Astonishing finding: coral reef thriving amid 'ocean acidification'

Diverse coral communities persist, but bioerosion escalates in Palau’s low-pH waters

image
Coral reef near Palau

From Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute :

As the ocean absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) released by the burning of fossil fuels, its chemistry is changing. The CO2 reacts with water molecules, lowering the ocean’s pH in a process known as ocean acidification. This process also removes carbonate ions, an essential ingredient needed by corals and other organisms to build their skeletons and shells.

Will some corals be able to adapt to these rapidly changing conditions? If so, what will these coral reefs look like as the oceans become more acidic?

In addition to laboratory experiments that simulate future ocean conditions, scientists are studying coral reefs in areas of the ocean where low pH is naturally occurring to try and answer important questions about ocean acidification, which threatens coral reef ecosystems worldwide.

One such place is Palau, an archipelago in the far western Pacific Ocean. The tropical, turquoise waters of the Palau Rock Islands are naturally more acidic due to a combination of biological activity and the long residence time of seawater within its maze of lagoons and inlets. Seawater pH within the Rock Island lagoons is as low now as the open ocean is projected to be as a result of ocean acidification near the end of this century.

A new study led by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found that the coral reefs there seem to be defying the odds, showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bioerosion — the physical breakdown of coral skeletons by boring organisms such as mollusks and worms. The paper is to be published June 5 in the journal Science Advances.

‘Based on lab experiments and studies of other naturally low pH reef systems, this is the opposite of what we expected,’ says lead author Hannah Barkley, a graduate student in the WHOI-MIT joint program in oceanography.

Experiments measuring corals’ responses to a variety of low pH conditions have shown a range of negative impacts, such as fewer varieties of corals, more algae growth, lower rates of calcium carbonate production (growth), and juvenile corals that have difficulty constructing skeletons.

‘Surprisingly, in Palau where the pH is lowest, we see a coral community that hosts more species, and has greater coral cover than in the sites where pH is normal,’ says Anne Cohen, a co-author on the study and Barkley’s advisor at WHOI. ‘That’s not to say the coral community is thriving because of it, rather it is thriving despite the low pH, and we need to understand how.’

When the research team compared the communities found on Palau’s reefs with those in other reefs where pH is naturally low, they found increased bioerosion was the only shared common feature.

‘Our study revealed increased bioerosion to be the only consistent community response, as other signs of ecosystem health varied at different locations,’ Barkley says.

‘This is important because on coral reefs, the balance between calcium carbonate production and removal by bioerosion and dissolution is very tight,’ adds Cohen. ‘So even if rates of production are not affected by ocean acidification — as we see on Palau — an increase in bioerosion can shift reefs to a state of net calcium carbonate removal, threatening their survival.’

Rapidly changing chemistry

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, ocean pH has fallen by 0.1 pH units, which represents an increase in acidity of approximately 30 percent. For marine life that has evolved over millions of years in relatively stable pH conditions, this kind of rapid change doesn’t allow for much time to adapt. By the end of this century, pH levels are projected to be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

There are several sites around the world where CO2 is released by undersea volcanic activity that vents up from the seafloor through the base of the reefs, creating a much lower pH environment than is currently found in the open ocean. These ‘natural’ laboratories are giving scientists a rare opportunity to examine what is already happening to corals dealing with lower pH levels predicted for the future.

One example is a coral reef system located among the volcanic islands of Papua New Guinea. Here, streams of gas bubbles rise up from the seafloor, lowering the pH of the overlying seawater. Similar low pH conditions are found at vent sites off Japan, freshwater seeps in Mexico, and upwelling areas in regions of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

‘The coral reef system at the Papua New Guinea vent site is an algae-dominated one with few species of corals,’ says Barkley. ‘We see responses much like those shown in many lab experiments at some of the other naturally low pH coral reef sites as well, particularly lower calcium carbonate production. But we don’t see the same responses across all of the sites, especially not at the coral reefs in Palau Rock Islands. The coral communities there are thriving, except for higher rates of bioerosion.’

In collaboration with the Palau International Coral Reef Center, members of Cohen’s lab have been conducting fieldwork there since 2011. The research team collected water and coral skeletal core samples from eight sites across the Palau reef system, and deployed pH, light, salinity and flow sensors to characterize the seawater environment in which the corals grew. The research team also collected and analyzed data on the community composition as well.

The skeletal cores were scanned at the Computerized Scanning and Imaging Facility at WHOI. The Computerized Axial Tomography technology generates a 3-D image of the cores, revealing detailed information not visible to the naked eye, including coral growth rates, skeletal densities and the extent of bioerosion.

Using an automated program written in Matlab, the team used the 3-D images to quantify the proportion of the coral skeletons that had been eroded by organisms, and the severity of bioerosion of each coral. As the pH of the reef seawater drops, more frequent and severe bioerosion scars were revealed in the coral scans.

‘We see coral skeletons that are eaten up and have holes on the top and sides. The coral almost looks like Swiss cheese because of the volume that’s been removed,’ says Barkley.

Barkley and her colleagues found bioerosion rates in Palau corals increased eleven-fold as pH decreased from the barrier reefs to the Rock Island bays. When comparing those results to other low pH reef sites, a definite pattern emerged.

‘All of these naturally low pH sites that Hannah compared are different from one another in terms of physical setting, ecological connectivity, frequencies of variability and so on. What she discovered is that the only common and consistent response to -across all these sites is significantly increased bioerosion,’ says Cohen.

‘This paper illustrates the value of comprehensive field studies,’ adds David Garrison, program director in the National Science Foundation’s Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research. ‘Contrary to laboratory findings, it appears that the major effect of ocean acidification on Palau Rock Island corals is increased bioerosion rather than direct effects on coral species.’

The riddle of resilience

So how do Palau’s low pH reefs thrive despite significantly elevated levels of bioerosion? The researchers aren’t certain yet, but hope to be able to answer that question in future studies. They also don’t completely understand why conditions created by ocean acidification seem to favor bioeroding organisms. One theory is that skeletons grown under more acidic conditions are less dense making them easier for bioeroding organisms to penetrate coral skeletons. But that is not the case on Palau, Barkley says, ‘Because we don’t see a correlation between skeletal density and pH on Palau.’

