From San Francisco State University another indication that nature is such a poor engineer that phytoplankton can’t adapt to a small change in ocean pH. But then again it is a closed lab experiment, not the ocean, and there’s those weasel words of “might”, “could”, and “may”.
Researchers explore plankton’s shifting role in deep sea carbon storage
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 13, 2011 — The tiny phytoplankton Emiliania huxleyi, invisible to the naked eye, plays an outsized role in drawing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it deep in the seas. But this role may change as ocean water becomes warmer and more acidic, according to a San Francisco State University research team.
In a study published this week in the journal Global Change Biology, SF State Assistant Professor of Biology Jonathon Stillman and colleagues show how climate-driven changes in nitrogen sources and carbon dioxide levels in seawater could work together to make Emiliania huxleyi a less effective agent of carbon storage in the deep ocean, the world’s largest carbon sink.
Changes to this massive carbon sink could have a critical effect on the planet’s future climate, Stillman said, especially as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise sharply as a result of fossil fuel burning and other human activities.
While floating free in the sunny top layers of the oceans, the phytoplankton develop elaborate plates of calcified armor called coccoliths. The coccoliths form a hard and heavy shell that eventually sinks to the ocean depths. “About 80 percent of inorganic carbon trapped down there is from coccoliths like these,” said Stillman.
Stillman and his colleagues wanted to discover how ocean acidification and changes in the ocean’s nitrogen cycle—both hallmarks of climate warming—might effect coccolith development. So they raised more than 200 generations of Emiliania huxleyi in the lab, adjusting carbon dioxide levels and the type of nitrogen in the phytoplankton’s seawater bath.
They found that high levels of carbon dioxide—which make the water more acidic—along with a shift in the prevailing nitrogen type from nitrates to ammonium—”had a synergistic effect” on the phytoplankton’s biology and growth.
In particular, coccoliths formed under conditions of high carbon dioxide and high ammonium levels were incomplete or hollow, and contained less than the usual amount of inorganic carbon, the researchers noted.
“The ratio of inorganic to organic carbon is important,” Stillman explained. “As inorganic carbon increases, it adds more ballast to the hard shell, which makes it sink and makes it more likely to be transported to the deep ocean. Without this, the carbon is more likely to be recycled into the Earth’s atmosphere.”
“Our results suggest in the future there will be overall lower amounts of calcification and overall lower amount of transport of carbon to the deep ocean,” he added.
Emiliania huxleyi typically use nitrates to make proteins, but this form of nitrogen may be in shorter supply for the phytoplankton as the world’s oceans grow warmer and more acidic, Stillman and colleagues suggest. In the open ocean, nitrates are upwelled from deep waters, but a thickening layer of warmer surface water could inhibit this upwelling. At the same time, the warmer temperatures favor bacteria that turn recycled nitrogen from surface waters and the atmosphere into ammonium, and acidification inhibits the bacteria that turn ammonium into nitrate.
“It is likely that in the future, the ocean surface will contain more ammonium,” which the phytoplankton will assimilate instead of nitrates, Stillman suggested. “Metabolizing nitrogen as ammonium versus nitrates requires different biochemical constituents that impact how well the cells make their coccoliths. They will survive just fine, but their biology will be different as a result.”
The study by Stillman and colleagues is the first to look at the intertwined effects of ocean acidification and changes in nitrogen on phytoplankton like Emiliania huxleyi. It’s also one of the first studies to observe these effects continuously over a long time scale, “so the responses of the phytoplankton are likely what we’ll see in the ocean itself,” Stillman said.
Stephane Lefebrve, the SF State postdoctoral student who developed the experiments for the study, said he is now looking for phytoplankton genes that “will help us to build the genetic blueprint of their responses to elevated carbon dioxide and a nitrogen source”
Lefebvre, Ina Benner, Alexander Parker, Michelle Drake, Pascale Rossignol, Kristine Okimura, Tomoko Komada, and Edward Carpenter, all from SF State’s Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, were co-authors on the Global Change Biology study.
