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.
Sometimes the chatter of alarmism reminds me of the strange thinking from the 60’s when people took LSD. While that is not the case today, the catastrophic bent is highly reminiscent. AGW does not call for preparation, only to leap before anyone has a chance to look. Totally illogical.
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
Evidently the bottom line was totally independent of the experimental results.
We have only enough known “fossil fuels” (petroleum, coal and natural gas) to meet our needs for the next 400 . . . or was it 700 years, so we better all switch to far more costly energy sources right now. Technology will not improve in the next 400 years anymore than it did in the last 400 years , , , Hmmmmmmmm
Forgive this Engineer but what exactly is “inorganic carbon”?
Or have environmental scientists screwed around with In-/Organic Chemistry definitions as well?
You people should make it known that if any criminal activity can be associated with IPCC in Jones’s investigation it will most probably make governments liable for prosecution.
I have already started this discussion in my own country, please do so in yours.
Thx.
I came across an article on it from the palaeos web site (see link below) concerning the Ordovician era. This era just after the Cambrian and its explosion of life has something interesting to say on the issue of CO2 and “ocean acidification”.
http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Ordovician.htm
In AGW narrative ocean acidification represents a “plan B”. We all know CO2 is increasing (leave aside for now whether it’s anthropogenic or not). But if CO2 cant be relied on to warm the atmosphere, then at least it will “acidify” the oceans and dissolve all the beautiful coral. A kind of reserve catastrophe on the subs bench.
So what does the Ordovician era have to say on this subject?
(1) During the Ordovician, atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 8-20 times higher than now.
(2) The Ordovician was a good era for marine lifeforms, including those with calcified parts (which contribute most fossils). “It was also one of the largest adaptive radiations in the Earth’s history.” In particular, it was the era in which corals first evolved.
(3) Did the oceans acidify due to the high atmospheric CO2 and kill off the coral? Evidently not.
(4) What kind of catastrophic warming was caused by the high atmospheric CO2? This kind: the era ended with one of the severest ice ages in earth’s history, of the “snowball earth” variety, with glaciers covering what is now the Sahara.
Christian creationists (who of course dont represent all christians) recognise history only 6000 years back. For AGW proponents, the earth began in 1850. However for the CO2 linked AGW hypothesis to hold water, it needs to be credible in the context of well established palaeohistory of climate. In the Ordovician, the hypothesis fails absolutely.
I have not done the formal mass transfer modelling to back up what follows, but perhaps it deserves consideration with respect to the topic of CO2 and ocean acidification.
I believe we have ignored several obvious carbon sinks and pH buffers in the ocean; and these are so enormously large that I do not believe that we will ever significantly change the pH of the oceans over the long term, and by long term I mean decadal, even if we greatly increase our CO2 production.
One of the greatest carbon sinks has to be the near-seafloor peridotite-gabbro layers – where these are sea floor altered (probably ubiquitously so!) – at depths up to a likely maximum of several km beneath the seafloor! If we bump up oceanic bicarbonate (and HCO3 and CO3 are the predominant CO2 species in the oceans), then VERY SIMPLE equilibrium thermo calcs show that we produce more carbonate in the resulting serpentine-carbonate alteration products of the peridotite; and phyllosilicate-albite-carbonate alteration products of the gabbro. The carbonate is then ultimately removed as these rocks on the ocean floor go into the earth’s mantle via subduction! However, the lag time before this buffer kicks in is dependent on the rate of overturn of surface waters via the thermohaline circulation, and I do not have any information on this. Reaction rates in these sea floor systems are geologically fast, particularly just outboard of the mid ocean spreading ridges. A point of interest in relation to this is the recent discovery of a new style of sea floor hot spring system –relatively cool, huge carbonate mounds, and an alkaline pH! As this is a first discovery, I would not be surprised if such springs turn out to be more abundant and much more widespread than the black smokers, which are in the axial rift position of the mid ocean spreading centres. These alkaline springs are outboard of the axial ridge, and are more difficult to “see” because of their lack of clear association with extensional fault sets with large dip slips, for example.
It is no coincidence in the Archaean, where we know that atmospheric pCO2 was much higher, talc-carbonate and albite-carbonate chlorite altered mafic and ultramafic rocks are very abundant – so even then this chemical process was working to pull atmospheric CO2 into the upper crustal rocks (on or near the Archaean sea floor)! I believe that this mechanism (and then early cyanobacterial photosynthesis) drove the early atmosphere CO2 levels down!
