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.
@ur momisugly David Middleton:
Wait- you asserted that no one had demonstrated a secular trend. You made no explicit qualifications. I assert that Dore reports a statistically significant secular trend over ~20 years. How does that not contradict your claim? I do tire of the “my references are infallible; yours are wrong” game.
Dore’s reported trend at the surface is -0.0014 +/- 0.0002 per year (measured pH). That’s -0.014 per decade, or, extended out a century (obviously not a valid thing to do), -0.14. So, on the face of it, it’s reasonably consistent with other assertions of a 0.1 change since pre-industrial times.
You seem to be making the argument that this trend is small relative to natural variability. Fair enough, but that natural variability does not erase the existence of the underlying trend in the data, and it does not follow that a secular trend must not be problematic. The annual temperature variation in my region is ~40 deg C over the course of a year. That doesn’t mean that a long-term shift of a degree or three is inconsequential (though I realize that may be a minority view around here).
@ur momisugly syphax (13:48:27)
First: If you have a cyclical function with an amplitude of 0.3 and a period of 50 years, a 0.1 change over an 18 year period is not a secular trend. To be a meaningful secular trend it would have to exceed the amplitude and period of the natural cycle. If I did a linear regression of one leg of a Sin wave, I’d get one heck of an apparent secular trend – And it would be totally meaningless.
Second: Go to Fig. 1 in the Dore paper. The orange circles are the measured pH. The green circles (most of the circles) are calculated from Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) and Total Alkalinity (TA). TA is basically the sum of the carbonate, bicarbonate and other acid neutralizing compounds in the solution. The pCO2 of the seawater is also calculated from DIC and TA. The measured pH of the surface water consists of two clusters from ~1991-1998 and ~2003-2007. The measured pH from 1995-1998 is flat the measured pH from 2003-2006 is rising. The mean of the earlier measured cluster is slightly higher than the mean of the second cluster.
The trends (such as they are) of seawater pCO2 and most of the pH were both calculated from DIC and TA. A trend calculated from the correlation of two functions calculated from the same variables is probably going to pretty good most of the time. The modeled pH and pCO2 might very well be valid; but they don’t deviate from the natural variability.
The apt temperature anomaly would be if someone called part of your 40°C seasonal climb from the winter to summer a secular trend and used it to predict future warming. A warming trend of 10°C from February to April would not be a secular trend; it would be a component of an annual cycle.
The oceans are not acidifying. They might become less alkaline, but they will never become acidic.
The oceans have about the same pH as Bromo-Seltzer. They will always have about the same pH as Bromo-Seltzer.
@ur momisugly Harry Eagar (14:42:41) :
Even during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the oceans didn’t truly acidify… pH remained above 7. The PETM was characterized by volcanic activity that was a lot closer to the Deccan Traps than anything Earth has experienced since end Cretaceous time.
I know it had been said before here, but the THE BOTTOM LINE made me laugh… Either Ries is an idiot, or he thinks that the readers are 🙁
I seem to have unexpectedly waded into an underwater discussion on acid. Until today, an “apt temperature anomaly” was what happens in winter when a girlfriend wakes up early and starts cooking breakfast and making coffee in the kitchen, where the thermostat is, resulting in bedroom butt/weiner-freeze, aka triassic extinction. Don’t let me interrupt.
As a follow on from the ocean floor alteration systems and pH-pCO2 relationships.
I regard the ocean as being in a “leaky container” with walls that interact with its contents in a manner that partially removes HCO3 and keeps the pH alkaline. Shouldn’t we therefore consider the effect of these container walls in any investigation aimed at determining long term oceanic pH and m(t)HCO3 values?
Note that circulation via the sea floor hot springs extends one km or more into the “container walls”, i.e. the seafloor (as indicated by the alkaline hot spring vent water temps) (circulation depths are greater for the acid black smokers – noting that the driver for the acid pH in the black smokers is the removal of seawater OH through precipitation of minerals such as chlorite and magnesium hydroxysulfate in the downflow paths- see papers by M H Reed, for example) Volumes of seawater circulated by sea floor hot spring activity are very large, and I understand of the order of a complete ocean volume every 100 my or so. This translates to 10% of the ocean every 10my!
