Ocean acidification is a global issue caused by the absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, primarily from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. This process affects the chemistry of seawater and increases the hydrogen ion concentration in the surface ocean. As atmospheric CO2 levels rise due to human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation, the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean also increases. Coral reefs are among the most vulnerable ecosystems to ocean acidification.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has focused on building regional capacity to tackle ocean acidification. The ocean absorbs around 30% of all CO2 emissions, altering the production of calcium carbonate. Ocean acidification is often referred to as the “evil twin” of climate change, as greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.
In the last 200 years, the ocean has taken up around 30 percent of all CO2 emissions, leading to lower pH and greater acidity. This impacts marine life and industries like oyster farming. Carbon dioxide reacts with sea water to produce carbonic acid, which increases the ocean’s acidity, measured by lower pH values.
Almost one quarter of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by oceans, resulting in ocean acidification. When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, the water becomes more acidic, and the ocean’s pH drops. To address this issue, the IUCN is working to build regional capacity to tackle ocean acidification and protect marine life.
📹 Climate change: what is ocean acidification?
As carbon emissions change the chemistry of the seas, ocean acidification threatens marine life and human livelihoods.
What factors contribute to ocean acidification?
Ocean acidification is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, both major contributors to climate change. Deforestation releases stored carbon into the air, causing a decrease in ocean pH. Research shows that the rise in fossil fuels and atmospheric CO2 correlates with the decline of ocean pH, and the lack of alternative explanations gives high confidence that carbon dioxide pollution is causing ocean acidification. The speed of change and direct impacts on ocean ecosystems are particularly alarming, as they are not part of a natural cycle.
What makes ocean acidification worse?
Ocean acidification, also known as “climate change’s evil twin”, is a global threat to oceans, estuaries, and waterways. It is a result of the increasing amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, which helps regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but also poses a threat to ocean life, particularly shellfish like oysters and clams. Ocean acidification is known for its osteoporosis-like effects on shellfish, making shell building and maintenance difficult.
It also affects other species vital to the marine ecosystem, including reef-building corals and pteropods. Over the past 200 years, the world’s oceans have absorbed over 150 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted from human activities, a worldwide average of 15 pounds per person per week. The oceans have absorbed roughly one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions related to human activities since the 1700s.
Estimates indicate that by the end of this century, the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for over 20 million years.
Which greenhouse gas contributes the most?
The Earth’s greenhouse effect is primarily caused by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide (N2O). These gases are essential for maintaining Earth’s temperature for life, as without it, the Earth’s heat would escape into space, resulting in an average temperature of -20°C. The greenhouse effect occurs when most infrared radiation from the Sun is absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds, warming the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Greenhouse gases also increase the rate at which the atmosphere can absorb short-wave radiation from the Sun, but this has a weaker effect on global temperatures.
Who is most vulnerable to ocean acidification?
A total of 187 nations were considered in this study, and Japan was identified as the nation most vulnerable to the effects of ocean acidification.
Which greenhouse gas causes the most warming?
Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming impact 30 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. In the US, it accounted for over 12 percent of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, with over half of all emissions coming from human activities like natural gas production and livestock-based agriculture. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a powerful greenhouse gas with a GWP 270 times higher than carbon dioxide and remains in the atmosphere for over a century.
It accounts for about 6 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions in the US, mainly from agricultural fertilizers. Fluorinated gases, emitted from various manufacturing and industrial processes, are man-made and can be categorized into four main categories: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
What greenhouse gas is responsible for acidification of soil?
The phenomenon of acid rain is caused by the emission of sulfur and nitrogen oxides gases, which react with atmospheric water molecules to produce acids. These acids then enter the soil system, where they cause soil acidification.
What greenhouse gas is the biggest contributor to climate change?
Human activities, including burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and farming livestock, are contributing significantly to global warming. By 2020, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had risen to 48 times its pre-industrial level. This increase in greenhouse gases, along with the warming of the planet, has led to the record-breaking 2011-2020 decade, with the global average temperature reaching 1. 1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2019. Human-induced global warming is currently increasing at a rate of 0. 2°C per decade.
What is the primary source of ocean acidification?
Ocean acidification is a gradual reduction in ocean pH due to the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere over time. This is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes. The ocean absorbs about 30% of the released CO2, and as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the ocean’s levels. When CO2 is absorbed by seawater, it causes chemical reactions, leading to an increase in hydrogen ions, making the seawater more acidic and reducing the abundance of carbonate ions.
