And some thought ocean acidification would destroy everything.
“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2″…“They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”
From the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute press release, just in time for Copenhagen.

In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean—causing it to “acidify” —researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.
The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem.
But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased.
“Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate…dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them,” said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. “They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”
Organisms displaying such improvement also included calcifying red and green algae, limpets and temperate urchins. Mussels showed no effect.
“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.
Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2. In the most extreme finding, Ries, Cohen and WHOI Associate Scientist Daniel C. McCorkle exposed creatures to CO2 levels more than seven times the current level.
This led to the dissolving of aragonite—the form of calcium carbonate produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers. Under such exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins began to lose their shells. “If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely,” he said, “rendering them defenseless to predators.”
“Some organisms were very sensitive,” Cohen said, “some that have commercial value. But there were a couple that didn’t respond to CO2 or didn’t respond till it was sky-high—about 2,800 parts per million. We’re not expecting to see that [CO2 level] anytime soon.”
The researchers caution, however, that the findings—and acidification’s overall impact—may be more complex than it appears. For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms respond to carbon dioxide.
“We know that nutrients can be very important,” she says. “We have found that corals for example, that have plenty of food and nutrients can be less sensitive” to CO2. “In this study, the organisms were well fed and we didn’t constrain the nutrient levels.
“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”
Ries concurs that any possible ramifications are complex. For example, the crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification. “This may initially suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-pray dynamics. But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way, as well,” Ries said.
In addition, Cohen adds, even though some organisms such as crabs and lobsters appear to benefit under elevated CO2 conditions, the energy they expend in shell building under these conditions “might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building.”
Since the industrial revolution, Ries noted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. Climate models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200 years.
“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere,” Ries says. However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost.
“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems, he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, independent organization in Falmouth, Mass., dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary mission is to understand the oceans and their interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the oceans’ role in the changing global environment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fascinating.
After all that….THIS conclusion line: “The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
Circular reasoning at its best!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Another startling story that I have not seen posted here.
Next, we’ll be reading a study that shows increased CO2 is good for plants as well.
CO2 was as high as 7,000 ppm when shell-based organisms evolved so
Sorry post this instead. Amazing story I am not sure was posted here yet. I could not find it at any rate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
Well darn,
What is a wanna be global government supporter supposed to do now? The global warming train has wrecked and now, the ocean acidification fallback that we have been planning is turning out to be easily refuted. We can’t really go back to painting communists as the bogeyman, for he is us. I guess we could turn on all of those convenient idiots environmentalists, but they are not really scary, just gullible. What to do?
/sarc
The entire report sounds scientific and informative, positive. Then the final block:
“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere,” Ries says. However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost.
“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems, he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
[snip] Is that really the bottom line? It seems to me that the bottom line is that the ocean is an ever-changing and adapting set of systems that we don’t fully understand yet. How about that?
We need more research funds because we didn’t find out very much. Moreover we did not check whether such high levels of CO2 could possibly occur.
CO2 science has a better and comprehensive database on this.
Kindest Regards
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
Uh, non-sequitur, I think. The article fails to mention that organisms can (given enough time) adapt to changing conditions. The rise in CO² is gradual enough that it will take centuries to reach the levels of the experiments. The conclusion is bunk, a sop thrown to the Warmist willies.
The bottom line did not make a lot of sense to me. Unless I was promoting a certain idea about a certain theory. Some very convoluted thinking in this one.
Love this bit of scaremogering…
“Since the industrial revolution, Ries noted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. Climate models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200 years.”
Took more than 150 years to go from ~250 ppm/v to ~385 ppm/v there a good few years to go before we get anywhere near 400 ppm/v.
Aren’t we still at or near a historical low level of atmospheric CO2? If so, shouldn’t continued study focus on the benefits that may accrue as the CO2 levels return to what are closer to historic “norms”?
Just wondering.
I hate to be a cynic, but the statements are contradictory. Yes? No?
“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”
I read this as “we do not know and need more grant money.”
Yet the closing comment was, “The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
Huh?
Oh well just one more thing to add one more to THE LIST ! ☺
A complete list of things caused by global warming
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Pity the subeditor didn’t apply the pyramid principle and start cutting from the bottom up. And stop after the last line.
The cognitive dissonance is frightening;
1) “Despite increased CO2 in seawater leading to acidification, sea life adapts and even builds MORE shells”..
2) “Even though sea life can adapt, we humans must reduce CO2 in the atmosphere”
You know, I’m shaking my head slowly in disbelief as I type this. Is it just me, or does it seem quite, quite obvious that, no matter the changing conditions of air and water on this planet, life has done and always will be able to adapt to the changing conditions? Somebody tell me it’s really not that obvious!
Homo Sapiens have only been on this planet for what, 10’s of thousand of years? Most other species of life have been on this planet for millions if not billions of years. Only human arrogance can come up with the conclusion that we can basically bioengineer a whole planet to suit our needs and what we /think/ are the needs of everything else.
Finally, to paraphrase Ripley from Aliens: “Have IQ’s suddenly dropped since I was away?”
Striking that some creatures do better with more CO2 and many others are not affected at all. Conclusion we should reduce CO2 to harm the creatures that CO2 helps. Makes sense to me as I am in charge of everything, really. Kind of like “NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.” Good to know that some creatures do better with more CO2, historical record shows the same but nice to know things have not changed.
“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems, he says.”
Look at fossils of shelled animals when CO2 levels were much higher.
People that maintain salt water aquariums and who like to grow coral frequently use a Calcium reactor to add nutrients specific for coral growth.
http://www.marinedepot.com/calcium_reactors__index-ap.html
Key inputs are CO2 gas and dead bits of coral. Replicates the natural recycling in the marine environment (which requires CO2 to happen…)
What I find interesting is that the Oceans have systems themselves and the animals like us adapt and evolve.
The earth has had times of +4000ppm CO2 and were still here… what occurred that allowed the level to decrease? (Ice Age?) but the balancing act of the earth we do not even have a clue how it all works… Yet we have people who think were all gonna die tomorrow because of CO2…
Climate-Gate has opened up the scientific community to publish those potentially unpopular positions which would disprove AGW alarmist propaganda.
“Kevin Cave (19:58:30) :
Finally, to paraphrase Ripley from Aliens: “Have IQ’s suddenly dropped since I was away?”
OT but I prefer the line: “You don’t see them ****ing each other over for a goddamn percentage.”
Well, I’ll be dipped in carbonated Climate Change sauce.
You mean to tell me that no matter what the C02 content, some creatures will thrive and some won’t?
That’s almost as crazy as watching some weeds and plants thriving under elevated GCR’s/Deep Solar Minimum while others wilt.
Hey, aren’t we supposed to be the intelligent life-form on this planet?
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, before we got all smart, we adapted.
The ocean sink has 38,000 BMTC. Anthropogenic CO2 (indirectly) increases this by about 2 BMTC/year. On the face of it, I don’t see an emergency.
Bill, remember that the greenies are not overly worried about US dying off. It all about the coral 😉
Everything you need to know about ocean acidification:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid3.htm
Everything you need to know about ocean acidification:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
How the heck does:
“Wow, now that’s a surprise. It isn’t as bad as we thought, nothing bad happens with shells until over 1,000 PPM, and er, um, that’s at least 200 years away, if ever.”
get spun into:
“We need to reduce CO2 emissions…. now.”
Almost unbelievable. Are they just stupid or do they think everyone else is?
And they wonder why the public doesn’t think global warming is the most serious problem faced by mankind.