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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here’s my last point for this post.
I think that Frazier’s observation on how corals in his aquarium responded to CO2 AND calcium carbonate addition is a nice anecdotal observation. This is not be compared to the opinions of experts or to theory. Rather, as I scientist, I look to published articles where scientists used buffers, included controls, included replication and statistical analysis, measured coral growth and survival quantitatively, wrote up their methods, results and conclusions in detail, displayed data in graphs and tables, placed their study in the context of 20-50 other cited studies and subjected their work to review and criticism by experts. These studies show strong negative effects of decreased pH on corals while Frazier did not even measure effect of his additions on pH. I hope that everyone can agree that the published scientific papers are more convincing than Frazier’s observation. Google Scholar is relatively new, free search engine and makes it easier for scientists and especially, for people without paid subscriptions to other search engines to access the scientific literature. I hope that some of you, including Frazier, check read some scientific articles on effects of pH and temperature on corals.
BTW, Mr Goddard points to the recovery of the coral at Bikini atholl after the atomic tests there, and links to a report on a paper by Richards et al in Marine Pollution Bulletin discussed here by coral specialist and blogger Simon Donner.
Here’s an extract from that paper, courtesy of Donner If the disturbance event were to be repeated in the modern day, recovery would not be expected to be as high, due to the combination of additional stressors associated with climate change (Anthony et al., 2007; Lesser, 2007) and a possibly much altered atoll environment due to an additional 50 years of human occupation. Thus, in a twist of fate, the radioactive contamination of northern Marshall Island Atolls has enabled the recovery of the reefs of Bikini Atoll to take place in the absence of further anthropogenic pressure. Today Bikini Atoll provides a diverse coral reef community and a convincing example of partial resilience of coral biodiversity to non-chronic disturbance events.
Always go to the source ….
Here is a good coral reef GIS resource, which shows overfishing and coastal development as being the primary sources of risk to coral reefs. I don’t see any mention of CO2 on the site.
http://reefgis.reefbase.org/default.aspx?wms=RGRRRCAR&bbox=-103.808693265072,25.8935666327375,-93.7331787563456,35.2426724764468&layers=Bathymetry,Countries,ReefOverfishing,Bathymetry
Most of the arguments made on this blog are incorrect because they present only part of the story. Listen to the voices of reason – woodfortrees and fraizer.
The facts are that carbon dioxide does reduce the alkalinity of sea water. However photosynthesis (corals contain photosynthetic organisms) accelerates, countering this affect. The effect of photosynthesis is far greater that the increase in carbon dioxide and necessarily slows down due to carbon dioxide deficiency. The overall effect is more coral.
This is borne out by sea observations around Australia during recent El Ninos. Increased temperature and carbon dioxide accelerate coral growth.
Exactly.
Or else perhaps to escape this choice, the AGW scientists should tell us what atmospheric CO2 concentration it is which then effectively overcomes – by virtue of simple “mass action” – the decreased solubility of CO2 in warming water so that dissolved CO2 actually increases in this warming water, producing increased concentrations of Hydrogen ions [“acidity”].
So that then the World can have both acidifying Oceans, and warming Oceans and Atmosphere at the same time, as a result of atmospheric CO2.
CO2 + H2O H2CO3[Carbonic Acid] H[“acidity”] + HCO3[Bicarbonate]
Is “Bleaching” being used in a technical sense to mean exposure to more alkaline conditions or is it being used in a non-technical sense to refer to whitening?
If the 1st definition, than it means the oceans are becoming more basic as the surface waters warm and the corals are bleached.
If the 2nd definition, then something is happening to the Oceans and the corals are ejecting their algae and therefore whitening.
In Fraizer’s aquaria, were there control tanks, to which no CO2 was added? Did he measure water temperature, nutrient (N&P) concentrations, salinity, etc. Were the grazer and fish populations the same in the treatment and control tanks? Did he measure pH and CO2 concentration in the water? Were there any replications? If the answer to any of these questions is NO, then it was not an experiment, and cannot be used to falsify a hypothesis, though his observations might be used to formulate a hypothesis. It’s the difference between science and messing around.
Bill D (09:32:42) :
“As an aside, “acidification” is the routine scientific term for a decrease in
pH. “Neutralization” is more ambigous, since it could mean either a decline from an alkaline pH or an increase from an acidic pH. We could invent a new term, such as “de-alkinization” but we don’t have such a term. Scientists use the term “acidification” because there is no other single word that accurately discribes this process and no one has come up with a better term. Use of the term “acidification” cannot be taken as an effort to exaggerate or dramatize.”
You just could not be more wrong. The scientific term is neutralisation, which by definition means we are tending towards a neutral state. There is no need to invent any new term. The scientific heading for this thread would be correct if it said “OCEAN NEUTRALISATION AND CORALS”. As many others have said before me, the acidity term is used in an alarmist sense and is another reason why so many chemist are sceptics.
And as to your many references about how we should conceive of what scientist do, does grandma and sucking eggs mean anything to you?