Which gas is a major contributor to ocean acidification?
The phenomenon of ocean acidification is primarily caused by the dissolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide into the ocean, which results in a lowering of the water’s pH and an increase in acidity. This phenomenon can be attributed to the accelerated production of carbon dioxide, which is being absorbed by the ocean as a result of various contributing factors.
What greenhouse gas causes ocean acidification?
Human-driven increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing more CO2 to dissolve into the ocean, causing a decrease in the ocean’s average pH. This acidification is affecting many ocean species, particularly oysters and corals that create hard shells and skeletons by combining calcium and carbonate from seawater. As ocean acidification increases, available carbonate ions bond with excess hydrogen, reducing the amount of carbonate ions available for calcifying organisms to build and maintain their structures. If the pH gets too low, shells and skeletons can even dissolve. Alison Novara, a 2022 EPP/MSI Scholar, studied the effects of ocean acidification on shell builders and their habitat range.
What are the biggest contributors to ocean acidification?
Ocean acidification is primarily caused by human activities such as CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and land use changes. These factors increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which are absorbed by the ocean, leading to decreased pH levels and increased acidity. Addressing these human-induced causes is crucial for mitigating ocean acidification’s negative impacts on marine ecosystems and the planet. pH monitoring techniques, such as polarographic sensors and in situ pH microelectrodes, are used to measure ocean acidification.
Satellite observations provide valuable data on global patterns of ocean acidification, assessing changes in ocean parameters like sea surface temperature and salinity. Although satellites cannot directly measure pH, their data helps scientists refine climate models, predict future ocean acidification scenarios, and determine its impact on marine ecosystems.
📹 Chemistry of our Oceans – Ocean Acidification and Greenhouse Gases
Do you remember the workshop on Greenhouse gases? Here is a quick reminder about what ocean acidification is, and how …
We need strong journalistic entities like you reporting on issues like this with the seriousness and urgency that you’ve reported here. We need to nourish collective awareness so that everyday people can know and act against the existential threat we and all life on earth are facing. The time to act is now.
The lower the pH value, the higher the acidity of a liquid. Solutions with low pH are acidic and solutions with high pH are basic (also known as alkaline). Prior to the Industrial Revolution, average ocean pH was about 8.2. Today, average ocean pH is about 8.1. pH is a measure of how acidic/basic water is. The range goes from 0 – 14, with 7 being neutral. pHs of less than 7 indicate acidity, whereas a pH of greater than 7 indicates a base. Based by this science and a wee bit of simple mathematics (Now, I know most of you in the USA will fail to understand this simple mathematical formula as your school test scores reveal), shows that at the current rate, oceans will become acidic by the year 3400. Well past that date if indeed, the polar ice melts.
Main causes of C02 emissions: Burning fossil fuels: The largest source of CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas for energy. This includes emissions from electricity generation, transportation, and industrial processes. Land-use changes: Deforestation and land-use changes, such as conversion of forests to agricultural land, can release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Agriculture: Agriculture, particularly livestock farming, is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily methane and nitrous oxide. Industrial processes: The production of cement, steel, and other industrial products can release large amounts of CO2 emissions. Residential and commercial buildings: Energy use in buildings for heating, cooling, and electricity can also contribute to CO2 emissions. We know the cause, we have some solutions. The only things that are preventing us from making changes are the people, governments and companies that are currently profiting from our current way of life, its not sustainable. Words are getting us nowhere… Actions speak louder than words.
Tx for this excellent article very informative. There will never be a “silver bullet” for ecological & climate restoration, but rather a variety of strategies & techniques will need to be applied that best suits different contexts. This is why global cooperation is so important – countries need to learn from each other then implement the techniques or strategies best suited for their local ecology / ecologies (most countries have a range of ecological systems within their national border). Human sectors also need to work together to protect & care for the ecological sytems, processes & services ALL human systems FULLY depend on – govs, business, NGOs, civil society, groups & residents etc. Our oceans are, by far, the most important carbon sink that our climate system depends on to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere so maintaining ocean health is critical. Several techniques have been suggested to reduce ocean acidification such as ocean fertilisation & silicate weathering. 3D printed or mesh coral reef bases onto which corals can attach is also available. But nature is still the best solution because ecological services are provided FREE OF CHARGE and have been developed & perfected by nature over billions of years.