A previous study published January 2015 in the journal Geology by Thomas DeCarlo, a member of Cohen’s lab and a co-author on this paper, showed that the influence of pH on bioerosion is exacerbated by high levels of nutrients. That finding implies that local management strategies, such as controlling runoff from land, can help to slow the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef decline. Increased runoff from areas of intense agriculture and coastal development often carries high levels of nutrients that will interact with decreasing pH to accelerate coral reef decline.

Though coral reefs cover less than one percent of the ocean, these diverse ecosystems are home to at least a quarter of all marine life. In addition to sustaining fisheries that feed hundreds of millions of people around the world, coral reefs protect thousands of acres of coastline from waves, storms, and tsunamis.

‘On the one hand, the results of this study are optimistic,’ Cohen says. ‘Even though many experiments and other studies of naturally low pH reefs show that ocean acidification negatively impacts calcium carbonate production, as well as coral diversity and cover, we are not seeing that on Palau. And that gives us hope that some coral reefs — even if it is a very small percentage — might be able to withstand future levels of ocean acidification. But there’s also a cautionary side, even for those coral communities able to maintain their diversity and growth as the oceans become more acidic, increased rates of bioerosion and dissolution seem inescapable.’

###

Along with Barkley, Cohen, and DeCarlo, the team included Yimnang Golbuu of the Palau International Coral Reef Center, Victoria Starczak of WHOI, and Kathryn Shamberger of Texas A&M University.

Additional funding for this work was provided by The Dalio Foundation, Inc., The Tiffany & Co. Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, and the WHOI Access to the Sea Fund.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
194 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dodgy Geezer
June 10, 2015 8:06 am

…What she discovered is that the only common and consistent response to -across all these sites is significantly increased bioerosion,’ says Cohen….
Bioerosion? That means that the flora on the reef are in really good health and are flourishing – digging holes in the reef and so forth?
Hey – that’s BAAAD…

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
June 10, 2015 8:27 am

Yup. Mollusks. Things with carbonate shells…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/clams-do-fine-in-acid-water/
They know the truth and hint at it. “More nutrients”. Nothing to do with a less alkaline environment. Look around black smokers. Lots of shell formers in hot acid vents.
And that bit about fragile and stress… life evolved in an acidic CO2 rich environment with loads of sulphates and volcanism. There have been severe hypoxic events. Never has life faced a stable environment. BTW, the present regime will end some day too, and we can do nothing to stop it. But life changes and persists. So we have clams in hot ocean vents, arctic cold, and pH 4 fresh water. Life is not fragile.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 11, 2015 4:05 am

+1

G. Karst
June 10, 2015 8:08 am

this is the opposite of what we expected

Funny… it is what skeptics have been saying for years. Unexpected by AGW faithful perhaps. GK

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  G. Karst
June 10, 2015 9:17 am

I have really difficulties to understand why they didn’t expect this. Must have something to do with obsessive-compulsive disorders thanks to an overdose of anti-CO2 ideology…
It’s perfectly obvious for every scientific educated person that corals (likely not every single species, but as a general class of species) will survive higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations easily. Why? Chalk sediment layers from the jurassic and cretaceous periods are stuffed with fossil corals despite the fact that there was 4 – 5 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere than today…

Philipoftaos
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
June 11, 2015 3:02 pm

If the the Oceans were really warming wouldn’t they be out gassing CO2. (Henry s Law). Why do people with aquariums pump CO2 into them to help plants?

catweazle666
Reply to  Philipoftaos
June 12, 2015 2:41 pm

Philipoftaos: “If the the Oceans were really warming wouldn’t they be out gassing CO2. (Henry s Law).”
Excuse me Philipoftaos, but who gave you permission to introduce a scientific fact into an alarmist paranoid fantasy?
That’s taking unfair advantage!

CaligulaJones
Reply to  G. Karst
June 10, 2015 9:21 am

I think someone is contacting them right now and asking to use this example for a dictionary definition of “confirmation bias”.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta
Reply to  G. Karst
June 10, 2015 4:09 pm

G Karst
“‘Based on lab experiments and studies of other naturally low pH reef systems, this is the opposite of what we expected,’ says lead author Hannah Barkley, a graduate student in the WHOI-MIT joint program in oceanography.”
I am supporting your point in a different manner: what Hannah is really saying is “This is the opposite of what we have been instructed to expect.”
The unscientific aspect is that so many people felt confident to make calamitous predictions without first checking the available evidence. Bit of an oversight, neh?

Jon Lonergan
Reply to  G. Karst
June 10, 2015 4:50 pm

Better remodel that data to make it a ‘proper’ finding. It’s the Mannly thing to do after all.

Drop Bear
Reply to  G. Karst
June 10, 2015 5:08 pm

Just wait, the data hasn’t been adjusted yet

John
Reply to  G. Karst
June 11, 2015 7:23 am

Scientists can’t be doubted, yet are often ‘surprised’ by findings:
http://kgov.com/list-of-shocked-evolutionists

groovyman67
Reply to  G. Karst
June 11, 2015 7:24 am

Scientists of all kinds (Experts) can’t be doubted, yet are often ‘surprised’ by findings:
http://kgov.com/list-of-shocked-evolutionists

June 10, 2015 8:08 am

More ‘unsettled science”.

H.R.
June 10, 2015 8:09 am

Even good news is worse than we thought.

steverichards1984
June 10, 2015 8:13 am

‘That’s not to say the coral community is thriving because of it, rather it is thriving despite the low pH, and we need to understand how.’
Translation: Its thriving!

