Ocean “acidification” is a considerably distinctive department of the overarching local weather scare. It differs from different branches of the large scare in that it doesn’t rely on atmospheric heating as the driving force of the supposed scary penalties. [some emphasis, links added]
As an alternative, with ocean “acidification,” the thought is that elevated CO2 within the ambiance (from the burning of fossil fuels) results in elevated CO2 dissolved within the oceans, which ends up in decrease pH of ocean water, which then turns into the driving force of the alleged scary penalties.
Thus, ocean “acidification” can theoretically work as a scare even when the ambiance fails to warmth with rising CO2 content material to the extent predicted by advocates’ local weather fashions.
However the ocean “acidification” declare has its personal frailties. For advocates of apocalypse, it’s a drawback that the ocean is (considerably) alkaline, quite than acidic, and that the change in ocean pH from even giant will increase in CO2 within the ambiance is small. Some may even name the change in ocean pH “slight.”
And the pH change, even in worst-case situations, shouldn’t be almost sufficient to convey it right down to the extent of neutrality, not to mention acidity. The final level is the explanation that I’ve been placing the time period “acidification” in quotes.
So, how can advocates make ocean “acidification” into one thing sufficiently scary to encourage numerous folks to hate or worry fossil fuels?
Effectively, maybe they might manufacture a declare {that a} considerably decrease pH would kill all of the tropical fish. OK, however the declare couldn’t be {that a} barely decrease pH will immediately kill the fish — no person would ever purchase that. There must be a special mechanism.
A number of years in the past (Might 2021), I had a publish overlaying the work of a pair of researchers in Australia who had provide you with a declare becoming simply this description. The researchers in query have been Philip Munday and Danielle Dixson of James Prepare dinner College in Queensland.
Over the course of a number of years and a few 22 peer-reviewed papers, these two (and coauthors) had put forth a declare that decrease ocean pH would drive tropical fish loopy, or a minimum of trigger the fish to expertise “profound behavioral and sensory impairments” that will imperil their survival.
As ought to be apparent, this declare gave extraordinary assist to the anti-fossil gas narrative, unbiased of any declare of worldwide warming, and in consequence gave the papers a really excessive profile and introduced the authors nice acclaim.
There are >20 papers by the identical authors with these large impact sizes and tiny variability. Has anyone ever carried out a single examine the place they’ve achieved results and variability like this? Ever? Not to mention in animal behaviour analysis… #FlumeGate https://t.co/XghvgSWvFp
— Timothy Clark (@Timothy_D_Clark) August 9, 2022
But it surely was too good to be true. The event for my Might 2021 publish was a paper that had appeared in Nature in 2020, by authors Timothy Clark, et al., reporting on the outcomes of efforts to breed the Munday/Dixson outcomes.
Excerpt from the summary:
“Right here, we comprehensively and transparently present that—in distinction to earlier research—end-of-century ocean acidification ranges have negligible results on necessary behaviours of coral reef fishes, such because the avoidance of chemical cues from predators, fish exercise ranges and behavioural lateralization (left–proper turning choice). Utilizing knowledge simulations, we moreover present that the big impact sizes and small within-group variances which have been reported in a number of earlier research are extremely unbelievable. Collectively, our findings point out that the reported results of ocean acidification on the behaviour of coral reef fishes are usually not reproducible, suggesting that behavioural perturbations is not going to be a serious consequence for coral reef fishes in excessive CO2 oceans.”
The summary doesn’t include the phrase “fraud,” however the article incorporates robust strategies of knowledge manipulation. This was a really uncommon piece for Nature to publish, given the hurt it precipitated to a big underpinning of the anti-fossil gas narrative.
Right here we at the moment are, 5 years on. Does something stay of the “ocean acidification” narrative as a motive to hate fossil fuels?
The previous few months have seen items laying out the instances each for and towards believing that “ocean acidification” is a big environmental concern.
On the aspect of “ocean acidification is basically unhealthy and scary,” I’ll spotlight a bit by Dana Nuccitelli that appeared in one thing referred to as The Invading Sea in March, titled “Fossil gas air pollution’s impact on oceans comes with enormous prices.”
On the aspect of “ocean acidification is method overblown,” I’ll spotlight a Might 13, 2026, paper by van Wijngaarden, Ridd, Cornell, and Happer, titled “Acidification of Water by CO2.”
Nuccitelli is a frequent author at Yale Local weather Connections (one more black eye for Yale). In Nuccitelli’s piece, he seems to have given up on making an attempt to assert that altering pH is killing off the tropical fish.
So as a substitute, right here, he emphasizes the impact on coral. He claims that “acidification” is killing off coral, however can’t attribute dying coral simply to pH, so he throws in warming as nicely:
“Florida’s barrier reef is in hassle – and it’s costing us. The reef has been experiencing a extreme outbreak of stony coral tissue loss illness over the previous decade. The possible trigger: stress from the warming local weather and acidifying waters, each the results of burning fossil fuels. … Human burning of fossil fuels impacts Earth’s oceans through the one-two punch of warming and acidifying waters, which happens as carbon dioxide is absorbed into the ocean.”