“Nitrogen source and pCO2 synergistically affect carbon allocation, growth and morphology of the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi: implications of ocean acidification for the carbon cycle,” was published online in October by the journal Global Change Biology.
Jonathon Stillman and Stephane Lefebvre may be reached by contacting Nan Broadbent at SF State: nbroadbe@sfsu.edu or at 415-338-7108.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lucy Skywalker wrote:
(1) Oceans maintain overall constant acidity (tending towards alkalinity) because they always have supplies of CaCO3 to call on
(2) our emissions are an order of magnitude or two less than the annual CO2 turnover via (a) oceans and (b) plants, so both of those can swallow our emissions easily
(3) these people are ignoring all that geology tells us
By the way, these people call themselves scientists because they’ve been doing this for 30 or 40 years and have advanced degrees, research grants, published papers, etc., which is what scientists do.
Regarding comment (1), not sure what you mean. Seawater is a pH buffered system due to the carbonate-bicarbonate equilibria.
Regarding (2), the turnover rate may be larger, but the upward pressure on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is due to anthropogenic emissions.
Regarding (3), what does geology tell us?
Billy Liar wrote:
Another joke ‘scientific’ paper?
Read the paper yourself (link provided in earlier post) and explain why you think it’s a joke. Maybe you could also investigate the methodology used.
Jeff D says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Ammonia does not last very long in the oceans. Even in a closed system such as a reef tank ammonia is metabolized so fast as to be almost unmeasurable. I am unsure as to how they anticipate high ammonia levels to even exist.
———–
The key phrase here is “closed system”. If there was no soluble nitrogen in seawater there would be no plant growth at all.
What I missed from the article is where the increased ammonium is coming from. I probably need to read it again and track down the original paper.
James Sexton says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Only to echo the other commentators…….first, it isn’t shown the oceans are becoming less base. ———
It’s been measured directly in other research and it’s being dictated by the increase in atmospheric CO2, also measured. The chemistry of seawater is well understood and once you know the composition the effect of CO2 changes can be calculated.
———
Inorganic carbon……. I love it!
———
Yet another blunder. Organic simply refers to whether the carbon is combined in the complex molecules offen associated with life.
Simple carbon containing molecules such as CO2 are referred to as inorganic.
This terminology is standard in the water chemistry area. There are separate analytical techniques for organic and inorganic carbon and the results are added up to give a figure for total carbon.
I’m pretty sure that Landsat was not able to show phytoplankton blooms, let alone identify them as to species.
Jeff D says
As the oceans warm we will get off gassing of CO2. Most skeptics “I think” are pretty sure a big part of the increase in CO2 is this off gassing from the oceans.
——–
Yes outgassing occurs but you are forgetting that the ice cores say that there is an 800 year delay between warming and the release of CO2 from the oceans.
The current CO2 increase is happening immediately, so it can’t be coming from the oceans.
Geoff Sherrington says
——–
I was taught that adding ammonia (though this release spoke of ammonium, an ion) to water makes it more alkaline, contra to CO2 making it less alkaline, all other things being equal.
——–
That’s true, but ammonium is an weak acid. It’s the acid used in dry cells.
Ferdinand Englebeen says
The same coccolith species that, according to this study, will suffer from higher CO2.
—–
I don’t believe the study says the species will suffer.
It would be interesting to know how the size distribution of modern vs fossil chalk compares.
I am also wary of assuming that the species in the article has an identical genetic make to those in the fossil record. The potential for adaption over these timescales exists.
Legatus says
Therefore this study is merely being made to support the consensus and therefore receive the approval and cash of their superiors.
———
So the story of what happens to organisms and how they respond to CO2 is complex and has many moving parts and is confusing to superficial consideration. There is lots of confusing evidence and resolving what appears to be paradoxes is hard work.
Rather than accept this you make up some story that has the useful property of being evidence free.
LazyTeenager says:
No. More acidic and less alkaline are synonyms.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Only if you ignore the baseline of 7.0 pH neutrality.
With a logarithm base 10 – That is a huge obstacle.