The ocean is protecting the atmosphere from warming and excessive carbon dioxide. The warming is also preventing oxygen from dissolving into the water. Unfortunately, it’s also killing ocean life, and it will take a very long time for it to recover. Studied this while getting a degree in environmental engineering.
In many cases, I would be of the opinion that technology can be used to solve a problem. But when it comes to capturing the CO2 emissions that are already out there, I really think all these different ideas/projects going on now is just not right. They are not a reasonable solution, we cannot have millions of units maintained to deal with just what we had already. This is really, like inventing the wheel when it already exist! Instead, helping nature to recover and to grow more to capture this for us is absolutely the way to go.
On one part I am concerned on how ocean carbon capture can be problematic in the same sense as atmospheric carbon capture. But at the same time, it seems to be something that can buy vulnerable coral and reef populations enough time to live through climate change (so that we don’t permanently lose them). I can imagine implementing such technologies, on say, the Great Barrier Reef. Hopefully this promising technology comes to fruition and hopefully it doesn’t introduce more problems than solutions.
I’d like to see other potential contributors to falling ph levels. I have a pool, and one option to lower my ph is to add fresh water. I think we need to add the melting ice caps to the equation. Also, in the San Francisco Bay Area, we push so much treated water into the bay that the salinity (and ph) has dropped in the bay.
Oceanic acidification happens first. This happened in the past, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The world warmed by 5-8°C, there were rainforests in North America. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sky rocketed, the oceans absorb carbon dioxide and the ocean suffers first. Then once the ocean can’t take anymore, the air becomes more concentrated with carbon dioxide and the heat on land sky rockets as well.
But… I live in the middle of the US, not by the ocean. Our plants are dying, so are insects, birds, and wildlife, but we aren’t near any large cities here in rural Colorado. Our skies are consistently hazy, but we aren’t near a large airport. Nature is suffering but I don’t do anything to cause it to. Could it be that we all affect each other’s lives? I hope you sense the sarcasm.
“If the world were to end all meat and dairy production and transition to a plant-based food system over the next 15 years, it would prevent enough greenhouse gas emissions to effectively cancel out emissions from all other economic sectors for the next 30 to 50 years. That’s according to new research published today in the journal PLOS Climate. The paper’s authors say such a shift would “substantially alter the trajectory of global warming,” as animal agriculture is estimated to account for around 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.”-Vox (Title etc, follows- “This is how much meat and dairy hurt the climate” That would give us at least 30 years to transition from fossil fuels to renewables!
The only answer currently is nuclear fission, unfortunately the nuclear industry is highly reluctant to update there reactors to a safer non-uranium and water design like Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. So if you’re planning on fish&chips in the distant future you will be paying dearly for it, from a aquaponics Farm that grows tilapia a reasonable cod substitute. The farm will most likely be powered by a thorium reactor purchased from China.
It sounds like we have no idea for sure why exactly sea creatures are disappearing due to a lack of research. It’s hard, as a land dwelling human, to care about what happens under the ocean but I feel like we need to put a little more importance on studying what covers three quarters of our planet, since our survival depends on being part of a functional ecosystem. Thank you to the people responsible for this report, and to all those studying our oceans.
For the last three years the planet has cooled. Down 0.04c last year. Antartica recorded the lowest temperatures ever seen this Winter. Lowest Temperatures ever recorded in America, a minus 109f windchill. The Grand Solar Minimum is starting to bite. It’s going to get colder for at least 30 to 40 years.
I don’t get it. perusal articles like these, where it’s mentioned what we need to do to avoid it – it’s never mentioned eating a strict vegetarian diet, as part of the solution. It’s always corps need to calm down or there’s hope in some scientific experimentation, never the consumers, the root cause. Animal Agriculture is – with its combined threats – the single largest threat to mankind or rather all of earth. Co2 wise it’s responsible to around 20-25% of our emissions. Unlike energy production, manufacturing and essentials which is sloooow to improve – the effect of AG can be be stopped _today_, all it takes is for you decide to stick with this optimal diet ( as it’s officially been coined ). But why is it never mentioned, it has a huuuge impact on both global warming and ocean acidification, with all the crops and waste products due to AG. As well on antibiotic resistance, zoonotic deceases/epidemics and deforestation where AG is a majority of the cause.
