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.
David Middleton (10:05:27) :
Thanks
And, yeah, EXCELL is one of my favorite tools, as well.
Others have asked, and I too can’t help but wonder, what he was thinking when he wrote this.
“We have only begun to generate the data needed to a$$e$$ CO2-driven impact$ on organi$m$ and eco$ystem$ in the geologic pa$t, and to anticipate the effect$ of anthropogenic ocean acidification in the decade$ and centurie$ ahead.”
Make funding payable to . . .
yonason:
The seawater was not described in the actual article, but is described in the online data repository:
“1. Experimental growth conditions
Organisms were grown for 60 days in 24 38-Liter glass aquaria filled with 0.2 µm- filtered seawater obtained from Great Harbor in Vineyard Sound off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The aquaria were divided into six sets of four, which were continuously equilibrated with air-CO2 gas mixtures …” [I’m reluctant to post any more for fear of copyright violation]
There is an extensive justification for the experimental conditions used and calculations made. I see nothing about bits of coral being added.
David Middleton,
“That’s my point. Ocean acidification is used as a “catch all”. It really isn’t a theory or even a hypothesis as it is commonly used.”
As I understand it, “ocean acidification” was coined as a descriptive term for the apparent declining pH of ocean surface waters as a result of rising atmospheric pCO2. I have no interest in debating whether it qualifies as a scientific theory, or a hypothesis; the reality of declining ocean pH is testable, as are the predicted impacts of rising pCO2 and declining pH on marine organisms. That’s not to say these are easy to document in a convincing fashion, as the oceans and marine organisms are very complex systems. But, changes in seawater pH and impacts on organisms are testable, or falsifiable if you prefer that term.
@Chuck Booth (10:43:07):
I agree. Those things are testable. And to the extent they have actually been tested:
Oceanic pH is not declining in any way that deviates from natural non-CO2-driven trends over the last 6,000 years.
The rise of CO2 from pre-industrial levels to modern day levels have not been demonstrated to have harmed marine life in any significant fashion.
Laboratory tests have shown that CO2 levels would have to rise to above 900 ppmv before any measurable negative calcification would occur; and that they would have to rise to about 2,000 ppmv before some species begin to experience dissolution.
Chuck Booth (10:43:07) :
“changes in seawater pH and impacts on organisms are testable, or falsifiable if you prefer that term.”
As the link I posted above indicates, it is (at least in that case) FALSE.
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
There is no trend, and a LOT of variation within the pH range indicated as normal for oceans in the other link I posted, about 7.2-8.2 which makes their claims of an absolute “change” in the tenths of units, or less, totally meaningless.
Chuck Booth (10:29:22) :
Thanks. I wouldn’t want you to get in trouble for copyright infringement. I remain skeptical for the reasons I stated above. Their results may have real implications for oceans, or not. It’s suggestive, and no doubt the researchers need lots more funding to get more results (hey, even scientists gotta eat).
yonason,
I’m curious – why do you trust data from near-shore water in Monterrey Bay as being representative of the surface waters of the world oceans? Any oceanographer would tell you that there is considerable spatial and temporal variation in ocean chemistry, esp. between coastal waters and the open ocean.
Long term monitoring studies of the open ocean are surely more reliable. So, what do such studies show?
From Kleypas et al (2006)*:
There is clear evidence that the carbonate equi-
librium of the oceans is shifting in response to in-
creasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Carbon-
ate chemistry measurements at the Hawaiian Ocean
Time-series (HOT), the Bermuda-Atlantic Time-series
(BATS), and the European Station for Times Series in
the Ocean at the Canary Islands (ESTOC) show a shift
in carbonate equilibrium consistent with increases in
atmospheric CO2 (Figure 1–2) (Bates, 2001; Gruber
et al., 2002, González-Dávila et al., 2003; Brix et al.,
2004). Over the last two decades, several large-scale
programs ( Joint Global Ocean Survey, World Ocean
Circulation Experiment, Ocean-Atmosphere Carbon
Exchange Study) have measured the carbonate chem-
istry (mainly the total dissolved inorganic carbon,
DIC, and the total alkalinity, AT ) along multiple ocean
transects. These measurements allowed quantifica-
tion of the anthropogenic carbon in the oceans, re-
gionally and with depth (Sabine et al., 2004) (Box 2),
and have been used to estimate changes in the calcite
and aragonite saturation states (Feely et al., 2004)….
*Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research
A report from a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey
Authors
Joan A. Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Richard A. Feely, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, WA
Victoria J. Fabry, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA
Chris Langdon, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of
Miami, Miami, FL
Christopher L. Sabine, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, WA
Lisa L. Robbins, Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies, USGS, St. Petersburg, FL
From the Bermuda Institute for Ocean Sciences BATS (Bermuda Atlantic Time Series) program:
Multi-year increase in CO2 concentrations in the surface ocean has now been conclusively documented.
Implications: At the beginning of BATS, it was hypothesized that the inorganic carbon dioxide concentrations in the surface ocean would increase as the concentrations increased in the atmosphere, but detection of this increase would be “masked” by the large seasonal changes in carbon dioxide. Fourteen years of high-quality measurements have now shown that surface carbon dioxide concentrations are in fact increasing. How the biological system will respond to this increase, however, is much less clear. Different phytoplankton groups have different affinities for carbon dioxide and also have varying efficiencies with which they remove this carbon into the ocean interior.
http://www.bios.edu/research/batsfind.html
I don’t think any scientist predicted that the responses of organisms to rising CO2 would be uniform, or simple. And I don’t think any scientist has suggested that we know everything there is to know. The key questions are, do we know enough to justify taking action now? Or, should we wait until we have more information?
I don’t suppose any real scientist expected responses of organisms would be uniform, either, but why did the director of NOAA try to fool Congress into thinking that the ocean’s chemistry has become similar to that of club soda?
@Chuck Booth (13:52:35) :
What did Kleypas et al. have to say about pH changes? Did they measure pH?
Feely et al., 2004 (Kleypas was part of the et al.) estimated the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the aragonite and calcite saturation depths.
Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 System in the Oceans
This paper is not behind an AAAS paywall. It’s available with the free membership option.
The calcite saturation depth is largely unchanged. The aragonite saturation depth has become a bit shallower in a few places. The saturation depths of aragonite and calcite are not the same thing as the CCD or lysocline.
Water that is under-saturated in aragonite and/or calcite was thought to be problematic for carbonate shell building creatures. Checkly, Iglesias-Rodriguez, Pelejero and now Ries (and all of their et al’s) have pretty well shown that carbonate shell building creatures aren’t bothered very much by aragonite and calcite or elevated CO2 levels.
Correction to David Middleton (15:03:42) :
Checkly, Iglesias-Rodriguez, Pelejero and now Ries (and all of their et al’s) have pretty well shown that carbonate shell building creatures aren’t bothered very much by aragonite and calcite saturation states or elevated CO2 levels.
Chuck –
Thanks for clearing that up. You had done a pretty good job of upending my long-held understanding of the term “inorganic”. This time, you had me pretty concerned about the chemistry of fossil fuel combustion.
If you don’t mind, would you clear up something for me? It’s about calcium. Much of this thread has been about the effects of inorganic carbon (see, I’m learning) in the shells of the oceans’ bottom-dwellers. These critters grab calcium from the water and deposit it in the fossil-record, kind of like coin collectors taking money out of circulation. Where is the new calcium coming from?
I really do appreciate the clarity you bring to this thread and wanted to check out what else you may have written. Unsuccessful. Can you throw me a link to something?
George
Not to step on Dr. Booth’s toes, but I just thought I’d resond to this question:
Most new Ca++ supplied to the ocean is brought in by rivers. As calcium-silicate minerals, carbonates, etc. undergo chemical weathering on land they dissolve into freshwater, end up in rivers, and then in the ocean. There is also input from hydrothermal systems.