“More acidic and less alkaline are synonyms.” – Only when bastardizing the terms for acid and alkaline.
LazyTeenager says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:41 pm
James Sexton says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Only to echo the other commentators…….first, it isn’t shown the oceans are becoming less base. ———
It’s been measured directly in other research and it’s being dictated by the increase in atmospheric CO2, also measured. The chemistry of seawater is well understood and once you know the composition the effect of CO2 changes can be calculated.
=========================================================
Not if you’re referring to the paper offered by Oakden. The whole paper was comparing two different data sets and guestimating different variables to make the conditions the same. Try again sparky. You got any other evidence of measured changes in the pH of the oceans?
But, noting your expertise in seawater chemistry, what is meant by sea water being in equilibrium with the atmosphere?
I do love it when a group of people invent their own code words.
cirby says:
October 15, 2011 at 4:24 am
One other little thing: they ran this test in the lab, over “200 generations.” Which means less than a year. If you’re going to test the adjustment of an organism to changing environments, you need a bit more time than that.
———-
I suspect the reason was to allow the distribution of organism responses to stabilize to constant artificial conditions.
From the Words Actually Mean Something” file:
Mike Jowsey says:
October 15, 2011 at 10:32 am
Obligatory pedantic nitpick: might effect coccolith development.
Should be “might affect coccolith development.”
REPLY: Obligatory rebuttal – take it up with the authors – Anthony
Maybe yes, maybe no. Might effect coccolith development means whatever they were talking about might initiate or facilitate coccolith development, which is different from Might affect coccolith development which means whatever they were talking about might impact coccolith development. Question is, do the authors know which they meant?
One of the great burdens of modern science is the decline in knowledge and facility of language, especially English. People think and express in the language they are most comfortable with, basing their thought processes on the depth and understanding of the vocabulary and idioms of their chosen language. Language skills have declined dramatically in learned circles over the last 50 years, partly as a sop to multiculturalism, and partly due to massive failures in primary education. Do many scientists today, literally, know what they are talking about?
The frivolous use of jargon in science has always been, and continues to be, a pox on understanding. Jargon terms ,like umpteen definitions of “organic”, serve only to obfusticate truth. In too many cases, the jargon is created to support the hypothesis by nuance, rather than fact. As we try to remind authors of posts here, science authors need to define their acronyms and jargonology going into their writings, so that the rest of us may know what the heck you’re talking about. Otherwise the reader is left to assume, the consequences of which are self-evident….
Paul Coppin says:
October 16, 2011 at 5:47 am
[ “The frivolous use of jargon in science has always been, and continues to be, a pox on understanding. Jargon terms ,like umpteen definitions of “organic”, serve only to obfusticate truth. In too many cases, the jargon is created to support the hypothesis by nuance, rather than fact. “].
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well said!!!
I’ve discussed one of my favorite phrases above.
The words [ “more” ] and [ “less ‘ ] are not synonyms.
The words [ “acid” ] and [ “alkaline” ] are not synonyms.
There is a difference between a tree and a vine – both ARE woody plants – but both ARE entirely different species.
It is the baselines that separate them.
I also like the loosely used phrases – ” Carbon neutrality” – “mitigate”.
Paul Coppin says:
October 16, 2011 at 5:47 am
One of the great burdens of modern science is the decline in knowledge and facility of language, especially English. People think and express in the language they are most comfortable with, basing their thought processes on the depth and understanding of the vocabulary and idioms of their chosen language. Language skills have declined dramatically in learned circles over the last 50 years, partly as a sop to multiculturalism, and partly due to massive failures in primary education. Do many scientists today, literally, know what they are talking about?
The frivolous use of jargon in science has always been, and continues to be, a pox on understanding. Jargon terms ,like umpteen definitions of “organic”, serve only to obfusticate truth.
The use of the term ‘Organic’ in science is not jargon, its use as here is a precise term in chemistry which goes back about a couple of centuries.
Inorganic carbon refers to that in the form of CO3 and HCO3 for example.
