Claim: Arctic Ocean ‘acidifying’ up to four times as fast as other oceans
Acidification of the western Arctic Ocean is happening three to four times faster than in other ocean basins, the Guardian claims.
The ocean, which absorbs a third of all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, has grown more acidic because of ‘fossil fuel’ use. Rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic region over the past three decades has accelerated the rate of long-term acidification, according to the study, published in Science on Thursday.
Researchers from the Polar and Marine Research Institute at Jimei University, China, and the School of Marine Science and Policy at the University of Delaware in the US, say rapid sea-ice loss exposes seawater to the atmosphere, promoting takeup of carbon dioxide at a faster rate than in the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Antarctic and sub-Antarctic basins.
“In other ocean systems, acidification is being driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is increasing at a rate of around 2ppm [parts per million] per year,” said Wei-Jun Cai, a marine chemistry expert at the University of Delaware and one of the paper’s authors.
Acidification trends tend to follow those predicted from carbon dioxide increases over time, he said. But when the scientists compared data collected from the Arctic between 1994 and 2020 with ocean basins elsewhere, they found acidification was happening much faster in the Arctic.
“We were shocked to see acidification is happening three to four times faster,” Cai said.
If sea ice continues to vanish in the western Arctic, the process could continue and intensify over the next few decades, the scientists predict.
The research follows a separate study in August, which found that the Arctic has warmed at about four times the global average rate over the past 43 years. The faster warming, known as Arctic amplification, is a feedback process driven by melting sea ice, which is also driving faster acidification, the researchers say.
“The ice melt dilutes or lowers the alkalinity of the seawater. This dilutes the buffering capacity of the water, its ability to resist acidification,” Cai said.
The effect of the altered seawater chemistry will have “huge implications” for sea life, Cai predicts. As an example, he referred to studies that show ocean acidification is a threat to coral reefs.
“In lower latitudes, you have coral reefs and if you add carbon dioxide to the water, the carbon saturation rate will increase and the coral won’t grow,” he said. Acidification reduces the carbonate ions needed to build coral skeletons.
The lower pH, or acidity, of seawater could affect many systems, and could even make some metals more toxic, he added.
“We are far from knowing what the cost is for biological systems. We don’t know what organisms could be affected. This is something the biological community needs to look into.”
See more here theguardian.com
Header image: Phys.org
Editor’s note: The Guardian has shot itself in the foot here. The quietly buried line ‘lowers the alkalinity of the seawater’ is a telling admission that the oceans are an alkaline, not an acid. It is hard to see how you can increase the acidity of something that is not an acid to start with.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Since the solubility of CO2 in water depends on the temperature of the water, I would be shocked if the colder water didn’t absorb more CO2.
Reply
MattH
| #
‘ In particular, with decreasing alkalinity, the availability of carbonates for forming shells decreases, [98] although there’s evidence of increased shell production by certain species under increased CO2 content.’
This above line from https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Carbon_dioxide illustrates the contradiction between the propaganda and observations.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Shellfish do fine in cold water because their shells are developed under a living layer of tissue and not subject to the seawater directly. Physiological power is the key that allows this. Once the shell is exposed to seawater, it indeed dissolved. That is why very old surf clams show erosion of their outer shells, not enough to hurt them, but erosion nonetheless.
It’s common poppycock that the Arctic is warming four times faster. Than what? Than expected, probably based on the fatally-flawed never-right computer models.
This is weird because there is no evidence of warming and the sea ice is doing nothing out of the ordinary. The vagaries of weather and ocean movements occasionally merge for a perfect storm of melting, with a lot of ice melted from below and/or blown to more southern waters, thus melting outside of the Arctic Ocean.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and other PSI Readers,
Matt, I went to your link and read: “The current concentration [of atmospheric carbon dioxide] is about 0.04% (410 ppm) by volume.
