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.
Ocean acidification…ice caps melting…polar bears drowning…sea gulls with their beaks stuck in plastic…Obama’s Health care plan…
So many problems but so little tax money to go around!
But at least Fox News is up in viewersthip!
“Saaad (15:21:21) :
[…]
oceans can be both (a) Warming at supposedly alarming levels AND (b) absorbing more C02? When I did “O level” Chemistry 30 years ago I was taught […]”
Rising temperatures leads to a tendency to release CO2 but at the same time mankinds emissions increase the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, creating a tendency to push more CO2 into the oceans. Looks like at the moment the net effect is absorption of atmospheric CO2 into the oceans. I am not a chemist though…
(Yawn) Wake me up when I can dip my cup in the ocean and pull out soda pop.
“i’m not going to comment on the subject of ocean acidifaction, except to say that outside of the cloistered world of WUWT is a pretty well accepted fact” -Robert T,
Yeah sure guy. “pretty well accepted,” Well that settles it then… huh”
Robbie, What is the ratio of human produced CO2 vs “natural” CO2 contributed to the oceans?
Robert T : All comments are moderated though I do agree with your comment in particular, that it “was a waste of effort”. Clearly, the basic Chemistry involved in dissolving CO2 into the Sea has not been your field of study.
Can I suggest a study of ‘Buffer solutions’ and what ‘Buffering ‘ means in chemistry when we are talking about attempting to acidify – or actually – render the sea less alkaline. Hint: the sea is a Buffer solution.
“Suggests, could and perhaps all in the same sentence. I suggest that this could, perhaps, be the most weasely statement seen in a while.”
Well it’s not quite the gem that my favorite vitamin advertisement (name redacted) is, but it’s close. Check out the weasel words in this advertising copy:
[Major vitamin brand product] is a complete multivitamin with more Calcium to promote strong bones, and more Vitamin D – which emerging research suggests may support breast health
Aren’t you just raring to go out and plunk down your hard-earned money on a product that has that much solid science behind it? Emerging research (meaning unconfirmed) suggests (vague) may (double vague) support (what does that mean, really?) breast health (another vague term). I laugh every time I hear it.
And this study should be taken the same way. There’s no way events hundreds of millions of years ago that took place in entirely different circumstances say anything about what we need to do “immediately” in terms of our present political/technological circumstances. They are reframing a fourth order conclusion as a piece of direct evidence from the fossil record. I suggest that may be a big mistake. Perhaps.
“Robert T (15:51:56) :
“Robert T (15:50:07) : Your comment is awaiting moderation”
That was a waste of effort then…”
Your effort to ignore all the links posted in this thread or your effort in smearing the commenters?
@george E. Smith
It is Danny DeVito. The film was “Twins” where Arnie and Danny turn out to be twins separated at birth. The obvious disparity in size is about as funny as the movie gets, unfortunately.
Are these “scientists” aware that only 3.27% of all CO2 put into the atmosphere is from man and the other 96.73% comes from the oceans, soils and vegetation?
Are these “scientists” aware that as the oceans warm from increased solar irradiance, they release CO2 out of solution into the atmosphere?
Are these “scientists” aware that the Citadel of CO2 measurement, the station at Mauna Loa, is measuring CO2 emitted by the Pacific Ocean and the world’s largest active volcano it sits on and not emissions from man?
Are these “scientists” aware that ice core data reveals CO2 increases happen about 800 years AFTER temperature increases?
Are these ‘scientists” aware that the 0.595C worldwide temperature decrease of the year 2008 singlehandedly wiped out all the supposed manmade CO2 global warming from mankind since 1780, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?
Just how much longer do we have to listen to this drivel from these “scientists” about manmade global warming from CO2?
Robert T (15:51:56) :
“Robert T (15:50:07) :Your comment is awaiting moderation”
“That was a waste of effort then”
I see all of my comments await moderation before they appear.
Unlike RC and CP where hardcore censoring, editing and blocking is the norm for their “moderating”.
[Reply: Moderators have things they have to do too, besides moderating comments. Sometimes we have a life. We try not to leave comments in the queue for too long before they’re approved. Please keep in mind that this is volunteer work. ~dbstealey, mod.]
@Robert T
Well, a large number of comment actually have some science to back up their arguments, and many also have links to more information where science can be read and considered. Your comment has neither, and yet you are critical of the commenters here.
What is wrong with that picture?
back up what you have to say, and someone may listen (unlike the majority of blogs that believe in AGW) and reply in kind. If you will not, or cannot, then you are definitely wasting your time, and may as well not post.
Frankly the Troll Quality Index is dropping. By my measurements it has dropped by 0.01425% in the last week, which is faster then ever before. I see a strong correlation with CO2 levels, but more research grants are required.
Just call them enemy combatants and lock them up. Really. I mean, what is the uncertainty in a measurement or estimation of the oceans pH (today and the pre-industrial era when they did not have pH meters). It’s certainly much greater than that so called change of 0.1.
And as pointed out by another commenter, what must the pH have been when CO2 levels were 2000 ppm. How did life evolve from an acidified (less alkaline) ocean?
Richard Telford (11:35:09) : CaCO3+H2O+CO2Ca2+(aq)+2HCO32-(aq)
Richard is the above meant to represent the entire equilibrium equation or just the reactant portion?
