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.
I used to think scientists were intelligent. All I can say now is,[snip]
Here’s one for you. It turns out, studies show that child car seats don’t really improve safety for children over 6. The bottom line is all children should be in child seats.
Or how about this. People who save 10% of their income are much less likely to face financial distress. The bottom line is, the government needs to provide more welfare programs.
It is as if these people have no training whatsoever. Do they have a union?
Many of us “around here” are scientists. Unlike the advocates of ocean acidification, most scientists would start questioning their hypothesis when the obeservations and experiments continue to falsify it.
Pelejero et al., 2005 found no clear trend of decliing oceanic pH over the last 200+ years. They did find a natural, ~50-yr, pH cycle that oscillates between ~7.8 and ~8.3…
Iglesias-Rodriguez et al., 2008 found that the CaCO3 mass of coccoliths increased when exposed to an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 275 to 385 ppmv…
Checkley et al., 2009 found that a sudden increase of atmospheric CO2 under laboratory conditions caused “otoliths (aragonite ear bones) of young fish grown under high CO2 (low pH) conditions are larger than normal, contrary to expectation.”
Just like anthropogenic global warming – Ocean acidification relies entirely on models that are contradicted by observation. Real scientists discard or modify a hypothesis when the observations and experiments falsify it. Junk scientists discard and modify the inconvenient data to make if fit the preferred hypothesis.
Chris H –
You are correct. I was just a tad lazy there. Thanks.
George
I’ve read the paper. Pretty interesting. Like almost all papers, it’s incremental- it hardly gives an “all clear” sign re: ocean pH changes, but it identifies some interesting questions about why some species benefit, others do not, and others exhibit threshold (i.e. OK until very high pCO2) or variable (increased growth at moderate pCO2, declines at high pCO2) reactions.
If most species were quite indifferent to pCO2, that would be one thing. The diversity of the reactions means we are perturbing ecosystems. To what extent, I don’t think we know yet.
And don’t worry, the authors have their grant $ covered- “We have only begun to generate the data needed to assess CO 2-driven impacts on organisms and ecosystems in the geologic past, and to anticipate the effects of anthropogenic ocean acidification in the decades and centuries ahead.” Frankly, I think that’s a fair statement.
“D. King (20:54:53) :
John (20:20:52) :
I guess they need to “get rid of” the Carboniferous Period, too.
Our reality is shrinking.”
Just a clarification for John and D. King:
The Carboniferous was a rather warm period, which correlates with high atmospheric CO2, so I doubt anyone looking for a positive relationship would want ignore it. The medieval warm period was warm when CO2 was relatively low, that is why it the researchers from East Anglia mentioned it specifically. Obviously CO2 isn’t the only control on global climate, but it is also obvious that climate does change, and it changes substantially.
I still think that climate science is an important field of inquiry, albeit probably not as urgent as some would like you to believe. But hey, a climate scientist has to try and sell the importance of their job just like everyone else. I suspect most of the people commenting on this site have some job that they have to convince people to support, whether it is the public, their boss, their customers or a national funding agency. Let’s say you are a lawyer, you have to convince people that your services are necessary. While mankind survived for centuries without lawyers, any good law student will tell you that without the rule of law human society cannot exist, ergo we need lawyers. Would a world without lawyers really be that bad? Can we blame the lawyer for making his case though, and can we blame him for taking advantage of his opportunities when his clients are willing to pay?
Bottom line with all the economics and politics aside, climate science research is just as important a field to support as any other scientific field. It should be done objectively and the results should be interpreted by experts, not bandied about on websites by armchair PhDs who then go to their job pumping gas or selling footwear. Honestly, unless you are willing to go and read the actual published paper, then you have no idea how to interpret the few findings mentioned here. For instance, can anyone posting here tell me what happened to the other 11 species examined when exposed to elevated CO2?
“Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification.”
Ultimately, this press release is poorly written and if the quotes are taken out of context then the writer should seriously consider another career path.
“More research is needed” is a standard closing line for nearly all research in all fields of science. It means “Give me more grant money.”
I’m always annoyed when the media report this statement as if it’s meaningful. You might as well report that “Paul Harvey claims today is a good day.”
Aside from that, ocean acidification is the only REAL problem caused by increased CO2, so it’s worth paying close attention to facts on this, not dismissing it out of hand.
yonason (07:30:03) :
“As more CO2 dissolves, the concentration of bicarbonate increases, even if carbonate decreases slightly.”
as pH increases, both bicarbonate and carbonate increase, as seen here.
http://www.cambridge.org/resources/0521538432/1488_218437.pdf
Yes, but pH DECREASES with increasing DIC. Increasing H+ ions converts to lower pH. What’s more, the relative concentration of H+ ions increases faster than the relative concentration of DIC, so it is possible for absolute concentration of carbonate to fall even as absolute concentration of DIC increases – theoretically (though in seawater, nothing’s that simple).
