Talk:Ocean acidification/Archive 1

coding format
If there's someone who is willing to assist in doing the coding format (not my forte) for the references section, I'll put in some time to citing the material as appropriate. Thanks. Arjuna 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Percent Calculation
The figure has been quoted often about the oceans having increased their acidity by 30% Could a short clarification and calculation be added into this article? Does this refer to negative the base-10 log of the concentrations?

If so, I'm clearly using the wrong number or wrong calculation in the following:

Ratio of underlying concentrations would be,

(10^(-8.104)) / (10^(-8.179)) = 10^ = 10^(0.075) = 1.1885 or so, making present day concentrations (just under) 19% higher. Could someone clarify how the "30% higher" is obtained, and, include a section highlighting this oft-quoted figure, in the article?

(I'm starting to think my calculation is correct and the problem is merely that the numbers in the wikipedia article as only as of 1994...if so, more recent numbers really should be used....if not, then again by all means, please post a corrected calculation. Either way, thanks in advance)

Added later: I've found a reference with the answer to my own question: sure enough, unfortunately, the wikipedia entry is quite out of date with the -0.075 figure from 1994; recent number are about -0.11 for the pH change, see http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080315/bob10.asp --Harel (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for calling this "acidity" at all. The postings by governments and climate entrepreneurs should not get a vote here. The scientists all agree that the 30% percent estimate is in hydrogen ion concentration (pH), not in "acidity", a calculation which should be based on a change in the acidity function. Cormagh (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

--The original reference was misquoted; the link is good as of 11/2/13...you can see for yourself. The author of the cited study claimed, to paraphrase, that by the year _2100_, they project pH will have decreased enough to result in a 30% decrease in [H3O+]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spot2112 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You mean a 30% increase in H3O+, right? 76.105.136.241 (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Factors which may mitigate ocean acidification
Projections of ocean acidification are based on the expected buildup of carbon dioxide. However, changing weather patterns could prevent parts of the ocean from becoming more acidic.


 * Well, we have more than just projections, we've already acidified the ocean to a small degree. As for the projections, the largest uncertainty by some margin is what we are going to do.  Scenarios of future CO2 emissions by necessity rely on a limited understanding of human and economic factors.  Regarding weather, the biggest change that will affect acidification is ocean warming itself (already observed).  As well as reducing the amount of CO2 surface waters can hold, warming will tend to stratify the ocean vertically, reducing the quantity of anthro CO2 that makes it to the deep ocean.  While this decreases (temporarily) the acidification of the deep ocean, it increases climate change in the meantime.  --Plumbago 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've got to stop this sloppiness in the terminology. Its NOT ocean acidification. Its the reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans. The thing is if people could "THINK" it wouldn't matter if we used these colloquially sloppy definitions. But people can't think and so definitions are important. This concept is clearly a gyp driven only by this sloppy and misleading terminology. No-one could get excited about a tiny move towards neutrality and non-corrosiveness.

I suggest this experiment: Place some eggshell(calcium carbonate) in soda water (super-concentrated CO2 water far greater than the oceans could EVER become), now wait a few months and see if the eggshell "dissolves".. Betcha it don't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.75.185 (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution.

Aqueous solutions at 25 ℃ with a pH less than seven are considered acidic, while those with a pH greater than seven are considered basic (alkaline).

The pH of 7.00 is considered neutral at 25 ℃ because at this pH the concentration of H3O+ approximately equals the concentration of OH− in pure water.”

So sayeth wiki. And we never ought deviate from this clear understanding.

Now it wouldn’t MATTER that we deviated colloquollially. ACIDIFICATION is a word that comes ‘trippingly off the tongue” whereas ALKALINITY might get some tongue-tied.

It wouldn’t matter. But as we have seen there are some people who simply cannot think.

And so if once allowed to call things what they wish then they can play any number of word-games.

Acids below 7. Alkalines or Bases above 7.

Going from 9 to 8 is reducing the alkalinity.

Going from 5 to 4 is increasing the acidity.

Get rid of the sloppy and misleading terminology and you won’t make fools of yourselves getting worried over nothing. This is a war against irrationality and keeping your concepts clear is like keeping your powder dry. But anyhow:

“Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of -0.075)[1][2].”

Gyp or no gyp?

Particularly as we know that some fresh water has been added during that time.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Please read (and, one would hope, understand) the prior discussion on this talk page before ranting. Arjuna 05:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the world's arid areas may see more precipitation (as is already happening in parts of Australia). This has the potential to reverse acidification of seawater by flushing sodium carbonate (a common substance in desert soils) into the ocean. Another possibility is that man may leach carbonate-rich soils to make them productive for agriculture – again, much of the carbonate would enter the sea.