While most of the carbonates produced in shelf/bank systems (where the ocean floor is not very deep) accumulate over the short term, but in much of the ocean (i.e., where the seafloor is deeper than the CCD) the carbonates redissolve before they have a chance to accumulate. Hence, much of the production is balanced by dissolution deeper in the water column. The accumulation is balanced by weathering that occurs on land and hydrothermal input.
Over longer timescales the accumulated shallow-water carbonates tend to end up above sea level (either due to uplift or lower sea level, or both) and ultimately get weathered, hence becoming a source to the ocean.
On very, very long timescales, the entire surface of the planet gets reworked/recycled 😉
Chuck Booth (13:52:35) :
“Long term monitoring studies of the open ocean are surely more reliable.”
Why?
If anything, I would expect water nearer the source of the CO2 “contamination” to be more reflective of pH change, than a remote patch of ocean. As such, if I don’t see any affect in the bay, the likelihood that I will see it in some remote patch of ocean seems low.
I’m not saying not to look, but with what I see from the bay, you’re going to have to sell me on your techniques and your lack of bias before I even look at your conclusions.
“Any oceanographer would tell you that there is considerable spatial and temporal variation in ocean chemistry, esp. between coastal waters and the open ocean.”
I referenced that variability in previous posts, so what are you adding? Also, I would guess the chemistry of any bay is far closer to ocean chemistry than a few small aquaria in any lab.
I googled Sabine et al., and came up with this:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/17_3/17.3_scor_ioc.pdf
If you look at the top of page 73 you will see a comparison of AIR vs SEA. Note that they have drawn a scary green line through the SEA data to show how it is increasing. T
he problem, though, is that the “increase ” does not seem very impressive. From 1990 to 1995 it’s virtually constant, with an increase in 1995, followed by a slow decrease from 1995 to 1998.
Also, note that he does not start or end his graph from any median point. His first data point is a low, and he ends it on a high. That’s either just sloppy (at best), dishonest at worst, rivaling the stuff coming out of CRU. Based on that graph alone, I have ample reason not to trust any of his other work.
If you’ve got anything better, please show it. And please don’t make me go digging for it, but give me references I can access from a link, if possible.
Chris –
Thanks for taking the time to educate me. Obviously, I am a landlubber & appreciate you and the people on this thread taking me beneath the waves.
People ask me my opinion about science stuff every day. I want to provide good info, of course, as best I can. The current hot topic is “climate change”. My position needs to take shape fairly quickly and I’d like to put my current thinking out here for comment pro and con. Believe me, if I am out to lunch, I want to know.
1. Regarding the health of the planet, the oceans are more important than the atmosphere, both in terms of mass and quantity of life.
2. Yes, the atmosphere has been on a warming trend, maybe not lately, but this is mostly normal fluctuation, not the result of man-made CO2. There’s just not enough of it to make a significant difference compared to other greenhouse stuff, particularly water vapor.
3. CO2 in the air does impact inorganic carbon in the oceans, however. Here, we could get our collective butts in deep doodoo.
4. Inorganic carbon in the oceans is nowhere near the “tipping point”. Yet.
5. The call for immediate action on CO2 emissions should be replaced with a long-term strategy of CO2 reduction, such as nuclear power plant construction and electrification of the vehicle fleet and home heating.
Once again, I appreciate the candor and rigor of this thread. Please agree or disagree. As always, my offer to “cook the data” for anyone who lands a research grant involving the sacrifice of lobsters (crabs or clams) stands.
Thanks,
George
George,
Glad to be of help.
The first thing I’d say is, I’m not sure how one would define “the health of the planet.” We can measure particular variables that would probably be important in this calculation: rates of species extinction and origination, biodiversity, particular ecosystem services, primary and higher order rates of production, etc. ad nauseum (and some of these things get very hard to determine indeed), but how does one produce a useful metric signifying “the health of the planet” out of those data? It makes sense to talk about things like changes in and prospect of the future of ecosystem services, biodiversity, etc., but I’m not sure those can really be lumped together to produce a single indicator for the “health of the planet”.