David Middleton:
Geez, why the hostility?
A couple notes on your references:
The first sentence of the abstract of Pelejero et al., 2005 is “The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” Their study examined pH cycles at a reef site, where it seems local processes dominate the local pH. Good stuff, but not particularly relevant to global ocean pH trends. I introduce for your consideration the short time series from Wootten et. al. 2008- http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0810079105 . I’m sure you’ll hate the modeling part, but the data is the data.
The basic hypothesis involved here is: CO2 + H2O => H2CO3 => H+ + H2CO3-. Pretty basic stuff. The buffering chemistry is also well, known, including the kinetics. No computer models are required to support the basic hypothesis that higher atmospheric pCO2 will change ocean chemistry.
What’s less well known are the impacts of these changes on ocean organisms, and the ability of biological systems to regulate local carbonate chemistry. My favorite paper on this subject is the Wilson et al. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;323/5912/359 ) fish poop paper.
In summary, in my judgment, the hypothesis that increased atmospheric CO2 provides a forcing for decreased ocean pH is supported by theory and data. A hypothesis that the impacts will be uniformly negative is not supported, at least if you’re a lobster. The hypothesis that the net impacts will be largely negative cannot yet be evaluated. Showing that fish grow bigger ear bones or lobsters grow faster under higher pCO2 or that fish poop (yes, I know it’s not really poop) carbonate is good information, but hardly sufficient data to give the “all clear, business as usual” sign.
They have to stick that last comment in there or they risk losing their funding from NSF
@ur momisugly syphax (09:10:27) :
Wooten’s 8-year survey was for one site, Tatoosh Island. It showed a couple of years of slightly declining pH, a couple of a gap and then and a couple of years of rising pH.
Neither Wooten nor Pelejero found any evidence of a secular acidifying trend. Nor has anyone else.
In what precise environment was this observation done? In general, the ocean buffers its CO2 content quite effectively by precipitating out the excess as calcium carbonate — since the ocean is loaded with calcium ions.
Likewise increased CO2 means increased plankton to consume it. Was this in some kind of artificial medium?
ScientistForTruth (09:06:47)
Reading “approx % of total DIC) from the graph in the link I gave, in the relevant pH range from about 7.2 to 8.2, any decrease in pH yields a much greater relative decrease in carbonate than in bicarbonate conc. Since in all cases it appears to be greater than 2 fold, that relation should also hold for the absolute concs., in that range. It’s just an empirical observation.
For the theory these might be fun to go over later
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/document/global_cycle/vol%20I/cht_i_09.pdf
http://comp.uark.edu/~ksteele/gochemfiles/SteeleCarbonatePC-762.htm
Anyway, as you say, with seawater it’s much more complex, which is why it’s still open to research.
David Middleton (09:30:55) :
Yes.
Analogous to “hide the decline,” those who assert “acidification” report ocean pH as a specific # rather than a very wide range. When their claims for “change” in the “average pH” are examined in light of the normal range of ocean pH, their deception becomes laughably transparent.
Ocean pH changes from location to location around the world, from season to season, and from year to year.
Just as there is no “average temperature” for the earth, there is no “average pH” for the sea.
The most important aspect of this research is connecting lobsters to global warming. Whoever wins the race to fund this study, contact me gbrown at alum.mit.edu! I will bring my own bib. I even volunteer to cook the data! This could even top the cancer research on grilled steaks when I was an undergrad. (By any chance, is global warming responsible for melted butter?)
I’m sorry that many of you have minds too feeble to understand a scientist’s logic as encapsulated in the “bottom line” of this article. What this study shows is that increased CO2 causes drastic change in the shells of sea organisms, either increasing or decreasing shell creation. That means that increasing atmospheric CO2 disrupts the balance of life in the oceans. This is obvious from the article. The bottom line is that we should be INCREDIBLY CAUTIOUS about disrupting balances in nature that have taken hundreds of millions of years to establish, because we do not understand and cannot predict the results.
This is the message of science to modern man. I cannot fathom how so many of you can misunderstand.
angrytheo (10:40:39) :
“What this study shows is that increased CO2 causes drastic change in the shells of sea organisms”,
should be
“What this study shows is that increased CO2 [under laboratory controlled conditions] causes drastic change in the shells of sea organisms [in the laboratory]”
I haven’t seen the conditions they used, so I don’t know if the water was sea water or if any non-natural buffers or other chemicals were used. But, even if they weren’t, it’s still not what goes on in the ocean.
“That means that increasing atmospheric CO2 disrupts the balance of life in the oceans.”
No. What it means is that increasing CO2 in laboratory aquarium tanks alters the metabolism of the few organisms under study in those conditions. It may, or may not, mean that some or all life in the oceans might respond similarly. My guess is that what we learn from this is how to maintain those organisms in aquaria.
