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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just another angle on the supposed probability of acidifying of oceans by the claimed increasing CO2 levels;
There are over 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water in the global oceans. [ 1,300,000,000 cubic kiometres ]
Each of those cubic kilometres of sea water weigh somewhere about 1.1 billion tonnes.
The amount of anthrogenic CO2 released by mankind per year is about an “estimated” [?] 2.3 billion tonnes.
That mass of CO2 is approximately equal to the mass of about 2.3 cubic kilometres of sea water.
A mass of CO2 equal to about 2.3 cubic kilometres of water added to a mass of sea water of 1.3 billion cubic kilometres each year.
The above is completely simplistic but methinks we could be an awful long time getting those global oceans to change to acidic or to have any detectable change in Ph levels that could unequivocally be put down to increases in anthropogenic CO2 releases.
There will be of course all sorts of claims on CO2 just mixing in the top layers and numerous other side tracks and deviations that will be used in the attempts to frighten the herd as to the severity of the CO2 acidification of oceans.
The truth is that nobody really has much of a handle on the global CO2 sinks, where they actually are, how they operate, if and when they release CO2 back into the atmosphere and etc and etc.
For instance, nobody can tell accurately tell us just how much CO2 is used, absorbed, and possibly released by the great plant like algal masses of the relatively unexplored oceans, oceans that cover close to 80% of the planet’s surface.
There is as yet a lot of suggestions floating around on why the measured CO2 levels oscillate back and forth over the swing of the seasons.
It is put down to the plant growth in the northern spring but what about the far greater mass of ocean algae which also change with the seasons in the oceans.
Sadly for Australian’s, the once revered CSIRO has steadily become just another trend following, money grubbing, politically correct mouthpiece for the latest fashionable scare mongering about some looming disaster being promoted by the ethically and morally vacant environmental outfits.
Here it is again:
—————-
CATLIN SURVEY MISSION:
“Within only a few decades, an increase in ocean acidity may cause seawater to become corrosive to the shells, skeletons and armour-plating of many marine life forms, and could seriously undermine the growth of coral reefs.” [Catlin Survey]
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/Mission.aspx
Then they say on their FAQ page:
“Why is it called Ocean Acidification? The ocean is alkaline and model predictions suggest it will never become acidic.
Acidification refers to the process of the lowering of the ocean’s pH on the pH scale. If the ocean’s pH falls it is referred to as acidification regardless of whether the water remains alkaline i.e. above pH 7. [Catlin Survey]“
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/faq.aspx
While others say:
“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)” [Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution – December 1 2009]
“The oceans have an ‘acidity’ measured on a pH scale of around 8.0, a figure larger than neutral pH=7.0, which means that they are alkaline or basic.”
….
“One of the important variables in this chemical balance is carbon dioxide CO2. As CO2 dissolves in water, the water becomes mildly acidic (clean rain water has a pH=5.6), enough in fact to dissolve calcium from soils and to create dripstone formations inside caves while it evaporates. Intuitively one may think that a doubling in CO2 would result in a doubling of acidity but this is not the case as this graph shows. Without CO2, pure rain water would have a neutral pH of 7.0, and that is where the graph begins on left. Initially CO2 is very willing to dissolve, thereby rapidly acidifying the otherwise pure water, but eventually this slows down. [Dr J Floor Anthoni]“
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
A doubling of CO2 from 380 ppmv to 760 ppmv (the 2 × CO2 scenario) increases the seawater acidity approximately 0.19 pH units across the same range of seawater temperature. In the latter case, the predicted increase in acidity results in a pH within the water-quality limits for seawater of 6.5 and 8.5 and a change in pH less than 0.20 pH units. [University of California]
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006…/2006GL026305.shtml
More:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;320/5874/336
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V12/N5/EDIT.php
Many commenter have questioned the ability to measure a change of PH with an accuracy of 0.1. In truth, this is pretty easy to do even with crude tests. As for determining the PH of an entire ocean, that too, is fairly easy, for any real scientist. I think other commenter’s have provided enough information on seawater chemistry to show why this is so. Sea water PH is incredibly stable. That is why this article is so infuriating for anyone who knows anything about the subject. It is so wrong that it has to be a deliberate lie, or the work of psychotics. Might as well claim that flying planes will cause the moon to crash into the earth.
