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.
One Fact I know about pH levels is that we measure it because it’s a variable and it constantly changes.
I think a person who describes an aqueous solution of pH>7 as “acid” is probably not a chemist.
A chemist who describes aqueous pH changes [above pH7] as “acidity” changes is either careless, or probably a chemist with an agenda.
But two can play at that game. The views of many scientists are frequently disparaged as not being from “climate” scientists. Yet so often “climate” pronouncements are made regarding the role of “Carbon Dioxide”. Well, an Organic Chemist Doctorate could reply that they have a PhD in “Carbon Chemistry”.
Touche?
michael hart says:
October 17, 2011 at 7:53 am
I think a person who describes an aqueous solution of pH>7 as “acid” is probably not a chemist.
A chemist who describes aqueous pH changes [above pH7] as “acidity” changes is either careless, or probably a chemist with an agenda.
However, one might reasonably describe the process of ‘acidification’ as the addition of an acid, which is what happens when you dissolve CO2 in water. Also in the arctic ocean neutrality is around pH 7.5.
kim;) says:
October 17, 2011 at 12:04 am
“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”
It’s customary when cutting and pasting from another site to acknowledge the source,
http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/02ocean/swcomposition.htm
This is not buffering in the usual sense, it’s just due to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Buffering would imply either pH ~6.4 or ~10.4.
Phil. says:
October 17, 2011 at 10:01 am
[” It’s customary when cutting and pasting from another site to acknowledge the source,
http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/02ocean/swcomposition.htm “]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ABSOLUTELY! 🙂
You can tell by my post that I had meant to – in fact, I thought I had.
I apologize…
michael hart says:
October 17, 2011 at 7:53 am
[ “I think a person who describes an aqueous solution of pH>7 as “acid” is probably not a chemist.
A chemist who describes aqueous pH changes [above pH7] as “acidity” changes is either careless, or probably a chemist with an agenda.”]
xxxxxxxxxxx
I got marked down because I used the term / phrase “Ocean acidification.”
bob droege says:
October 17, 2011 at 6:59 am
Sorry, chem lecture is closed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ABSOLUTELY! 🙂
It closed – when you attempted this bit of logic [ “Seawater pH as low as 2.8”]…for the reasons I stated above.
pH is defined as the negative log of the [H3O+] concentration.
It is the concentration of the acid in the solution no matter what the pH is, so if you are talking about pH, then you are talking about the concentration of acid in the sample.
kim;) said :
Kim;) would do well to listen to Lazyteenager, Phil, Bob Droege and others who have been trying to educate folk here about acid chemistry. Frankly, the ignorance of chemistry by most commenters on this post is starkly apparent (if not to themselves), and an indictment on the scientific education (or lack thereof) of the general lay public – in the US at least…
1) The unattributed quote that Kim;) posted is not a “definition of seawater agreed by international standards”. Such a definitionis better-discussed here.
2) Acidified seawater is simply that – acidified seawater.
I strongly urge folk to try this experiment. Given the apparent expertise that the majority of commenters here seem to perceive of themselves, I am sure that they have access to the appropriate instrumentation…
Take 200 millilitres of seawater. Take a straw. Take a deep breath, and blow into the seawater at a rate of around 6 litres of breath per minute. Take a moment to breathe whenever and as required.
After about a minute the seawater will have a pH around 7.5, and after 100 seconds the seawater will have a pH below neutral.
As kim;) seems to think that seawater is only seawater above pH 7.5, I would like to know if s/he believes that the seawater in the exercise above ceases to be seawater after one minute?
As kim;) believes that acidification only occurs below the arbitrary figure of 7 (deconstructed by others above, and in detail by Skeptical Science), I would like to know if s/he thinks that the process of acidification commences only after 100 seconds in the exercise above, in a solution that is apparently no longer seawater?
Bernard J. says:
October 18, 2011 at 5:08 am
[ ” 1) The unattributed quote that Kim;) posted is not a “definition of seawater agreed by international standards”. Such a definitionis better-discussed here.”]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Did you read your link here? : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-seawater-definition
Or the PDF from that site? http://ioc-unesco.org/components/com_oe/oe.php?task=download&id=7110&version=1.0&lang=1&format=1
The first site mentions measuring salinity.NOT acidity …NOT one mention of it.