In the real world “laboratory” life thrives in conditions that would kill them in the lab
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177886/Creatures-living-violent-undersea-volcano-climate-change-survival-clue.html
See also the links I provided above on massive undersea volcanic CO2 and the organisms thriving in the waters nearby.
syphax (08:36:23) :
I’ve read the paper. Pretty interesting. Like almost all papers, it’s incremental- it hardly gives an “all clear” sign re: ocean pH changes,
Could you provide a link to where the paper is accessible, the Geology site still shows the November edition as the current one
http://geology.gsapubs.org/
Re the Wooten paper, when I read it last year I was struck by this figure
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848/F1.large.jpg
which shows the range of observed PH in the measurements they collected.
What it suggested to me was that, if oceanic life was as vulnerable to minor changes in PH level as has been posited, the oceans would have been as barren as the Antarctic ice cap long ago, since it seems to be exposed to PH variations of .24 daily, >1 annually, and 1.5 over 8yrs.
@ur momisugly David Middleton:
And the game of dueling datasets continues…
Neither Wooten nor Pelejero found any evidence of a secular acidifying trend. Nor has anyone else.
Please discuss:
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/products/HOT_surface_CO2.txt
Of course, we’ll need to talk about the difficulty of accurately measuring pH in-situ: http://andrew.ucsd.edu/co2qc/handbook.html
Average annual pH reconstructions and measurements from various Pacific Ocean locations:
The low pH levels from 60 mya to 40 mya include the infamous Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM); a period in which large scale subaerial and submarine flood basalt eruptions probably dislodged a massive volume of methane hydrates into the Atlantic Ocean, causing a shoaling of the lysocline (AKA ocean acidification). Even then, the oceans did not actually “acidify;” the lowest pH was 7.42 (still basic). PETM CO2 levels have been estimated to have been 1000 to 3000 ppmv from pedogenic carbonates… But fossil plant stomata suggest that CO2 levels in North America were not much different than today (300 to 400 ppmv).
@ur momisugly David Middleton:
Here’s a paper based on that dataset (and more):
Dore et al., Physical and biogeochemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central North Pacific
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full
Yes, it’s only for a single station in the Pacific. I recognize the limitations of that. But it contradicts your claim.
It doesn’t contradict anything. Caldeira and others have asserted that oceanic pH has declined in a secular manner by ~0.1 unit since pre-industrial times. Dore et al. show that from 1989-2007 pH varied between 8.05 to 8.15 (0-30 m) and between 7.96 to 8.15 (235-265 m). If the asserted secular decline is 0.1, then all of that decline happened in an 8 year period (beyond highly improbable).
A pH range of 7.96 to 8.15 falls well within the natural variablity (7.91 to 8.28) of the last 6,000 years. Go read the Wootten paper again. They found a diurnal pH variability of 0.24 units. Pelejero found a 50-yr cycle that varied by 0.3 pH units. 8-year trends that don’t exceed the range of natural variability aren’t secular trends; they are cyclical components.
angrytheo (10:40:39) :
I’m sorry that many of you have minds too feeble to understand a scientist’s logic as encapsulated in the “bottom line” of this article. What this study shows is that increased CO2 causes drastic change in the shells of sea organisms, either increasing or decreasing shell creation. That means that increasing atmospheric CO2 disrupts the balance of life in the oceans. This is obvious from the article. The bottom line is that we should be INCREDIBLY CAUTIOUS about disrupting balances in nature that have taken hundreds of millions of years to establish, because we do not understand and cannot predict the results.
If you live in a house with a driveway and sidewalk, you have caused drastic change, disrupted the balance, and even destroyed up to ~4000 sq ft of the natural habitat for chiggers, earthworms, gnats, mosquitoes, cinch bugs, beetle grubs, and thousands of fungal and bacterial specie, etc that have taken millions of years to become established. You hypocrite, to live without affecting the environment you should move out and live, um uh , gee, well maybe the moon.
“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.
This makes no sense. When are coral affected?
And the article jumps from 1000ppm to 2800ppm and doesn’t distinguish what concentration applies to which results.
If only these people could hear what they are saying.
One more thing. When listening to the alarmists — such as in the commentaries above — notice the condescension, the religious style clinging to belief, and the desperate fear that nature is so delicate, so fragile that any misstep by us could lead, at any moment, to the end of the world. Their global warming science they claim to be robust enough to have confidence in but not the earth system which will still be quite alive long after their nightmares die. This is hysteria, plain and simple.
@ur momisugly Dave Wendt (11:28:11) :
I think I found the problem with the Wootton paper…
Dr. Wooton is a “Professor of Ecology and Evolution.” He’s a biologist… PhD in zoology… No background in geochemistry or marine geology. That explains the total lack of perspective.