In short, I believe that CO2 is NEVER going to be a problem ocean-acidifier whilst fresh CO2 sinks, namely gabbro and peridotite, are reaching the earth’s surface in the mid-ocean spreading zones. Note that carbonated gabbro and serpentine-carbonate rocks contain CO2 contents of the order of high 0.N- low N.N wt%. If The key question, however, is the lag time before this carbon sink kicks in to work on the “freshly increased” CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The carbonate sink reactions noted here also act as pH buffers – equilibrium pH values for assemblages such as serpentine- carbonate- albite would I suspect be on the alkaline side at temperatures less than about 150C– although these would require modelling using the measured aNa, aMg, aCa, aHCO3, aSO4 et cetera as a starter for ocean water systems, which ultimately become rock buffered.
I write these ideas here, having had considerable experience in mass-transfer modelling in geological systems, and clearly, they require further investigation to help us better answer the CO2-ocean acidification relationships.
I think the operative phrase is ” I guess … the negative effect would be negative”. Gee he “guesses”, which is a great scientifc approach, of course the effect would be negative – there is no money in it being positive is there.
Can we hound these guys over saying “acidification”. If anything it is reduced alkalinity but the oceans will never be acidic. Along with the their “woulds” and “mights” these terms are part of the lexicon of fear
Earth has an abundant biosphere because life is adaptable. It goes against common sense to think ocean life could not and would not adapt to changing pH levels.
It seems to be a modern scientific mantra:
“We are surprised by the way (fill in your own favourite topic) didn’t behave the way we expected/our models predicted.”
You would think that after a while they might work out that the topics they are studying might be a bit more complex that they originally thought or – heaven forbid – might not actually be predictable at all due to their chaotic nature.
Tom Segelstad
The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global “Greenhouse Effect.
Stable carbon isotopes (13C/12C) show that CO2 in the atmosphere is in chemical equilibrium with ocean bicarbonate and lithospheric carbonate (Ohmoto, 1986).
The chemical equilibrium constants for the chemical reactions above provide us with a partition coefficient for CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean of approximately 1 : 50 (approx. 0.02) at the global mean temperature (Revelle & Suess, 1957; Skirrow, 1975).
This means that for an atmospheric doubling of CO2, there will have to be supplied 50 times more CO2 to the ocean to obtain chemical equilibrium.
This total of 51 times the present amount of atmospheric CO2 carbon is more than the known reserves of fossil carbon.
It is possible to exploit approximately 7000 GT of fossil carbon, which means, if all this carbon is supposed to be burned, that the atmospheric CO2can be increased by 20% at the most under geochemical equilibrium at constant present surface temperature.
Website Segalstad
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
Sorry it is Tom V. Segalstad
“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2″…
Key points…
1) Like Global Warming morphed into Climate Change, Ocean Acidification is morphing into Ocean Carbonation or something similar. The oceans simply aren’t acidifying. The oceans are becoming more saturated with Disolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) – The stuff most shellfish use to make shells.
2) We now have indisputable evidence that the following things are beneficially affected by elevated CO2:
Anyone who ever took a carbonate geology class would have already known this; yet all of the above results were unexpected and contrary to the ocean acidification hypotheses that was being tested.
3) We have clear evidence that the following creatures are not adversely affected by elevated CO2 levels below 1000 to 2800 ppmv:
4) AGW-inclined scientists are desperately looking for some evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans and/or destroying carbonate shell building organisms.
5) AGW-inclined scientists keep “unexpectedly” finding that carbonate shell building organisms simply used the excess CO2 (in the form of DIC) to build more limestone.
The NY Times a couple years back had an article on how the original experiments were done on CO2 killing corals, etc. The researchers dumped carbonic acid directly into the tank.
When the test was redone by bubble in CO2, they got a very different result: (I don’t remember the details, so I am doing my best to summarize from memory) Algae in the tank became healthier, creating bi-products that helped the calcium secreting creatures to become healthier as well.
I no longer have a link to the article and have to bug out for work. Anyone here know of or can search for the article?
Did that article actually say “inorganic carbon”????? Did the “scientific” paper say “inorganic carbon”.
Bizarro at more than one level.
For example, are we going to have to start a new field of chemistry; “inorganic” organic chemistry?????????
It’s funny how just about every post above points out just how little we really know about the vast oceans or how much we know and how much is yet unknown. But according to the twisted geniuses in Copenhagen, we’ve got to stop atmospheric CO2 concentration at 365ppm or it’s the end of the world as we know it!
I did a back of an envelope calculation about ocean acidification and the possible human contribution yesterday (linked to something on another blog, and based on Wikipedia numbers).
Two assumptions:
1) CO2 increases are relatively evenly distributed through the mass of the ocean
2) All the ‘missing’ CO2 between emissions and atmospheric increases is being taken up by the oceans (and not by biomass either as oceanic plankton or terrestrial plant life).