The PDF mentions “acidification” ONCE…IMO More as a “grant application term”.
[ ” • The Reference Composition of standard seawater supports marine physico-chemical
studies such as the solubility of sea salt constituents, the alkalinity, the pH and the ocean
acidification by rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 “]
What does the ONE mentioned term “acidification” referenced in this PDF imply?
That atmospheric CO2 is the culprit for oceans alkalinization levels.
That oceans only store CO2.
That a drop in Oceans pH is not a natural occurring phase.
That there is no pH base.
That De-alkalinization will drop below 7.0 pH because of atmospheric CO2.
There are a number of terms that IPCC lead – Geoengineering supporter Ken Caldeira could have coined to describe more honestly the alkalinization levels of oceans. Ocean De-alkalinization – Ocean neutralization – Seawater nullification. etc . ALL support a baseline – ALL more an honest description of what is being measured.. BUT no, Mr Caldeira jumped over the baseline – straight to Ocean acidification.
And IPCC – AW’ers sucked it up like a pup on a teat. Why? [ Scare factor? ].
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bernard J. says:
October 18, 2011 at 5:08 am
[ “I strongly urge folk to try this experiment. Given the apparent expertise that the majority of commenters here seem to perceive of themselves, I am sure that they have access to the appropriate instrumentation…….Take 200 millilitres of seawater. “]
I strongly urge you to understand you have contaminated the original sample.You are now measuring the contamination added to the seawater. BUT carry on and see if you can breath enough to get it to turn into acid.
[ Call the para-medics ]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bernard J. says:
October 18, 2011 at 5:08 am
[“As kim;) seems to think that seawater is only seawater above pH 7.5, ” ]
Reading comprehension is an acquired skill. 🙂
Where exactly did I say seawater can’t be below 7.5 pH?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bernard J. says:
October 18, 2011 at 5:08 am
[” by Skeptical Science” ]
OMG…you’d send a kid to SkS John Cook and dana1981?
[ ” dana1981 at 06:52 AM on 30 June, 2011
I hope this semantics argument doesn’t continue throughout the series. The most frequent “response” I see amongst “skeptics” when ocean acidification and the associated dangerous consequences are discussed is this same “oceans aren’t acid” semantics silliness. As several other commenters have noted, decreasing pH = becoming more acidic = acidification. That’s what it’s called, it’s an accurate description, now let’s move on and talk about the actual science.
Moderator Response: Further “look squirrel!” comments about acidification will be deleted . The same goes for “looking for the squirrel” comments. (Rob P)’ ] http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_0.html
Can you provide evidence that an Ocean body is comprised of DE-ionized water… [ Fresh water ]?
Bernard J. says:
October 18, 2011 at 5:08 am
A cute little experiment reminds me of the globe one Gore used for the boarathon.
I have some seawater you can blow on.. If you can blow on it for 100 seconds and the value drops more than .5 pH I will humbly apologize. Adding just table salt to water does not make seawater.
NSW ( Normal Sea Water ) has a dkh of 8 this is a measurement of alkalinity the buffering capacity of the water. Not to be confused with pH being alkaline or acidic. Not sure who came up with those names but he should be beat with a large stick. My tanks seawater runs 11-12 dkh.
It would take me a while to remember all the tanks I have set up. But lets take a look at the ones with a calcium reactor. This little device works like this:
There is a chamber that a slow flow of tank makes it way in and out. In this chamber is calcium carbonate ( crushed coral ). In the top of the chamber is an inlet for 100% CO2. CO2 is injected and mixes with the incoming tank water to create carbonic acid. The amount injected is hard to visualize but 10-20 bubbles a minute is a common amount in a well stocked tank. At the top of the chamber the pH is 6.0- 6.5. As the water that has now become acidic makes it way down the chamber the calcium carbonate is dissolved and breaks down into its component parts. While this is happening the pH of the water running threw the crush coral increases. For most tanks I have added this device to I shoot for an effluent output from the chamber of about 6.8 to 7.0. Doing this creates calcium, carbonates, and some other trace minerals that the corals need to thrive and grow.
So you say Jeff you must be crazy adding such an acidic flow of water into your delicate and expensive Reef Tank. Well the trick is circulation. It seems CO2 off gases incredibly fast even in a small enclosed system. As long a circulation is good a tank pH level of 8.3 is easy to maintain even with a constant source of CO2 and carbonic acid be added to the tank. It is all about the buffering capacity / alkalinity / and the air water interface that allows off gassing.
The ocean off gasses close to the same way, winds and waves keep the pH of the ocean stable. Ocean currents aka the big pump also keep the dissolved CO2 levels mixed. The oceans are well ventilated for the most part. With that being said temperature becomes the main controlling factor for the saturation of CO2 in the open ocean. This is not saying that the CO2 concentrations / pH levels are homogenous. Local variables do have an effect.
The one experiment I would like to see is a Reef Tank with normal levels of CO2 and another with levels doubled. What would the difference in coral growth be?
A comment on politically or scientifically correct. PH, pH who really freaking cares when used in the proper context.
Kim;),
Surely you don’t think fresh water and de-ionized are the same?
“Can you provide evidence that an Ocean body is comprised of DE-ionized water… [ Fresh water ]?”
bob droege says:
October 18, 2011 at 6:45 pm
[ “Kim;),
Surely you don’t think fresh water and de-ionized are the same?” ]
Did I say so? 😉
I noticed you didn’t give an answer to ether – or.
I find it amazing – that you are worried about terminology while insisting we are measuring oceans acidification. Ignoring the fact that there is a baseline between seawater.and weak acid creating a difference of approximately 100 fold.
” Weak acids like urine” averaged approximately at 6.0 pH [ 10 fold ]
“Pure” water being at 7.0 pH [ 1 fold ] –
“Seawater’ averaged approximately at 8.0 pH [ 1/10 fold ]
Basic pH chart here. http://www.apswater.com/article.asp?id=140&title=What_is_pH
Jeff D says:
October 18, 2011 at 4:35 pm
[ ” Not sure who came up with those names but he should be beat with a large stick.’ ]
My source says : http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-ocean-acidification-a-global-case-of-osteoporosis
[ ” In 2003 Caldeira reported these findings in the journal Nature, coining the term “ocean acidification.” ]
Jeff D.
I used real seawater from the region of the Tasman Sea/Southern Ocean interface. Given the speed and direction of the local currents, a week prior the sample was probably 250km away from the nearest land, coming in from Antarctica. The pH was measured with a pH meter that records pH to 2 decimal places, and saves to flash memory once per second.
The straw was one of those snazzy long bendy numbers that look like concertinas… With a decent amount of aerobic fitness blowing at the stated rate is not overly taxing.
I posted the results of the exercise elsewere about two months ago. I can post them here too, but I would encourage you to try the exercise yourself first, so that you have empirical experience with the process…
There are no tricks involved. The result is as I described. Seriously, try it yourself. I will happily accept your apology.
And for what it’s worth, I have maintained (and still maintain) marine aquaria for decades. These days I don’t bother with artificial salt, because I have the privilege of having at my disposal a flow-through system that ticks over at about 100k litres/day. So I know a little bit about seawater chemistry.
Kim;).
You’re rambling. Incoherently.
I said:
and in response kim;) said:
apparently forgetting that s/he quoted (without initial attribution):
My original statement is not inconsistent with that made by kim;), which elicited my statement in the first place.
Don’t worry kim;), reading comprehension is a skill that you may one day acquire.
Bernard J;
means usually, but with some exceptions.
You’re the one with reading comprehension problems, or perhaps it’s selective reading with the aim of creating put-downs out of whole cloth. Pick one.
Bernard J. says:
October 19, 2011 at 7:54 am
apparently forgetting that s/he quoted (without initial attribution):
This is the second time you’ve mentioned I failed to link…I provided an explanation and an apology. Are you anal retentive enough not to except either?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bernard J. says:
October 19, 2011 at 7:54 am
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.
[My emboldened emphasis]
Ahhhhhhh what does the word “generally” mean to you?
And your statement says: [ ” As kim;) seems to think that seawater is only seawater above pH 7.5…”]
What does the word “only” mean to you?
Reading comprehension is an acquired skill. 🙂
Brian H says:
October 19, 2011 at 9:04 am
Thank you 🙂
Bernard J. says:
October 19, 2011 at 7:34 am
[ ‘Kim;).
You’re rambling. Incoherently.’]
