From the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies James Cook University
“Evil twin” threatens world’s oceans, scientists warn
The rise in human emissions of carbon dioxide is driving fundamental and dangerous changes in the chemistry and ecosystems of the world’s oceans, international marine scientists warned today.
“Ocean conditions are already more extreme than those experienced by marine organisms and ecosystems for millions of years,” the researchers say in the latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE).
“This emphasises the urgent need to adopt policies that drastically reduce CO2 emissions.”
Ocean acidification, which the researchers call the ‘evil twin of global warming’, is caused when the CO2 emitted by human activity, mainly burning fossil fuels, dissolves into the oceans. It is happening independently of, but in combination with, global warming.
“Evidence gathered by scientists around the world over the last few years suggests that ocean acidification could represent an equal – or perhaps even greater threat – to the biology of our planet than global warming,” co-author Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland says.
More than 30% of the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels, cement production, deforestation and other human activities goes straight into the oceans, turning them gradually more acidic.
“The resulting acidification will impact many forms of sea life, especially organisms whose shells or skeletons are made from calcium carbonate, like corals and shellfish. It may interfere with the reproduction of plankton species which are a vital part of the food web on which fish and all other sea life depend,” he adds.
The scientists say there is now persuasive evidence that mass extinctions in past Earth history, like the “Great Dying” of 251 million years ago and another wipeout 55 million years ago, were accompanied by ocean acidification, which may have delivered the deathblow to many species that were unable to cope with it.
“These past periods can serve as great lessons of what we can expect in the future, if we continue to push the acidity the ocean even further” said lead author, Dr. Carles Pelejero, from ICREA and the Marine Science Institute of CSIC in Barcelona, Spain.
“Given the impacts we see in the fossil record, there is no question about the need to immediately reduce the rate at which we are emitting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” he said further.
“Today, the surface waters of the oceans have already acidified by an average of 0.1 pH units from pre-industrial levels, and we are seeing signs of its impact even in the deep oceans”, said co-author Dr. Eva Calvo, from the Marine Science Institute of CSIC in Barcelona, Spain.
“Future acidification depends on how much CO2 humans emit from here on – but by the year 2100 various projections indicate that the oceans will have acidified by a further 0.3 to 0.4 pH units, which is more than many organisms like corals can stand”, Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg says.
“This will create conditions not seen on Earth for at least 40 million years”.
“These changes are taking place at rates as much as 100 times faster than they ever have over the last tens of millions of years” Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg says.
Under such circumstances “Conditions are likely to become very hostile for calcifying species in the north Atlantic and Pacific over the next decade and in the Southern Ocean over the next few decades,” the researchers warn.
Besides directly impacting on the fishing industry and its contribution to the human food supply at a time when global food demand is doubling, a major die-off in the oceans would affect birds and many land species and change the biology of Earth as a whole profoundly, Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg adds.
Palaeo-perspectives on ocean acidification by Carles Pelejero, Eva Calvo and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is published in the latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE), number 1232.
I searched the March and April issues of TREE and I can’t find the paper. Does anybody know where to find it?
Does the paper say what the effects have been so far or just what could happen if things got worse? How did they measure pH in the pre-industrial era vs. now consistently? This smells like tree rings to me.
Does this make global warming the “good twin?” Just asking.
They don’t give up do they?
In Darwin we used to say Queenslanders called their beer “XXXX” -fourex- because they couldn’t spell beer!
They’re going to try to shift focus away from those things that the average person can see for themselves (weather patterns, temperatures) to those things that only Official IPCC-Approved Climate Scientists™ can measure and understand.
Anyone can look at historical temperature records and realize that AGW is nonsense, but, the oceans, man! That’s different! They’re dissolving because of CO2 pollution, man! And you can’t argue cuz you’re not an ocean scientist!
James Evans (09:10:24) : “We must ‘immediately reduce’ carbon emissions, because the fossil record tells us that species have become extinct in the last few hundreds of millions of years.”
SAVE THE COELACANTH! DEPOSIT MONEY TO MY BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!
[picture of cuddly-fuzzy coelacanth goes HERE.]
DonK31 (09:21:34) :
Most of these reefs did not exist, at least in their present locations, 15000 years ago. The area where they now exist was dry land before the great global warming that melted most of the ice cap and raised sea levels 300 ft. Like climate, ocean conditions are never static.
—————————————————-
Very good call.
You are spot-on, DonK
TerryS (09:35:23) :
And there was me thinking that anthropogenic CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Let the contradictions begin.
Soon the body will attack itself.
Autoapocalypse syndrome!
I just wonder when was the Golden Age when CO2 levels and global temperatures were at their absolute optimum, life was sweet, the land was filled with milk and honey. Polar bears (not too many, not too few) frolicked gently in the not too warm Arctic..the oceans were of exactly the correct PH, the deserts greened just a little, the rain forest grew nicely, birds cheeped a bit……..and all was well in teh ebst of all possible worlds.
And then along came Man and ruined it all…..maybe it was eating that first apple that did it…or lighting that fire….and everything turned to Ashes…it was Original Sin writ large.
Or so the myth makers will have you believe. Funny how the same old stories keep cropping up in so many apparently dissociated places.
Still with the current trends and the failure of the belief in AGW, we can truly predict at least one positive benefit…the Downfall of Mann
PS If anyone has a date for the Golden Age, I’d love to know….cheers
Larus (09:58:15) : “You people ought to be ashamed of your knee-jerk groupthink.”
Pot Calling Kettle Blackimus Uniterruptus Maximus.
I have an assignment for you: Download, print, and read, from cover to cover the following.
The first one is a rather exhaustive SURVEY…not one study…..but survey of studies. I dare you. Read it cover to cover.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/acid_test.html
Then read this short two-pager as to what is really killing our reefs.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/coral_reefs.html
If you want to get concerned about real environmental problems that are vexing the oceans…..disastrous overfishing, wholesale species depletion of apex predators, massive fertilizer /pesticide runoff and coastal pollution, reef habitat destruction…the giant Pacific Trash Gyre…etc…then I am all ears.
But the CO2 ship is sinking fast…and you’d better abandon it while you have time!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Cap and trade vinegar now!
Tom Segalstad has some info on this;
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm
Larus (09:58:15) :
You have truly displayed your ignorance for all to see. Some of use know a little bit more about the subject then the phony scientist who authored this piece of propaganda. Unlike them some of us have actually ran controlled experiments and taken real data. It is what used to be called science, but I am sure this is beyond you.
I see Jane Lubchenco’s “education” site has a version of this.
http://www.climatecentral.org/breaking
Study warns of ocean acidification effects
Published: March 30th, 2010
UPI – British researchers say ocean acidification, the result of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, could significantly affect marine ecosystems. … Read More
Of course Jane is the one who said months ago that it is like “osteoperosis of the sea.”
Look at this
http://www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html
It’s amazing
The Little chap still looks like Danny de Vito.
Must be something da matter with my eyes !
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland is not exactly reliable
“In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white.
In fact, he later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery.
In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.
In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had “a minimal impact”.
In 2007, he warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were again bleaching the reef.
In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he’d seen none at all.”
“The Ph of the ocean is 8.1 to 8.4 (depending who you listen to) Putting lots of CO2 into air & it being absorbed into the ocean will reduce the PH slightly over a 100 years but it will never reach neutral (PH of 7) let alone become acidic. (PH under 7) ”
With thanks to Professor Peter Ridd (marine scientist at James Cook University via Climate Sceptics in Oz
But wait! Do the Seven Seas really contain pure, distilled water? Isn’t there a lot of conjugated salt ions there, buffering out tiny amoutnts of CO2? There ought to be both Ca++ and Na+ and many other ions in the Sea.
CO2(aq) CO2
CO2(aq) + H20 H2CO3
H2CO3 H+ + HCO3-
HCO3- H+ + CO3–
CaCO3 Ca++ + CO3- –
CaHCO3 Na+ + CO3- – <-NaHCO3-
H2O H+ + OH-
We used to call it a carbonate buffer
If oceans get acidified it wouldn’t be due to large amounts of HCl and sulpur oxides, Such might for sure come from burning yuck, volcanoes and what not.
In general, CO2 levels have been decreasing through geologic time. See:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
Apparently ancient life (which was dominated by marine life) had no problems with substantially higher CO2 & presumably substantially lower pH’s.
Regardless of the validity of the author’s point, they come across as typical alarmists, which should be dismissed out of hand.
Hey AGW skeptics…no need to worry about ocean acidification…move on and celebrate how great Fox News is instead…
[snip – thanks, but let’s leave that OT note unmentioned for now -Anthony]
How come this bs is still on the table, because this has to be the easiest cheesiest bull snack to debunk ever, what with every ([‘]orific[e]) evidence being non-existent.
Like when was the last time it happened during our some four point five odd billion years due to either, and, or, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere or the oceans, or both at the same time?
See http://www.CO2web.info
Web-info about CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect” Doom; by Tom V. Segalstad
DOWNLOAD my ESEF Vol. 1 Chapter (PDF approx. 200 kbytes):
Segalstad, T. V. 1996: The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global “Greenhouse Effect”. In Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, U.K. (ISBN 0952773406), pp. 41-50.
DOWNLOAD my ESEF Vol 2 Chapter (PDF approx. 500 kbytes):
Segalstad, T. V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. In Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. (ISBN 0952773422), pp. 184-219.
Segalstad cites Walker over the impact of stopping all photosynthesis (ie greater than all fossil fuels):
Walker, J.C.G. (1994): Global geochemical cycles of carbon. In: Tolbert, N.E. & Preiss,
J. (Eds.): Regulation of atmospheric CO2 and O2 by photosynthetic carbon metabolism. Oxford University Press, 75-89.
Segalstad Vol 1 p 4 states:
Despite all the doubts expressed above, the chemistry well known. The details get more complex, but the basic reaction is given by the equation
CaCO3+H2O+CO2Ca2+(aq)+2HCO32-(aq)
Increasing the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean will tend to push the equilibrium to the right, making it more difficult for organisms with calcareous structures to deposit calcite. Increase the CO2 concentration enough, and some species will not be able to survive. The ecosystem disruption at the Late Eocene Thermal Maximum is a good analogue for this.
These people have had ocean “acidification” in the bull pen warming up for a good while. I suspect that since their AGW gambit appears to be failing to inspire the required amount of hysteria, they will bring ocean “acidification” to the mound.
Under “Ocean Acidification” at Wikipedia, the claim is that “between 1741 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of -0.075). They were able to measure pH in 1741 to three decimal places? Measuring to three decimal places even today is a problem. A modern, carefully calibrated pH meter today, is capable of measuring to plus or minus 0.01 pH unit. And as I understand it, pH meters started to appear only in the 1930’s. Earlier titration methods are not likely to have been nearly as accurate as today’s meters.
I had an exchange with Joshua Halpern alias Eli Rabett back in December 2008. My comment was that “acidification” according to Merriam Webster means “to make acid” or “to convert into an acid.” I asked if he was really claiming that the oceans are being turned from alkaline to acidic? And exactly how was ocean pH being measured with the precision that is being implied in preindustrial times. The answer that I got was a contemptuous non-answer. I would be happy to send a copy of the exchange to anyone that is interested.
Prof. Bob Carter is based at James Cook, Uni., Townsville, N. Queensland. There must be some interesting chats in the coffee room!