From the British Antarctic Survey and the University of East Anglia comes one of those press releases where I just have to wonder if this won’t eventually go the way of the “global warming causes mutated frogs” claim that turned out to be a parasite and not global warming. After all, it is well known that ships ballast can transport invasive species to places they normally would not migrate to, so with eco-tourism in Antarctica being all the rage now, I wonder if the issue isn’t somehow related to the snails being more susceptible due to some such influence? After all, how did they survive climate shifts (with changes to ocean pH) for millions of years if nature so poorly equipped them? I’m just not convinced that a slight shift (-0.11) to the ocean pH being more neutral than basic is the cause of this. The oceans are still basic at ~8.069, not acidic. To be acidic they’d have to be less than 7.0 See table.
On the plus side, they avoided that ridiculous “canary in the coal mine” meme in this PR.
First evidence of ocean acidification affecting live marine creatures in the Southern Ocean
The shells of marine snails – known as pteropods – living in the seas around Antarctica are being dissolved by ocean acidification according to a new study published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. These tiny animals are a valuable food source for fish and birds and play an important role in the oceanic carbon cycle*.
During a science cruise in 2008, researchers from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the University of East Anglia (UEA), in collaboration with colleagues from the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), discovered severe dissolution of the shells of living pteropods in Southern Ocean waters.
The team examined an area of upwelling, where winds cause cold water to be pushed upwards from the deep to the surface of the ocean. Upwelled water is usually more corrosive to a particular type of calcium carbonate (aragonite) that pteropods use to build their shells. The team found that as a result of the additional influence of ocean acidification, this corrosive water severely dissolved the shells of pteropods.
Above: before and after images.
Ocean acidification is caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere emitted as a result of fossil fuel burning. A number of laboratory experiments have demonstrated the potential effect of ocean acidification on marine organisms. However, to date, there has been little evidence of such impacts occurring to live specimens in their natural environment. The finding supports predictions that the impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and food webs may be significant.
Lead author, Dr Nina Bednaršek, formerly of BAS and UEA, and now of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says:
“We know that the seawater becomes more corrosive to aragonite shells below a certain depth – called the ‘saturation horizon’ – which occurs at around 1000m depth. However, at one of our sampling sites, we discovered that this point was reached at 200m depth, through a combination of natural upwelling and ocean acidification. Marine snails – pteropods – live in this top layer of the ocean. The corrosive properties of the water caused shells of live animals to be severely dissolved and this demonstrates how vulnerable pteropods are. Ocean acidification, resulting from the addition of human-induced carbon dioxide, contributed to this dissolution. ”
Co-author and science cruise leader, Dr Geraint Tarling from BAS, says:
“Although the upwelling sites are natural phenomena that occur throughout the Southern Ocean, instances where they bring the ‘saturation horizon’ above 200m will become more frequent as ocean acidification intensifies in the coming years. As one of only a few oceanic creatures that build their shells out of aragonite in the polar regions, pteropods are an important food source for fish and birds as well as a good indicator of ecosystem health. The tiny snails do not necessarily die as a result of their shells dissolving, however it may increase their vulnerability to predation and infection consequently having an impact to other parts of the food web.”
Co-author, Dr Dorothee Bakker from the University of East Anglia, says:
“Climate models project a continued intensification in Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century if atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase. In turn, this will increase wind-driven upwelling and potentially make instances of deep water – which is under-saturated in aragonite – penetrating into the upper ocean more frequent. Current predictions are for the ‘saturation horizon’ for aragonite to reach the upper surface layers of the Southern Ocean by 2050 in winter and by 2100 year round. ”
This research was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the European Union Marie Curie Early Stage Training Network.
Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean by N. Bednaršek, G. A. Tarling, D. C. E. Bakker, S. Fielding, E. M. Jones, H. J. Venables, P. Ward, A.Kuzirian, B. Lézé, R. A. Feely, and E. H. Murphy is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Abstract:
The carbonate chemistry of the surface ocean is rapidly changing with ocean acidification, a result of human activities1. In the upper layers of the Southern Ocean, aragonite—a
metastable form of calcium carbonate with rapid dissolution kinetics—may become undersaturated by 2050 (ref. 2). Aragonite undersaturation is likely to affect aragonite-shelled organisms, which can dominate surface water communities in polar regions3. Here we present analyses of specimens of the pteropod Limacina helicina antarctica that were extracted live from the Southern Ocean early in 2008. We sampled from the top 200m of the water column, where aragonite saturation levels are around 1 as upwelled deep water is mixed with surface water containing anthropogenic CO2. Comparing the shell structure with samples from aragonite-supersaturated regions elsewhere under a scanning electron microscope, we found severe levels of shell dissolution in the undersaturated region but not elsewhere. According to laboratory incubations of intact samples with a range of aragonite saturation levels, eight days of incubation in aragonite saturation levels of 0.94–1.12 produced equivalent levels of dissolution. As deep-water upwelling and CO2 absorption by surface waters is likely to increase as a result of human activities2,4, we conclude that upper ocean regions where aragonite-shelled organisms are affected by dissolution are likely to expand.