M Seward
Reply to  steverichards1984
June 10, 2015 9:06 am

Translation:
Its thriving but why we don’t have a clue. We scratch our heads until they bleed but that does not help at all. We think we know what pH means but just cannot get our head around the implication that the coral community seems to have a more practical working understanding than our science community.
The science is settled of course but the science communication needs additional adjustments.
We think that we will have to travel to numerous other coral atolls and reefs, write numerous additional papers and attend a good number of additional conferences, typically in the tropical parts of the planet and this is the nub of the matter, this will require considerable additional funding……..Its for the coral. Think of the coral.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  M Seward
June 10, 2015 9:46 am

What part of “building block” do they fail to understand. Did they ever consider that the PH is low BECAUSE thriving living reef organisms have used much of the CO2? And that they’d like more, please? No, of course not. Got to keep CO2 as pollution….

Bryan A
Reply to  M Seward
June 10, 2015 10:21 am

the only true carbon pollution come out of the tail pipes of old diesel engines

aaron
Reply to  M Seward
June 10, 2015 1:39 pm

I think you mean pH is high because bio-activity. Low pH will increase bio-activity and bio-activity will keep pH from falling too low.
They also aren’t considering the bio process in the formation and maintenance of coral structure. The disolved carbonates from dead and sick coral mean more availble for new formation and the maintenance of healthy corals.

nigelf
Reply to  M Seward
June 11, 2015 4:03 am

Yes, they’ll have to find a reef that’s doing badly for non-CO2 related reasons and hang the CO2 flag on it.
Get it published before Paris and voila!
Oh, and black-flag these researchers from Woods Hole…

Mickey Reno
Reply to  M Seward
June 13, 2015 9:15 am

Aaron, thanks for the correction. I did indeed reverse the sign. I hate when I make dumb mistakes in front of this crowd.

Reply to  steverichards1984
June 10, 2015 9:31 am

She could have said …
… thriving because of low pH, or thriving despite of low pH, we don’t really don’t know. But, because we are honest investigators, and are funded by the public, we will continue our research without any biases. This will allow us to work toward increasing our understanding of the Palau area to see if it is typical or atypical. Then it may be possible to roughly extrapolate our research findings to areas that are outside of the Palau area.
Wouldn’t that have been nice.

RH
Reply to  DonM
June 10, 2015 10:37 am

She could have said all that, but then she would need to start looking for a new job.

auto
Reply to  steverichards1984
June 10, 2015 1:42 pm

stever
[Orwell’s year. Coincidence? DoB? Probably irrelevant, but . . .]
Your quote is what I was going to highlight:
. . . we need to understand how.
What was it that was ‘settled’?
Auto

Coeur de Lion
June 10, 2015 8:13 am

I thought the oceans are alkaline? Wherefore this 30% increase in acidity?

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 10, 2015 8:29 am

There many ‘local’ variations due to a number of variables.

LeeHarvey
Reply to  kokoda
June 10, 2015 1:18 pm

And none of them in seawater take the pH below 7.0.

Jimmy
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 10, 2015 8:40 am

The standard definition of acidity in the field of regular chemistry is the concentration of protons (H+) in an aqueous solution. Higher concentration of protons equals higher acidity. Even an alkaline solution (>pH 7) has some level of protons in it, and therefore, by the chemistry definition, has some level of acidity. Therefore, increasing the level of protons, even if you don’t bring the pH to below 7, is technically increasing the acidity. As for the the 30% increase, that’s based on sparse measurements, and 30% change in acidity really isn’t very much.

Reply to  Jimmy
June 10, 2015 10:22 am

pH is defined as minus the log of the hydrogen ion concentration.
Pure water has a dissociation constant of 10^-14, so in pure distilled water, hydrogen ions (present as hydronium, H3O+), and hydroxyl OH-, are each at a concentration of 10^-7.
It is really torturing the language to refer to a small change in pH which is above 7 and hence basic, as “acidification.
Look up that word in any dictionary or chemistry text anywhere in the world, and you will find it refers to ” the process of becoming acidic. Never will you find a standard definition to denote acidification as the process of becoming slightly less basic.
Anyway, it is an open question if a warming ocean will have more CO2, considering that gasses become less soluble as temp increases, counteracting the effect of higher atmospheric CO2.
As per usual with the alarmistas, the hysteria they attempt to incite is without any rational or scientific basis. It is mere supposition, which is contradicted by actual observations and by even a passing understanding of Earth history.

Jimmy
Reply to  Jimmy
June 10, 2015 12:11 pm

Hmm, I though I had posted my previous comment as a reply to Coeur de Lion, but it doesn’t appear nested as such. Oh well.
From menicholas: “It is really torturing the language to refer to a small change in pH which is above 7 and hence basic, as “acidification.”
It’s not any more a torture of the language than it is to take a leave a bottle of beer on the counter long enough to change in temperature from 32F to 37F and declare it to have “warmed.” The beer has gained heat, therefore it has warmed, despite the fact that if you gave it to someone to drink, they would still (rightly) call it a cold beer.
However, I hate to see disagreement over wording detract from the real issues, so let’s settle on trying to find the answers to the important questions on the matter, and just avoid the acidification vs dealkalination issue:
1) Has the level of acid species actually increased by ~30% in the world’s oceans?
2) If so, should it be expected to further increase? And, if so, by how much?
3) What effects, if any, should this be expected to have on ocean ecology?

Reply to  Jimmy
June 10, 2015 12:54 pm

Jimmy:
“It’s not any more a torture of the language than it is to take a leave a bottle of beer on the counter long enough to change in temperature from 32F to 37F and declare it to have “warmed.” The beer has gained heat, therefore it has warmed, despite the fact that if you gave it to someone to drink, they would still (rightly) call it a cold beer.”
Great analogy! However, it would be rather “sneaky” to influence someone else to not drink your beer, by saying – “Here, have a beer, warmed just for you”. Those trying to inform the general public about such ph level ,would seem less disingenuous with their choice of words by clarifying the term with a disclaimer such as “although of course anything with a ph higher than 7, still not a acid…. but the effect is to make it more acidic.”
“Acid” is a very scary word to a non-chemist!….

