THE OCEAN CAN NOT BE ACIDIC!
Erik Bye 20 June 2025
CO2 Coalition and the composition of the CO2 flux
In a recent paper, CO2 Coalition discussed the origin of the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere in modern times, i.e. in the industrial time (after 1850) (Engelbeen et al. 2024):
https://CO2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Human-Contribution-toAtmospheric-CO2-digital-compressed.pdf
Here they conclude with mainly anthropogenic CO2, which is wrong. This has been described in a Guest Post by me (Bye, 2025):
https://climath.substack.com/p/co-coalition-is-wrong-about-the-natural
Quite extraordinary, this conclusion ended my membership in the CO2 Coalition after only six weeks, being excluded from the organisation.
CO2 Coalition and the pH in the Ocean
As an analytical strategy for this erroneously scientific conclusion, they used five «lines» to achieve the results. One of these was the CO2 flux related to the ocean and the pH value in the sea, see pp. 23-27 in Engelbeen et al. 2024.
Here they claim that the reduction of 0.1 pH-unit since 1850 is following the absorption of CO2 in the ocean. This suggestion is found in the CO2 Coalition paper, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 here: pages 23 and 27, with the conclusion:
1
Figure 2
This is another big mistake.
The quadratic curvature of the CO2 emission
According to Prof. (em) Harald Yndestad, it is the opposite for large regions of the sea. The emission of CO2 is recognized by the quadratic curvature of the CO2 increase, described here: https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Yndestad-2022-LunarForced-CO2-Variability.pdf
See Figure 4 in this article.
Due to a warm sea, the flux of the CO2 exchange is «out of the sea», as seen in the CO2 feature, a positive parabolic increase, in the atmosphere see Figure 3.
Figure 3.
The CO2 increase follows this equation, with an emission history of CO2 from 1930:
Y = 0.0136 • X2 - 0.049 • X + 306.5
Where:
Y = the [CO2] in ppmv
X = Year(n) - 1930, i.e. the number of years since 1930. X(n) is the selected year.
The parabolic equation was determined using Excel, based on measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).
The decrease of 0.1 pH-unit since 1850 is within the normal region for the pH in the ocean, being pH = 7.9 - 8.5. Thus, this can not be associated with an unnormal low pH in the ocean and can not be an adequate confirmation of an absorption of CO2. CO2 absorption and the pH in the ocean
The ocean is not acidic and is not getting more acidic! The ocean is alkaline with a pH = 8.1, so it is way down to the neutral state with pH = 7.0. Due to the definition of pH, see below, this change is 30% and therefore is the alarm being raised. But we are in the normal range! Someone said that he preferred to describe the change as 30% because it sounded much worse than pH down 0.1 unit. Moreover, it sounded also far worse that the ocean became «more acidic». However, when the pH is above 7.0 and decreases, the ocean becomes less alkaline, not more acidic!
Something about H+ ions, concentration and pH.
pH is defined as the negative logarithm of the concentration of H+-ions [H+], i.e.: pH = – log [H+].
The base of the logarithm is 10. The concentrations of the two ions of special interest are written as: [H+] or [OH-]. pH is defined in the range from: 1 ([H+] = 10-1) to 14 ([H+] = 10-14). The neutral situation is pH = 7, i.e. [H+] = [OH-] = 10-7
By definition, [H+] • [OH-] is constant and = 10-14. For example, when pH changes from 9 to 7, [H+] is changed from 10-9 to 10-7. Then [OH-] is changed from 10-5 to 10-7. So, when [H+] is decreasing, [OH-] increases correspondingly, and the product [H+] • [OH-] is always 10-14 .
Activists are scared of the pH
To illustrate how the most extreme activists are scaring people with ocean acidification, I had originally a link to a proposal from the Norwegian Climate Foundation, from «ENERGY & CLIMATE», which has the icon <2˚C as its brand. It is characteristic that the role model, i.e. name, is a political suggestion and is completely unscientific, and without any scientific documentation:
The title of the article was:
«This is how CO2 makes the ocean more acidic»
Unfortunately, the total reference is in Norwegian.
This is a story from a few years ago, about increased "acidity", without citing a specific pH number! This is a horrible example. There are professional errors, exaggerations, and so much extremism that it is strange that such material is released. It is possible to know much more about CO2 in the ocean!
In 2010, pH had decreased by 0.1 pH unit.
Already in 2010, it was mentioned that a change had occurred, from 8.2 to 8.1, among other things through an article in Dagbladet (Norwegian Newspaper), by Frida Bengtsson, Marine Research Advisor at Greenpeace, 18.8.2010: "Welcome to a more acidic world.", unfortunately not available online. Of course, one must take such articles with a critical eye for the source, but the statement was in line with reports from the Institute of Marine Research in Norway. I cannot find this report from that time. However, the changes so far are well within the normal range.