So I believe that investigation of the ocean “container wall” effect as pH and as m(t)HCO3 buffers is required before we can properly address the question of long term controls on these important sea water properties. The preceding discussions seems to me to be focussing only on the contents of the container! But this container is a very leaky one, and it contains very reactive walls, with a HUGE surface area in contact with its contents!
Comments would be appreciated!
Care to share with us your background and qualifications, D Middleton?
And I note there was another recent paper on rate of acidification from around Iceland (with measurements over 20 odd years.) Care to comment.
Re “A complete list of things caused by global warming”: They left off one. The ground is now harder, as I can attest to from a recent camping trip. It was much softer 40-odd years ago when I was a kid.
My background and qualifications really aren’t relevant to the merits of my arguments. Even if they were, you can’t verify them any more than I could verify any other commenter on this blog.
For what it’s worth… I have a BS in Earth Science (Geology Concentration) and a Math minor from Southern Connecticut State University (1980). I am a member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the Society of Exploration Geophysicists. I have worked as an Exploration Geophysicist in the oil industry, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, for several companies from 1981-2007. Since February 2007, I have been VP of Exploration for an oil company.
Can I have a hint? Maybe the author’s name or the publication? Debunking junk science is just a hobby of mine. I don’t do it for a living and I don’t read everything that’s ever published.
@ur momisugly steve from brisbane (16:48:28) :
This might be the Iceland paper…
“Biogeosciences, 6, 2661–2668, 2009
Rate of Iceland Sea acidification from time series measurements
J. Olafsson1,2, S. R. Olafsdottir1, A. Benoit-Cattin1, M. Danielsen1, T. S. Arnarson1,3, and T. Takahashi4”
1) pH was calculated from seawater pCO2… “Although direct measurements of pH or H+ ion concentration in seawater are desirable, commonly
used electrode methods suffer from ambiguities in regards to whether measurements represent H+ ion activities, concentrations, or the sum of concentrations of H+ species involved in acid-base reactions.”
In other words, the pH data are model-derived and not measured.
2) Olafsson et al. conclude that, “In the surface, the pH has decreased from 8.13 to 8.08 between 1985 and 2008.”
If the oceans have acidified 0.1 unit since the 1700’s, half of that acidification happened between 1985 and 2008 according to this paper.
The range of natural pH variability over the last 6,000 years is 7.9 to 8.4… 8.08 to 8.13 is well within that range.
I note from that a Japanese newspaper also reported recently on a Japanese team is also reporting on pH drop over a 20 year period:
A group of scientists, led by Takashi Midorikawa of the Meteorological Research Institute in Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, has checked the pH readings of surface seawater off the Kii Peninsula at 30 degrees north latitude that have been made since 1986. They have found that the pH has dropped by 0.04 during this period, a considerable change.
Story is here: http://tinyurl.com/y9alzuj
Does “natural variability” work in the same direction over the same period in various far flung parts of the world? I strongly suspect you are just making excuses.
@ur momisugly steve from brisbane 22:41:17
Care to share with us your background and qualifications, Steve from brisbane?
I note your comments re sceptics and the “true believers” elsewhere.
I am not sure I would use two measurements indicating a slight decrease in surface ocean pH – one spot off a volcanic island – the other being a spot in a volcanic arc – to draw a conclusion that the decrease is “significant”, whatever that means in your qualitative terms.
Since when is 0.04 a “considerable” change?
I have extreme doubts about the projected change alleged in that Japanese study.
The CO2 / pH relationship is not linear. As the pH rises, the amount of CO2 needed to drive it more alkaline increases exponentially (as pH is a logarithmic scale). Meanwhile, of course, plants will grow faster as CO2 increases, which is another equilibrium working against the pH change.
If 20 years is enough to drive 0.04 change in pH, then it does not follow that a linear increase in CO2 over the next 100 years will be enough to drive pH by 0.4. Nowhere near it. That would take an exponential increase in CO2 over the next 100 years. A linear trend is only for a change of 5 x 0.04 = 0.2 and you have to work really, really hard to achieve that in an exponential system, let alone twice that.
I call BS on a pH change of 0.04 over 20 years leading to a 0.4 change over 100 years.
If the increase in man-made CO2 over the next 100 years increases exponentially, then acidified oceans are going to be the least of our issues. We will have to be burning an absolutely astounding amount of coal and oil to maintain that sort of increase in CO2. The whole earth will have to be a giant smokestack.