Hang on just a minute. Quick seaches tell me the foolowing:
Total mass of atmosphere: 5 x 10^15 tonnes
Total mass of oceans: 1.35 x 10^18
OK, so that gives us a ration of 270 times the mass of oceans to the mass of air.
Now I’m not going to suggest that the number of molecules is the same as the mass, but with O = 16, C = 12, N =14 and H = 1 thrown in I have the average ocean molecule pegged at 18 and the average air molecule around 15. That is close enough for government work.
So I have say 250 atoms in the ocean for every 1 in the air.
We have added 1 molecule of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules of air, I believe. That would be the equivalent of one molecule for every 2,500,000 sea molecules, making it 0.4 parts per million, or 0.00004%.
So adding 0.00004% of CO2 by volume to the sea will increase the acidity by a measurable amount? I am not sure that is possible.
Of course, I may have most of that wrong.
I find it difficult to research the amount of CO2 in the sea, because every single link is banging on about AGW and almost completely ignoring the physics behind it all. What I have found suggests that the sea holds about 50% the amount of CO2 as the air. I am not sure if this is dissolved, but I think so.
If that is the case, the relative amount of CO2 ‘increase’ for the oceans should be 50 times less, in my book. That would make the ‘increase’ in CO2 in the oceans (assuming it all goes there eventually) minuscule.
I really cannot see how it can have any appreciable effect. I also am pretty certain that the other things that we do to the oceans, like dumping our chemical and organic waste into it, are far, far more important. I also think that these problems will be completely ignored by an ironic and misguided demonisation of CO2.
The really important thing you must do if you care about the environment is ignore AGW, it seems to me. It is the only way we will ever recover the mess we are making which is being hidden by a cloud of evil, nasty, ‘black’ CO2.
^^^ sorry not 50% of the amount of CO2 as the air,, “50 times”
JER0ME (18:35:10) :
Jerome, i found a good explanation here,
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/not-enough-co2-to-make-oceans-acidic-a-note-from-professor-plimer/
scroll down to this comment
Comment from: Ian Mott October 29th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
The argument of the Ocean Acidification crowd seems to be the assumption that it takes 400 years until the surface waters are replaced… and that seems to be a rather dary assumption. Arguing that this replacement takes 400 years they go on to argue that the surface waters will become more acidic quickly.
It’s grabbing for straws.
DesertYote (18:32:16) :
Many commenter have questioned the ability to measure a change of PH with an accuracy of 0.1. In truth, this is pretty easy to do even with crude tests. As for determining the PH of an entire ocean, that too, is fairly easy, for any real scientist. I think other commenter’s have provided enough information on seawater chemistry to show why this is so. Sea water PH is incredibly stable. That is why this article is so infuriating for anyone who knows anything about the subject. It is so wrong that it has to be a deliberate lie, or the work of psychotics. Might as well claim that flying planes will cause the moon to crash into the earth.
Sea water PH is incredibly stable? I wonder if you are aware of this work
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848.full.pdf+html
I would recommend you review figs. A and B on pg. 2. I would note that the experimental work for this paper was accomplished over just eight years and in an area of ocean not much larger than a hobby farm here in the Midwest. Though I can’t say for certain, I assume the authors didn’t choose the location because they expected it to be much less stable than the oceans of the world as a whole. This would indicate that it is much better than a coin flip that range of values for the entire ocean system would in fact be larger than the more than 1.5 range they observed in their work. I’ve also seen papers which suggest that the mean or average values of ocean PH are subject cyclic variations as well, though I don’t have the links to hand at the moment. But as the nun’s who shepherded my early education were want to say, you’ll learn more if you look it up yourself.
you guys can thank comcast for the lovely mispelling of DeVito’s name.
DesertYote (18:32:16) :
On rereading your post I think I may have incorrectly interpreted your words. I initially thought that your reference to an infuriating article was aimed at Anthony’s post not the underlying paper. Sorry
My glass of Coca-cola is getting too sweet now, because I’ve put one extra grain of sugar in it. And my cola is getting sweeter at an alarming rate, because the cola has not been sweetened at this rate since 3 months ago when the cola was manufactured. Very worrying.
JER0ME (18:35:10) “I also am pretty certain that the other things that we do to the oceans, like dumping our chemical and organic waste into it, are far, far more important. I also think that these problems will be completely ignored by an ironic and misguided demonisation of CO2.”