Reply to  Jimmy
June 10, 2015 1:57 pm

The skeletons of stony coral is composed largely of calcium carbonate.
Want to take a wild guess where the carbon in the carbonate comes from?

Latitude
Reply to  Jimmy
June 10, 2015 3:01 pm

CO2…and at lower pH..corals do not have to work as hard
These are not real coral scientists

R. Shearer
Reply to  Jimmy
June 10, 2015 3:43 pm

Acidity is really the ability to titrate base. In seawater, the predominant acid is bicarbonate, not hydronium ion. The change of hydronium is close to 30% from 8.2 to 8.1, but the change in bicarbonate is only a few % lower.

Reply to  Jimmy
June 10, 2015 4:39 pm

Mr. Shearer,
“Acidity is really the ability to titrate base.”
We can get as technical as we wish, but we do not need to get very technical to dismiss the nonsense from the people in this article.
I tend to agree with Latitude…these are not people well schooled in marine biology. Or, if they are what passes for such these days, then this is a demonstration of what happens when you lie to students every damn day and fill their heads with propaganda instead of curiosity, and teach them how to be dogmatic instead of scientific.
And they are sure not chemists.
But re the above quote, it would be a disservice, IMO, to let this stand as any sort of last word for any here who are not well versed in chemistry.
There are several ways to define what an acid is.
Classic Arrhenius definition of an acid as a species that produces hydrogen ions in solution was found to be an incomplete description, and modifications were required.
Bronsted and Lowry independently gave the description that bears their names, and the Bronsted-Lowry acid-base theory was a step towards more generality.
But it too was incomplete, but luckily Lewis was right there to offer his competing but really complimentary theory of what constitutes an acid and a base.
Bronsted-Lowry defined acids and bases in terms of reactions and reaction products: An acid reacts with a base to form it’s own conjugate base, and a base reacts with an acid to form it’s own conjugate base.
But their definition omitted some important details and reactions.
Lewis defined an acid as an electron pair acceptor, and a base as an electron pair donor, and is in many ways a more inclusive and general theory. For example, Bronsted-Lowry fails to explain how it is that lthium or magnesium ions act as acids.
What I think is important to always remember is that the conjugate acid of a strong base is a weak acid, and the conjugate base of a strong acid is a weak base.
Bicarbonate is a rather usual and in some ways a nearly unique case, in that bicarbonate is both an acid and a base, which is why it is such as excellent buffer.

Reply to  Jimmy
June 10, 2015 5:10 pm

“and a base reacts with an acid to form it’s own conjugate base.”
Sorry, I have a bad habit of hitting enter without proofreading myself.
Or course should be: “and a base reacts with an acid to form it’s own conjugate acid”.

June 10, 2015 8:15 am

There are so many assumptions and unfounded claims in this article that I don’t know where to start. I certainly couldn’t stomach reading to the end of this trash. “Ocean PH has fallen by 0.1” really???? Your measuring systems are that accurate, cover the ocean that well and date back long enough to take this seriously??! Don’t make me laugh! Throw this article in the trash where it belongs!

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
June 10, 2015 10:24 am

The cited number and the 30% claim are easily debunked. No basis in physical chemistry.
Hokum, bunkem, made up and fraudulent data, repeated as if it were a fact and referred to without reference.

Rob
Reply to  menicholas
June 10, 2015 11:45 am

I would really like to see how 0.1 pH units translates to “30%”. Can anyone point to where this is calculated – and on what basis (i.e. is is 30% of the concentration of H ions or something)?

Curt
Reply to  menicholas
June 10, 2015 12:56 pm

Rob:
The pH of an aqueous solution is defined as the log (base 10) of the inverse of the molar concentration of H+ ions in the solution. (Got that?)
Neutral water has an H+ concentration of 10^-7, so its pH is log10(10^+7) = 7. (I hope that helps).
A solution with a pH of 8.2 has an H+ concentration of 10^-8.2 = 6.31 x 10^-9.
A solution with a pH of 8.1 has an H+ concentration of 10^-8.1 = 7.94 x 10^-9.
Dividing the first of these concentrations into the second, we get a ratio of 1.26, or a 26% increase in concentration. Rounding up, you could say it is 30%, I guess.
Of course, this is just math. The idea that we have a consistent record of high-enough precision measurements to know this in the real world, is (IMHO) absurd.

Reply to  menicholas
June 10, 2015 2:29 pm

If 8.1 is 30% more “acidic than pH 8.2, then we still need to make it 12,500% “more acidic” in order to get to the pH of fresh neutral water!
The article is intended to deceive, because no one who studies or practices acid-base chemistry would ever talk like this if the purpose was to be clear about what was being said or measured.
Instead of writing all this down again:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/plan-b-shoot-themselves-in-the-foot/#comment-514083

Rob
Reply to  menicholas
June 10, 2015 5:48 pm

Thanks for the replies. I figured something like that, but I wasn’t up to the maths.
I agree this is a particularly mendacious use of a % when the pH units are adequate and it shows that the piece is intended to be alarmist propaganda, even if the results don’t show anything remotely scary. What I didn’t see in the press release (but I am sure is in the paper) is any indication of what the pH actually is in the areas studies. I see later in this comment thread daily variation of 0.2 units and annual variation of 1.4 units in one spot mentioned, thus indicating how trivial a 0.1 unit variation is in biological terms.

Reply to  menicholas
June 10, 2015 6:32 pm

0.1 pH unit is unnoticeable.
Your blood changes pH far more than that if you hold your breathe for a minute.

June 10, 2015 8:16 am

They must be so disappointed.

June 10, 2015 8:23 am

‘That’s not to say the coral community is thriving because of it, rather it is thriving despite the low pH, and we need to understand how.’

It could be thriving because if it.
If, for example, more habitats were created for fauna like mollusks and worms. That could increase the overall food for the ecosystem.

…showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bioerosion — the physical breakdown of coral skeletons by boring organisms such as mollusks and worms.

There you go.