@ur momisugly steve from brisbane (22:41:17) :
A 0.04 change in pH over 20 years is not considerable when pH is documented to have a 0.24 diurnal variability and a 0.3 cyclical (~50-yr) variability.
“Natural variability” can indeed work in the same direction if that natural variability is part of a natural cycle.
Furthermore, both Wootton et al., 2009 and Olafsson et al., 2009 derived most (all in the case of Olafsson) of their pH series from surface water pCO2 (which generally has a linear relationship to atmospheric CO2); then they correlated the pCO2-dervied pH to CO2.
This is a circular relationship. It finds a high correlation between fCO2 and CO2. It is Garbage In – Garbage Out.
Did Midorikawa et al. publish anything? This is an article from something called iStockAnalyst. Did they directly measure pH? Did they calculate it from Total Alkalinity (not the same thing as basicity or anti-pH)? The article provides no data. The article claims that pH has dropped by 0.04 units since 1986. Once again, that is almost half of the total pH decline that Caldeira and others assert has happened over the last 200+ years. The article also says…
That’s nothing but psychobabble.
Seawater pH is notoriously difficult to measure. That’s why most seawater pH estimates are derived. It can be derived from coral using 11B concentrations (independent of pCO2).
All of the “ocean acidification described by Wootton, Olafsson, and Midorikawa fall smack-dab in the middle of the seawater pH range (from d11B) over the last 6,000 years…
pH vCO2
A plot of CO2 vs pH from the Flinders Reef dataset (Pelejero et al., 2005) shows no statistically significant correlation between CO2 and pH from 1788-1988…
Flinders Reef pH v CO2
A correction to David Middleton (04:00:10) :
It was Dore, not Wootton, that derived pH from CO2…
Furthermore, both Dore et al., 2009 and Olafsson et al., 2009 derived most (all in the case of Olafsson) of their pH series from surface water pCO2 (which generally has a linear relationship to atmospheric CO2); then they correlated the pCO2-dervied pH to CO2.
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere,” said Ries.
That closing statement could be in the same category as Cato’s “Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed”, i.e. a profession of strong personal conviction, not necessarily related to the subject at hand.
More likely, though, it is an affirmation of a collective belief under society’s normative pressure, like Seinfeld’s “Not that there is anything wrong with that!” or Muslims’ “Peace be upon Him”. Justin B. Ries doesn’t want to be accused of contributing to heresy.
It just doesn’t have anything to do with science (which seems solid based on the few tidbits about their research).
Many (most?) of the responses posted here seem to assume that a larger shell is somehow beneficial to molluscs and crustaceans. It may be (e.g., it may provide more protection from predation), but not necessarily – laying down calcium carbonate shell requires energy to fuel ion transport. Thus, the extra shell could represent an energy drain that reduces the animal’s fitness. Moreover, animals that have to carry their shell around may face higher cost of transport lugging a heavier shell. It is usually unwise to put too much stock in a single paper, esp one that reports new or unexpected results; such a paper is rarely the final word on the subject.
I’d like to know how many of the commenters bothered to read the actual publication before making rude comments about the scientists. I am sure that all of these people making insults are also prone to bash the media, yet somehow this press release is trustworthy? Just because this article closes with this potentially contradictory statement in no way suggests that the peer-reviewed article also does. I also find it hard to accept criticism of scientific work from a group that obviously knows very little basic science. All of you complaining that inorganic carbon doesn’t exist should please do a little bit of reading first. An organic molecule by definition has carbon and hydrogen atoms. So lots of molecules, like CO2, that have carbon but no hydrogen are inorganic. Also, the smug commenter so certain that lobster shells are made of chitin and therefore irrelevant to this discussion also ought to do some reading. Lobster shells are made of chitin and calcium carbonate, so they are very much influenced by the ocean carbonate chemistry.
Just read an article about Congress on Yahoo which touches on this issue and Climategate http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_hearing – I guess Jane Lubchenco at NOAA doesn’t know about this resarch?
…”The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus … that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,” said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The e-mails don’t negate or even deal with data from both NOAA and NASA, which keep independent climate records and show dramatic warming, Lubchenco told members of the House global warming committee.
