Rate May Be Ten Times Faster, According to New Data
From Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: Some 56 million years ago, a massive pulse of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere sent global temperatures soaring. In the oceans, carbonate sediments dissolved, some organisms went extinct and others evolved.
Scientists have long suspected that ocean acidification caused the crisis—similar to today, as manmade CO2 combines with seawater to change its chemistry. Now, for the first time, scientists have quantified the extent of surface acidification from those ancient days, and the news is not good: the oceans are on track to acidify at least as much as they did then, only at a much faster rate.
In a study published in the latest issue of Paleoceanography, the scientists estimate that ocean acidity increased by about 100 percent in a few thousand years or more, and stayed that way for the next 70,000 years. In this radically changed environment, some creatures died out while others adapted and evolved. The study is the first to use the chemical composition of fossils to reconstruct surface ocean acidity at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period of intense warming on land and throughout the oceans due to high CO2.
“This could be the closest geological analog to modern ocean acidification,” said study coauthor Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “As massive as it was, it still happened about 10 times more slowly than what we are doing today.”
The oceans have absorbed about a third of the carbon humans have pumped into the air since industrialization, helping to keep earth’s thermostat lower than it would be otherwise. But that uptake of carbon has come at a price. Chemical reactions caused by that excess CO2 have made seawater grow more acidic, depleting it of the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and calcifying plankton need to build their shells and skeletons.
In the last 150 years or so, the pH of the oceans has dropped substantially, from 8.2 to 8.1–equivalent to a 25 percent increase in acidity. By the end of the century, ocean pH is projected to fall another 0.3 pH units, to 7.8. While the researchers found a comparable pH drop during the PETM–0.3 units–the shift happened over a few thousand years.
“We are dumping carbon in the atmosphere and ocean at a much higher rate today—within centuries,” said study coauthor Richard Zeebe, a paleoceanographer at the University of Hawaii. “If we continue on the emissions path we are on right now, acidification of the surface ocean will be way more dramatic than during the PETM.”
The study confirms that the acidified conditions lasted for 70,000 years or more, consistent with previous model-based estimates. “It didn’t bounce back right away,” said Timothy Bralower, a researcher at Penn State who was not involved in the study. “It took tens of thousands of years to recover.”
From seafloor sediments drilled off Japan, the researchers analyzed the shells of plankton that lived at the surface of the ocean during the PETM. Two different methods for measuring ocean chemistry at the time—the ratio of boron isotopes in their shells, and the amount of boron –arrived at similar estimates of acidification. “It’s really showing us clear evidence of a change in pH for the first time,” said Bralower.
What caused the burst of carbon at the PETM is still unclear. One popular explanation is that an overall warming trend may have sent a pulse of methane from the seafloor into the air, setting off events that released more earth-warming gases into the air and oceans. Up to half of the tiny animals that live in mud on the seafloor—benthic foraminifera—died out during the PETM, possibly along with life further up the food chain.
Other species thrived in this changed environment and new ones evolved. In the oceans, dinoflagellates extended their range from the tropics to the Arctic, while on land, hoofed animals and primates appeared for the first time. Eventually, the oceans and atmosphere recovered as elements from eroded rocks washed into the sea and neutralized the acid.
Today, signs are already emerging that some marine life may be in trouble. In a recent study led by Nina Bednaršedk at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, more than half of the tiny planktic snails, or pteropods, that she and her team studied off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California showed badly dissolved shells. Ocean acidification has been linked to the widespread death of baby oysters off Washington and Oregon since 2005, and may also pose a threat to coral reefs, which are under additional pressure from pollution and warming ocean temperatures.
“Seawater carbonate chemistry is complex but the mechanism underlying ocean acidification is very simple,” said study lead author Donald Penman, a graduate student at University of California at Santa Cruz. “We can make accurate predictions about how carbonate chemistry will respond to increasing carbon dioxide levels. The real unknown is how individual organisms will respond and how that cascades through ecosystems.”
Other authors of the study, which was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation: Ellen Thomas, Yale University; and James Zachos, UC Santa Cruz.
Nick Stokes:
I object to your semantic drivel in your post addressed to me at June 5, 2014 at 5:32 am.
I did NOT “make up” anything. I quoted your words verbatim and stated the only understanding of those words which I could make. If you know people who know the cause of the PETM and what it was then say because I would like to know.
You say
No! We are emitting only about 30 Gt/year of CO2 and this is a trivial addition to the natural emission which is two orders of magnitude larger. Importantly, this tiny amount of anthropogenic emission is NOT sufficient to be “forcing CO2 rise” (as is explained in my above post to Ferdinand which is here).
This stuff isn’t difficult. Well, maybe it is if you superstitiously believe the trivial anthropogenic CO2 emission is a threat to the world.
Richard
richardscourtney says: June 5, 2014 at 5:45 am
“I did NOT “make up” anything. I quoted your words verbatim and stated the only understanding of those words which I could make.”
Yes, you quoted my words.
“The cause of PETM etc warming is a research topic. I don’t know the answers.”
Your understanding:
“Nobody knows the “cause of PETM etc warming” but it is not CO2.”
That constitutes making up.
“In the oceans, dinoflagellates extended their range from the tropics to the Arctic, while on land, hoofed animals and primates appeared for the first time.” Well put. Nothing special about primates.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 4, 2014 at 10:23 pm
From Phil. on June 4, 2014 at 2:19 pm (link added back into a quoted section):
“Unfortunately your link turned out to be a blank pdf.”
Sorry, Phil-dot, but it loaded just fine for me. Check your software.
Yeah it loaded fine today, go figure.