The paper is available here: ftp://ftp.nerc-bas.ac.uk/pub/photo/PR-2012-13-Tarling/ngeo1635_GT%20edits.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the map of sample sites in the paper, looks like they would not have been far from the South Scotia Ridge, transform boundary with the Antarctic Plate.
Possible geothermal/hydrothermal vents? Not much mapping, but they are known to exist on the East Scotia Ridge and around the Antarctic Peninsula.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
If they want to test the theory that “Climate models project a continued intensification in Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century…” that will allow the lysocline to reach the upper surface layers of the Southern Ocean by 2050, they need to map and monitor the lysocline to see if it rises.
Typically all these people appear concerned about is claiming that their models “prove” their theories. Actually attempting to verify these theories against the real world dosn’t appear too important to them (even too much like hard work). Even though, in my understanding, this is the core of the “scientific method”.
Alec Rawls says:
It is also purely theoretical that these natural upwellings will increase, and the occurance of a natural upwelling is certainly not evidence that such events are on the increase.
How long have we been gathering (good) data on such upwellings? As with so many cases probably to short a time to draw any conclusions as to what might be “normal”.
This tops the stupidity; demand for bullshine, controls production of it, here it is:: ”The team examined an area of upwelling, where winds cause cold water to be pushed upwards from the deep to the surface of the ocean”.
This is hilarious…! This is a nugget, a gemstone, a wheelbarrow of crap, enjoy it nutters – check the calories first; if it’s a fattening crap…?
1] wind on the bottom of the ocean – pushing ”cold-water” up to the surface…?!
2] MORE TRUTH: around Antarctic; water on the bottom is ”WARMER” than on the surface! Here is how it works: from the north, currents bring warmwater – by the time it reaches southern part of Antarctic Ocean – that water cools down to 4-5-6-7C. Water at that temp has much greater density / heavier per volume, than the surface water that is already there – it makes it to sink to the bottom; PLUS, water on the bottom is kept WARMER, by the geothermal heat. Therefore: water on the bottom is ”WARMER” than water temp at the surface, by 3-4-5-7C.
Appetite, addiction to bullshine by you guys; is making them to go in overdrive; they earn their money, by feeding you, be grateful. .The damages they do, by the ice crushers – making corridors in the ice -> ruff water then brakes much more = is exposing the water to the unlimited coldness in the air; without ice as insulator -> water releases the remaining heat .= colder water than normal, destroys the leaving critters below == but that’s not your concern… you are contempt with your: ”positive / negative forcing, albedo, Eocene, Paleocene, Miocene, Crapocene…”shame, SHAME!!!
I guess I fail to see why this result is supposed to be funny…. Have you ever heard of a sentinel species?
It’s bloody obvious that CO2 emissions will change the pH of the ocean. How can anyone dispute that?
After that, it’s simply a matter of how do organisms respond to the change….
Snails do die from time to time and usually when they do, there is nothing around to maintain their home (shells). Appears the Boys managed to find a live shell and a dead one. Amazing that a freshly killed snail shell is in so much better shape than that of a not so freshly killed one. And small shells like these do take a while to fall to the bottom of the ocean. (/sarc) They also are damaged while the surrounding food chain feeds on the carcass of their deceased owner. Cheers –
Where did the table come from that says the field analysed pH in 18th century sea water was 8.179? This is pretty ridiculous. First the Sorenson scale, which became the pH scale, wasn’t invented until 1909. Did someone go back in time to make this measurement?
Measuring pH in high ionic concentration solutions, such as sea water, is extremely difficult. Even in the best of circumstances the uncertainty of a modern pH meter is 0.05 units. The best reference material standards, e.g. from NIST, have uncertainties around 0.01 units.
“After all, how did they survive climate shifts (with changes to ocean pH) for millions of years if nature so poorly equipped them? I’m just not convinced that a slight shift (-0.11) to the ocean pH being more neutral than basic is the cause of this.”
First off, the problem is not the 0.1 pH unit to date, but the rate of change. CO2 is going up and it is affecting the ocean for real, just as one could imagine.
The rate of change is more important the total change. In the past, changes took thousands of years and natural selection had time to work. Or millions of years….well you get the point.
Tens or hundreds of years, prob’ly too fast for species to adapt, unless you have knowledge contrary.
“The oceans are still basic at ~8.069, not acidic. To be acidic they’d have to be less than 7.0 See table.”