The hearing was supposed to focus on the latest in global warming scientific findings. Lubchenco even attempted a high school chemistry lesson with two quick experiments at the witness table. Donning one rubber glove, she demonstrated how adding carbon dioxide to water made it more acidic and said that is what’s now happening in the world’s oceans. Then she put chalk in acidic water compounds and showed it dissolving a bit, to demonstrate what will happen eventually to vital sea life…”
The requirement of both Hydrogen & Carbon for a compound to be classified as organic is a new one on me. In fact, I’m having trouble finding any support for your definition, Jeremy.
This is from Dictionary.com’s Medical Dictionary:
(1) : of,relating to, or containing carbon compounds
I’m an older scientist, but I try to keep up with the lingo, so I dug deeper. According to John Gribben, my favorite science writer, the term “organic chemistry” was coined by Jons Berzelius (1779-1848), better known as the inventor of the modern alphabetical system of nomenclature of the elements. (He was also the first to use other terms like “catalysis” and “protein”.)
The term “organic” initially applied only to stuff that comes from living things. That changed in 1828 when Friedrich Wohler inadvertently synthesized urea. “… the definition of ‘organic’ changed. By the end of the nineteenth century it was clear that there was no mysterious life force at work in organic chemistry, and that there are two things which distinguish organic compounds from inorganic compounds. First, organic compounds are often complex … Second, organic compounds all contain carbon…”
No mention of Hydrogen. If you have a reference, I would be happy to see it.
George
@Jeremy Weisz (10:42:41) :
I haven’t read the full paper yet; but I might just buy a copy of it ($25 to the GSA).
The press release is from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The lead author, Justin Ries, was a postdoctoral fellow at WHOI from 2007-2008.
According to the abstract of Ries et al., 2009, their “results suggest that the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO2 on marine calcification is more varied than previously thought.”
This continues a recent pattern in which scientists were surprised when carbonate shell building organisms used elevated pCO2 to make limestone…
Some of us find this very humorous; because every time the ocean acidification hypothesis is tested, it seems to get falsified to some degree.
Geosota and Jeremy,
I will contradict Jeremy a bit to clarify Geosota’s question about inorganic carbon:
Aquatic chemists, limnologist, et al refer to dissolved CO2 gas, bicarbonate (which obviously has hydrogen), and carbonate as “inorganic carbon.” You can find this explained in a modern limnology textbook (e.g,Wetzel, R.G. 2001 Limnology , 3rd ed. Academic Press; refer to Chpt 11 The Dissolved Inorganic Carbon Complex), or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_inorganic_carbon
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/project/ocdrhw3.html
A google search of dissolved inorganic carbon will turn up many other links in which the term is used.
Thanks, Chuck. Quick, correct & appreciated. (sorry if I’m double posting here, but when I went off noodling this, my comment box cleared).
Btw, when I started looking around, I left out the word “total”. That search was less satisfactory, e.g., “The distinction between organic and inorganic compounds is only a matter of convention, and there are several compounds that have been classified either way, such as: NH2COONH4, COCl2, CSCl2, CS(NH2)2, CO(NH2)2.” Arrgh! I’d take Jeremy’s C-H definition over that, or the old “no C means inorganic”.
Anyhow, I do see the value of TIC for limnology. Although this is not my field, it’s obviously important in current affairs. Again, thanks! And yes, Carthage must be destroyed.
David Middleton,
Some of us find it amusing that you and other posting here appear to trust research papers that support your views, but dismiss, or even ridicule, those that oppose your views, without providing substantive explanations for why the latter papers are flawed.
Anyway, so, initial predictions that increased ocean pCO2 would decrease calcification rates are confirmed for some organisms (e.g., corals and pteropods; reviewed by Joan Kleypas et al in numerous papers, several of which are listed here: http://www.ucar.edu/news/people/Kleypas/; see also the recent review on CO2 effects on corals by Veron et al., 2009, Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, pp 1428-1436: http://tiny.cc/F2Ymk), but is refuted for other organisms, such as shellfish or fish otoliths. Isn’t that the way science works?
And is it possible that larger otoliths are harmful to fish? Is it possible that coccoliths with larger tests sink more quickly, which would reduce their fitness?
Lastly, the fact the the press release came from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute doesn’t guarantee that it is completely accurate – press releases are typically produced by public relations staff, most of whom are not scientists, and all of whom are trying to tell an exciting story; in my experience, even in-house press releases from scientific institutions or agencies contain statements that make the scientists whose work is being highlighted, cringe.