The world’s marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.
The researchers warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as “the other CO2 problem”, could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.
This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today. (One might also note in the graph below that there was an ice age during the late Ordovician and early Silurian with CO2 levels 10X higher than current levels, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is essentially nil throughout the Phanerozoic.)
Perhaps corals are not so tough as they used to be? In 1954, the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear weapon at Bikini Island in the South Pacific. The bomb was equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT, vapourised three islands, and raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. Yet half a century of rising CO2 later, the corals at Bikini are thriving. Another drop in pH of 0.075 will likely have less impact on the corals than a thermonuclear blast. The corals might even survive a rise in ocean temperatures of half a degree, since they flourished at times when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher than the present.
alf (10:19:14) :
After millions of years of evolving adaptive genes, is it possible that coral has the ability to adapt to changes of co2 in it’s environment?
Alf: Over the last few million years, coral has adapted to lower than current pH and CO2 in the environment. My understanding is, however, that increased temperature (rather than pollution or acidification) is reponsible for most of the coral losses in the last 20 years (pollution is a problem near populated areas). However, given projected use of fossil fuels, the atmospheric CO2 and ocean pH are easily predicted and the CO2 problem will become more serious over the next few decades, even if the climate does not continue to warm.
alf (10:19:14) :
After millions of years of evolving adaptive genes, is it possible that coral has the ability to adapt to changes of co2 in it’s environment?
Alf: The corals have adapted to lower than current CO2 and pH for millions of years. Evolution can not predict that a change will occur, in this case human burning of fossil fuels accumulated over the last 500 million years within several hundred years. My understanding is that loss of corals over the last 20 years has been mostly due to heating events. I am not an expert on this, but many coral experts expect that effects of higher CO2 will be serious over the next few decades. Given scenarios for human fuel consumption, calculation of atmospheric CO2 is fairely straight forward.
@Bill D (12:00:09) :
Time to look at some other text books, or read the ones you have more carefully.
Too bad there are so many “completely false” results as those presented in this abstract, where they “flasely” claim “On a daily basis, the oxbow lake was a net source to the atmosphere of both CO2 (147.1 ± 10.8 mmol m−2 d−1) and CH4 (116.3 ± 8.0 mmol m−2 d−1).”
I suggest you complain to the editor of that publication.
One more point—the seasonal variations in the CO2 measured at Mauna Loa are due to increased photosynthesis (mostly terrestrial) during the northern hemisphere spring and summer and low photosynthesis relative to respiration during our fall and winter. This means that plants grow mainly in the spring and summer and respiration and decomposition predominate in the fall and winter. The northern hemisphere predominates over the southern hemisphere because its land mass (North America, Europe, and Asia) is much greater than the land mass of South America, southern Africa and Australia. The oceans don’t have much net effect. I guess that this means that ocean photosynthesis is similar in the northern and southern hemispheres.
Remember that plants take up CO2. On an annual basis, the CO2 is mostly released as plants are eaten by animals or leaves decompose. Photosynthesis and respiration balance almost completely (not decrease or increase over an annual cycle) unless there is a significant increase or decrease in plant (especially forest) acreage. Burning of fossil fuels is far more important than the increases or decreases in plant tissue.
Sometimes I teach a general undergraduate biology class that includes a chapter on the environment. This explanation is what I read in the text and also in scientific papers and what I tell my students. Although some of you may believe that this makes it false, this is also what Al Gore said in his movie. Since I try to give my students the most accurate and up to date scientific explanations, anyone who has a credible source of information should post the source of their opposing view. I would like to read and evaluate it.
Based on my reading and knowledge (which are not always correct) anyone who thinks that the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 is due to a local or global ocean exchange is misinformed. I’d like to learn about a mechanism and data that would support the hypothesis that the ocean causes regular seasonal changes in the earth’s CO2 atmosphere. “Hey it sounds possible” or If it’s opposite Al Gore’s opinion it must be true” would not be convincing for me. (I am getting a little sarcastic as bed time approaches).
George E. Smith (12:07:00)
George, we’ve already had the dismal non-“argument” about the meaning of “acidification”. Are you really going to proceed down a pedantic diversion over the meaning of “sinusoidal”?