How many of you have ever taught chemistry? I ask this because in chemistry we have a unique way of dealing with the UNCERTAINTY (precision) of quantitative measurements which we define as the number of SIGNIFICANT FIGURES recorded for the measurement. So when the current measured concentration is reported to be about 0.04%, this number has one (1) significant figure which means the ‘actual’ concentration might be, at best, 0.03%, 0.04%,or 0.05%. We teach this so when the concentration unit (%) is converted to (ppm) it does not appear that the precision of the measurement was more precise than it actually was. Which is what happened here as 410 ppm is a two (2) significant figure number according to the rules of SIGNIFICANT FIGURES taught and should have been 400 ppm (a one significant figure number).
And after reading the previous paragraph, I suspect many readers are asking: SO WHAT? My reply to this is that I doubt if many PSI Readers are aware how much money was spent to better measure the SPEED OF LIGHT to a precision of one (1) more significant figure. For this constant had become the limiting precision factor in the equations that nuclear physicists were using to better understand certain natural phenomena of the atom’s nucleus that was not a chemical phenomena that chemists studied.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Jerry. I appreciate your comment as I always appreciate Charles Higley’s comments. It is a privilege to be able to interact with people who have special education and knowledge.
I was tempted to quote and reference Henry’s Law in relation to gases dissolving in liquid, specifically CO2 into sea water and the temperature of the water dependence.
My understanding is sea water absorbs CO2 in relation to water temperature and atmospheric pressure and the level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not affect seawater CO2 concentrations if atmospheric pressure and water temperature is constant.
Any comments please?
Have a nice day.
Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Atmospheric pressure is defined as being measured from sea level (15 psi). Since the shape of the Earth causes sea level to be 22 km greater the equator than at the poles and the rotation of the Earth causes higher sea level (further from the center of the Earth) on the west shore of an ocean then on the east shore this constant varies with latitude and longitude due to the distance to the center of the Earth and resulting change in gravity.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
When I discovered your comment I had composed my comment to Alan. And Henry’s law is also an important different issue about which I wish to clarify on the basis of chemistry.
I consider that Henry’s Law applies only to gases (molecules or atoms) which do not chemically react with water to form a new ‘molecules’. I consider that we know that a water molecule reacts with a carbon dioxide molecule to form the carbonic acid H2CO3 molecule. An oxygen molecule O2 does not react with H2O to form the molecule H2O3 or a nitrogen molecule N2 does not react with H2O to form H2N2O molecule.
And for the reason there is a know reaction between carbon dioxide molecules and water molecules carbon dioxide molecules are not dissolving in water they are reacting with the basic hydroxide ions in the alkaline solution of ocean water with a pH of about 8.1 or 8.2.
Finally I call attention to the measured fact that the precipitation of natural thunderstorms have a pH of commonly less than 5 pH units. It is generally accepting that the lighting bolts dissociate nitrogen molecules and oxygen molecules to form various molecules of nitrogen and oxygen atoms which than react with the water molecules at the surfaces of liquid water droplets.
Any comments please. Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry. The below sentence is from Brittanica science/Henry’s Law. It confirms your guidance.
‘Henry’s law is found experimentally to hold for all dilute solutions in which the molecular species is the same in the solution as in the gas.’
It is commonly stated that the majority of the increase of atmospheric CO2 is due to CO2 outgassing from a warming ocean.
I obviously need to do some more homework.
Thak you Jerry
Matt
Reply
Alan
| #
The oceans are not acid, have never been acid and will never be acid.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan and other PSI Readers,
Alan correctly wrote: “The oceans are not acid, have never been acid and will never be acid.” For ocean water’s averaged measured pH is 8.1 (two (2) significant figures (sf) and therefore actually 8.0, 8.1, or 8.2 pH units as I have already written. Now the accepted pH scale ranges from 0 to 14 with pH 7 being a “neutral’ solution” and pHs less than 7 being acidic solutions and pHs greater than 7 being alkaline solutions.
“Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed primarily of calcite, a calcium carbonate mineral with a chemical composition of CaCO3.” (https://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml)
What is hard to find, by Googling the internet, that calcium carbonate slightly dissolves in water to form Ca^2+ ions and carbonate ions (CO3^2-). And that the carbonate ion is a ‘ relatively strong’ weak base. Hence calcium carbonate, because of its plentiful natural sources, is the reason that ocean water is alkaline and will never have a pH less than 7 or even less than 8.1.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Unraveling the Mysteries of Carbonic Acid” at ScienceDaily.com June 23, 2015
Carbonic Acid, H2C03 is weak acid and outside of a test tube has a half-life of 26 milliseconds
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph,
Carbonic acid would not be a mystery if you took a good chemistry course. Does your test tube have some water in it?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt and PSI Readers,
Matt, I believe you do not realize how unique your experiences as fisherman have been; hence how great your KNOWLEDGE is.
From the BEGINNING it is generally understood that first humans were gathers picking the fruits of the soil, the eggs of birds, hunting the wild animals, and especially the animals of the seas, lakes, and streams. But we should not forget the “domestic” animals and I have no idea when in the scheme of things when they became foods sources. However, I know the first MOTHERS had to have nursed the first babies.
And I know that you are still a fisherman of the sea and I know that the majority of the Earth’s surface is SEA. So you have many days of experiences which I have never had and you are part of a nano portion of humans who have ever lived in the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT of the SEAs. And here at PSI you seem to be the only one who has lived and worked in the NATURAL LABORATORY of a SEA.
I write this because I am not sure you realize the great significance of your KNOWLEDGE. For Arthur Conan Doyle, fictional author, wrote: “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” Yes, I had recently quoted this but I am nearly certain that Doyle KNEW this was not fiction. And I have written that until I read the accepted definition of the word “deceptive” I was considering this word to be a “verb” instead of being an “adjective”. Now, one (Matt or a reader) needs to ponder the importance of ACCURATE DEFINITION.
In my next comment, if someone responses to this comment, I (a teacher) am going to ask Matt (the expert): Explain the difference between an ocean’s “swell” and an ocean’s “wave”.
For Galileo is said to have stated (as translated by someone): “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt and PSI Readers,
Matt, I believe you do not realize how unique your experiences as fisherman have been; hence how great your KNOWLEDGE is.
From the BEGINNING it is generally understood that first humans were gathers picking the fruits of the soil, the eggs of birds, hunting the wild animals, and especially the animals of the seas, lakes, and streams. But we should not forget the “domestic” animals and I have no idea when in the scheme of things when they became foods sources. However, I know the first MOTHERS had to have nursed the first babies.
And I know that you are still a fisherman of the sea and I know that the majority of the Earth’s surface is SEA. So you have many days of experiences which I have never had and you are part of a nano portion of humans who have ever lived in the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT of the SEAs. And here at PSI you seem to be the only one who has lived and worked in the NATURAL LABORATORY of a SEA.
I write this because I am not sure you realize the great significance of your KNOWLEDGE. For Arthur Conan Doyle, fictional author, wrote: “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” Yes, I had recently quoted this but I am nearly certain that Doyle KNEW this was not fiction. And I have written that until I read the accepted definition of the word “deceptive” I was considering this word to be a “verb” instead of being an “adjective”. Now, one (Matt or a reader) needs to ponder the importance of ACCURATE DEFINITION.
In my next comment, if someone responses to this comment, I (a teacher) am going to ask Matt (the expert): Explain the difference between an ocean’s “swell” and an ocean’s “wave”.
For Galileo is said to have stated (as translated by someone): “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Commenters,
I keep writing my comments to document what has been observed that can be explained and has not been explained. But a problem is that too many of the frequent commenters have too short of an attention span and I cannot learn what you, because of YOUR EXPERIENCES, might KNOW.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply