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.
Alan (10:29:43) :
Marine biologists have taken a page from wildlife biologists and evolutionary biologists. Once the Endangered Species Act was enacted, these scientist-entrepeneurs located obscure relatively unknown species, claimed that it was the sole known population, and that it would be extirpated by the proposed land use or development. These claims became the source of numerous research grants that often proved to be corrupt science, that is research was designed to prove their claims.
The first instance was the infamous snail darter a 3″ fish that stopped the TVA from building new power houses. Later work proved that the snail darter was everywhere, but no one have ever looked for them.
The northern spotted owl was the proxy used to shut down most of the logging in the Pacific Northwest. Recent research reveals that the spotted owl is being extirpated by the more aggressive barred owl who interbreeds and prays upon its smaller cousin.
Marine biologists are using the same tactics to save to protect marine habitat and fragile creatures that live there.
This is how the money changes hands.
Rainwater condensing from cloud formations dissolves CO2 to form weak carbonic acid, it always has and it always will. It has been responsible for stalactites and stalagmites in caves over thousands of years. Rainwater of course is initially pure water in which there are few ionic species; seawater however is quite different and contains many soluble anions and cations. Sodium and magnesium, which will form stable crystalline solid bicarbonates, are present in (as ions) abundance. Carbon dioxide in seawater yields salts such as sodium carbonate which is soluble in water and is hydrolysed in solution thus:
Na2CO3+H2O = NaHCO3+NaOH
and these solutions are in fact alkaline. For warmists to pronounce that the simple addition of carbonic acid or dissolution of CO2 in seawater will make it acidic is nonsense and they (the warmists) clearly do not understand the complex ionic system pertaining in the oceans. The capacity of seawater to buffer pH changes is well known and its pH always remains in the range 7.5 to 8.4 which is alkaline.
“This will create conditions not seen on Earth for at least 40 million years”.
I don’t think that there are any conditions today that have been seen more than 120 years ago. If there is anyone that has seen any conditions 40 million years ago, please raise your fossilized hand.
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0613022.htm
Of Sunspots, Volcanic Eruptions And Climate Change
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/GoldbergMay05-d/Summer_of_1816.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090501203430.htm
Ocean Acidification: Understanding How Mussels Have Adapted To Extremely Acidic Waters Near Underwater Volcanoes
There seems to be an absence of field work correlating rates of volcanic events and their magnitudes to solar flux and longterm climate patterns
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0613022.htm
Of Sunspots, Volcanic Eruptions And Climate Change
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/GoldbergMay05-d/Summer_of_1816.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090501203430.htm
Ocean Acidification: Understanding How Mussels Have Adapted To Extremely Acidic Waters Near Underwater Volcanoes
There seems to be an absence of field work correlating rates of volcanic events and their magnitudes to solar flux and longterm climate patterns
http://andyadkins.livejournal.com/tag/tweets just some thoughts
Well, the warming scare may be dying, but our Congress hasn’t gotten the message yet. Bipartisan Climate bill (free registration required to read this.)
‘We must act now’
‘The science is settled’
‘The debate is over’
Sounds familiar?
They should go read about Henrys Law, the sea cannot absorb additional co2 unless it cools down abit – of course then there are the millions of processes we dont understand or know about yet that need to be considered.
Of course rain is acidic naturally, should we stop the rain from falling? It might make the ocean more acidic?
Woods Hole Oceanographic institution did a recent study of increased CO2 and the effects on marine life. The their surprise many thrived with thicker shells and others shrugged it off unless levels became unrealistically high. The link is below:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091201182622.htm
Smokey- I like the term grant-begging, good one. Hope you don’t mind if I use it?
If ocean “acidification” is so easily knocked-down as the comments, here, have readily accomplished, what is its purpose?
Grant begging for sure, but also, it’s a drive-by “billboard” to keep those on the fence or in the warmist camp right where they are, and possibly to get reasonable skeptics to roll back on their heels, too (another charge to answer).
As to the reasonable skeptics — it won’t work.
As to the “billboard” tactic — knowledge is power — spreading the information which that knowledge rests on — is the task at hand for reasonable skeptics.
While the oceans are becoming more acidic they will have to pass PH neutral. How does that work?
The real threat to the oceans is runoff pollution, not CO2. Why don’t they spend more time working on the nitrate, phosphate, and heavy metal water pollution issues which are a much, much, (orders of magnitude) bigger issue for the oceans than a tiny 0.1 PH change.
In Sen. INHOFE’s EPW blog he describes how the AGW activists are working (noted by the EPA) to include ALL U.S. waters “acidification” to be used to make GHG arguments for Tax/Cap and Endangerment legislation:
March 29, 2010
Posted by: David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov
EPW POLICY BEAT: PREEMPTION TIME
Preemption: it’s the issue everyone’s talking about. We see this as a welcome development, as policymakers are now asking: what is preemption? And if preemption is part of climate legislation, what, exactly, are we preempting?
To our minds, preemption means preventing the hijacking of environmental statutes either to force Congress’s hand to adopt cap-and-trade legislation or to achieve backdoor greenhouse gas regulations. These are statutes, of course, that were never designed nor intended to reduce greenhouse gases. Comprehensive preemption must also address state climate programs as well greenhouse gas “nuisance” lawsuits that benefit the green tort bar at the expense of jobs and consumers.
One important area of preemption is the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA was not designed to regulate greenhouse gases. But don’t take our word for it; ask Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). “The Clean Air Act,” he said on December 7, “was not designed to regulate greenhouse gases, as the then-Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee I know what was intended when we wrote the legislation.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has launched an admirable effort to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding under the CAA. This is a badly needed first step.