The bathing season increases attention.
Now the swimming season is over here, which is perhaps the reason why there is complete silence about the sea and climate change. It may seem as if the horror scenarios are seasonal. In early summer, the sea is most exposed due to fossil CO2. In the summer, the planet is boiling, and floods are raging. This autumn we have had a commotion around the homoeopathic problem of methane emissions, as well as the compensation fund for natural disasters, where the West's money tempts beyond its means.
I think also it would be useful to have a little review of the chemistry, including the chemical reactions.
Chemistry and chemical reactions
It can be useful to look at this phenomenon when it is not at its worst. The fears surrounding reduced pH are linked to the uptake of CO2 in the ocean. And there is no disagreement here, if there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, the uptake of CO2 in the ocean increases. But that does not necessarily mean that problems with damage will arise consequently.
The amount of CO2 in the ocean
Nature is so cleverly arranged that the amount of dissolved CO2 in the ocean is strongly dependent on temperature. When the temperature rises, the ocean is unable to hold as much dissolved CO2 and the gas escapes. The ratio is 50:1 of the amount of CO2 in the ocean: atmosphere ratio. However, there is plenty of room for CO2 in the atmosphere, which contains a total of approx. 3,200 GT CO2.
Reaction equations for CO2 in the ocean:
If the temperature drops, more CO2 dissolves in the ocean, and nature sorts this out, with the help of Henry's law, to look after the balance between the ocean and the atmosphere. If we suppose that the temperature is constant, the law ensures that too much CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more dissolving into the ocean, and vice versa.
But why do activists and climate scientists, and especially ocean scientists, threaten this "acidification"? This is partly emotional, partly an artificial scientific argumentation.
The emotions are connected to a thing in the sea, the biological life in the ocean, and maybe first coral reefs. The latter is stated to be damaged by the pH decrease, while this is falsified time after time. Coral life is cyclic and are so far regenerated.
The artificial is connected to CO2 that dissolves in the ocean and "creates" carbonic acid: H2CO3, which splits into: 2 H+ and CO3 2- ions. This leads to an increased concentration of H+ ions, reduced pH and a less alkaline ocean. And this would have caused problems over time if nature did not have more tools in its toolbox. One of these tools is the precipitation of calcite or "chalk", i.e. CaCO3. There is a big arsenal of free Ca 2+ ions in the ocean, released from corals and rocks. CO3 2ions are released from carbonic acid and the bicarbonate ion HCO3 2-, allowing calcite to precipitate. This entire reaction scheme looks like this:
1. CO2 (g) = CO2 (aq) solution
2. CO2 (aq) + H2O = H2CO3 (aq) hydrolysis
3. H2CO3 (aq) = HCO3 – (aq) + H+ 1. protolysis
4. HCO3 – (aq) = CO3 – – (aq) + H+ 2. protolysis
5. Ca 2+ (aq) + 2 CO3 – – (aq) = CaCO3 (s) precipitation
6. 2 H+ + 2 OH – = 2 H2O hydrolysis
Henry's law takes care of the balance between CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean, and the supply of Ca 2+ ions ensures that CO2 is removed from the ocean and stored!
In this way, we have a natural cycle, with two controllers, Henry's law and the law of mass action, where the latter precipitates calcite if there is too much on the left side of equation 5.
But there are no limits to human creativity, even when fear and terror are the driving force. The alarmists, well-driven by the IPCC and climate scientists, are looking for methods to reduce CO2 emissions. Now there is controversy over whether it is the fossil or the total CO2 part, including the natural emissions, that should be captured, but I will leave that aside for now.
The fight for climate goals
Many are worried about not reaching the climate goals that have been suggested by politicians, and many creative solutions have been proposed to comply with the 1.5°C degree goal. One is to suck CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. So, how do you do that? CICERO was mentioned in the penultimate issue of the climate magazine KLIMA. But as usual, that information unit has stopped responding to inquiries of a professional nature. In my round of inquiries to environmental organizations, I came across a report by zero.
Here too, the description was not sufficient, but no answers were to be obtained from there either. How is this done? Who and where should it be sucked in? How far down in the CO2 level should they go?
None of the places I have searched have had anything about CO2 levels as targets for the suction. Moreover, few have mentioned Henry's Law. Will it take care of the equilibrium, and perhaps destroy the suction? If CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere in large quantities, Henry's Law is there, ready to balance with CO2 from the ocean. How quickly the equilibrium is established, perhaps no one knows. But what is striking is that none of the suction operators talks about this gatekeeper (Henry's law). Is it true that no one without physical chemistry has heard of this law?
Time will show, maybe suction won't be an option at all?