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

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

The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.
Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2. In the most extreme finding, Ries, Cohen and WHOI Associate Scientist Daniel C. McCorkle exposed creatures to CO2 levels more than seven times the current level.
This led to the dissolving of aragonite—the form of calcium carbonate produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers. Under such exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins began to lose their shells. “If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely,” he said, “rendering them defenseless to predators.”
“Some organisms were very sensitive,” Cohen said, “some that have commercial value. But there were a couple that didn’t respond to CO2 or didn’t respond till it was sky-high—about 2,800 parts per million. We’re not expecting to see that [CO2 level] anytime soon.”
The researchers caution, however, that the findings—and acidification’s overall impact—may be more complex than it appears. For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms respond to carbon dioxide.
“We know that nutrients can be very important,” she says. “We have found that corals for example, that have plenty of food and nutrients can be less sensitive” to CO2. “In this study, the organisms were well fed and we didn’t constrain the nutrient levels.
“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”
Ries concurs that any possible ramifications are complex. For example, the crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification. “This may initially suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-pray dynamics. But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way, as well,” Ries said.
In addition, Cohen adds, even though some organisms such as crabs and lobsters appear to benefit under elevated CO2 conditions, the energy they expend in shell building under these conditions “might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building.”
Since the industrial revolution, Ries noted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. Climate models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200 years.
“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere,” Ries says. However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost.
“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems, he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, independent organization in Falmouth, Mass., dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary mission is to understand the oceans and their interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the oceans’ role in the changing global environment.
To me there’s two distinct forms of CO2 absorbtion. First, there’s the uptake of CO2 by the water in the ocean itself. It seems from what I’ve read over the past couple of years, this is directly proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and inversely proportional to the temperature of the water. The colder it gets and the more CO2 available in the atmosphere, the higher the concentration of CO2 in the ocean. This CO2 can come back and haunt us if we find a way to consume the CO2 out of the atmosphere or if the oceans are heated to some point causing the sequestered CO2 to be released.
The other form of oceanic CO2 absorbtion is when the little sea critters incorporate carbon in the form of calcium carbonate into their skeletons and sequester it into the bottom of the sea when they die. This CO2 is effectively lost and gone forever as it is incorporated into the sludge and finally folded into the crust when time for subduction comes along. We won’t see that again until it comes out of a volcano or a deep ocean vent of some sort.
What is not clear from the research in the article is whether or not the increased shell building activities causes greater sequesterization or what. The article mentions different crabs and clams but it doesn’t talk about the champions of sequesterization, the diatoms and plankton. Change their shell densities just a few percent and the amount of CO2 that’s being permanantly socked away in the sea floor rises enormously.
Maybe the question it too complicated to be answered in the laboratory. If increased atmospheric CO2 concentration causes the sea creatures to start growing thicker skeletons, doesn’t that mean more atmospheric CO2 is being removed and permanently sequestered? If we become good little climate change dupes and reduce atmospheric CO2 to zero, won’t we be effective depriving the poor little sea anemonae of the CO2 they need to be horny?
Off to climate depot!
Those are thin, single year shells.
They don’t count as sea shell extent.
The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.”
“If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely,”
So, do I not-assume a result; or is it an assumption that if this dissolution process continues for sufficient time the shells will disapear competely.
This video from Australia needs a lot more attention.
“November 25, 2009: It has been revealed Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme will send the average family’s bills soaring about $1100. We speak to David Bellamy, a renowned skeptic on man-made climate change”
It makes me wonder whether the international Permian emissions standards are what brought about and end to incredibly tasty trilobites, or whether it was the development of a new dipping sauce. I’m tempted to think it was the former, that decreased CO2 levels led to only soft-shelled trilobites which didn’t have a prayer of survival.
Next up, increased CO2 levels favor the domination of anerobic humans – aka zombies.
You always knew that this CO2 stuff was a shell game anyway…
CO2 does not and cannot acidify the oceans. The complex mixture of chemicals in the ocean comprise a complex buffer system that is difficult to overwhelm with a little bit of CO2. CO2 may acidify distilled water, but seawater is a whole other solution.
CO2 is part of its own equilibrium extending to calcium carbonate and more CO2 actually forces more carbonate to be deposited. Only the addition of an outside source of H+ ions can eat carbonate – those from carbonic acid are part of the equilibrium.