Dangerous drivel. As regards ocean acidification, it is estimated that the ocean’s global mean surface pH may have declined (i.e., become less alkaline and thus more “acidic”) by -0.07 to -0.08 in the last 200 years — from pH8.12 during pre-industrial times to 8.04 to 8.05 today (Wei et al, 2015). N.B. The decline in pH occurred before 1930. However, and very importantly when you look the data after CO2 emissions began rising precipitously in the 1930s, the oceans have become less “acidic”!!! By way of comparison, from one season to the next, or over the course of less than 6 months, pH levels naturally change by ±0.15 pH units, or twice the overall rate of the last 200 years. On a per-decade scale, the changes are even more pronounced. Oceanic pH values naturally fluctuate up and down by up to 0.6 U within a span of a decade, with an overall range between 7.66 and 8.40. This is decadal rate of pH change is larger than the overall 200-year span (0.07-0.08) by a factor of 8.
Vers un océan émetteur de CO2 ? « Le résultat était tellement surprenant que je pensais avoir fait une erreur », confie Jonathan Lauderdale. Son modèle indiquait en effet que, lorsque les concentrations de ligands varient d’une région de l’océan à l’autre, alors, plus la circulation océanique est faible, plus le CO2 s’accumule dans l’atmosphère. L’ennui, c’est qu’il s’avère que dans le monde réel, les concentrations en ligands changent effectivement d’une région de l’océan à l’autre. Les chercheurs expliquent. Alors que la circulation océanique ralentit sous l’effet du réchauffement climatique, l’océan extrait moins de carbone et de nutriments de ses profondeurs. Résultat, le phytoplancton de surface manque de ressources. Il produit alors moins de ligands. Et qui dit moins de ligands, dit aussi moins de fer disponible et donc… moins de phytoplanctons pour absorber le CO2 de l’atmosphère. Le tout dans ce que les scientifiques appellent une boucle de rétroaction. Plus communément, un cercle vicieux. « Certains modèles climatiques prédisent un ralentissement de 30 % de la circulation océanique en raison de la fonte des calottes glaciaires, notamment autour de l’Antarctique. Cet énorme ralentissement de la circulation pourrait devenir un gros problème : en plus d’une foule d’autres problèmes climatiques, non seulement l’océan absorberait moins de CO2 anthropique de l’atmosphère, mais cela pourrait être amplifié par un dégazage net de carbone des profondeurs océaniques entraînant une augmentation inattendue du CO2 atmosphérique et un réchauffement climatique supplémentaire », conclut Jonathan Lauderdale.
Why are some people stressing themselves about climate change, we live on an evolutionary planet. The animals we now know and all our ecosystems have all evolved after numerous heating and cooling episodes. Get on with living the best life you can while been kind and respectful to your fellow human beings. Our lives only amount to a split second on the evolutionary time clock.
If 97% of CO2 is produced naturally, most of it from the oceans, what caused the biggest explosion of life when CO2 was 6000 times higher? There will always be variations in what the ocean produces, and perhaps is mainly down to mankind taking more than we need, which gradually reduces the quality of catches. Check history when the medieval warm period enabled the Danes to settle in Greenland. It was much warmer then, and CO2 was much lower. Lots of historical contradictions to todays narrative.
Everybody go and get an alkaline machine for water and just start dumping gallons of it in your backyard. Do your part and it’ll add up. Water into the ground, down to “groundwater” and back up to be evaporated into the clouds and back down all over the earth. It seems like you aren’t making a dent but if we all do it..
ocean currents render oceans, a chaotic mess so how is it fair to take a sample of water from one spot in the ocean and expect it to be representative of the entire ocean? design an experiment with 11 flat bottomed flasks, each containing air with, 0.00%, 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.03%, 0.04%, 0.05%, 0.06%, 0.07%, 0.08%, 0.09%, 0.10% of carbon dioxide and a thermometer. keep them equidistant from a heat source and monitor their temperatures over a 24 hour period, to confirm how co2 affects atmospheric temperatures.
I’m puzzled as to the inclusion of Heimdal in the article. Or, perhaps with a little more generosity and less skepticism, why Climeworks (direct air carbon capture) was not. Without further information it’s hard to envision either as more than tech-saviourist, wishful thinking. Up to that point, I thought the article was well done.