 * I don't believe the quantities involved can offset the scale of the CO2 perturbation. It's not strictly my field, but I've yet to see any acidification study that bothers to include minor second-order effects such as this.  In the extreme long term (1000+ years) processes such as this will mop up some of the remaining anthro CO2, but they're too minor to much offset what we're doing with CO2.  If you think about it for a moment, atmospheric pCO2 rose for ~2 centuries with very modest emissions and normal rainfall.  Now our emissions are massive (let alone future emissions ...), so even doubled rainfall is unlikely to much affect these balancing processes.  Admittedly, you're arguing that currently dry areas will become wet, so my doubling is likely an underestimate, but even so I think scale is the problem here.  Yes, this may well happen, but magnitude is what matters, and I'm not convinced this will play a significant role.  However, it's not my field, so I may be convinced with appropriate sources.  --Plumbago 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Carbonatite volcanism is another potential source of soluble carbonate. Carbonatites are igneous carbonate rocks which are scattered across continents. One active source of carbonatite is known – the Ol Doinyo Lengai volcano in Tanzania. If others erupt under seawater, their soluble carbonates will raise the pH of waters around them. Tony 09:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, scale matters - this is a minor process at best. Furthermore, as this sort of vulcanism has been going on all the time, pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 (which remained broadly constant since the end of the last ice-age) was presumably in balance with it.  So it can't play an important role in the ongoing anthro perturbation (i.e. because it's already accounted for in the natural balance).  It'd take new vulcanism to change things, and there's no reason to expect that to happen - we may be a new geological force on the Earth, but even we can't cause vulcanism.  Anyway, good points raised, but I doubt they're major processes.  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Graphs
Graphs. We need graphs dammit. Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Something that I can wheatpaste everywhere.

Graphs, dammit! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.155.34 (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

This preceeding comment was added by ME because I was too lazy to log in--Crucible Guardian 06:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Acidification
An unknown user added the following to the introductory paragraph: "Since a pH of 7 is neutral, below 7 indicates acidity and above 7 indicates alkilinity, the above-mentioned reduction is actually properly defined as reduced alkilinity rather than increased acidity." I reverted these edits, since (in addition to misspellings) it is factually incorrect. One measure of acidity is the concentration of hydrogen ions, and the documented pH reduction in ocean surface waters represents a 30% increase in hydrogen ions. Thus, it is "acidification", even if it is true that the current ocean surface pH still measures on the alkaline side of the scale. Furthermore to the extent that similar concepts are reflected in common language, as researcher Ken Caldeira has noted, a cup of hot tea left on a table is "cooling down", not "becoming less hot". Arjuna 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (minor revision Arjuna (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Arjuna: I am the unknown user and I acknowledge the typos but the addition was not factually incorrect at all, in fact it reflects standard high-school terminology. I think a short description of the pH scale is important to those unfamiliar with the term. I myself was alarmed at the 'increased acidification' until reading that the pH is still above 8. The tea analogy is not appropriate as one could easily say more neutral rather than more acidic. I added a compromise position based on your own words.
 * JG17 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)JG17


 * Sorry, changed it again. I don't think it's the most pertinent place to add this comment about ocean pH.  I've moved it lower down in the article, and edited it somewhat (quite a lot actually).  The most important part of ocean acidification is not what ocean pH is, but what is happening to it.  By prominently mentioning that ocean pH is greater than neutral, I think the previous edit might confuse readers into thinking that just because seawater's on the right side of acid, everything's OK.  Furthermore, a discussion of the pH scale is only a single click away, so readers don't necessarily need to be led by the hand.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Plumbago: I accept your changes but perhaps not so much the sentiments behind it. I thought well-presented facts were more important than opinions here: This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda pamphlet and it's best value is in it's neutrality. By one analogy, if you read Franco's revision of Spanish history you will discover that, far from decimating indiginous populations in the bloodthirsty pursuit of gold, the conquistadors apparently brought civilisation, education and much-needed religion to the savages. JG17 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 4-1-2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:90.20.203.67 (talk • contribs).


 * Erm, sorry, I don't follow. The change I made was entirely factual and neutral.  I moved the statement about what the ocean's pH is into the main body of the article as it's unnecessary for the opening paragraph.  The actual pH value of the ocean is, more or less, secondary in the article to hand.  What's significant is that it's changing (hence the article on acidification as a process).  My concern was that this significance would be lost to a non-specialist reader were the pH of seawater to be arbitrarily compared to freshwater.  Whether seawater is acid or alkaline has little bearing on acidification; adding CO2 to it will acidify it.  And I don't quite see what Franco has to do with carbonate chemistry I'm afraid.  Cheers, --Plumbago 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Plumbago: I did say I accepted the change. It was just your stated concern (here) on what readers may think that I discussed. I had exactly the same concern, but I agree the final statement is perfectly neutral. The Franco reference was about the preference of policy to facts but I admit it was over the top. Mind you, I don't know what cooling tea has to do with chemistry either. Nice talking to you. JG17 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)JG17 JG 4 January 2007