Reply to  M Courtney
June 10, 2015 8:48 am

You don’t understand. When field data contradicts the models and hypothesis, we must ask, “What’s wrong with the field data?” /sarc

CaligulaJones
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 10, 2015 9:23 am

As the saying goes: warmists see something work in practice, and want to debate why it doesn’t work in theory.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 11, 2015 6:27 am

CaligulaJones: But then they want to change reality to meet their theories rather than change the theory to meet the data then make some predictions and go measure them in the real world.
I guess I will never understand climate science…

papiertigre
Reply to  M Courtney
June 10, 2015 1:07 pm

I just saw this thing on the BBC about shallow oceans. Full of corals. They went into some detail about corals loving them some CO2, because they’re basically a colony of plants. They’re doing the photosynthesis using UV light. Wrap your head around that one.
All of the liberals imaginary boogie men from the ozone hole to the misnamed ocean acidification team up to help coral reefs thrive.

Reply to  papiertigre
June 10, 2015 5:23 pm

Coral is rather analogous to a lichen: The coral polyps that secrete the calcium carbonate skeleton that forms the structure that most people think of as coral, exist in a thin skin layer, built up upon the previous skeletons which have been excreted.
The polyps, in turn, obtain their nutrients from symbiotic algae that reside within the polyp, as do very many marine organisms.
Sponges, flatworms, mollusks, and even jellyfish…many have symbionts residing within them, mostly a variety of dinoflagellates, the most common genus of which are called, appropriately enough, symbiodinium.
The coral itself is composed of a gazillion little animals, of the phylum cnidaria.

Shawn from High River
June 10, 2015 8:25 am

To paraphrase ” We are puzzled by this positive observation and will think up some explanation to spin this into a negative gloom and doom result”

Dave Wendt
June 10, 2015 8:26 am

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848.full.pdf+html
Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining
ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset
J. Timothy Wootton1, Catherine A. Pfister, and James D. Forester2
Results
Examination of 24,519 measurements of coastal ocean pH
spanning 8 years (Fig. 1) revealed several patterns. First, in
contrast to the historical perspective that the ocean is well
buffered, pH exhibited a pronounced 24-hour cycle, spanning
0.24 units during a typical day (Fig. 1A). This diurnal oscillation
is readily explained by daily variation in photosynthesis and
background respiration: water pH increases as CO2 is taken up,
via photosynthesis, over the course of the day, and then declines
as respiration and diffusion from the atmosphere replenish CO2
overnight (16). Second, pH fluctuated substantially among days
and years, ranging across a unit or more within any given year
and 1.5 units over the study period.
The wide variations in oceanic pH noted by this study suggest that, if oceanic life were as vulnerable to changes in pH as has been posited, the ocean’s of the world would have turned into vast watery deserts long ago.

Reply to  Dave Wendt
June 10, 2015 10:27 am

Exactamundo!

RH
Reply to  Dave Wendt
June 10, 2015 10:42 am

What right-wing think tank do Wootton, Pfister, and Forester work for?

Reply to  RH
June 10, 2015 11:20 am

in the pockets of Big Oil and the Koch brothers.
/s

aaron
Reply to  Dave Wendt
June 10, 2015 2:05 pm

I wonder how much CO2 is replenished by rain.

Editor
June 10, 2015 8:27 am

I was walking along Marbella’s Paseos the other evening. There are very sophisticated sea sensors every few hundred yards that give sea and land temperatures, windspeed and seawater pH. The pH of the North Western Mediterranean was 8.1, which I would not define as acidic. I am not an expert on seawater pH but I would guess with pollution and other human activities (CO2 not included) pH would fall, I would be grateful if someone could correct or affirm.

Reply to  andrewmharding
June 10, 2015 9:43 am

pH 8.1 is “more acidic” than pH 8.2

Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 10:33 am

Only to an alarmist. To a normal chemist in everyday language, 8.1 is less basic than 8.2.

Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 10:34 am

Or more neutral.
Since neither are acidic, it makes no sense to use the word.

Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 11:17 am

less alkaline is probably a more common term.

Yirgach
Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 11:42 am

Also pH 8.1 is “less alkaline” than pH 8.2

DaveH
Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 11:47 am

“More acidic” is used to alarm and imply that the oceans are becoming more caustic when in fact they are becoming “less caustic” which is the term I prefer because it most directly refutes the intentional distortions.

James Harlock
Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 2:22 pm

Sure, in exactly the same way that applying the brakes on a car is “decelerating.”

Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 4:55 pm

“less alkaline is probably a more common term”
Perhaps it depends on where you are from or where one studied.
Base is a shorter word and easier to say, and seems more inclusive. Lewis and Bronsted-Lowry both described acids and being opposed to bases.
“Acid-base Chemistry” is a chapter in every first year chemistry text.
Almost everyone I know uses the word base to refer to the opposite of an acid.
Caustic and alkaline are of course not unfamiliar, simply less widely used in that particular context.

Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 5:01 pm

If the idea was to dispel alarm, rather than incite it, the phrase everyone would use would not be “ocean acidification”.
The oceans are not being transformed into acid.
The are becoming more neutral, less basic, less alkaline, less caustic.
Take your pick.
Webster Dictionary
1.Acidification(noun)
the act or process of acidifying, or changing into an acid
Origin: [Cf. F. acidification.]
Princeton’s WordNet
1.acidification(noun)
the process of becoming acid or being converted into an acid
Wiktionary
1.acidification(Noun)
The act or process of making something sour (acidifying), or changing into an acid.
Oxford
Definition of acidify in English:
verb (acidifies, acidifying, acidified)
Make or become acid:
[with object]: ‘pollutants can acidify surface water’
Derivatives
acidification – noun
Cambridge Online
(Did not contain entry for acidification, but did have the verb form, acidify)
acidify
verb [I or T] uk /əˈsɪd.ɪ.faɪ/ specialized us
to become an acid or to make something become an acid

ROM
Reply to  Slywolfe
June 10, 2015 9:22 pm

“Less / more “Acidic” instead of “Alkaline”;
Semantics used by alarmists so shaped as to induce fear and stress over a problem for which only they hold the solution to that increasingly severe and a potentially devastating “man made problem”.
After all everybody knows battery “acid ” can be quite dangerous and do a lot of damage so “acid” will do some severe damage to the iconic coral reefs as well and we all know and are repeatedly told it is all our fault.
“Alkalinity”!? What the hell is that and what has it got to do with oceans and coral reefs!?
[ irony / ]

Reply to  Slywolfe
June 11, 2015 5:50 am

Only just!