The oceans contain a lot more DIC, water, heat, etc. than the atmosphere, but the two are a dynamic system (along with terrestrial and oceanic sediments, over long timescales). To say one is more important than the other is a bit like saying a persons lungs are more important than their heart. Changes in one necessarily effect changes in the other. Since we live in the atmosphere and rely heavily on the ocean for a variety of resources, we have a substantial stake in what happens in both.
The atmosphere and ocean have been warming for decades (including this past decade) and this warming is outside of the range of natural variability (in other words, the climate really has been warming). The only explanation adequate to explain why the climate has warmed in the last several decades (solar activity + volcanic eruptions should have produced cooling in the last 30 yrs) is an enhanced greenhouse effect. Any climatologists (John Christy, Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, etc. included) would agree.
The ocean and atmosphere form a dynamic system wherein CO2 (and other gases, aerosols, etc.) are exchanged back and forth. If you release a gas into either the atmosphere or the ocean the two will two continue to exchange and approach a new equilibrium. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in more CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean (and likely terrestrial sinks as well, though that depends strongly on other factors as well). Minerals on land are also important in the long term (thousands to hundreds of thousands of yrs).
There’s definitely the potential for getting ourselves in pretty deep doodoo given that many organisms respond negatively ocean acidification. As can be seen in this study, the responses are not simple and vary among groups of organisms, possibly even among genotypes (seen in other studies) and depending on some other environmental conditions (e.g., temp., nutrient supply; seen in other studies). While some organisms seem to do just fine in CO2 enriched seawater, many, many others are seriously harmed.
As Dr. Ries mentions in the press release, predicting precisely how ecosystems will be affected by these changes is difficult at this point: some organisms don’t seem to be directly affected by CO2 enrichment of seawater while others are clearly harmed. Since ecosystems depend on complex interactions among organisms and their environment it seems clear that ecosystems will be altered by OA. Given that certain commercially important species or their prey are negatively affected by OA (various studies), some ecosystems are likely to change in ways that have negative effects on human society.
I don’t think I understand what you mean. A tipping point to what effect/condition?
I’m not sure I see the distinction you’re making: immediate action toward reducing CO2 emissions by adopting a long-term strategy of CO2 reduction (using the methods you mention and more) would be a very wise move to safeguard a plethora of resources important to human society.
Hope that helps,
Chris
Bays and other nearshore (especially enclosed) water masses are going to be significantly influenced by terrestrial processes occuring on the adjacent land, and therefore may not be representative of very much of the ocean. Similarly, taking nutrient samples at the end of a sewage pipe dumping into the ocean doesn’t necessarily tell you much about the nutrient concentrations most everywhere else. Estuaries like Monterrey Bay are typically quite different from most oceanic water in almost every measurable parameter.
See the DOE handbook for basic analytical techniques: http://andrew.ucsd.edu/co2qc/handbook.html
As for selling you on ones lack of bias, what would you suggest? It seems as though you’ve made up your mind already that results you dislike, regardless of their quality or informative power, are the result of “bias” while those you do like, regardless of their quality or informative power, are credible. Am I mistaken?
It depends entirely on what the chemistry in the bay and the aquaria actually are and what part of the ocean one is using as a frame of reference. It’s possible to have water quality that, in a variety of measurable parameters, is no different between a bay and a section or the ocean, and between aquaria and a section of the ocean. It is also possible to have bay water or aquarium water that is radically different from particular oceanic water. That, of course, is why one has to measure and report these things, just as Ries et al. did, and just as everyone in every study ever published has done. OF COURSE you have to know what the water chemistry is like in a variety of ways, otherwise any data derived are useless and (almost certainly) wouldn’t get published in the first place.
DIC in the surface ocean *is* increasing. The data shown here is just a snippet of the data available today that demonstrates it. The figure shows the effect being addressed—it isn’t meant to be an exhaustive summary, after all, it’s just a meeting report. Also, it looks like this popped up simply because Sabine et al. 2004 is a cited reference.