 * Thanks Plumbago, I think your edits (and comments) got it spot on. As I explained, one measure of acidity (there are many) is the concentration of hydrogen ions, which is precisely what is happening, and so use of the term is perfectly accurate in a university, research, or indeed even a high school setting. So JG's first addition about what was a proper definition was inaccurate. His comments about "propaganda" or Franco don't quite follow either. If he was alarmed about this issue until he found out that seawater is still above 7 pH, "but not afterwards", then I respectfully suggest that his appreciation of the issue would benefit greatly from reading any of the several excellent reports listed in the "further readings" section. Finally, there is a very good discussion about this (definitional) issue at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169, and which supports the terms used in the article here. Aloha. Arjuna 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna: I did not say that the other definition is inaccurate. I consider only that the article was previously misleading in that some may understand that the sea is acidic but the sea is actually still alkaline by the standard definition of the pH scale which we all learnt in high school. The entire article reads as if it we were dealing with an 'acid sea' rather invoking the 'acid rain' problem. I do appreciate the concerns about reduced pH though I'd respectfully suggest to you that there are far more urgent environmental concerns about the health of the sea resulting from massive pollution. JG17 14:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

JG, since the article clearly states that the issue is the change in pH and level of acidity (again, measured by the concentration of hydrogen ions), rather than whether ocean pH is still above 7.0, it's unclear exactly who would feel misled other than someone who hasn't a basic grasp of chemistry. I encourage you to read the scientific papers and articles cited before belaboring this point any further. Thanks for your opinion as to whether there are far more urgent environmental concerns than OA. You are certainly entitled to hold it – and will be in good company, being consistent with the Bush Administration's current position on the status of CO2 as a non-pollutant, which as you know is the subject of no small amount of debate at present: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution. There is still much scientific uncertainty as to how organisms and ecosystems will respond or adapt to the increased acidity/pH change, and this is in fact something OA researchers are targeting for the next stage of research. However, the prima fascie evidence is not encouraging. Arjuna 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I added the following paragraph near the beginning of the article:
 * Although the term "acidification" is used, it should be borne in mind that the oceans are not acidic (pH less than 7) and are not expected to become acidic. The term "acidity" usually means either how strong an acid is or how much acid a solution contains (per unit volume for example, see Titration). Since one must add acid to ocean water to reach pH 7, one could say that the acidity of the oceans is actually negative. In the context of ocean "acidification", the term "acidity" is often used (incorrectly) to mean hydrogen ion concentration.

"Squiddy" reverted this on grounds that it is original research! I am putting it back in. It is certainly not original research -- it is elementary chemistry. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It certainly is original research, as defined by Wikipedia. Please provide a source.  I don't doubt that sources exist.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reposting my comment from Jan07 as applicable here to EK's edit: it is factually incorrect. One measure of acidity is the concentration of hydrogen ions, and the documented pH reduction in ocean surface waters represents a 30% increase in hydrogen ions. Thus, it is "acidification", even if it is true that the current ocean surface pH still measures on the alkaline side of the scale. Furthermore to the extent that similar concepts are reflected in common language, as researcher Ken Caldeira has noted, a cup of hot tea left on a table is "cooling down", not "becoming less hot". Arjuna (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge adding acid to an alkaline solution is not called acidification but neutralisation? Hans Erren (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Past and present pH level
The article refers to Jacobson 2005, who estimates pH level for 1751 to be 8.25, while present-day level is supposed to be 8.14. However, NSF, NOAA und USGS (2006): Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research (PDF, 9,9 MB), p. 4, gives different numbers. There preindustrial pH is supposed to have been 8.16, while today's level is 8.05. Both figures show a decrease of 0.11 points - but which one is correct?? Hardern 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Hardern. Good question.  I think it probably has to do with the different definitions people use of pH.  It's not something I'm an expert on (not least because I don't want to know any more about carbonate chemistry!), but as I understand it, there are (at least) three different pH scales in use today.  The free scale (sometimes denoted pHF), the total scale (sometimes denoted pHT) and the seawater scale (sometimes denoted pHSWS).  Having just consulted a textbook on the subject (Zeebe & Wolf-Gladrow, 2001, CO2 in seawater: equilibrium, kinetics, isotopes, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) it transpires that these are ~0.1 units apart (with pHF being ~0.1 units greater than pHT and pHSWS).  I guess that Jacobson (2005) is using the free scale while your NSF document is using the seawater scale (at least, that's what Figure 1-1's caption implies; though it uses the pHT notation).  However, I say this with only a very limited grasp of carbonate chemistry (just enough for me to get by on), so please feel free to consult wider.  It's certainly annoying that pH turns out not to be as simple as the definition in its article suggests!  Anyway, hope this helps.  Cheers, --Plumbago 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it helps. Thanks for yout investigation. Do you have any recommendation to which one of the three scales should be used in the case of ocean acidification? Hardern 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, no. As I understand it, all three scales are still used by scientists (each has advantages and disadvantages).  Consulting my textbook again, they differ in how they handle (or calculate) the importance of ionic species such as sulphate and fluoride.  The textbook gives equations to convert between them, but they're not simple to use here.  My suggestion would be that we (probably me) expand the pH article to describe the different scales (or at least mention that they exist), and then make sure that articles such as ocean acidification are explicit in stating which scales are used whenever pH values are cited.  As I've said already, while I do use pH in my own work (which deals with carbonate chemistry), I'm trying to know only the bare minimum about it, so this won't happen overnight!  ;-)  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I left them a note. Hardern 12:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For me as a chemist it is very amusing to read that there ought to be more than one pH value, since the pH is defined based on the the concentration of H+ in a solution - and there is just one species of H+ in aqueous solutions. H+ can not remember from which kind of acid or base it is coming from, nor does it behave different then. Could you please provide some more detail information about the definition of the "other" pH values? From a chemical point of view it makes no sense to define and use different definition of the pH value than the international standard one. – ghw 06:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a non-chemist, my understanding is that the different pH scales in use in oceanography have methodological roots. It being the weekend, I don't have my textbook to hand, but I think the simple definition (called pHhighschool in Zeebe & Wolf-Gladrow, 2001) comes unstuck in seawater with its multitude of ionic species.  To work out the concentration of H+, these other ions need to be accounted for, and that's apparently where the fun begins.  Anyway, as there's a little bit more interest now, I'll try to add something about this next week.  Maybe put it here first before altering the pH article?  I'd be very grateful if you could check over whatever I write since, as I keep banging on, I'm no chemist.  Cheers, --Plumbago 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ghw, it has to do with the ionic strength and composition of the reference buffer solutions. Page 540 of the article you linked to mentions the existence of special pH scales for blood and seawater. --Itub 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellent reference... Piyrwq 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good shout. A bit terse however.  I've now had a bit of a read of reference 3 below, and have summarised its presentation of the different pH scales as ...