No quantitative data is offered for the quantity of coral loss, if any. The “possible trigger” of the illness is claimed to be a mix of “warming” and “acidifying waters.”
How does he know that? How a lot from every? Is there any precise proof? In that case, Nuccitelli doesn’t select to quote it. I assume it’s simply apparent to his readership.
After asserting the “possible trigger,” Nuccitelli strikes on to calculating the associated fee, not of the portion of the coral that could be misplaced, however of all the tourism business associated to all of the coral:
“The monetary stake of dropping the reef is excessive. Florida’s coral reefs are estimated to attract in over $1 billion in tourism income annually, present $650 million in flood safety advantages and assist over 70,000 jobs. What’s extra, coral reefs shield folks and property by dissipating as much as 97% of wave power, lessening storm surges.”
After which Nuccitelli goes on to depend on a latest paper from Nature Local weather Change (from January 2026) that purports to calculate a brand new measure of “social value of carbon” on the idea that international warming will considerably lower the productiveness of the oceans, not only for coral, however all different life. The NCC paper doesn’t seem to cope with the acidification problem in any respect.
Right here’s my favourite chart from Nuccitelli’s article as regards to “acidification”:
It appears just like the ocean pH is dropping like a stone! Do you discover something odd? Your complete vertical scale of the chart goes from pH of 8.03 to eight.11 — lower than 0.1 of a pH unit. The complete pH scale goes from 0 to 14.
If you happen to plotted this line with a vertical scale going all the best way from 0 to 14, the road could be indistinguishable from horizontal.
If you’re within the query of whether or not ocean corals are rising or lowering around the globe, I can suggest a number of items to you from Peter Ridd. Ridd is a man who truly goes out and research the corals (he was previously at James Prepare dinner College, like Munday and Dixson, till he acquired thrown out for heresy).
He’s additionally the identical Ridd who’s a coauthor on the van Wijngaarden et al. paper, additional mentioned under. Here’s a piece Ridd wrote in 2023 for the World Warming Coverage Basis referred to as “Coral in a Warming World, Causes for Optimism,” and right here is one from August 2025 from the Institute of Public Affairs, titled “Science groupthink flounders on state of Nice Barrier Reef.”
The underside line is that there’s loads of proof that coral reefs worldwide are thriving (not each one, and never yearly, however on an combination foundation), and no proof in any respect of combination decline.
In gentle of that proof, what’s the proof that “acidification” is harming corals? The reply is zero.
In distinction to Nuccitelli’s evidence-free advocacy piece, the van Wijngaarden et al. paper is a critical piece of scientific work. I be aware that it seems on the web site of the CO2 Coalition, quite than in one of many “status” scientific journals. I infer that these authors, who truly are the very best scientists to deal with this matter, have given up on the enforced groupthink of those “status” magazines.
The paper is lengthy (55 pages), and far of it’s technical. However the backside line is that it’s preposterous to consider that the slight decline in ocean pH brought on by elevated atmospheric CO2 could cause any vital drawback for ocean life. On this weblog publish, I’ll solely present a abstract quote.
From the Summary:
“Basic inorganic chemistry exhibits that rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 could have no dangerous impact on organisms that stay within the pure waters of the Earth [1], and should nicely profit them. Alkalinity and dissolved CO2 give excessive buffering capability to most pure waters and decrease the change of pH from exterior influences.
“For instance, doubling the atmospheric focus of CO2 from 430 ppm to 860 ppm would scale back the pH of consultant seawater at a temperature of 25 C from pH = 8.18 to pH = 7.93. This modification is similar to diurnal pH modifications in biologically productive floor waters, because of photosynthetic fixation of dissolved inorganic carbon in the course of the day and respiration at evening. The change can also be lower than the variations of pH with latitude, longitude and depth within the oceans.”
A key level is that the pH of the ocean shouldn’t be a hard and fast quantity for the entire world at a given cut-off date. Fairly, pH varies inside small ranges based mostly on latitude, longitude, depth, and even time of day.
The result’s that ocean life already has to cope with these ranges.
An enormous a part of the paper offers with the chemistry of how a lot the pH of the ocean is likely to be affected by a rise within the atmospheric stage of CO2 from the present 430 ppm as much as even a doubling of the identical to 860 pm. Some arithmetic is concerned, however I feel it’s primary and well-known chemistry.
The conclusion, as said within the summary, is that the typical pH might go down all the best way to 7.93 — nonetheless nicely into the alkaline vary (impartial is 7, alkaline above 7, and acid under 7).
If anybody is conscious of analysis establishing that pH variation within the ranges indicated is a few type of grave risk to ocean life, I might be wanting to be made conscious of it.
Till I see that, my conclusion is that the entire “ocean acidification” factor is not more than an effort to play on the concept that folks will discover the phrase “acid” scary.
Learn extra at Manhattan Contrarian