The first is incorrect to some extent as shallow ocean basins will change more rapidly than deep water, implying the pH change will be greater
Second is incorrect and excessively conservative, but relative proportions are not well known.
However, to use round numbers –
Mass of the atmosphere – 5 x 10^18kg
Increase in atmospheric CO2 attributed to anthropogenic causes ~100ppm
Therefore mass of anthropogenic CO2 to atmosphere = 5 x 10^14kg
‘Missing’ CO2, by comparison with human emissions data about 50% of emitted CO2.
Therefore anthropogenic CO2 to ocean = 5 x 10^14kg
Mass of oceans 1.35 x 10^21kg.
So mass of the ocean reservoir is about 2 x 10^6 greater than the maximum possible CO2 addition from human sources, or (to reverse the consideration)anthropogenic CO2 can cause approximately 0.5ppm change in the carbonic acid concentration of the ocean.
I haven’t followed this through to the possible change in pH, but I can’t see this having any measurable effect on the value of 1/log[H+] .
Where have I gone wrong, or do the people at Woods Hole and elsewhere really have so little understanding of Earth Sciences?
Another item missed by most is that all marine organisms have spent most of their existence at CO2 levels many times higher than now. We are at a time when CO2 is perilously low – plants cannot operate below 200 ppm and a clown scientist produced a falacious historical level of 280 ppm by cherry-picking the data – that would be Callendar. The real 19th century average was around 330 ppm, making our current increase a lot smaller in proportion.
So it’s worse than we thought. We may be facing an invasion of more heavily armoured King Crab and Lobster. This will lead to increased danger for crab fisherman, increased cost (shell:meat ratio) and greater risk of accidents in sea food restaurants whilst opening them.
But nice to see more critters joining the CO2 loving & albedo changing E.Huxleyi.
“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.”
That is astonishing ignorance. Carbon dioxide doesn’t “trigger a process” – it is nicely behaved equilibrium chemistry. And if these scientists think that calcifying organisms all combine calcium ions with carbonate ions to produce calcium carbonate, they must be very ignorant of the literature, and the studies that have been performed on the calcification process. Calcifiers don’t use carbonate to build shells but bicarbonate. Calcium ions combine with two bicarbonate ions (in a biological ‘pump’) to produce calcium carbonate, water and CO2.
Ca^2+ + 2HCO3^- CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O
No carbonate ions in that reaction.
Thus Kleypas et al (2006):
“…HCO3^- [bicarbonate] is the preferred substrate for coral photosynthesis (Al-Moghrabi et al., 1996; Goiran et al., 1996; Allemand et al., 1998), coral calcification uses both HCO3^- [bicarbonate] from seawater and metabolic CO2 as sources of carbon (Erez, 1978; Furla et al., 2000)…Biochemical studies fail to provide any evidence that CO3^2- [carbonate] plays a direct role in coral calcification…Results from several studies indicate that the substrate for calcification in E. huxleyi is HCO3^- [bicarbonate] (cf., Paasche, 2001), which increases under elevated pCO2 conditions…”
“Most models assume that the calcifying fluid is isolated from external seawater. This is supported by microelectrode observations that show that the pH of the calcifying space is elevated relative to external waters (as high as 9.3) (Al-Horani et al., 2003) and by the well-known fractionation of oxygen and carbon isotopes in the calcifying fluid.”
As more CO2 dissolves, the concentration of bicarbonate increases, even if carbonate decreases slightly. Increasing dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) provides a higher concentration of bicarbonate for biological pumps to work with. Lots of organisms benefit from increased DIC – including coral. And lots of studies confirm this.
Check out more on this here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/
@ur momisugly JJD (23:04:53): “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.”
In its unmodified form, chitin is translucent, pliable, resilient and quite tough. In arthropods, however, it is often modified, becoming embedded in a hardened proteinaceous matrix, which forms much of the exoskeleton. In its pure form it is leathery, but when encrusted in calcium carbonate it becomes much harder.
Mike (20:13:48) :
Everything you need to know about ocean acidification:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid3.htm
Mike, I think you have to scrap this links because the information is BS.
A bit self-serving, but I feel I must say “I told you so!”
Maybe in a few months we can get them to stop using the misleading “ocean acidification”. It is “ocean neutralization” at best.
Professor Plimer says that rain +clay =acid consuming process and that acid seas are impossible while plate techtonics take place and we don’t run out of rocks.
“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.”
Translation: This study is not profitable. Therefore, to keep grants coming, we shall put this last block in that says it is worse than we thought just so the Global Warming money machine still favors us despite this unfavorable study.