Seawater
In chemical oceanography pH measurement is complicated by the chemical properties of seawater, and several distinct pH scales exist.

As part of its operational definition of the pH scale, the IUPAC define a series of buffer solutions across a range of pH values (often denoted with NBS or NIST designation). These solutions have a relatively low ionic strength (~0.1) compared to that of seawater (~0.7), and consequently are not recommended for use in characterising the pH of seawater (since the ionic strength differences cause changes in electrode potential). To resolve this problem an alternative series of buffers based on artificial seawater was developed. This new series resolves the problem of ionic strength differences between samples and the buffers, and the new pH scale is the referred to as the total scale, often denoted as pHT.

The total scale was defined using a medium containing sulphate ions. These ions experience protonation, H+ + SO42- ⇌ HSO4-, such that the total scale includes the effect of both protons ("free" hydrogen ions) and hydrogen sulphate ions:


 * [H+]T = [H+]F + [HSO4-]

An alternative scale, the free scale, often denoted pHF, omits this consideration and focuses solely on [H+]F, in principle making it a simpler representation of hydrogen ion concentration. Analytically, only [H+]T can be determined, so [H+]F must be estimated using the [SO42-] and the stability constant of HSO4-, KS*:


 * [H+]F = [H+]T - [HSO4-] = [H+]T ( 1 + [SO42-] / KS* )-1

However, it is difficult to estimate KS* in seawater, limiting the utility of the otherwise more straightforward free scale.

Another scale, known as the seawater scale, often denoted pHSWS, takes account of a further protonation relationship between hydrogen ions and fluoride ions, H+ + F- ⇌ HF. Adding this subtlety changes the concentration of H+T to:


 * [H+]T = [H+]F + [HSO4-] + [HF]

However, the advantage of considering this additional complexity is dependent upon the abundance of fluoride in the medium. In seawater, for instance, sulphate ions occur at much greater concentrations (> 400 times) than those of flouride. Consequently, for most practical purposes, the difference between the total and seawater scales is very small.

The following three equations summarise the three scales of pH:


 * pHF  = - log [H+]F
 * pHT  = - log ( [H+]F + [HSO4-] )        = - log [H+]T
 * pHSWS = - log ( [H+]F + [HSO4-] + [HF] ) = - log [H+]SWS

In practical terms, the three seawater pH scales differ in their values by up to 0.12 pH units, differences that are much larger that the accuracy of pH measurements typically required (particularly in relation to the ocean's carbonate system). Since it omits consideration of sulphate and fluoride ions, the free scale is significantly different from both the total and seawater scales. Because of the relative unimportance of the fluoride ion, the total and seawater scales differ only very slightly.