I would understand:
CaCO3(s) –> Ca2+(aq) + CO32-(aq)
CO2(aq) + H20 –> H2C03(aq)
H2CO3(aq) H+(aq) +HC03-(aq)
_________________________________
CaCO3(s) + CO2(aq) + H20(l) Ca2+(aq) +CO32-(aq) + H+(aq) + HCO3-(aq)
If this is the equation you meant then additional CO2 could drive the equation to the right. But as listed elsewhere in the comments there are other buffering systems that would react to remove the H+(aq) and drive the reaction back to the left.
While this report may be drivel, based on ignorance and supposition, and then frothed up in to a Global Threat, I feel sure it will be quoted by politicians for years as ‘proof’, and that it will appear in IPCC AR5.
That seems to be what we have degenerated to.
chemman (17:02:13) :
chemman think before you post next time.
If the H+(aq) is removed by buffering systems it will drive the reaction to the right not left.
Justa Joe, DirkH, Jerome
You’re missing the point, Robert T is right. Only an initiated elite priesthood can understand and do science. The rest of us need to be good loyal subjects, believe and do what we are told, especially fear the fire and brimstone as instructed by these goodly shepherds of our souls. We must not doubt the holy relics they show us. Apparently they will soon go back to communicating science in Latin.
The good professor seems to have forgotten that the oceans already contain FIFTY times the tonnage of CO2 that the atmosphere does. If we put more CO2 into the atmosphere and it ALL goes into the oceans, the oceans will still contain about 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. The change in pH would be unmeasurable.
Why are we paying for these idiots ???
The increase in real CO2 is supposed to be coming FROM the oceans if AGW is to be believed. Much greater than the meager input of humanity.
Surely that would DECREASE the acidity of the oceans.
I mistakenly thought that producing more scientists would in turn produce better science.
Instead we have bred a new class of taxpayer funded scam merchants.
One has to realise that this is an election year in Australia and both the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have been no doubt pressured into making announcments with the usual claims about CO2 and climate change a few weeks ago (see kenskingdom site). They are of course funded by the Federal Govt.
Mr Rudd the prime minister is desperate to have his ETS scheme endorsed by the general public. So its all stops out. Now we have this lot as a follow up – its not suprising !!
With a ~ 105ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850, all of anthropogenic origin (as indicated by the DELC13 isotope signature), there is an indicated, not confirmed, oceanic pH decrease of 0.1 pH unit. If we assume that the oceans have uptaken ~ 55% of all “anthropogenic” CO2 released since 1850, a 0.1 pH unit decrease corresponds to the “absorption” of ~130ppmv CO2, noting that the global oceanic pH decrease of 0.1 unit is questionable because of instrumental measuring and sampling inconsistencies since 1850.
However, it is not possible to conclude that a doubling of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmospher to 210ppmv will decrease the oceanic pH by another 0.1unit (i.e. to a pH of 7.9 to 8.0).
This is because the effectiveness of the aragonite-pCO2-pH or calcite-pCO2-pH buffers in shallow waters as a pH constraining mechanism depends on reactions kinetics. Equilibrium thermodynamic models indicate, but do not prove, of course, that these buffers will keep the pH with 0.1 of a unit of the current values, at least in shallow water environments where aragonite or calcite muds exist on the sea floor or as suspended solids in the water column.
It would therefore seem that the “ocean acidification” scenario is overstated at present, being uneccessarily alarmist in flavour.
The sea creatures they mention have a very short life cycle and will easily adapt to small changes in pH. Which these alarmist scientists neglect to mention.
The change in pH associated with the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere is a very gradual process – the pH can be expected to change about 0.001 units per year, and “most sensors are not precise enough to measure a change” of this magnitude so we don’t really have the data records for most places to correlate to the observed biological changes.
The “natural variability of pH in a marine environment can be orders of magnitude larger than this” (perhaps 0.5 pH units across the seasonal cycle or 0.2 across a 24-hour period), depending on other biological, chemical and physical processes that are operating in the environment in question.
It is difficult to know what the effects of ocean acidification will be in the wild because many marine organisms are likely to be exposed to harmful conditions some of the time already, due to the strong natural variability in their environments. Given the ability of marine organisms to adapt to great changes in their environment, it is probable that short life cycle organisms will be able to adopt to minute changes in the environment.
🙂
Robert T (15:50:07) :
Just when did America stop educating its population in science?
I’d say it occurred at the point where the statist radicals, who are using this catastrophic climate diversion to propel their political agenda, assumed complete control of the American education system and proceeded to transform the role of teacher from one who’s purpose is to create the capacity for critical thought in students, to one whose primary role is indoctrinate those students in which politically correct notions they need to embrace. To teach not how to think, but what to think.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, they have been incredibly successful in those efforts, as evidenced by the enormous number of ignorant young dolts roaming the world willing to believe whatever they are told. As long as it comes from a politically acceptable source.
I dealt with this crap on WUWT a couple of days ago. I am growing weary of these persistent fools indeed!!!
Hey Robert T,
I think most readers here would like to engage you in a discussion of both sides of the issue that amounts to more than a one sided rant. However, I am pretty sure that in your case we can comfortably assume that our time would have been wasted since a man cannot be reasoned out of an opinion that he was not reasoned into!