Ha ha ha……As evidenced by you trying to address part of that post..BUT ignore answering the rest – I’d say….. coherency is a selective defense of yours.
Sorry, accept not except in above post
[ ” This is the second time you’ve mentioned I failed to link…I provided an explanation and an apology. Are you anal retentive enough not to except either? ‘]…..should be This is the second time you’ve mentioned I failed to link…I provided an explanation and an apology. Are you anal retentive enough not to accept either.
My posts disappear on me.
Jeff D says:
October 18, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Well the trick is circulation. It seems CO2 off gases incredibly fast even in a small enclosed system. As long a circulation is good a tank pH level of 8.3 is easy to maintain even with a constant source of CO2 and carbonic acid be added to the tank. It is all about the buffering capacity / alkalinity / and the air water interface that allows off gassing.
Yes
The ocean off gasses close to the same way, winds and waves keep the pH of the ocean stable. Ocean currents aka the big pump also keep the dissolved CO2 levels mixed. The oceans are well ventilated for the most part. With that being said temperature becomes the main controlling factor for the saturation of CO2 in the open ocean. This is not saying that the CO2 concentrations / pH levels are homogenous. Local variables do have an effect.
The temperature and the pCO2 in the air.
The one experiment I would like to see is a Reef Tank with normal levels of CO2 and another with levels doubled. What would the difference in coral growth be?
That would be interesting, might take a long time though.
Kim;) posted this
“Did I say so? 😉
I noticed you didn’t give an answer to ether – or.
I find it amazing – that you are worried about terminology while insisting we are measuring oceans acidification. Ignoring the fact that there is a baseline between seawater.and weak acid creating a difference of approximately 100 fold.
” Weak acids like urine” averaged approximately at 6.0 pH [ 10 fold ]
“Pure” water being at 7.0 pH [ 1 fold ] –
“Seawater’ averaged approximately at 8.0 pH [ 1/10 fold ]
Basic pH chart here. http://www.apswater.com/article.asp?id=140&title=What_is_pH ”
When put parentheses after a word(noun) it is commonly(usually) accepted (taken to mean) that the two(2) things are the same, so of course I think you said that deionized water and fresh water are the same thing.
And do you know what else you said?
You just said that seawater is 1/10 as acidic as “Pure water”
Which means that you agree with me that seawater is already acidic.
Now it is just a small logical step to consider if adding CO2 to seawater makes it more acidic.
There are also a bunch of errors on that site, the pH scale is only bounded by 0 to 14 by definition, concentrated hydrochloric acid has negative pH for example, HF or hydrofluoric acid is not a stong acid, although it is quite dangerous compared to the other strong acids, free hydrogen ions do not exist in aqueous solutions, but I do like how they the terms acidic/basic (alkaline) and acidity/basicness.
See what I did there?
You are coming around, you just like to argue.
Kim;) and Brian H.
My statement:
is not inconsistent with the oxymoronic:
You might like to focus on the “generally”, but the “always” remains, and therefore give support to my original “seems to think”.
But this nonsense is all argument over how many angels may fit upon the point of a needle. Kim;) thinks that blowing into seawater “contaminates” it. Does this apparent “contamination” render the seawater not seawater after one second of blowing? After ten seconds? After 60 seconds? After 100 seconds?
And what of the extra carbon dioxide that humans have introduced into the oceans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? Does this “contamination” render the water in the oceans not seawater?
Finally, does the dissolution of carbon dioxide into seawater increase the concentration of acidic species, or does it not?
stevo says:
October 15, 2011 at 4:01 am
No matter what the subject, whether it’s biology, physics, chemistry, whatever, you apparently know enough about it to pour scorn on research that somehow offends you.
_________________________________
It is more appropriate to say Anthony and others here can spot Propaganda masquerading as Science.
This press release stinks of propaganda and fear mongering.
I am a chemist and I with little knowledge of biology could easily set-up the laboratory experiments to “PROVE” the “hypothesis” Just leave the buffers found in the oceans out of the laboratory version of the sea water.
Gail Combs.
As you are a chemist, you should be able to replicate the exercise I describe above, using the seawater version of seawater, complete with seawater buffers. Would you care to do so, and thereby confirm the demonstration that dissolving CO2 in seawater increases the concentration of acid species, and thus the acidity, of said seawater?