or instead of just

Can anyone think of even a plausible reason for that link? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From Oceans: "... these waters comprise one global, interconnected body of salt water sometimes referred to as the World Ocean or global ocean.". Is that plausible to you?  99.181.148.116 (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems the world ocean page is rather lacking - the ocean article itself contain much more info and world ocean should likely be merged into it. Really sounds like someone's catchy phrase promoting ... some gaian stuff maybe? :) Per'aps I'll go back and undo the link I added the other day per someone's comment. Vsmith (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This Gaia hypothesis stuff? 99.190.85.26 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Inorganic carbon cycle" can only mean carbon not from living organisms ...
Organic compounds contain carbon bonds, hence the name Organic chemistry. "Inorganic carbon" is not the same as Inorganic chemistry, it cannot be since it has carbon, thus "Inorganic carbon" is from the very old understanding of "inorganic" meaning not from Life ... "organi-" as in Organism. If you read the Chemistry article you will find more to explain the history of the terms. 99.181.134.22 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, organic compounds are often considered those which contain carbon-carbon bonds, so the inorganic carbon cycle would be those cycles which do not involve those organic compounds. I think it better to unlink entirely, than to have organic in the article.  In any case  is explicitly not an organic compound under any of the definitions, with  being marginal.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice inorganic carbon cycle. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From Inorganic chemistry:  (bold is mine)  99.109.124.21 (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From Organic chemistry:  Also see pre-1800's History_of_chemistry ... the sentence within this article in debate is using the old (ancient?) terms of Organic meaning Life-associated, and "non-living" (inanimate) of inorganic.
 * Update: User:Antony-22 has changed from

to
 * Do the Organic chemistry and Inorganic chemistry articles need to be clarified also User:Antony-22? 99.109.124.21 (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, is the IP thinking of "Important classes of inorganic salts are the oxides, the carbonates, the sulfates and the halides." from Inorganic chemistry which opens by stating "The distinction between the two disciplines is far from absolute, and there is much overlap". So, this boils down to the question of whether chalk and come under organic chemistry – seems not, perhaps the IP can find a source that says they do. . dave souza, talk 07:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Add Biogeochemical cycle for simpler clarification? 99.56.123.78 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference to National Research Council Study
In the “Rate of Acidification” section, a 2010 National Research Council study on ocean acidification is mentioned; however, the reference (no.23) goes to a McClatchy Newspapers story about the study. I’d like to add a link to the National Research Council study itself. Here’s the link:

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Ocean-Acidification-National-Strategy/12904

In addition, under the “External Links” section, I’d like to add a link to an ocean acidification booklet and website produced by the National Research Council to go along with the 2010 study. The website (and booklet) is here: http://oceanacidification.nas.edu/

And the booklet is also available here:

http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Booklets/Ocean-Acidification

This could go under the “scientific sources” section, or under the “popular media sources” section.

Please let me know what you think of these suggestions-- Earlgrey101 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The study was carried out by the National Research Council, so it would be accurate to include this in the citation, not the National Academy of Sciences. Earlgrey101 (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential resource 2.July.2011 Science News
Fish ignore alarming noises in acidifying seawater: Like clueless teens in a horror movie, juvenile clownfish don’t swim away from scary sounds by Susan Milius July 2nd, 2011 Science News Vol.180 #1 (p. 12) Also see Adapting to global warming, and Adapting to ocean acidification? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Add clarification for PIC/POC ratio
Add clarification for PIC/POC ratio ... Particulate inorganic carbon to particulate organic carbon  99.181.156.173 (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Science News resource
Acidifying oceans helped fuel mass extinction; Great die-off 250 million years ago could trace in part to waters' change in pH by Alexandra Witze October 8th, 2011; Vol.180 #8 (p. 10) Science News 99.35.15.199 (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Taking Fears of Acid Oceans With a Grain of Salt by Matt Ridley January 7, 2012 Wall Street Journal; excerpt ...

See Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Climate Change, mollusks, marine ecosystems, J.E.N. Veron, biodiversity, "red-black bacterial slime", 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Acidification" due to humans
Can somebody explain why? In this article the anthropogenic cause seems to be -conveniently- axiomatic. Moreover, the reference is from an brief communication of Nature brief communication of Nature of 2003 -a little outdated-, which references a paper of 2001 made for the IPCC -whose reports are not very good.