Remember that words are only labels for the things that we are choosing to describe.
“Sinusoidal” is actually not a bad description of the very well-characterised cyclic variation in the atmospheric CO2 concentration that follows the seasonal growth/decay cycle in the N. hemisphere which is where most of the earth’s flora “resides”. Since the sinusoidal variation lies on a rising trend of growing atmospheric CO2 it does look a bit “sawtooth”.
So let’s call it “sawtooth” if you like. We both know what we’re looking at.
Steven Goddard (11:25:19) :
“Just to clear some of the FUD from the water, the chemical composition of aragonite and calcite (CaCO3) is identical, and there are many forms of shellfish in the oceans now that are quite similar to ones that lived in the Ordovician.”
How about the Dover cliffs of chalk? From the Cretaceous (meaning “chalk bearing”) period, a time of warm temperatures, no icecaps or glaciers, high sea levels, 3 to 7 times the atmospheric CO2 of today, we see massive amounts of chalk made up of shelled fossil creatures that died contributing to the Cliffs we see now, apparently survived. Whatsupwithat? Timing, perhaps.
gary gulrud (11:45:46) :
RE: Moving seamlessly from aragonite to calcite skeletons with pH ~7.7.
I forget the organism but I remember reading, in the last year, of this as accomplished fact. Before you lash back, I’m an aquarist and have a Bio major focussed on evolution(yeah, I’m pro).
Gary, you say that the idea that the ocean seems like a plausible explantion for the seasonal (saw tooth, sinusoidal oscillations) in the CO2 data. As a bio major, I hope that you consider the explantion that I gave above. If you still have you old bio text book, you should find a convincing reason before considering its explanation false. signed–an interested bio/ecology/evolution prof.
An interesting article, concerning whether coral can survive high CO2:
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=3235
“He subjected specimens in the lab to increasingly acidic conditions. It didn’t take long for the colonies in the most acidic environments — those with pH levels as low as 7.3 — to show remarkable changes; within a few weeks, their calcium carbonate skeletons had started to dissolve and the polyps became entirely exposed, he and a colleague report in Science.
Surprisingly, the polyps seemed to fare well under these conditions, growing up to three times their original size and reproducing unhindered. “No one expected that corals could survive such low pH,” says Fine.”
[…]
“Daphne Fautin, a marine zoologist at the University of Kansas, suggests that the calcium carbonate skeleton, which we see as a defining characteristic of stony corals, may in fact be an ephemeral trait that waxes and wanes in response to environmental changes. “
Of course the chemical properties haven’t changed, that’s an absurd statement. What has changed in over 450,000,000 years is the variety and forms of corals.
Corals formed and started evolving into different forms during the ordovician. Many of these became extinct at the end of the Ordovician (the 2nd largest mass extinction event after the Permian). Surviving groups flourished and today there are thousands of different species including the soft corals.
This species have their individual way of dealing with different temperatures, salinity, pH, light levels, tides, seasonal changes etc. There are over 800 known species of reef building corals. This diversity is the important thing and a third of these species are shown to be at risk. A recent study, the Global Marine Species Assessment (2008) by the leading scientists in this field showed that one third of the species study were threatened with extinction.
[snip] (unless of course you know better than the 39 marine biologists that participated).
[snip]
Reply: Mary Hinge, you are stepping over the line here. It is time to enforce civil discourse again…I’mmmmm baaaack ~ charles the moderator
@Bill Junga (12:03:18) :
1 – see first link in my last post, at (12:50:41)
2 – actual photo of co2 venting from sea floor.
3 – “Bubbles of carbon dioxide also are streaming upwards as gases escape from the lava.” HREF=”http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2635.htm”>REFERENCE
IT’s a tad more complex than the simplistic Abbot Costello routines of some here, like J Lo, would have you believe. HREF=”http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/ripc/ih/volumes/vol_one/cht_i_09.pdf”>REFERENCE
MORE ON EXCHANGE OF CO2 AT WATER SURFACES…
A recent estimate of CO2 outgassing from Amazonian wetlands suggests that an order of magnitude more CO2 leaves rivers through gas exchange than is exported to the ocean as organic or inorganic carbon. REFERENCE
“strong vertical mixing of CO2 rich waters during autumn and winter resulted in the area to act as an annual net CO2 source to the atmosphere”[while it was a sink in the spring.] HREF=”http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/07322/EGU04-A-07322.pdf”>REFERENCE
And, J Peden, please, I beg of you, DO NOT ASK THEM TO WRITE OUT ANY MORE EQUATIONS, …..PLEEEEEZE. It’s too painful to watch.