Phil. says:
October 16, 2011 at 12:47 pm
“The use of the term ‘Organic’ in science is not jargon, its use as here is a precise term in chemistry which goes back about a couple of centuries.
Inorganic carbon refers to that in the form of CO3 and HCO3 for example.”
Yeah, no. From the “chemistry of substances formed by living matter”, pre-Wohler (1828), to the “chemistry of carbon containing compounds” of Roberts and Caserio (which would include your carbonates, though their obvious intent is hydrocarbons); there are other definitions. But definitions are not inherently the same as jargon. Technical jargon is a contrivance, not a universally accepted definition. Organic on its own isn’t jargon per se, but becomes so when co-mingled with a variety of other terms, combinations of which frequently have no basis for being beyond a lack of author vocabulary. They are definitely useful for making writing appropriately terse, but the word choices do need to have some commonality and accuracy of meaning, especially words that are part of common speech. If there was some consistency of language application, we wouldn’t even be talking about it 😉
Lazy teenager could teach most of you a little chemistry.
Acidity and alkalinity are two different ways of describing the same thing. In aqueos solutions like seawater, the product of the hydronium ion concentration and the hydroxyl ion concentration is a temperature dependent constant. If you know the acidity, then you know the alkalinity.
Acidity is also the measure of the negative log ot the hydronium ion concentration, so alot of you are saying there is no hydronium ion concentration until pH is below 7, utter bollocks I say.
To be an acid, you do not need to have a proton to donate, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_acids_and_bases
Also look here for the reason the term acid does not require that pH be below 7 or any other level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction
thanks
bob droege says:
October 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm
[ ” Acidity and alkalinity are two different ways of describing the same thing. ” ].
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Question: A pH of 7.5 to 8.5 is what? Alkaline or acid?
Question: What is the basic range of seawater pH? Is it 7.5 to 8.5?
Question: What is the pH for neutral water? Is it 7.0 pH?
Question: What is the baseline for seawater alkalinity? Is it above 7.0 pH?
Question: When [ at what baseline ] does seawater become acidity [ acid ]? Is it below 7.0 pH?
Question: Are the measurement steps of pH a logarithm base 10?
[ probably younger than a LazyTeenager 😉 ]
Can anyone point to an ocean with seawater at a pH of 7.0? Or lower?
Question: A pH of 7.5 to 8.5 is what? Alkaline or acid?
0.00001 mMolar acid and 0.001 mMolar alkaline, you see the point that it is both.
Question: What is the basic range of seawater pH? Is it 7.5 to 8.5?
Yes, sea water is basic and the pH range you have is correct, though at that pH there is still acidic species present.
Question: What is the pH for neutral water? Is it 7.0 pH?
Yes, neutral cold water has a pH of about 7, but neutral boiling water has a pH of about 6. Is boiling water acid because it has a pH of less than 7 even when it is neutral?
Question: What is the baseline for seawater alkalinity? Is it above 7.0 pH?
Yes
Question: When [ at what baseline ] does seawater become acidity [ acid ]? Is it below 7.0 pH?
Depends on what you mean by acid, or what you do with it. If you dissolve NH3 gas into it, it acts as the acid in an acid-base reaction.
Question: Are the measurement steps of pH a logarithm base 10?
Yes
I think someone already mentioned the answer to this but
“Can anyone point to an ocean with seawater at a pH of 7.0? Or lower?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent
Seawater pH as low as 2.8
LazyTeenager says:
October 15, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Sparks says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:49 am
Scientific papers that have conclusions of what would happen due to Anthropogenic climate change, Are Not proof that Anthropogenic climate change is Actually happening.
—————-
That is perfectly correct. But if the predicted consequences do come to pass then that IS evidence for global warming.
—————-
But But But But if the predicted consequences do come to pass then… FAIL!
bob droege says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm
[ ” Question: A pH of 7.5 to 8.5 is what? Alkaline or acid?
0.00001 mMolar acid and 0.001 mMolar alkaline, you see the point that it is both.’ ]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I believe you missed a few 0’s?
Neutral water [ de-ionized ] @ur momisugly 7.0 pH = 0.0000001 M H?
