water vapor is one of the bigger greenhouse gases

etc. etc. etc.

it's a bit shortsighted IMO to simply pick out one factor, jump to an assumption and then sound like there would be no danger and that nobody should fear any consequences.

if that was not the purpose of the post, what was the purpose then, i mean what is it useful for then?

[aperson]

I read recently that there is not enough fossil fuel to create the necessary CO2 required to dissolve all the calcite at the bottom of the ocean. So rest assured the oceans ability to hold CO2 and buffer pH are intact. On the other hand if ocean temps are warming they will expel CO2 through a shift in solubility, which will raise the pH and form more calcite.

Cite your sources for your claim. There are recent sources that disagree with you, such as DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1804250115 (summary at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-seabed-future.html)

We also don't need to "dissolve all the calcite at the bottom of the ocean" to locally increase the lysocline in specific regions of the ocean, which will still have negative consequences.