Hi Charles! Welcome back, missed you! I’m assuming by the snips I was correct in my assumption!
Reply: All that I saw was you being inappropriately rude. I have censored posters being rude to you (multiple times). I will censor you when you are being rude to others. There is nothing else for you to conclude from my actions. I have no personal extra knowledge that you think I may be aware and I have had no contact with Steven Goddard. I read this website less than you do. I generally just scan for tone. ~ charles the moderator.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (12:50:41) :
@Bill D (12:00:09) :
Time to look at some other text books, or read the ones you have more carefully.
Too bad there are so many “completely false” results as those presented in this abstract, where they “flasely” claim “On a daily basis, the oxbow lake was a net source to the atmosphere of both CO2 (147.1 ± 10.8 mmol m−2 d−1) and CH4 (116.3 ± 8.0 mmol m−2 d−1).”
I suggest you complain to the editor of that publication.
Four years:
I agree with the mechanism and arrows shown in the online text that you cite. These diagrams don’t put any numbers of the rates and amounts, so they don’t disagree with what I have said about which rate dominate.
As for the abstract, I assume that these are measured rates, something that is not difficult to do in a small lake. Without seeing the larger data set or reading the researcher’s methods, no one can evaluate the validity of their (his or her) abstract. Many small lakes, especially those with high inputs of DOC (dissoved inorganic carbon) from their water sheds are net heterotrophic (release rather than store carbon). This is not the case for the world’s oceans, however.
MAry The abstract reads “”The conservation status of 845 zooxanthellate reef-building coral species was assessed by using International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List Criteria. Of the 704 species that could be assigned conservation status, 32.8% are in categories with elevated risk of extinction. Declines in abundance are associated with bleaching and diseases driven by elevated sea surface temperatures, with extinction risk further exacerbated by local-scale anthropogenic disturbances. The proportion of corals threatened with extinction has increased dramatically in recent decades and exceeds that of most terrestrial groups. The Caribbean has the largest proportion of corals in high extinction risk categories, whereas the Coral Triangle (western Pacific) has the highest proportion of species in all categories of elevated extinction risk. Our results emphasize the widespread plight of coral reefs and the urgent need to enact conservation measures. “”
Do not see that CO2 induced pH changes are the source, but rather many anthropogenic sources, and the natural source of temperature increase. Even IPCC agrees that natural increased temperature has occurred since the LIA.
@ur momisugly Steven Goddard,
“John Philip,
The NOAA web page shows a graph with decreasing pH from HOTS over the last 20 years. However, if you go to the HOTS web site and extract the data for yourself (as I did and linked above and below) there is no such trend.
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/hot-dogs/bextraction.html
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pj0h2MODqj3i9dc6DdtQDPw
That is why I asked for raw data.”
Sir, you are flat-out lying. Go to the link (HOT data), select pH comparison–notice the trend line is sharply down: http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/trends/trends.html
“Just to clear some of the FUD from the water, the chemical composition of aragonite and calcite (CaCO3) is identical,”
No, they are not. Calcite can range from hi-Mg calcite (~12-20 mol % MgCO3 in today’s sea water) to low-Mg calcite (< 4 mol % MgCO3). Aragonite is very poor in MgCO3, but comparatively enriched with SrCO3. It is not remotely true to say that calcite and aragonite are chemically identical.
Further, physical differences among hi- and low-Mg calcite and aragonite are profound. Aragonite is ~1.5x as soluble as low-Mg calcite while hi-Mg calcite is ~1.5-1.7x as soluble as aragonite. Not appreciating the differences among these polymorphs is like not appreciating differences among diamond, graphite, and buckeyballs.