“Ocean acidification by CO2” is another part of the global warming myth/scam. As shell formation is done by cells using CO2 or carbonate from the water, more of either will make for more shell. It is no surprise out of Woods Hole here – coral reefs around the world have been growing like crazy for decades due to higher CO2.
Oh, and warmer water makes calcium carbonate less soluble, so laying down shell and maintaining it is even easier. That’s a little detail the warmists conveniently overlook.
One issue that I remember from graduate school was the “file drawer problem”
Given the peer pressure (never mind peer-review) to come out with the PC answer, this has got to have an impact…from wikipedia:
The file drawer effect
The file drawer effect, or file drawer problem, is that many studies in a given area of research may be conducted but never reported, and those that are not reported may on average report different results from those that are reported. An extreme scenario is that a given null hypothesis of interest is in fact true, i.e. the association being studied does not exist, but the 5% of studies that by chance show a statistically significant result are published, while the remaining 95% where the null hypothesis was not rejected languish in researchers’ file drawers. Even a small number of studies lost “in the file drawer” can result in a significant bias.[5].
The term was coined by the psychologist Robert Rosenthal in 1979.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_drawer_problem#The_file_drawer_effect
“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems, he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.
Wow what a brilliant scientist.. he is “guessing the net effect will be negative”. Why doesn’t he just admit that hasn’t read the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, which states the effect is positive. What an arse!
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
Ok, I agree with this one, let’s start by canceling all of the CO2 producing modes of transportation, except for mammalian respiration, for the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen.
“Steve S. (21:12:57) :
Those are thin, single year shells.
They don’t count as sea shell extent.”
and whatismore, these are the eighth smallest shells since records began, last Tuesday.
Reply: I personally like the inside jokes, but expect some perplexed responses. ~ ctm
Glad they figured this one out.
Please, no one tell them where the white cliffs of Dover come from or how to Google cretaceous period. Seriously, you could bum them out.
syphax (20:42:26)
Which of the two in the picture (right or left) do you think is larger?
Oh snap! CO2 causes some ocean critters to build more shells
it causes some people to build more bone$
Rob M. (21:35:59) :
and whatismore, these are the eighth smallest shells since records began, last Tuesday.
You’re hiding a decline in shells.
Krugwaffle (21:11:24) You wrote “This CO2 is effectively lost and gone forever as it is incorporated into the sludge and finally folded into the crust when time for subduction comes along. We won’t see that again until it comes out of a volcano or a deep ocean vent of some sort.”
Pray tell, where from did come all the limestone at the Grand Canyon?
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm
Rob and ‘ctm’
You guys both got a laugh out of me!
The “bottom line” was already determined before the research was done.
I am not the only that fond the conclusion”“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.” came from left field?!
I think this is another example of the gatekeeper effect” and these authors fear repercussions from the documented “publishing tyrrany” being imposed by the Michael Manns and Phil Jones’.
“no one tell them where the white cliffs of Dover come from”
Or all that fine Italian marble.
Don’t wander off to check ocean acidification.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid.
In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0.
Warmers say “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.
One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909.
The Global warmers who “refer to it as “the other CO2 problem”, say it 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 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.)
Chalks and corals first evolved when CO2 levels were 20x as high as now. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of chemistry would know that increasing CO2 levels will increase ocean carbonate levels. Unfortunately you can be an environmental “scientist” or biologist these days without any proper training in physics, chemistry or mathematics.
“One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751”
Tree rings.
crosspatch (20:18:23) : “Cap and Trade bill stalled in Australia and the US. Copenhagen possibly in shambles if third world nations walk out.”
The third world nations will never walk out as long as there’s the least chance they can fasten their greedy, corrupt, insatiable socialist fangs into the jugular of everybody else on the planet.
The so-called marine researchers quoted in the article, not to speak of the “peer reviewers” of the Geology paper, don’t seem to be aware that the shells of crabs and lobsters are made of chitin, a polysaccharide, not calcium carbonate. As for corals and marine critters with calcium carbonate shells, where would all that carbonate come from? Hmmm, let’s see…. CO2 dissolved in water forms carbonic acid, which in water solution exists as hydrogen ions and carbonate ions. The sea water is not acidic, even with the slight amount of carbonic acid present, because the concentration of hydrogen ions in sea water is still lower than in pure water. One would suspect that a minutely elevated concentration of carbonate ions in mildly basic sea water would be handy, not harmful, for shell-building organisms. If there are any chemists reading this, perhaps they could cast some further light on this.