Are you joking? Acidification means increasing the [H+], not that the ocean pH is lower than 7.0. You must be joking, no one could be that dumb. But if you think people dont understand, why dont you help them out?
Poor Yorek, that was a very informative post.
One question and comment about this quote from you, “On the other hand, it is quite standard and correct to refer to pH = 7.8 as being acidic relative to pH = 8.0 (or pH = 5.8 as being alkaline relative to pH = 5.5).” A relative of mine is a senior chemist at a large corporation, and he informed me that he and his colleagues almost always prefer to use pH numbers when attempting to modify a solution to a higher or lower pH.
Just curious – are you saying that they are a minority? Thanks.
Maybe they shouldn’t have dipped them in the cocktail sauce before putting them under the microscope.
R. Shearer commented on On noes! ”The best reference material standards, e.g. from NIST, have uncertainties around 0.01 units”
You should ad another factor, to your genuine proof: ”pH in the sea is NOT equally the same everywhere.Plus, it changes to a degree in different seasons.
(for the first time sunspots were discovered in 1995-6 with good enough filter to see them === now they have ”the number of sunspots for the last 500years)… They create miracles / crap = because of the high demand for it. Crap is the best organic fertilizer, for the nutter’s brains…
From Mughal on November 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm:
I guess I fail to see why this result is supposed to be funny…. Have you ever heard of a sentinel species?
Actually we have heard of when a population faces stress that kills off members that cannot adapt, invoking natural selection, which leaves behind those than can adapt, leading to differentiation of local populations from species members found elsewhere not undergoing the stress, providing sufficient members of the stressed population remain to successfully procreate and maintain the population.
Those who mistakenly think evolution only works on timescales of hundred of thousands to millions of years, may freak out, talk about “sentinel species” and canaries in coal mines, and thus reveal their ignorance of how nature really works.
It’s bloody obvious that CO2 emissions will change the pH of the ocean. How can anyone dispute that?
Among other ways, since a portion of the atmospheric CO₂ increases are from ocean outgassing as the oceans have warmed, with atmospheric CO₂ increases historically following temperature, the oceans are releasing CO₂ that was already there. Can you explain how oceans will be acidified by CO₂ they are releasing? If warming the oceans leads to acidification, then isn’t pH based on ocean temperature rather than atmospheric CO₂ levels?
From trafamadore on November 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm:
The rate of change is more important the total change. In the past, changes took thousands of years and natural selection had time to work. Or millions of years….well you get the point.
Climate and environment can change rapidly. Volcanoes can erupt, blanketing an area in ash. Earthquakes can damage aquifers, rivers go elsewhere. Many things. Evolution can work far more faster than you expect.
As it is, the pH being experienced is not unprecedented, and if you actually knew about nature you’d know that wide pH swings are natural, on timescales down to daily. Your rate of change argument is garbage.
Are you joking? Acidification means increasing the [H+], not that the ocean pH is lower than 7.0. You must be joking, no one could be that dumb. But if you think people dont understand, why dont you help them out?
Strangely, the hazmat response people will talk about neutralizing a caustic spill, not about acidifying a caustic spill. Reference. You are also backwards on your definition of acidification. From reference:
Acidification means decreasing the [H+], not increasing it, and that’s when you’re making the pH less than 7 (neutral). If I take a 12 pH solution and change it to 10 pH, I have clearly not acidified it as it is still a caustic solution, I have made it less caustic.
===
*sigh*
Names like Mughal, trafamadore…
Is it too much to ask that when the (C)AGW-pushers dispatch their minions to disparage us, they issue them temporary troll names that sound like names and not like randomly-generated groupings of sounds?
Upwelling cold water has nothign to do with ocean acidification. They assume that CO2 is getting into the cold water at depth? Rriigghhhttttt!
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: November 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm:
“Acidification means decreasing the [H+], not increasing it,”
Jeez, you flunk my sophomore high school chemistry quiz. Acidification at any pH involved decreasing the pH value, which is the =log[H+]. Acidifying means INCREASING the [H+]!!!!!!!
Lowering pH from 12 to 10 is indeed still basic but also 2 pH units more acidic, moving from 10^-12 molar to 10^-10 molar H+.
@stefanthedenier,
“(for the first time sunspots were discovered in 1995-6 with good enough filter to see them === now they have ”the number of sunspots for the last 500years)…”
Where do you get this nonsense?
From http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/sunspots.html
“Records of naked-eye sunspot observations in China go back to at least 28 BCE.”