“and there are many forms of shellfish in the oceans now that are quite similar to ones that lived in the Ordovician.”
Similar how? Similar in general body plan? Tridacna spp. (giant clams) and hydrothermal vent clams (Calyptogena magnifica) have similar body plans, but they could not be more different. By that same token, people and salamanders have similar body plans. Suggesting that two organisms are physiologically and ecologically equivalent because of similar body plans is, frankly, incredibly nieve.
“And yes we all know that there are lots of scientists who are worried about CO2. That is the point of examining the unfiltered data directly in these articles, to see if their underlying assumptions are correct.”
I couldn’t agree more. Why then are you misrepresenting or flat-out lying about the data??? We SHOULD be discussing the data and the implications thereof. Why are you inventing it as you go?
Chris
Reply: Let’s tone down the accusations of lying please. Back it down gently. We are trying to stay civil around here. First warning.~ charles the moderator.
HasItBeen4YearsYet?:
~snip~
J. Peden and Alan Wilkinson:
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2002/mar02/noaa02r305.html
“Our results are important in understanding the ocean’s role in the global carbon cycle,” Anderson said. “Prior to this study, large changes in ocean carbonate chemistry had been proposed to explain the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Over thousands of years, calcium carbonate compensation appears to be the dominant variable controlling the ocean carbonate (and carbon dioxide) inventory. When carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is added to the oceans, the calcium carbonate on the seafloor dissolves to minimize the carbon dioxide change in the ocean. ”
If [CO2] increases [CO3(-2)] in the ocean, shouldn’t it be easier to form CaCO3 due to this equilibria: CaCO3 == Ca(++) & CO3(-2) according to Le Chatlier’s principal?
You guys are too focused on the generation of CO3(-2) by CO2 in pure water. CaCO3 is the much greater buffer (which is why oceans are alkaline and not acidic).
I rest my case.
“Gary, you say that the idea that the ocean seems like a plausible explantion for the seasonal (saw tooth, sinusoidal oscillations) in the CO2 data. As a bio major, I hope that you consider the explantion that I gave above.”
I’m more of a low IQ polymath, lately eating as a garden-variety computer engineer.
Obviously any, seasonal fluence can contribute to the seasonal signal. The oceanic biogenic leg I take as not well-understood, and likely larger than currently thought reasonable. Just as most oil now seems of bacterial origin in meteor-schocked sedimentary formations.
The October minimum in the signal, of course, is reached when the contributing fluences have virtually all terminated carbon lay up. NH terrestrial biogenic leg would have done so in July/August so is probably not a big player. The 800 pound gorilla is the SO.
You may, of course, emphasize cyanobacteria, I have to beat drum of the partial-pressure of dissolved CO2, it’s rather inclusive.
@ur momisugly J Peden
“foinavon, your reasoning is obviously circular/wishful* and qualitative, not quantitative. Adding CO2 on the left must increase CO3 on the right, of course, along with increased H, as per usual. “Chemical intuition” has nothing to do with it. From a chemical bonding perspective, H doesn’t “like” CO3 any more than it used to. There are indeed more H’s, but there are also more CO3’s, and in the exact same proportions as there were before.”
Oh my sir. Oh my, my, my, your lack of understanding of basic carbonate chemistry is astounding.
You complain about qualitative and not quantitaive reasoning–I couldn’t agree more!
Your claim is that CO3= concentration in sea water increases (as does H+) upon the addition of CO2(g). Great, perform the calculation for us.
Go ahead and use standard seawater conditions (S = 35 ppt, TA = 2300 ueq/kg, P = 1 atm, T = 25 C), to keep things easy. Also, in the interest of ease I’ll even give you the references you need for K1 and K2 for carbonic acid (Mehrbach et al. as refit by Dickson and Millero, 1987) and K2 for HSO4- (Dickson, 1990).
Go ahead and calculate all the carbonate system parameters for us (pHsws, pCO2 in uatm, TCO2, [CO2], [HCO3-], [CO3=], all in umol/kg) at 3 levels of pCO2: 280 uatm, 380 uatm, 840 uatm.
Oh, and show your work. These calculations should be a breeze for you, afterall, and it should be easy to demonstrate that upon the addition of CO2(g) [CO3=] increases, as does [H+].