CO2 + H2O H2CO3[Carbonic Acid] H[“acidity”] + HCO3[Bicarbonate]
Sorry, my symbols between sides of the equations didn’t translate above:
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3[Carbonic Acid] = H[“acidity”] + HCO3[Bicarbonate]
the “=” is not correct, either, but so far it’s the best I can do.
Although not mentioned in the Monaco Declaration itself, ocean temperature
is clearly a concern, and an assumed element in coral bleaching to AGWers.
Here SST is used to provide alerts to bleaching “events”.
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/virtual_stations/hawaii_virtualstations_timeseries_20062007.html
This Declaration clearly has elements of propaganda, as in ” Ocean acidification can be controlled *only* by limiting future atmospheric CO2 levels.” *Emphasis mine* “Can’t do it” gets it’s rear kicked by “did it” most every time.
I consider most if not all of that Declaration to be beyond what science can or should claim. Another example: “hundreds of thousands to millions of years will be required for coral reefs to return, based on the past record of natural coral-reef extinction events.” I have a hard time accepting that anything can or ever has recovered from an extinction event. This is junk science:
http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/Symposium2008/MonacoDeclaration.pdf
Mea culpa – erratum !
Sorry folks after thinking it through and then reading up a little more I should point out that I have erred.
The Carbonate/Bicarbonate buffering reaction I alluded to does in fact occur and is vital to retaining the health of the sea. The reaction is slightly different to the one described. The CO2 dissolves and forms Carbonic Acid, that Carbonic Acid reacts with Calcium Carbonate to form Calcium Bicarbonate.
As these two push and pull against each other the pH naturally varies between 7.5 and 8.5, right now it’s at about 8.2.
The alarmists are ringing the alarm bells because of an assumption that the mixing between upper layers of the ocean and the lower layers is thought to be a slow process taking up to 300 years. This would allow the CO2 to concentrate in the upper layers to the point where it overcomes the buffering and depresses the pH.
Here’s a link to a paper by Mr. G.E. Marsh, Argonne National Laboratory (retd) that discusses the above
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SEAWATER%20pH%20&%20ANTHRO%20CO2%20V2.pdf
There is no evidence that this long cycle time is true, it’s an assumption, there is evidence that the contrary is true i.e. the mixing is a lot faster than the alarmist assume that it is. e.g. Tritium from Nuclear testing in the Pacific in the 1950’s and 60’s has already shown up in the deep waters of the North Atlantic.
Another alarmist article indicting ocean temperature increase being responsible for coral bleaching and death:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081228201342.htm
“This forecast bleaching episode will be caused by increased water temperatures and is the kind of event we can expect on a regular basis if average global temperatures rise above 2 degrees,” said Richard Leck, Climate Change Strategy Leader for WWF’s Coral Triangle Program.
The bleaching, predicted to occur between now and February, could have a devastating impact on coral reef ecosystems, killing coral and destroying food chains.”
Does anyone seriously believe that ocean temperatures do not and have not in the past varied by a couple degrees? Why was the pollution problem in the Great Barrier Reef not mentioned, since pollution is known to cause coral bleaching and death? WHy did the article not mention that warmer water temperatures recapture CO2 and release it into the atmosphere?
I call it “biologists gone wild” at the local AGW bar.
Thanks for the post, Steven Goddard. I particularly liked your closing line.
“At some point the theorists will have to start paying attention to empirical data.”
Yup. And according to the early aero models, bumblebees couldn’t fly, yet bumblebees do fly. The aero-modeling gang had sense enough to observe bumblebees and go back to the drawing board.
The graph you included above would make most people stop and think for at least a moment, but apparently not. Unfortunately, I think I’ll be seeing pigs flying around before the CO2-driven AGW models are discarded.
So they’ve made rebounds in some areas…however, most of the rest of the world’s coral is threatened.
I think scientists are too concerned with preserving the status quo to consider the rise of new species: don’t want anything interfering with our lifestyles.
Thanks, that is something that everyone who has attempted to grow a coral reef in a private aquarium soon learns.
I am not sure how you get the 7.5 to 8.5 variability, but at least you understood the basic concepts.
Later;
“The Carbonate/Bicarbonate buffering reaction I alluded to does in fact occur and is vital to retaining the health of the sea. The reaction is slightly different to the one described. The CO2 dissolves and forms Carbonic Acid, that Carbonic Acid reacts with Calcium Carbonate to form Calcium Bicarbonate.
As these two push and pull against each other the pH naturally varies between 7.5 and 8.5, right now it’s at about 8.2.”
David Porter (13:23:19) :
Neutralization can either mean adding base to an acidic solution or adding acid to a basic solution. Solutions can approach a neutral (pH = 7.0) from above 7 or above 7. “Neutralization is clearly ambiguous–it does not say whether a solution is becoming more acidic or more basic. It’s like saying the “weather is gettin more moderate.” That doesn’t even tell us if it is cooling from being hot or warming from being cold.