Which indeed makes it a very weak acid or very weak alkaline.
But we aren’t measuring the titration of the pH or it’s base 7.0 pH neutral.
We are measuring seawaters alkaline – BY pH..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bob droege says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Question: What is the pH for neutral water? Is it 7.0 pH?
Yes, neutral cold water has a pH of about 7,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Actually, I wouldn’t consider temperatures of 25 °C (77 °F) cold?
Isn’t that the specs for measuring neutral pH?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bob droege says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm
[” but neutral boiling water has a pH of about 6.
Is boiling water acid because it has a pH of less than 7 even when it is neutral? “]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No,
But we are not measuring alkalinity of seawater at boiling – nor are we measuring seawater that is neutral.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Question: When [ at what baseline ] does seawater become acidity [ acid ]? Is it below 7.0 pH?
bob droege says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm
[” Depends on what you mean by acid, or what you do with it. If you dissolve NH3 gas into it, it acts as the acid in an acid-base reaction.”]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry, but the question was: When [ at what baseline ] does seawater become acidity [ acid ]? Is it below 7.0 pH?
Not adding anything to it – just taking seawaters pH.measurement by international agreed scientific standards.
We are not playing in some lab here.
Adding to – exposing to temperature fluctuations – depth changes – even delaying time of administrating the pH test would invalidate / contaminate the sample(s) results,
.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bob droege says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:30 pm
[” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent
Seawater pH as low as 2.8″]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
C’mon….[ you had me thinking you were a chemist – until this bit of logic ]
.”Seawater” just because it is in the sea – doesn’t mean you are measuring seawater. By your logic – I could be measuring the viscosity of “seawater” using an oil slick.
Sorry, with a pH of 2.8 you are measuring a fairly strong acid.- within AN ocean.
Definition of seawater agreed by international standards.
Ocean water has an excellent buffering system with the interaction of carbon dioxide and water so that it is generally always at a pH of 7.5 to 8.5
You are talking about a vent of hydrothermal activity in an ocean – not AN ocean.
Paul Coppin says:
October 16, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Phil. says:
October 16, 2011 at 12:47 pm
“The use of the term ‘Organic’ in science is not jargon, its use as here is a precise term in chemistry which goes back about a couple of centuries.
Inorganic carbon refers to that in the form of CO3 and HCO3 for example.”
Yeah, no. From the “chemistry of substances formed by living matter”, pre-Wohler (1828), to the “chemistry of carbon containing compounds” of Roberts and Caserio (which would include your carbonates, though their obvious intent is hydrocarbons); there are other definitions.
No chemist would accept a definition of organic chemistry which includes carbonates.
Kim;)
Please,
Do you know what the prefix m means when used in the unit term Molar?
Secondly, the pH of neutral water is closest to 7 the colder the water is. I didn’t specify the temperature as 25 C, you are just trying to be pendantic here and failing.
you said “No,
But we are not measuring alkalinity of seawater at boiling – nor are we measuring seawater that is neutral.”
I was just providing an example of when neutral water has a pH other than about 7, I answered you question and now you change the question, saying we weren’t talking about boiling water. Fine.
You say “Question: When [ at what baseline ] does seawater become acidity [ acid ]? Is it below 7.0 pH?”
And again you misunderstand my response, I am saying the seawater is already acid as it already has a pH, which is a measure of acidity. Anything that has a pH has a concentration of the acid species [H3O+]. And you missed the part about acid base reactions, reactions involving two species, one an acid and one a base, and they react. The point was when you add ammonia to seawater, there is an acid base reaction, and in this case the seawater acts as the acid and the ammonia as the base. It is one way chemists use the term acid.
The problem is that you and most of the others on this blog can only see the word acid and assume that means something with a pH less than 7 and that is not how chemists use that term.
And last, something that has a pH of 2.8 is a weak acid, using the term fairly strong acid shows that you don’t understand acid base chemistry. Look up what a strong acid is, please.
There are only strong acids and weak acids.
Sorry, chem lecture is closed.