And
“The scientific study of sunspots in the West began after the telescope had been brought into astronomy in 1609. Although there is still some controversy about when and by whom sunspots were first observed through the telescope, we can say that Galileo and Thomas Harriot were the first, around the end of 1610; that Johannes and David Fabricius and Christoph Scheiner first observed them in March 1611, and that Johannes Fabricius was the first to publish on them. His book, De Maculis in Sole Observatis (“On the Spots Observed in the Sun”) appeared in the autumn of 1611, but it remained unknown to the other observers for some time.”
From higley7 on November 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm:
Among other issues, you just said:
1. Acidification is decreasing pH
2. pH is the =log[H+]
3. Acidifying is INCREASING the [H+].
Therefore decreasing log[H+] happens with increasing [H+].
When does increasing the argument cause a decrease of the log function value?
I couldn’t figure out how they came to their conclusions. The only sample with significant damage to the little shells was Su9. Is showed what appeared to be significant damage in samples netted between 400m and the surface. At least two other sample sites showed levels of aragonite in the range of .94-1.12, which they said showed significant levels of dissolving power. There was no explanation for why the other sample sites had little effect on the shells, even though they were subjected to similar conditions. It certainly appears that more is going on than a simple pH change. It was also interesting that Su9 had the highest concentrations a near surface levels, much higher than all the other sites 30-50% greater. No explanation of that either.
“The team examined an area of upwelling, where winds caused cold waters to be pushed upward from the deep to the surface of the ocean”
If you are going to do science by PR, then you are going to die on the PR sword. Calcium carbonate, whether as aragonite or as calcite, is more soluble in colder water, the colder the water, the higher the solubility. These would-be scientists have found an area where upwelling colder waters are dissolving pteropod shells, and so they sound the panic alarm on global warming. Furthermore: deep, upwelling waters presumably have been pristine in composition for several thousand years, unmixed with any recent atmospheric effect such as increasing CO2. This work is so egregious that one can only wonder. It might be concluded that they are looking for funding by pushing panic buttons, not by searching for scientific truth. The real truth is that are too many second-rate scientists on our public payrolls.
The after photo looks more like a peeling layer of algae then shell.
Hate to invoke high school chemistry around here but apparently the researchers slid through in some pass/fail program. pH. above 7 means the protons have been neutralized by negative ions. Any corrosiveness would have to be from alkalinity, no? Or do the protons take more time out from their wrestling matches with anions to chew these creatures at slightly lower pH.? Maybe the anions take advantage of the same time outs to chew on the other side…
Nope, you’re right. I went back to the equation.
pH = log₁₀ 1/[H+], [H+] is hydrogen ion concentration in moles/liter.
10^-1 mol/l is 1 pH, 10^-3 mol/l is 3 pH, 10^-1 is 100 times larger than 10^-3, so an increasing hydrogen ion concentration does give a decreasing pH.
Everything else though is still correct.
kadaka: “Climate and environment can change rapidly. Volcanoes can erupt, blanketing an area in ash. Earthquakes can damage aquifers, rivers go elsewhere. Many things. Evolution can work far more faster than you expect.”
Not usually. Usually, extinction is the name of the game. Sorry. All of the great changes in global temperatures have resulted in mass extinctions.
kadaka: “Acidification means decreasing the [H+], not increasing it”
Wrong.
Maybe you could check things before embarrassing yourself?
trafamadore says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Acidification means increasing the [H+], not that the ocean pH is lower than 7.0.
============
adding an acid to a base is not referred to as acidification. It is called neutralization, until such time as the acid has fully converted the base to a salt. At which point acidification takes place.
You could burn all the fossil fuels thought to exist on earth and the resulting CO2 could not produce acidification. The oceans are too large and too well buffered for this to occur.
How do we know this? Because just a few million years ago CO2 levels were higher than today and the oceans were more acidic (less caustic) than today and life did just fine.
In any case, anyone that believes the world is going to limit CO2 production hasn’t thought things through. The only way this can happen is to deny the poor of the world the benefits that the likes of Al Gore and Jim Hansen enjoy today.
This story I saw on Australia’s Catalyst a few years ago. That’s when I stopped watching that “science” show. What a load of bull. So is ocean acidification.
Greenies won’t do this experiment:
Put some eggshell (calcium carbonate) in soda water (which should be loaded with thousands of times more CO2 and carbonic acid than any sea water could ever be). Now wait until the shell dissolves. It won’t.
Oceans vary in PH from 7.9 to 8.3 (alkaline) depending on where you measure it. Warmer water outgasses CO2. Try opening a warm bottle of soda water compared to a cold one. So if the oceans warm, they’ll never become acidic via CO2. Noting they always brush against alkaline rocks there’s even less chance. Acidic oceans have been severely bunked!
umm.. pH is the negative log[H+]
Rainwater is WAY more acidic than the ocean…
(it is often actually slightly acidic rather than basic like sea water)
Does rain get rid of snails ??? 😉