Why only "anthropogenic" CO2 is taken into account? CO2 is CO2, it does not matter whether is caused by humans or by natural causes. JuancitoxTw (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that CO2 is CO2, and will affect ocean pH in the same way regardless of its source. But "ocean acidification" is generally understood to refer to the rapid decrease in ocean pH in modern times, itself caused by the recent anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This entire article implies that CO2 is the only possible source of acidification. Yet, the Paleocene/Eocene extinction seems to have been caused by increased surface temperatures, which can also affect acidification, right? 76.105.136.241 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can just your hand be hungry? Increased surface temperatures do not exist as a discrete phenomena... surf temps are just part of the overall climate system.   See also Earth's energy budget.  If surf temps are warming, the rest is too.   There are abundant RSs expressing concern about CO2 and C4 outgassing from thawing permafrost and methane hydrates, just as many researchers think happened at the PETM.  There are even RSs expressing concern that if human emissions continue the melt/outgassing will accelerate to the point that there is so much melt/outgassing happening that we will "lose control" of the climate, by which they mean we will be pretty much helpless to maintain our historic climate by avoiding dangerous climate change.  Sure we can work some of that RS-based thinking in here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I took the "increased surface temperature" from this very article, for the sake of convenience, from the end of the first section. But this article seems to try to tie acidification of the oceans directly to man-made CO2, without even attempting to explain how the exact same thing happened at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary without man-made CO2. If fresh water is "naturally" in the alkaline range, and CO2 warming is causing ice caps and glaciers to run off into the ocean, the ocean ought to be getting less acid, not more so. Is this part of the estimates already included in this article? If not, this would mean that the "background" increase in acidity due to CO2 must be quite a bit higher than even the estimates here, and the fresh water actually mitigates the problem. If the cause of acidification a the PETM was "out-gassing" from thawing, what caused the warming which triggered it? Maybe it wasn't CO2 after all? Could it have been a surge in solar activity, or an increase in the warmth of the Earth's core, affecting ocean currents and ultimately weather patterns? There has to be a lot more to this entire picture than simply "an increase in greenhouse gases." 76.105.136.241 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * PS, NAEG, I'm not sure what you mean "maintaining our historic climate". The climate has changed quite a bit during the course of recorded human history, including (but not limited to) the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the Modern warm period, which seems to have started within the last few decades. Which "historic climate" would you pick? 76.105.136.241 (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no mystery about the origin of current ocean acidification. It is down to the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. It has been systematically measured across recent decades at a number of oceanic time-series stations (see here), and is confirmed by repeat observations in other locations across time. It is also supported by marine biogeochemical models which aim to simulate oceanic carbon and its response to atmospheric CO2. That there are non-anthropogenic events in Earth's past which are analogous (albeit much, much slower) to the ongoing anthropogenic change does not in any way invalidate our understanding of current ocean acidification. All it does is illustrate that there is more than one way to increase atmospheric CO2 and cause ocean acidification. Likewise for climate warming and cooling - just because we know that the climate is not static does not mean that it is not possible for humans to change it by altering the transparency of the atmosphere to infra-red radiation. But I guess you already know all this. --P LUMBAGO 09:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

CO2 concentrations
Why should the recently created article Ocean acidification and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere not be merged here? It's clearly a subarticle of a section of this article, and this one isn't that long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.LaTeeDa (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merger. Mostly redundant to the main page here, and doesn't actually have much content specifically about rising atmospheric CO2 (the "value-added" topic per article titles)--but that is the exact topic of this page here! Much of the newer article is uncited synthesis, chemically incorrect, weasely, etc. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be merged. Sushilover2000 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * agree! Mr.Magik-Pants (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree! Drlectin (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - but the other article offers little, if anything, that isn't already here or in other articles. I think that Delete is ultimately going to be a more accurate description of what happens to Ocean acidification and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere when it's "merged" into here.  --P LUMBAGO  09:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be merged, and I agree that it is more of a delete of Ocean acidification and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which isn't very well written and doesn't add much if anything to what is already here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should definitely be merged.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree I think they are exactly the same thing. Merge! Timothy Gu (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it would be best if we either merged them or deleted Ocean acidification and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