Sen. Murkowski’s effort has sparked a broader discussion about extending preemption to other areas. Take the Clean Water Act (CWA) as Exhibit A. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) sued EPA for the agency’s failure to address acidification caused by greenhouse gas emissions. And on March 10, the CBD got what it wanted: a legal settlement forcing EPA to begin a process that could lead to greenhouse gas controls under the CWA. According to Inside EPA, “Activists hope that by listing waters as impaired due to CO2 emissions, it will provide additional leverage to regulate the GHG under the Clean Water Act.” A “CBD source” also “hopes the guidance will ultimately lead” to the establishment of a Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, requirements that will “require reductions in air emissions of CO2 — a novel use of the water act to cut CO2 emissions.”
The rest of the INHOFE EPW post:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=ab4e9bea-802a-23ad-4ed4-6d2aa77de71e&Issue_id=
nc (11:54:29),
Be my guest.
Waaaaait a minute. I thought the pro AGW lobbyists always stated that the rise in global temp. was from a release of CO2 from the oceans after initial heating. There has been much, much larger proportions of CO2 at the end of the last ice age & it didn’t kill everything. Really, I think they just make it up as they go along. It’ll be in the next IPCC for sure, with red sirens, alarm bells, & big signs saying ‘the end is nigh!!!’ …. (from WWF & Greenpeace in the small print of course).
HereticFringe (12:08:39) wrote:
“The real threat to the oceans is runoff pollution, not CO2. Why don’t they spend more time working on the nitrate, phosphate, and heavy metal water pollution issues which are a much, much, (orders of magnitude) bigger issue for the oceans than a tiny 0.1 PH change.”
Yes, you are right.
While I don’t have an answer readily at hand, it seems that CO2 levels in the atmosphere (and in the oceans) are a distraction from the real environmental issues at hand (and they are numerous).
Those environmental issues would actually take sustained, tailored, specific steps to remedy and they can’t easily be “Enron’ed” into a trading scheme that enriches the “big guys” as would a cap-n-trade scheme (lots of new tax money to play with and power, too, for the politicians).
In a way, CO2 is a smokescreen which enables the “big guys” to look like they are “helping” the environment, when in reality all they want is a “wind fall” financial gain off the appearance of “helping” the environment.
The cynicism and arrogance is unbounded.
When the polar bears slide off their last remaining icebergs into the sea, they’re now going to die horribly by dissolving in the acid! (Cue pictures of cuddly polar bearcubs)……we must save them!! Send money NOW!!!!!!!
HereticFringe (12:08:39) :
“The real threat to the oceans is runoff pollution, not CO2. Why don’t they spend more time working on the nitrate, phosphate, and heavy metal water pollution issues…”
Absolutely. I don’t hear any AGW supporters fighting the corner for Polar Bears when it comes to mercury poisoning. And that is probably a greater threat to their existence than whether the freeze is a month late.
On the question of WHY?
A theory on motive behind the scam:
There’s more to climate fraud than just tax hikes
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/theres-more-to-climate-fraud-than-just-tax-hikes/
http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif
First corals appeared on Ordovician period, when the CO2 was 4-5000 ppm high. Are they absolutely insane?
Paddy (11:47:44) :
Don’t forget the Delta Smelt which is not even close to being endangered.
At present in the atmosphere there are 2,900 giga tonnes of CO2 and in the oceans more than 50 times this amount creating a massive imbalance.
Henry’s-law constant H for CO2-water solutions is 1.42×10^3 atm/mole fraction at 20 C. Using simple Henry’s-law solubilities (p=H*x), the oceans should hold only 30% of the 2,900 giga tonnes of the atmospheric CO2 at equilibrium, but the actual figure is >50times this amount. In fact, for an ideal vapour-liquid equilibrium system obeying Raoult’s law, an atmospheric pressure of 175 atmospheres would be required to contain this colossal amount (50*2,900=145,000 giga tonnes) of CO2 in the oceans. The majority share of CO2 is taken up by the oceans competing with the biosphere’s CO2 requirements for plant growth and food supply. Non-ideality accounts for its large solubility in water and clearly it is sequestered and fixed by chemical and biological reactions. They involve the formation of carbonate rocks and phytoplankton growth through photosynthesis. The reactions remove dissolved CO2 from the equilbrium equation, driving it to the right, thereby giving the oceans a near limitless ability to absorb CO2.
With the foregoing inmind, for warmists and these so-called scientists to say that a few ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause dangerous acidification of the oceans is complete nonsense. There obviously is a warmist agenda here.
Larus (09:58:15) :
Having re-read the comments above yours, which surely are the reason for your inane, pointless, unfocussed and meaningless outburst, unless you have posted in the wrong thread, I see no mention by anyone, other than rbateman’s sarcasm (which was v funny) and Eddie’s anecdotal passing ref, of fish having a problem with “acidity”???
Shurely shome mistake?
Fred H. Haynie (09:10:30) :
They don’t seem to have a clue about CO2 chemistry in the oceans that contain so much sodium, calcium, magnesium, lithium, zinc and other basic elements. (…)
This is why I cringe when they state how the sodium content of something (like canned soup) has now been lowered by switching to “natural sea salt.” Dang it, I know what a salt is, and there are chemicals in that “natural” salt I may not want in my body, either at high levels or at all.
Sodium-reduction factoid: Apparently it is a big issue to have too much potassium intake, over-the-counter supplements in the US are limited to just 3% of the Daily Value, more than that requires a prescription. Common NaCl substitutes like “No Salt” and Morton’s “Salt Substitute” use potassium chloride, for a 1/4 teaspoon serving size they yield 19% (1.3g serving) and 17% (1.2g serving) DV respectively.
BTW, I’ve found a 1/4 tsp of those in some warm water is good for muscle cramps, can bring up the acid some though.