Among the datasets that show the longterm increase in DIC in the shallow ocean are those derived at the HOT station, the BATS station, ESTOC, the WOCE cruises, etc. See Sabine et al. 2004. Science for a discussion, for example.
The data are what they are. The rate of increase of DIC is right in line with what is expected over this period and is more clearly documented in the current, longer HOT dataset (the figure shows the first 10 yrs as it was published yrs ago—the dataset is now ~21 yrs old) as well as other longterm datasets (BATS, ESTOC) and cruise compilations (e.g., WOCE).
The graph starts with the beginning of the time series and ends with, what was at the time of analysis, the most current data (we’ve got another decade worth of data at this point).
So you’re saying that because Bates (2002) plotted all of the available data, which just so happen to have a relatively low initial value and high last value, he’s being either sloppy or dishonest? Plotting all the available data (at the time) gives you ample reason not to trust his work???
Can you see why criticisms like this get dismissed as nonsense? Your argument is tantemount to arguing someone deserves a speeding ticket for driving 5 mph under.
HOT: http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/hot_jgofs.html
BATS: http://bats.bios.edu/
ESTOC: http://www.eurosites.info/estoc.php
WOCE: http://woce.nodc.noaa.gov/wdiu/
See the above sites for data and a plethora of references.
Chris
Chris (03:14:14) :
“…taking nutrient samples at the end of a sewage pipe dumping into the ocean… “
The graph in my reference was for INCOMING seawater in which all their ocean (not bay) organisms would be growing, not outgoing sewage.
“Monterey Bay Aquarium Incoming Seawater,”
Did you even look at the paper?
“DIC in the surface ocean *is* increasing. The data shown here is just a snippet of the data available today that demonstrates it.”
But it does NOT “demonstrate it,” Chris, for the reasons I mentioned. Look at the graph and play the same trick (just like CRU) they played. Remove the first 6 data points, and the last 3, so instead of leading with a low and ending on a high they lead with a high and end on a low. Of course, that would be just as dishonest as what they’ve done. If that’s the best they’ve got, it’s a pretty flimsy case.
Thanks for all the other links. I’ll take a look at them. In the meantime, you haven’t made your case.
Outside of the range of natural variability? Only if you’re using broken hockey sticks as a frame of reference for natural variability.
Moberg et al., 2005 reconstructed “Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data, using a wavelet transform technique to achieve timescale-dependent processing of the data.” Moberg’s reconstruction clearly shows the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
Appending the UAH Lower Troposphere temperatures on to the end (1978) of Moberg’s 2,000-year reconstruction yields this… Moberg and UAH. Without applying error bars or a range of uncertainty to Moberg’s Medieval Warm Period, exactly on year (1998) in the instrumental record falls outside of the MWP range of natural variability. A reasonable error bar would even put 1998 back into the range of natural variability.
A comparison of HadCRUt3 (1850-2008) to Moberg’s MWP (740-900) shows that the rate and magnitude of warming in both periods were nearly identical… Moberg MWP and HadCRUT3
I’ve read a couple of Pat Michaels’ books and Roy Spencer’s book… I don’t recall either of them saying that modern climate changes are outside the range of natural variability. As a geoscientist, I know that they are well within the range of natural variability.
Maybe you should try reading the actual paper. Only 2 (soft clams and oysters) of 18 species experienced a significant decline in calcification rate at 2X pre-industrial CO2 (606 ppmv); even then the mean calcification rate was within the range of current rate for oysters. No significant dissolution occurred for any species below 1,000 ppmv CO2.
Furthermore, these species were suddenly subjected to simulated high CO2 levels and low Ωaragonite for 60 days. At the current rate of human CO2 emissions (~8 Gt/yr), it will take more than 100 years for CO2 levels to rise to 600 ppmv, assuming that all of the annual rise in CO2 since 1960 is anthropogenic. The oceans and creatures living in the oceans will have a bit longer to adjust than this experiment allowed. Of course, if plant stomata-derived CO2 levels are correct, century-scale CO2 changes of 60 to 80 ppmv are not uncommon and CO2 levels of 360 to 390 ppmv have not been unusual during Holocene and Recent warm periods. In other words, if the plant SI are right, carbonate shell building critters have dealt with this sort of thing before over the last 15,000 years.