I could not agree more. Nice to hear other people banging this ALL-important drum. These two downloads will be of interest to you.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/acid_test.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/coral_reefs.html
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Must pop over and watch Jo Nova destroy this Antipodean twit!
Note – the authors of the study were not from JCU
Zoltan Beldi (17:26:06) :
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.
Take heart — if they’d produced more *scientists*, you would probably have been correct.
As I am in my late 60’s my memory is not what it used to be, is this the eleventh or twelveth time the Great Barrier Reef is about to be destroyed since 1970?
old44 (00:42:37) :
As I am in my late 60’s my memory is not what it used to be, is this the eleventh or twelveth time the Great Barrier Reef is about to be destroyed since 1970?
*mumblety-mumble*
*removing right boot*
Twelve.
Mack @11:18:04 mentioned Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg has form for making outrageous claims in support of AGW. His predictions are subsequently found to have no basis in fact and fail to materialise. He does however have a strong following in sections of the MSM who like the shock value of his pronouncements. While they readily report his alarmist predictions they fail to report his failures. He is an embarrassment to Australia and I suspect to many of the faculty at James Cook which has a good scientific record.
oops–I meant to de-indent that 2nd paragraph.
If it hasn’t been mentioned before, for the real science, as best we understand it, and as reported here I think back in ’07, go to:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
Dr J Floor Anthoni has been studying the oceans for over 40 years and he concludes with this statement – “Dead planet thinking: most oceanographers, physicists, chemists treat the planet as a dead planet, where every force, every process can be described and captured in an equation, and then simulated by a computer. But life frustrates every attempt, as it corrupts equations, while also adapting to changing circumstances. Of all these, the sea is the worst with its unimaginable scale, complexity and influence. We may never be able to unravel the secrets of the sea.”
Polar bears, coral, cockroaches, alligators, microbes (the greatest mass of life on the planet) – – all acclimatize, adapt, change. Quite surprisingly sometimes to the Earth’s human population, as pointed out by the good Dr.
Dave Wendt (19:30:38) :
No problem. My post was about as clear as a springtime estuary. I don’t think I got close to expressing what I was trying to say. I’ve got Aspergers. I sometime have difficulty expressing what is in my head in proper sentences. Sometimes its like trying to untangle a train wreck. Last night was worse then normal and my room mates were distracting me on top of it. I should have never tried to post. BTW, my area of knowledge is Freshwater ecology, but I have also done a lot of work with estuaries. I really have never had an interest in marine ecology, though learning about it was kind of mandatory.
P.S. My use of the term “stable” is misleading. It often implies static which is not what I meant. I was actually alluding to all of the negative feedback mechanisms that control PH.
and here:
http://www.nov55.com/acd.html
When acid mine drainage (with heavy metals Fe, Zn,Cd etc) from Wheal Jane mine Cornwall discharged into the sea (Carrick Roads): the sea turned reddish brown. This was due to the sea’s alkaline Ph neutralising the acidic minewater ( dilute H2SO4) and precipitating the heavy metals as hydroxides. The water chemistry of effluent treatment is quite complex but a knowledge of the solubility of metal salts is invaluable. Least soluble are sulphides then hydroxides and carbonates particularly in alkaline solution. CO2 is sequestered as insoluble carbonate leading to huge quantities being absorbed in the oceans (far beyond its equilibrium solubilty).
It would not give me any confidence to employee someone that has been to a University that has such profound ignorance in the corridors of learning, a kindergarten perhaps in outer Mongolia were you can employee a 5 year old trainee, but Australia ?
@JER0ME (18:34:01) :
A very very simple and rough calculation can be done just to gain some broad perspective.
From the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, we get the following basic data:
“”Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.”
“The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.”
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
==========
OK. So, 64% of 174 is 111 PgC accumulated in atmosphere from fossil fuel emissions since 1850.
Let’s assume for simplicity that the accumulated amount represents about half of the emitted amount, so that another 111 PgC have gone from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans.
Let’s assume that about half of that has gone to the terrestrial biosphere, and the other half to the oceans.
So we have added about 56 PgC since 1850 from fossil fuel emissions.
The oceans hold about 38,800 PgC.
So the added amount from fossil fuel emissions since 1850 is about 0.14% of carbon in the oceans.
So an increase 0.14% of carbon in the oceans is supposed to be having catastrophic effects. This sounds totally preposterous.