The halogenated vinyl and halogenated carbon pollution is very likely interfereing with reproduction of all species. The motility of gametes in all species is impaired by free radicals generated by free radical generating molecules of halogenated vinyl and halogenated carbon. This condition is dramatic in New England area the Gulf of Mexico Sea of Japan and the North Sea.
The main culprit are the developed countries who continue to import millions of tons of crude oil/LNG/LPG through marine ships without considering the consequences of such transportation it is high time these countries (heavily depend on fossil fuels) move to renewable energy resources or before its too late and climate change catastrophe become unfixable
The pH of sea water is always between 8.0 to 8.5, that ia mildly alkaline. The high percentage of carbonates of the alkaline earth metals has a strong buffering effect. Ocean “acidification” is a misleading term as there are no acids present in the sea, only their salts. But the mth has to be maintained to ensure funds are supplied to “fix” this manufactured crisis.
So, the pH reduced that much? Seems like you need to include some error bars. Seems like you left this out, seems likely that the original measurements might not have been that accurate. As far as I recall, they would have needed to do a tritration back in the old days, which may have favored higher pH values.
Really curious how the 40 % / 150 % math was done. With a development from more alkaline to less alkaline (or closer to ph neutral, coming from alkaline) this seems pretty wild. As seems calling this “acidification” in the first place. If I get out of touch with an old friend of mine, if wouldn’t be my first instinct to call this a “growing enmity”. Anyways, according to 10:57 acidification “might have to do” with both Pteropods and Salmon decreasing in number/size. Well, that’s in full acccordance with the new “might/may” standard of science. If atmospheric CO² has so many negative consequences on all kinds of marine life, how come live was developing and thriving in an >1000 ppm CO² atmosphere? That corals came into existence in the Cambrian with on average >10 times our atmospheric CO² ppm? Yes, submerging a dead shell in a lower-alkaline solution might lead to damages to that dead shell. But are we really capturing an accurate picture of a lower-alkaline environment on living plankton and calcifying animals, both of which depend on CO² (photosynthesis, calcification), both of which represent the bottom of the food chain and both of which feature homeostasis, other than dead cells? How come the Humboldt current – very “acidic”, to lend the term – is one of the most productive fishing ground, globally?
Lord Jesus 👣 👑 is literally coming back to planet earth 🌏 y its a iffy mess 😳, we grew up with thugs & abusive & it’s almost time for them to answer for their crimes against our young family, we lost two of them & life without mom & family is a bear to live through, i know their going to have a hard time with Him,👣👑 ! 💝
When water gets warmer it LOSES CO2. When it gets colder it holds MORE CO2. And since warming should cause increased CO2 release from the ocean for a loss and an increase in the air, it seems it would make the water LESS acidic. Warming cannot be enhanced by CO2 release into the atmosphere from the ocean and increase acidification which would require taking in CO2. Decide. Is the ocean getting more or less CO2. One or the other. Because the saturation point of how much the ocean can hold decreases with every degree of warming. Last, the ph of the oceans routinely varies from ph 7.8 to 8.2 which is alkaline, not acidic. We are well within the normal range or variance at ph 8.1. There is no indication that it is leaving this range. I mean even purified water is 7.0 and that is not acidic either. You know fresh water is much lower ph or using their terms, more “ACID”, and it is not killing off or dissolving fresh water shelled animals or mullusks. Acidity is normally considered at around 6.0 and below and we are nowhere near that. The SCIENCE does not make sense.
This implies the incoming extinction of humankind, Higher acidity of the ocean leads to the destruction of the corals and the destruction of the corals leads to the destruction of the fish kingdom which is our great source of food, the death of the corals means the death of humankind due to starvation.
And again all I see are discussion around economy, war, immigration, nationalism and bla bla bla which just gives me the hint that we have not understand yet what is the real problem, we have not understand that our money and possessions and machinery will not save us from colapse and there will be no borders, mother nature will not save some just because they was born in a “developed”, “first world” country.
You wouldn’t know it from this ludicrous bit of scaremongering by the Economist, but the oceans are actually quite alkaline (pH 8.2-8.5). Any “acidification” would merely reduce the alkalinity slightly. Furthermore, sea water is strongly buffered against pH changes by ions such as hydrogencarbonate and silicate. Did the makers of this program not know that shelled molluscs can live in fresh water (pH 8 or below)?