shift bjerrum plot in the Acidification section?
I think the bjerrum plot in the Acidification section should be moved to the Calcification section, as the main point of the plot is to show the decrease in carbonate, which decreases Ω and hence makes CaCO3 dissolution more likely. Any objections if I shifted it and added in some words to that effect? Mmitchell10 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo/error on Biological Impacts
I think I found an error: The portion of the sentence: "Aside from calcification, organisms may suffer other adverse effects," groups calcification with other "adverse effects," which it is incorrect. The slowing/hindering/preventing/destabilizing of calcification is, however. Thanks,and sorry if I somehow misinterpreted the sentence.--75.32.145.102 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, have put in a correction. Mmitchell10 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Hi. I've just reverted the merge that was done a few days ago. While I understand the rationale for the merge, the material that was added was really very weak. In the lead, it introduced stuff about sea level rise and ice melt which are really only tangentially related. It even made it sound like OA is responsible for CC rather than being a oceanic symptom of the same cause (i.e. CO2 rise). The merged material about chemistry was similarly bad, with some really odd statements about different elements and ocean chemistry and a reference to oceanic concentrations of gases that actually looked like atmospheric concentrations. The merged biological material was a bit less dubious, but if added at all, it really needs to be inserted carefully. My apologies to the editor who took the time to do the merge, but I'm afraid that the source material is just simply too weak (was it a high school project?). As noted above when the merged was originally proposed, deletion of the other article is probably the best option here. Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think merging in the material from the other article made this article substantially worse. Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Article additions
I am a student at LSU enrolled in HNRS: 1035: Natural Disturbance & Society. I will be adding two new sections under "Possible Impacts". --Sbonni (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Paradox
There's an apparent paradox in ocean acidification, that adding CO2 (the raw material for CaCO3) actually reduces the amount of CaCO3. Naively, the equilibrium is CO2+H2O+Ca(2+)<->HCO3(-)+H(+)+Ca(2+)<->CO3(2-)+2H(+)+Ca(2+)<->CaCO3+2H(+) then simple ocean acidification (adding H(+)) would drive the equilibrium to the left, reducing CaCO3, but adding CO2, while it causes ocean acidification, would actually drive the equilibrium to the right and increase CaCO3. I don't know why this naive theory is wrong but whatever the explanation is I think it should appear on this page. 60.241.0.237 (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I spent between 18 months and 2 years of my life doing one thing - studying the chemical reactions that are triggered when CO2 is added into the oceans. I read papers that mentioned the reduction in CaCO3, as it is a surprise, but didn't come across any that explained it. I discovered a mathematical explanation. I think it's a good idea to include a section on the paradox, I'll have a think about what it could say :-) Mmitchell10 (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Acid is a fact not a possibility
Acidic ocean deadly for Vancouver Island scallop industry. Millions of shellfish are dying off before they can be harvested at Island Scallops, near Parksville, B.C., due to increased acidity levels in the ocean. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/acidic-ocean-deadly-for-vancouver-island-scallop-industry-1.2551662 The article says "Possible impacts". Is it not a fact yet?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

reversed logic?
Early in the article: ".... that within the last decade ocean pH exceeded historical analogs...." is at odds with the rest of the article that suggests pH is falling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed "pH" to "acidity". Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this miss an important point?
The article explains the problem to calcium carbonate dependent ocean life thusly: Thus the ocean's concentration of carbonate ions is reduced, creating an imbalance in the reaction Ca2+ + CO32− \leftrightarrow CaCO3, and making the dissolution of formed CaCO3 structures more likely. My emphasis in bold... Is this saying that carbonate ions are reduced or the ratio is changed? Looking at the chemistry it appears that the concentration of carbonate ions will still increase but not as much as bicarbonate. This means a reduction in the relative abundance of carbonate not the actual abundance (which is still increasing). This also leads to a paradox whereby increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in Carbonate formation even with a decrease in pH. Precisely the opposite situation than has been suggested that marine life not having adequate carbonate. 202.90.50.170 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Erm, I think that the addition of CO2 to the carbonate system shifts the balance away from carbonate such that, even though the total system (H2CO3 + HCO3 + CO3) increases, CO3 still decreases in absolute terms. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what the carbonate chemistry calculator spits out (the one in my head that is; the real one may differ - have a look).  That said, there may still be some wording issues to sort out, since it sounds like you might have gotten the wrong end of the stick re: how CO3 concentrations impact marine life.  It's not that marine life needs CO3 ions per se (i.e. in the sense that phytoplankton need nutrients), it's that in an environment of lower CO3, structures built of CaCO3 are more vulnerable to dissolution.  Inside organisms, where CaCO3 is produced, pH conditions are altered to reach CO3 supersaturation and facilitate CaCO3 precipitation, but the outside world is a different story.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  07:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the carbonate does goes down - see the Bjerrum plot Mmitchell10 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Odd sentences
''Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO 2 with implications for climate change as more CO 2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.''

This sounds self-contradictory, or maybe like an oscillation(!), although it is probably just a botched description of additional contributions to a changed equilibrium...

It appears that ocean alkalinity is the opposite of ocean acidity. So a boost to alkalinity due to dissolving carbonate will mitigate the increase in acidity (i.e. partially restore the old, good values), not make the ocean more alkaline than before. Also, extra CO2 going into the ocean will tend to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, again mitigating the direction of above-ocean climate change rather than worsening it (or reversing it).

I don't believe that these factors are a net plus -- after all, the carbonate sediments get dissolved, and the mitigating factors are probably only a fraction of the bad changes, following Le Chatelier's principle -- but it does illustrate that the ideas are not expressed very clearly in these two sentences. 84.226.178.205 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The offending sentence is probably trying to communicate too much at once - but it is accurate if you know what's being said. Basically (if I can use that word in this context), ocean acidification will lead to the dissolution of seafloor carbonate sediments, resulting in an increase in ocean alkalinity.  Note that this is not the opposite of ocean acidity - this is a source of confusion even within the scientific community at times.  This extra alkalinity increases the ocean's so-called buffering capacity, that is, its ability to accommodate dissolved inorganic carbon.  As a result, OA-mediated dissolution of calcareous sediments will help the ocean absorb more CO2 and decrease the impacts of climate change.  But - and it's a big but - the relevant timescales are very long, and the magnitude of the effect will not be as large as that of OA in the first place, as well as being affected by details such as ocean circulation, etc.  If this now sounds more comprehensible (and/or plausible), perhaps a re-wording can be developed.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  09:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How many Kg of CO2 is needed to lower the pH of the world's water by 0.1?
The world's water bodies contain 1.4x10^21 kg of water. That's a lot of water. Do we actually release enough CO2 to alter the pH as alleged? The oft-quoted anthropogenic CO2 release figure is 3.6x10^13 kg/year, including that imputed by change of land use.

An oft-quoted figure for released CO2 dissolved into the oceans is 24%. This would equate to 6.5 milligrams CO2 per metric tonne per year. Does the anthropogenic ocean acidification hypothesis match experimental pH measurements for the effect of dissolved CO2 into seawater? Nick Hill (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The short answer is "yes". Note that the pH change of 0.1 units refers to the surface ocean.  It is not a change over the whole ocean volume.  Among other things, much of the water in the ocean has yet to come into contact with the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, so (except through mixing) cannot have been "contaminated" with anthropogenic CO2.  If you would like to see a recorded change in surface pH (rather than an estimated or modelled one), have a look at that from station BATS in the subtropical Atlantic Ocean (see  for instance).  --P LUMBAGO  15:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What other chemicals can change the pH of seawater?
This entire article implies that CO2 is the only chemical which changes the pH of seawater, which can't be the case. It would be useful to explain the role of other chemicals such as sulfur dioxide which also change the pH of seawater. 76.105.136.241 (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is about the ongoing acidification of the ocean driven by anthropogenic CO2 (the majority driver of ongoing change). Hence the focus here on CO2.  For what you're interested in, have a look over at the seawater section of the pH article and see what you think.  Regarding SO2, etc., yes, they will also affect ocean pH but they are quantitatively less important than CO2 at this point in history.  Cheers, P LUMBAGO  15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting. How do you know they are less important, i.e. what are the actual figures for what percent of acidification is caused by CO2, what percent is caused by acid rain runoff, phosphate runoff from farming, iodine which is routinely used by Beijing to seed clouds in China, etc.? The title of the article doesn't match the content, which makes the entire thing misleading. I feel bad for kids today learning opinions as science when there's no actual data to back up the hypothesis. 76.105.136.241 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ocean acidification from CO2 is well-established in the scientific literature with an increasingly diverse evidence base as more aspects of it are studied. The basics - that CO2 dissolves in water and affects the concentration of hydrogen ions - have been understood for a long time, but many details, particularly around impacts, are still active research areas.  You will have no trouble finding primary and review literature on the topic (follow some of the links in this article for starters).  Regarding other sources of acidification, yes, these are real but are liable to have local impacts only, and the magnitude of these struggles to compete with that of CO2.  Remember that CO2 is produced globally by (currently) a majority of energy production methods (i.e. most human activities involve its production one way or another).  This is most clearly evidenced by the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration - within a relatively short period of time this is already greater than the range of CO2 change in glacial-interglacial cycles.  Anyway, I don't think that you need to worry about kids today - there's no shortage of evidence to back up this unfortunate change in the environment that they're inheriting from us.  Hopefully they'll do a better job of dropping their blinkers when confronted by bad news and actually do something about it.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  08:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so... I have read some of the "Scientific Literature" and pointing to a increase in CO2 increases in the atmosphere seems to be supported by assumptions and bad chemistry. It surprises me that nobody has looked at "Dead zones" cause by the large quantities of organic matter matter running off into the oceans. Dead Zones have been on the increase since man started living in the cities. Man started changing the nitrogen cycle when the food was grown on the farms, ate the food in the cities, and disposed of the organic waste in the oceans and estuaries. Anaerobic bacteria digest this material releasing PH lowering materials such as nitrous oxides and sulfer oxides; all of which have greater ability to lower PH than CO2. Another place for consideration should look at air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuel releasing some of the same gases. Why doesn't acid rain have significant effect on the PH of the oceans? The "Acidification" of the oceans are important because the oceans have the greatest ability to absorb and sequester CO2 than any other mechanism. This can be found throughout the fossil record in the form of limestone. In fact, the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere may be more related to the health of the oceans than the CO2 released in the atmosphere. Assuming that the "Aicdification" of the oceans is entirely anthropogenic might be almost intuitive, but blaming it on an increase of a 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere seem a bit of a stretch. Why are no other sources of "Acidification discussed? Aeothur (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your visit. As I've outlined immediately above, the primary cause of OA is well-established. You are right, of course, that there are other sources of OA (as well as acidification of lake systems), but quantitatively these are less important at the scale of the World Ocean. It is still the case that the impacts of OA are uncertain, but the root cause - the dissolution of CO2 from the atmosphere - is well established, both observationally and from basic high school chemistry. There are plenty of sources in the main article that can help explain all this - if you have any other questions, follow-up here. Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ocean acidification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512153730/http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125631.200 to http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125631.200

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)