Of course, in reality you’re completely wrong. I doubt very much you have any idea how to perform these calculations (yes I do, can, and have no problem doing so) so as to determine precisely all components of the carbonate system from the two given components: total alkalinity and pCO2.
If you’re convinced you’re correct and [CO3=] increases upon CO2 addition, please demonstrate mathematically. If you can’t, please listen more and talk less.
Chris
“Reply: Let’s tone down the accusations of lying please. Back it down gently. We are trying to stay civil around here. First warning.~ charles the moderator.”
Charles,
Should I not call a spade a spade??? However, I will stive to be more cordial.
Best,
Chris
“Just to clear some of the FUD from the water, the chemical composition of aragonite and calcite (CaCO3) is identical,”
“No, they are not. Calcite can range from hi-Mg calcite (~12-20 mol % MgCO3 in today’s sea water) to low-Mg calcite (< 4 mol % MgCO3). Aragonite is very poor in MgCO3, but comparatively enriched with SrCO3. It is not remotely true to say that calcite and aragonite are chemically identical.”
Get a grip. Aragonite and calcite have identical chemical composition.
Neither are magnesium carbonate or strontium carbonate.
Perhaps you are trying to address the chemical makeup of certain corals, shells, fossils or minerals.
@ur momisugly Glenn,
“Glenn (14:37:30) :
“Just to clear some of the FUD from the water, the chemical composition of aragonite and calcite (CaCO3) is identical,”
“No, they are not. Calcite can range from hi-Mg calcite (~12-20 mol % MgCO3 in today’s sea water) to low-Mg calcite (< 4 mol % MgCO3). Aragonite is very poor in MgCO3, but comparatively enriched with SrCO3. It is not remotely true to say that calcite and aragonite are chemically identical.”
Get a grip. Aragonite and calcite have identical chemical composition.
Neither are magnesium carbonate or strontium carbonate.
Perhaps you are trying to address the chemical makeup of certain corals, shells, fossils or minerals.”
Typical aragonite might be on the order of ~0.1 mol % MgCO3, some SrCO3, other impurities, and the rest as CaCO3. Typical hi-Mg calcite might be 20 mol % MgCO3 and less than 80 mol % CaCO3 with very little SrCO3. These are chemically identical???? Are you serious???
Also, hi-Mg calcite, low-Mg calcite, and aragonite ARE three different minerals….
Chris
Point taken, it is just frustrating when a guest poster cannot graps the processes he writes about.
@Bill D (13:47:23)
“….they don’t disagree with what I have said about which rate dominate.”
A “net outgassing” means that the rate out is greater than the rate in, so yes they do.
_______________________________________________________________________
THE NORMAL pH RANGE OF SEAWATER IS ABOUT 7.2 – 8.2, WITH THE AVERAGE AT ABOUT 7.6
_____________________________________________________________________
“Piss off. Adults are talking.” — J Lo
Sorry, Mr. Gumby, I didn’t realize you were in the middle of brain surgery.
Seems the chimneys of hot CO2 pumpering underwater hydrothermal vents are partially made of – calcite, which has the unusual character of being less soluble in water at higher temperatures. There’s a situation to consider.
Picture of a soft coral growing on a black smoker chimney (page 7, fig 5):
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/SLiMEs_and_black_smokers-Microbes.pdf
“Sir, you are flat-out lying. Go to the link (HOT data), select pH comparison–notice the trend line is sharply down:” http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/trends/trends.html
I did. What trend line? You mean the “calculated” line mean? I don’t know what “calculated” means, but I suspect it is a prediction, like “acidification”.
But look at the “measured” ph. 1992 – 1998 shows no downward trend, if anything an upward trend. 2003 – 2008, except for the last gasp in 2008, shows no downward trend. The two series together show no downward trend, or very little, starting in 1992 around 8.085 and ending in 2008 at around 8.085. Perhaps you are relying on that little red line going straight down on the right hand border of the graph?
Piss off. Adults are talking.” — J Lo
“Sorry, Mr. Gumby, I didn’t realize you were in the middle of brain surgery.”
He thinks he’s acting like an adult.