John Philip,
The article did not say that Bikini corals were thriving in the past, but are now succumbing to CO2. What it did say is that the corals are thriving now.
“it was incredible, huge matrices of branching Porites coral (up to 8 meters high) had established, creating thriving coral reef habitat. Throughout other parts of the lagoon it was awesome to see coral cover as high as 80 per cent and large tree-like branching coral formations with trunks 30cm thick. It was fascinating I’ve never seen corals growing like trees outside of the Marshall Islands. ” “The healthy condition of the coral at Bikini atoll today is proof of their resilience and ability to bounce back from massive disturbances”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415101021.htm
neurotype:
“however, most of the rest of the world’s coral is threatened.”
Oh?
My wife and I are very active scuba divers.
Where has this happended, and where we can we visually see it?
Why is it, that pollution is horrible somewhere else, but never in your location?
Garacka (13:11:58) :
Is “Bleaching” being used in a technical sense to mean exposure to more alkaline conditions or is it being used in a non-technical sense to refer to whitening?
If the 1st definition, than it means the oceans are becoming more basic as the surface waters warm and the corals are bleached.
If the 2nd definition, then something is happening to the Oceans and the corals are ejecting their algae and therefore whitening.
Bleaching is clearly used in the sense of whitening due to loss of the dinoflagellate algae. Death of the corals is due to a loss of the symbiotic algae as a source of nutrition. If the high temperature is short in duration, corals can sometimes recover from bleaching. However, bleaching kills the algae on a time scale of weeks.
The coral reefs have experienced fluctuations of 2oC in the past, but not from such a high starting point.
Someone in a past posting talked about pollution problems being an alternative explanation for bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef. Was this just a “made up” idea? This vast area is not near sources of pollution. Can you provide a source of information on pollution problems?
Could I suggest a “change” in terminology?
The phrase “climate change” has always struck me as subtly inaccurate at best, and misleading at worst. Could we begin using the phrase “climate variation” instead? It seems a much more appropriate way to describe what the climate is actually doing.
Steve Huntwork (11:39:54) :
For many years I had numerous tropical fish tanks up to 125 gallons. I never had reef [saltwater] tanks, but when I hooked up a CO2 injection system, the plant life exploded! I’m sure this will be critiqued as non-scientific, but the result of using those little 12-gram CO2 cylinders was really amazing. Plants grew at more than double their former rate.
Bob Coats (13:15:20) :
It appears that it was a simple test to find out if injecting CO2 caused the water to become more acid. It did not.
And that physical, hands-on experiment is more impressive than people nitpicking someone else, instead of replicating the experiment themselves, wouldn’t you agree?
Neven:
Neven me boy, I’m sorry you’re hopeless. But try to cheer up. The world is not going to end, and the climate will keep chugging along within its normal and natural historical parameters. Nothing to get alarmed about.
Smokey:
I have 400 gallons of saltwater circulating between my sump in the basement and my two display aquariums on my living floor. On eis “only” 55 gallons and the other is “only” 95 gallons.
Argonite, as a buffer, is very important and why it is a vital part of my aquariums. I know all about the chemistry of buffers and why they are important in a saltwater environment.
Why is it, that pollution is horrible somewhere else, but never where you are located?
I live across the street from a High School, and my favorite trick it to provide every student with a camera.
TASK: Document any environmental pollution in this area!
After five years, nobody has been able to photograph a source of environmental pollution in our area.
Think about that…
Sreve Huntwork
The 7.5 to 8.5 natural variability of ocean pH is demonstrated on page 10, Figure A 2 of the link.
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SEAWATER%20pH%20&%20ANTHRO%20CO2%20V2.pdf
pablo an ex pat:
Outstanding!
I will wager $100 that you can not demonstrate that result, in an experiment that we both conduct under the exact same conditions.
Get your saltwater aquarium ready…
If your fish die, then you cheated!
Steve Goddard’s post is helpful in putting ocean acidification in perspective, but remember that pH reflects the logarithm of the ion concentration – it is not a linear scale. So, when Goddard writes
“Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid
Then if “rate” means that acidic substances (presumably cabonic acid from atmospheric CO2) are added at a constant rate per unit time, a much faster response in numerical pH per unit time will occur as one approaches nearer and nearer to neutrality. So, technically, it would not take 3,500 years to reach pH 7.0. Also, most of the change may have happened more recently than 1751, and taking a 250+ year time scale for the pH trend will underestimate the current rate of change if the change occurred mostly in recent decades.
I am not sure if this affects the overall argument. To assess the risk, one would have to know what are the pH tolerances of modern corals in our current oceans. I dare say there has been work on this, does anyone know of relevant publications? What happened at Bikini is not relevant, because once the bomb tests stopped, in a few yearsconditions presumably became similar enough to conditions prior to the tests that coral could grow back. The same is true when reefs are damaged by hurricanes, etc. – they eventually recover. But if the water becomes too cold/too hot/ too acid/too alkaline or in any other way toxic for them, and stays that way – that’s a different matter.
John G.