Barbara
Reply to  Slywolfe
June 11, 2015 7:15 am

Menicholas, some years back a Biology Dept. Chair. informed me that pH didn’t matter and that rainwater was neutral. Then it was discovered a couple of years later that this same fellow had some questionable academic credentials.

papiertigre
Reply to  Slywolfe
June 11, 2015 7:59 am

the way to counter this stupidity is to point out rainwater is 1000 times more acidic than sea water. If you ever notice the newspapers side step that tidbit with, “rainwater is normally mildly acidic”, always making sure to include mildly.
If mildly acidic equals as harmless as rain water then what does that make a thousand times less acidic?

Alan the Brit
June 10, 2015 8:30 am

‘Based on lab experiments and studies of other naturally low pH reef systems, this is the opposite of what we expected,’ says lead author Hannah Barkley, a graduate student in the WHOI-MIT joint program in oceanography.
So, there you have it in one fell swoop, ocean pH varies naturally all over the world!
If it was in print, perhaps it should be cut into small A5 rectangels, collated, have a small hole punched in the top left corner, threaded with a piece of string, & then hung on a nail in the smallest room in the lab building! Probably all it’s fit for!

Eliza
June 10, 2015 8:36 am

Andrew: Neutral pH for chemistry ect is 7, For biology (ie humans and animals) generally 7.4. So Oceans are quite alkaline in fact. The reduction they quote 0.1 pH units is not measurable in the ocean or is meaningless, the pH before measurement could have been 0.1 lower or higher = drivel. I don’t know why WUWT keeps on giving attention to these types of papers. I presume they need stories. LOL

DirkH
Reply to  Eliza
June 10, 2015 12:58 pm

It is important to keep track of the propaganda.

June 10, 2015 8:37 am

“[…]showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bioerosion[…].”
I admit I don’t make a point of following the literature on ocean acidification so I may have missed the papers predicting declining pH would increase bioerosion. Serious question: was that predicted?

Mike M.
June 10, 2015 8:42 am

Kudos to the authors of this study. They seem to have clearly gone in with a particular expectation, as per the conventional wisdom, but they found the opposite. And they report what they found, as scientists should.

michael hart
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 8:45 am

Indeed. We can hope they take it as an opportunity to learn.

RH
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 10:47 am

I’d withhold kudos. Yes, they reported the results, but not without editorializing.
‘That’s not to say the coral community is thriving because of it, rather it is thriving despite the low pH…’
‘…coral reefs there seem to be defying the odds…’
‘…ocean acidification, which threatens coral reef ecosystems worldwide…’

Max Totten
Reply to  RH
June 10, 2015 3:55 pm

I have found useful information in several ‘pro agw’ papers. To be published they must include the party line but the angel is in the details.

Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 11:23 am

If they had found OA confirming catastrophe they were expecting, they would have gotten an article in a high impact factor journal.

June 10, 2015 8:46 am

“Though coral reefs cover less than one percent of the ocean, these diverse ecosystems are home to at least a quarter of all marine life.”
That should be evidence enough that coral reefs are not that brittle. Evolution might be blind, but it is not dumb.

Reply to  Manuel
June 10, 2015 5:41 pm

Not sure what is meant here by “a quarter of all marine life”?
Is it referring to unique species, as numbers thereof?
I do not think it can refer to biomass.
The cold water fisheries are incredibly productive and, while the reefs have a welter of distinct species, they are not generally commercially important fisheries.
Think Bering Sea, Outer Banks, Humboldt/Peru Current…
Or the far southern ocean, with it’s staggeringly huge populations of Antarctic krill, one species of which contains a biomass greater than all the people on Earth, some half of which are consumed by aquatic mammals and fish, each and every year (!) and yet bounce right back.
Mangroves are another biome with a rich diversity and also a large biomass. Mangroves are extremely important as breeding sites for a wide variety of important marine species.
I think mangroves, like most plants, will do very well in a CO2 enriched world.
Ditto salt marsh plants and biota.

Jquip
June 10, 2015 8:47 am

“The Science is settled.”

siamiam
June 10, 2015 8:50 am

I suggest a long visit to JFloorAnthoni’s web site. The oceans are very complex both biologically and chemically.

June 10, 2015 8:51 am

Bio resistance may be the key. I, a retired field biologist, have seen ecosystems thrive in adverse (human interpretation) conditions, ranging from arctic conditions in Siberia, to tropical conditions around the African equator. Nature is solving problems on its own and does not need ill informed human advise.

June 10, 2015 8:56 am

” this is the opposite of what we expected,’ says lead author Hannah Barkley”
That would be because you expected the wrong thing, Hannah. Corals and other carbonate constructing critters are well known to be able to use Carbon from bicarbonate, carbonic acid as well as molecular CO2 which comprises the bulk of Carbon is surface waters. CO2 just loves to swim, and swimming molecular CO2 does not appreciably affect pH. It makes a fine source for carbonate.
Like any change there will be winners and losers among the critters.
If you add up the specific individual isotopically differentiated flows in a modern Carbon cycle model it becomes clear that at any given moment there is over 1000 GtC in motion. About 120 GtC flow into and out of the ocean surface every year from the atmosphere. These cannot be considered as offsetting because they are isotopically fractionated very differently.
Consider what affect you should have expected from 9 human GtC added to this 240 GtC cycle. Consider also that the human contribution is shared, arguably disproportionately, with another 220 GtC cycle between the atmosphere and plants etc. on land.

Stevan Makarevich
June 10, 2015 9:01 am

Being a swimming pool owner, I can speak with authority that all is needed is to add 4 pounds (imperial unit) of soda ash per 10,000 gallons of water – pH back to normal!