For those referencing Ian Plimer, here he reveals what else they are hiding, besides the decline.
That’s just the first of 5, which you should also find there.
There really is no human caused global warming. The whole thing is a scam, as climategate has exposed.
It is a good study.
Some organism benefit from high C02 leveles, but OTHERS WERE SERIOUSLY HARMED.
Why you don’t undestand the Big Picture?
This is changing the oceans. Always with change there are winners and losers.
This could disrupt the food chain, as in the example above:
” 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
That is a small but good example of a food chain possible disruption.
If you go to the Casino, and a statistician says to you:
What you are doing is dangerous:
_70% probability of have a gain of 40% in your money invested.
_30% probability of losing all, and that will mean that the mafia will kill your entire family as a form of extortion. You, and all your descent will be enslaved for the entire life to the gangsters.
If you are a mimimally decent, moral and responsible person you will inmediately exit the Casino.
You, instead , as the big Propaganda Guys of the Big Money-Big Oil-Big Coal Mafia, are trying to convince us of endarger our entire family (the human species and ultimately all forms of advanced life in our planet), betting that there is no 100% security of an impeding catastrophe.
You are really, really morally depravated people.
Even an 1% chance of a global catastrophe should be enough to eliminate carbon emissions.
Will you go to sleep relaxed is you know is an 1% chance of finding a viper snake in your bed?
You are asking to ingnore a danger much greater, being conservative,
it is a 60% chance of causing the worst holocaust in human history!
Think a bit. Your massacre will likely be far worse than the worst of the worst massacres in human history. It is likely that in future history your acts will dwarf the massacres of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all that madmen that caused more than 100 million deaths in last century!
You could kill not millions, but BILLIONS!
Are you ready for that?
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Queen Victoria, KKKs, all are waiting for you in Hell!
But you can still change your path, you can still be good people.
And remeber that Jesus Crist said “in Heaven there is more happiness for a single converted sinner than for thousands of good people that don’t need to regret anything”
We, the people that are fighting to save the planet, follow this philosophy. We will welcome anyone that opened his eyes and stopped supporting the Suicidal Path of the Big Business.
Yeah, commonsense (15:54:47), I have to admit, I think I see where you’re coming from Stay tuned so you can keep us up to date, ok.
Link to research paper (provided toll-free courtesy of GEOLOGY):
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/37/12/1131?ijkey=O79jdQYUdBqN2&keytype=ref&siteid=gsgeology
Prof. Ries’ website:
http://www.unc.edu/~jries/
Related press coverage:
http://www.unc.edu/~jries/press.html
NPR – All Things Considered (interview):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121378547
I wonder if I can get a refund of the $25 I spent to buy the paper…
From the NPR interview…
Both corals in the paper did fine at elevated CO2 levels. Coralline red algae had higher calcification rates at 606 and 903 ppmv and the same range of calcification rates at 2856 ppmv. Temperate coral showed no decline until CO2 was above 909 ppmv.
The only species that showed a significant decline at 606 ppmv was soft clams. No species exhibited significant dissolution until CO2 levels were above 903 ppmv.
It’s also important to note that CO2 was not the only parameter that was varied. Aragonite saturation was also varied; assuming an inverse linear relationship with CO2. According to Figure 3 in Feely et al., 2005 the depth of aragonite under-saturation has shoaled (become more shallow) in a few areas since pre-industrial times; but in other places it hasn’t changed.
Anyone who deals in water chemistry would have predicted these results. Aqueous solutions of carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion are all variations on the same theme–dissolved CO2
Many industrial plants have found that when they tried to use CO2 in place of mineral acids for pH control, the formation calcium carbonate scale in cooling water sytems was unchanged. This is because the equilibrium really doesn’t change much as you shift species of dissolved CO2. It’s not surprising that organisms that deposit calcium carbonate in their shells would not see much difference.