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.
Shouldn’t this actually be called “debasing the ocean”?
DesertYote (09:05:15)
EPA states for a properly conducted pH test from a fresh calibration standard solution a precision of 0.1. So if a pH meter can read at 0.1 SHOULD be possible (a point below which EPA advises not to report) – a value that may be possible under perfect conditions. One should be very cautious as to making any claims about a change of 0.1 as meaningful in the real world. If you are a freshwater ecologist you will also realize the measured pH will vary by more then 0.1 units depending on whether the pH was measured in the field or the lab. You should also be aware that pH changes hourly for obvious reasons and that pH also changes with depth.
I am shocked that anyone could claim that pH at +/- 0.1 for the entire ocean is fairly simple- sure would like to see that sampling plan.
These people are just thick. Do the numbers, it’s no rocket science:
There is 0.4 gram CO2 per cm2 of the Earth’s surface. Since the beginning of the industrial age, 0.1 gram has been added to the about 0.3 then. It is estimated that
in fact the total amount of antropegenic CO2 added to the system since 1850 is 0.2 gram/cm2. Hence 0.1 gram has been dissolved in the oceans and absorbed by the biosphere.
There is 280 kilogram per cm2 on the planet. The mixing time in the ocean is 50-100 yr. That 0.1 gram has disolved in 280 liter water. Not only that, only about 3% goes into ionic form and has any effect on the PH, the rest is just dissolved, likeother gasses are dissolved.
Imagine this experiment: the absolute upper limit to the amount of antropogenic CO2 we can possibly produce is set by the oxigen content of the atmosphere: 220 gram per cm2. It would be a very unwise experiment and there’s not enough carbon on the planet to do it but let’s assume .. That would produce roughly 300 gram CO2 per cm2. 300 gram CO2 dissolved in 280 liter, 1gram per liter, doesn’t even make for a flat soda water, you wouldn’t notice it at all.
Any “scientist” peddling this sort of nonsense is beyond his/her sell-by date.
Wow….
Talk about grasping at straws… this article is more along the lines of “help I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!”
CO2 and the redistribution of wealth liberals are going to explode… their lie has been exposed and now they are running in circles on how to get their control mechanism in place now that its been debunked….
Pat Moffitt (14:53:05) :
As I said before, my post was a bit mangy. I was not trying to saying that it is possible to quantify the PH of an ocean to 0.1 degree, though that is kind of what my post implies. I was saying that it is easy to measure PH to that accuracy. As for as what the EPA advises for standard practices, I am not impressed. It has to do more with the accuracy of the person doing the testing, then the actual ability to test. I can get +/- 0.02 in the range from 7.6 to about 8.5 and from 5.5 to 6.5, which are the ranges that I have worked with the most, with my trust Hatch and fresh reagents. But I have been doing this type of stuff since I was 10. And you are correct. PH measurements need to be taken when the sample is collected, though this is not as critical for samples with high alkalinity. As for variability, the last river that I was monitoring had a mid winter PH of 7.8 to 7.85 +/- 0.02 and a late summer PH of 8.4 +/- 0.02. That is a seasonal variation of 0.6 for a system that has far more susceptibility to external influences then an ocean.
DesertYote (09:05:15) :
(…) I’ve got Aspergers. (…) I should have never tried to post. (…)
Bull. You got any idea how many of us are out here in the real world, who never had the “benefit” of being officially diagnosed with this “recently discovered” condition, who have gone nearly our entire lives without having a name to identify whatever-it-is that we know exists that makes us different from other people? Who will never know the name? Who have come and gone before the name existed?
Yes, it makes us outsiders. We don’t automatically pick up on the rules of social interaction, we have to study and learn them. There are times when you just can’t communicate the big thoughts that make sense to you in ways that make sense to others. When you want to get away from the confusing people who don’t understand and be alone with the thoughts.
It’s not an affliction. It’s not a disability. It’s a variation in the species, a type of diversity that keeps it going. We’re outsiders, we’re resistant to group-think. When the mob forms and runs off, we wonder why. We seek out our own worlds to live in, where we can know all about them. We are the deep thinkers. We are philosophers, artists, craftsmen, mathematicians, scientists. We are explorers. The individual who went off deep into the unchartered wilderness alone, because they really couldn’t stand to be around other people.
You come here. You post. It’s practice. It don’t look so good later, you tried. You try, you determine something was wrong, guess what it was, try again. You troubleshoot, you learn. It won’t get better without learning, you won’t learn without trying. Keep trying.
It’s not a disability. Weakness breeds out. We keep popping up. Therefore it is a strength. Toughest part is, figuring out how you are strong.
“It’s not a disability. Weakness breeds out. We keep popping up. Therefore it is a strength.”
I guess all those people who keep getting born without working livers, eyes and brains are the strongest of us all.
kadaka (23:55:46) :
I meant to say that I should have never submitted that particular post. To much stuff was happening and I could not focus enough to compose my thoughts. I eventually got frustrated and so anxious to get dinner, that I just hit “Submit Comment”. BTW, I just learned about Aspergers four years ago. It sure explains a lot of things.
Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg has been totally debunked by Andrew Bolt on several occasions. His alarmist predictions of great barrier reef coral bleaching have been falsified by reality. You’d think such people, when confronted by their theories being falsified, would at least so sufficient humility to keep the mouth shut, and maybe listen to others. But not this guy.