DHR
June 10, 2015 9:08 am

The lead in to this article says in part, “The CO2 reacts with water molecules, lowering the ocean’s pH in a process known as ocean acidification. This process also removes carbonate ions, an essential ingredient needed by corals and other organisms to build their skeletons and shells.”
Adding CO2 to water does not decrease carbonate ions, it increases it. There is competition for this CO2 between corals and some shellfish and green plants (algae and others). The Papua New Guinea experience suggests that sufficiently high concentrations of CO2 and perhaps other factors, algae win. Some useful research might be to find the relationships between all consumers of CO2 in a reef system to, hopefully, determine whether man-released CO2 can possibly have any effect. Perhaps such research has been done.
Anybody?

Mike M.
Reply to  DHR
June 10, 2015 9:17 am

DHR,
Adding CO2 to seawater decreases carbonate. CO2 is an acid, carbonate is a base. The main overall reaction that occurs is:
CO2 + CO3= + H2O -> 2HCO3-
From what I unserstand, other studies have shown that although lower pH per se is bad for corals, higher CO2 is good. So the net effect of lowering pH by adding CO2 is not obvious, and might well be beneficial.
Of course man can have an effect. But nature can adapt.

DHR
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 9:39 am

Hmm. What I was taught many years ago is:
“When carbon dioxide dissolves in water it exists in chemical equilibrium producing carbonic acid:[3]
CO2 + H20 = H2CO3
i.e., CO2 + H2O is in equilibrium with H2CO3.
The hydration equilibrium constant at 25 °C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] ≈ 1.7×10−3 in pure water[4] and ≈ 1.2×10−3 in seawater.[5] Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly.”
Hence when more CO2 is added to seawater, both the CO3 ion and CO2 molecule concentrations increase.
This from Wikipedia.

Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 9:54 am

Corals at Dobu Reef in Papua New Guinea appear to be doing very well despite being bathed in CO2 bubbles. David Archibald posted an article at WUWT in 2011 that featured a beautiful photo by Bob Halstead of such a reef scene from that location. Would have copied the photo to this reply if I knew how, but it’s still up at the following url.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/28/the-fishes-and-the-coral-live-happily-in-the-co2-bubble-plume/
After reading the article, you can’t help feeling that the real issue is continued funding rather than any damage to corals or molluscs.

Mike M.
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 9:55 am

DHR,
What you say would be true if CO2 were the only source of carbonate in seawater. But it is not. By far the main source of carbonate is from dissolved carbonate salts. In that case, the main reaction is the one I gave earlier.

David
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 9:55 am

Mike if CO2 dissolves in water, the equation is CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3
ie carbon dioxide plus water gives you carbonic acid
In solution H2CO3 exists as hydrogen ions (2H+) and carbonate ions (CO3 – – ) that’s CO3 with two negative charges.
I don’t understand why the paper says that the CO2 results in the loss of carbonate, The only thing I can imagine is that because the sea is naturally alkaline, the we are getting a reaction like
H2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 -> H2O + CaCO3
and the CaCO3 is precipitating out.
But if that was happening, the CO3- – that is precipitating came from the extra CO2 in the first place – ie the ocean is capturing and sinking the CO2 which is just what the warmists should want.
Maybe what the paper meant to say was that the CO2 is precipitating out Calcium (which is also required for corals to grow)

Mike M.
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 10:14 am

David,
In considering what happens in a chemical system you have to consider all the equilibria that occur and all the components that make up the system. You can do that either by a complicated calculation or by reasoning through what the main equilibrium is.
There is a lot of carbonate in seawater; it comes from dissolved minerals, not CO2. Seawater is alkaline because carbonate is a base, it reacts with water to form hydroxide:
CO3= + H2O -> HCO3- + OH-
That is the reverse of the second dissociation of carbonic acid. But you have to consider not just the reactions, but the nature of the starting materials.
If you add CO2 to water, it reduces the amount of OH-. That causes CO3= to decrease, according to the above reaction. But adding CO2 also causes HCO3- to increase, which would increase CO3=. Which one wins?
There are two ways to answer the question. One is to do a complicated calculation. The other is to ask which of HCO3- and OH- undergoes a larger relative change when CO2 is added. The larger relative change is for the species that has the smaller concentration. That is OH-. So adding CO2 causes carbonate to decrease.
A different solution, with different concentrations, might give a different result.

Alcheson
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 10:54 am

Since the ocean is pH buffered by CaCO3, adding CO2 actually increases carbonate concentration.
Ka2 = [H+][CO3–]/[HCO3-]. Since pH is held constant by the ocean buffering system, as HCO3- goes up due to CO2 addition, so does CO3–. Almost all experiments done in the lab do NOT use a buffered system for their studies which is why the almost ALL get the wrong result.

Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 11:02 am

Should also note, bubbling CO2 into a water solution containing finely powdered CaCO3, the pH of the solutions remains at pH ~8 until ALL of the CaCO3 is dissolved. The whole time you are bubbling in CO2, the carbonate ion concentration increases. Only after ALL of the CaCO3 is dissolved does the pH drop significantly and the relative concentration of CO3– begin to decrease.
There is NO WAY we will ever dissolve all of the CaCO3 in the ocean, which is why even when the atmosphere was 6000ppm CO2, the oceans were basic AND life was thriving in the oceans.

Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 2:54 pm

It is not complicated. More carbon means more carbonate will be available whenever any is removed by precipitation, biological uptake, or other net sinks. All of the carbonate, whether from the air or from dissolved minerals, comes from CO2 which was once in the air.
The vast beds of carbon bearing rocks came from carbon which was in the air.
I would be interested to see a reference for the assertion that most carbonate in seawater originates from dissolution of carbon bearing minerals.
My understanding is that carbon bearing rocks are accumulating over geologic time. Contents are on net growing, not shrinking, and much of the rock is of marine origin, and much of that is carbon bearing sedimentary rocks.

Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 2:55 pm

Sorry: Continents are on net growing…

Mike M.
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 7:21 pm

Alcheson does not understand how buffers work. A buffer resists changes in pH, it does not prevent changes in pH. How well it works depends on the buffer concentration (higher is better) and the buffer ratio (equal concentrations of the conjugate acids and bases is best). A bicarbonate/carbonate buffer used to calibrate a pH meter is typucally something like 50 mM in each ion. Seawater is something like 2.5 mM bicarbonate and a tenth as much carbonate. So it is a buffer, but not a particularly good one.
Ka2 = [H+][CO3=]/[HCO3-]
Alcheson got that right. But when CO2 dissolves in seawater you have to consider ALL the equilibria, the most important of which is
CO2 + CO3= + H2O = 2HCO3-
so more CO2 means less carbonate, more bicarbonate, and higher [H+], from the first equation.
Alcheson’s claim that lab experiments use unbuffered solutions is ludicrous.

Mike M.
Reply to  Mike M.
June 10, 2015 7:34 pm

Alcheson wrote: “There is NO WAY we will ever dissolve all of the CaCO3 in the ocean, which is why even when the atmosphere was 6000ppm CO2, the oceans were basic AND life was thriving in the oceans.”
The only CaCO3 in the ocean is in skeletons and shells of organisms. There is a lot of CaCO3 on the bottom of the ocean. It will eventually neutralize all the CO2 added to the atmosphere. That will only take a few thousand years. Undoubtedly the oceans will eventually recover from whatever we throw at them. But in the meantime …

Alcheson
Reply to  Mike M.
June 11, 2015 11:25 am

Mike M says “..you have to consider ALL the equilibria, the most important of which is
CO2 + CO3= + H2O = 2HCO3-
so more CO2 means less carbonate, more bicarbonate, and higher [H+], from the first equation.”
Mike your equation is right but you conclusion is wrong. You ASSUME that the only source of CO3– in your reaction is the FREE CO3– floating in the sea water. As is quite well known, CO2 dissolves CaCO3. The ocean bottom is lined with millions of Gigatons of limestone deposits, at both shallow and deep depths. As shown in the lab… H2CO3 + Ca(CO3) -> 2HCO3- + Ca++
Solubility of HCO3- in water is about 17g/liter. So while your equation is correct, your conclusion wrong. You, like most people who publish IGNORE the vast buffering ability of the LIMESTONE deposits in the ocean. So, if pH remains constant, (which lab experiment shows as long as CaCO3 is readily available, then the pH of the solutions stays at ~pH 8 until ALL of the CaCO3 is dissolved. There since Ka2 = [H+][CO3–]/[HCO3-] MUST be met at equilibrium, if the pH does not change then CO3– MUST increase with increasing HCO3-.
Think about caves. Where do stalagmites and stalagtites come from? Why, the come from limestone (CaCO3) deposits dissolved by H2CO3….. imagine that. If it works in caves, it is guaranteed to work in the oceans.

Reply to  Mike M.
June 11, 2015 8:34 pm

“If it works in caves, it is guaranteed to work in the oceans.”
Um, I am not so sure.
Remember that groundwater is often slightly or moderately acidic, not just due to carbonic acid but also humic, tannic, and various other organic and inorganic acids.
(May be helpful to keep in mind, as well, the various oxidation states involved.)
Seawater being basic, the calcium carbonate is far less soluble.
Another perhaps important aspect is, that groundwater may have a far higher concentration of CO2 than the atmosphere, which makes the water able to dissolve relatively high amounts of calcium carbonate. The reason for stalactites, and stalagmites, and the scale in your toilet tank and elsewhere, is because when it is exposed to the atmosphere, the excess CO2 evaporates out of the solution, leaving the calcium carbonate far less soluble, and hence it precipitates.
Calcium carbonate would tend to precipitate out of solution in seawater, under most prevailing conditions, rather than dissolve.

Reply to  DHR
June 10, 2015 3:00 pm

Thank you Alcheson. I was just starting to write an explanation of buffering, and why these species exist in an equilibrium.
Also important to note is that buffered systems resist changes in pH.
And bicarbonate is only one of the buffer systems in the ocean.

Mike M.
Reply to  Menicholas
June 10, 2015 7:24 pm

Menicholas wrote: “I would be interested to see a reference for the assertion that most carbonate in seawater originates from dissolution of carbon bearing minerals.”
Try James C. G. Walker “Evolution of the atmosphere”.

Reply to  Menicholas
June 11, 2015 7:17 am

I do not think we were discussing earth hidtory, but the source of the carbonate currently dissolved in the sea.
No matter.
I could nitpick all week if these details were germane to the key point, which is whether higher CO2 will kill coral and lead to a marine catastrophe.
Ex: The calcium carbonate in ocean bottom sediments is already in a reduced state. Plus it is effectively sequestered by being buried in mud.
How could it act to neutralize CO2 in the oceans?
I think CO2 in the oceans will be outgassed if oceans warm, or taken up and incorporated into plants, algae or carbonate shells. Much will wind up in the mud with what is already there…in additional layers of sediment yet to be deposited.
[Well, yes, the earth’s story is all too often all too well hidden, but that should be “history”, right? 8<) .mod]

Reply to  Menicholas
June 11, 2015 8:15 pm

Mods, Yes indeedy.
And thanks 🙂

catweazle666
Reply to  DHR
June 10, 2015 4:45 pm

The reactions of carbon dioxide with sea water are considerably more complex and varied than H2O + CO2 > H2CO3.
Try this – all sixteen pages of it.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/cdiac74/chapter2.pdf

richard
June 10, 2015 9:15 am

Their main problem is thinking that the seas are becoming acidic. They will never become acidic. Very, very, very slightly becoming less base.

June 10, 2015 9:16 am

Changes in coral reef communities across a natural gradient in seawater pH
Hannah C. Barkley, Anne L. Cohen, Yimnang Golbuu, Victoria R. Starczak, Thomas M. DeCarlo, Kathryn E. F. Shamberger
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1500328

1 2 3 4