Bob Kutz says:June 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm
The Phanerozoic Carbon Cycle, CO2 and O2
Bob Berner, Prof. of Geology, Yale
I live on the west slope of the Rockies. We have lots of basalt at 6-9000 feet with a lovely coating of calcium carbonate.
richardscourtney says:
June 5, 2014 at 5:07 am
Richard, the discussion with Bart was that an increase in the natural cycle (probably from the oceans) might be as good the cause of the increase as the human contribution.
Bart’s reasoning was based on the supposition that the cause of the natural variability in rate of change and the cause of the decadal increase in rate of change were from the same process. That point is resolved by plotting both the rate of change of CO2 and the rate of change of δ13C, which proves beyond doubt that the short term variability (both seasonal and year-by-year) is caused by vegetation. But the decadal trend in rate of change by vegetation is an increasing sink for CO2 as can be derived from the oxygen balance. Thus the short term and long term effects/processes are opposite to each other.
That also applies to your supposition that the seasonal uptake/release is large enough to absorb all human emissions. It can’t, because the sinks are saturated and only slower processes that incorporate more carbon in longer lasting parts of the biosphere make a difference. But that is a much slower process than what causes the rapid decrease of CO2 in NH spring and the rapid rise in NH fall.
I have seen a few people asking how warming oceans which give off CO2 can absorb CO2. I had originally addressed this in a few WUWT essays. First your talking about flux, when they give off CO2 that is a gross flux. When people are discussing the absorption of CO2 that’s generally a net flux. The problem is we don’t have enough information to measure the net flux into the ocean. So in general the hypothesis is that nature balances out, we are the change, and the difference in the atmospheric CO2 between projections and measurements is in flux to the oceans.
Its a gross exaggeration of legitimacy for prognostications built on assumption without sufficient measurement data. It could be true but the difference between theory and reality is measurement.
Nick Stokes:
Having been shown to be wrong on your main point, you continue to obfuscate at June 5, 2014 at 6:14 am. But I will not ‘let you off the hook’ on your side-issue because it emphasises your behaviour.
You wrote
You now claim that does NOT mean “Nobody knows the “cause of PETM etc warming” but it is not CO2.”
OK, what did you intend it to mean?
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
In reply to my post at June 5, 2014 at 5:07 am which is here and explained WITH CLEAR EVIDENCE
at June 5, 2014 at 7:46 am you say
NO!!!
I made no “supposition”. I provided clear evidence saying
You are making an assertion which is plainly and clearly wrong.
THE SINKS ARE NOT SATURATED.
Richard
Steven Burnett says:
June 5, 2014 at 8:12 am
the difference between theory and reality is measurement.
Well, we have a few measurements which show what happens: the mass balance, the δ13C balance and the oxygen balance.
To begin with the mass balance:
humans emit ~9 GtC/year as CO2. The increase in the atmosphere is ~4.5 GtC/year. That makes a nice balance:
increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural releases – natural sinks.
4.5 GtC/yr = 9 GtC/yr + X – Y
where
X – Y = -4.5 GtC/yr
In every year since 1959, natural sinks were larger than natural sources.
We know the uptake by the biosphere from the oxygen balance: since 1990 ~1 GtC/year and increasing.
We know the uptake from the ocean surface layer which is ~0.5 GtC/yr due to the buffer/Revelle factor.
The rest is going into the deep oceans, as all other possible sinks are either too small or too slow.
The exact height of X and Y is of little interest, except if there was a huge increase in turnover, but there is not the slightest sign for such an increase, to the contrary.
richardscourtney says:
June 5, 2014 at 9:18 am
Nick Stokes:
Having been shown to be wrong on your main point, you continue to obfuscate at June 5, 2014 at 6:14 am. But I will not ‘let you off the hook’ on your side-issue because it emphasises your behavior.
Actually it exemplifies your behavior Richard, I believe Anthony described it as your habit of getting into ‘food fights’ on here.
You wrote
“The cause of PETM etc warming is a research topic. I don’t know the answers. But for CO2 to cause warming, something has to be forcing CO2 into the atmosphere. In past times, there is mostly nothing obvious to do that. Now there is. It’s us.”
You now claim that does NOT mean “Nobody knows the “cause of PETM etc warming” but it is not CO2.”
Which it clearly does not to anyone with a passing knowledge of the english language!
You also claimed that Nick said:
2.
Atmospheric CO2 has no natural variability and only changes because “something has to be forcing CO2 into the atmosphere”.
Clearly Nick did not say that!
3.
We are forcing CO2 into the atmosphere because otherwise “there is mostly nothing obvious to do that”.
Again a warped interpretation of what Nick said which was in that: “In past times, there is mostly nothing obvious to do that. Now there is. It’s us”, did you miss the “Now there is”?
OK, what did you intend it to mean?
It’s rather obvious what was meant, clearly not your garbled version.
How many Giga-Tera Tonnes of exposed calcium in all its forms exists in the oceans? The calcium content of the oceans will neutralize any PH that CO2 may effect.
The so-called dramatic change claimed in the article is questionable at best.
The known dynamic range of ocean pH is far wider than the amount of change. And the claim of the change is not in actual measurements but is derived by a modelingprocess full of assumptions.
Life in the ocean is not showing the impacts of the claimed changes.
The interesting thing in the ocean acidification claims is the recursive nature of it. The climate obsessed put these alarmist talking points out, they fall apart under scrutiny, but a small group of people don’t realize that the cliams were bunk. It is like ratchet effect of bogosity, never increasing actual real knowledge. Instead the public square is incrementally cluttered with bogus alarmist garbage that is never completely cleared away.
The science is settled. I thought there was still a debate about the cause[s]
Let’s get more detail and they seem to have skimmed this bit.
Phil.:
At June 5, 2014 at 10:11 am you say to me
OK. Nick seems unwilling to say what he did mean, and you say it is “rather obvious ” to you, so perhaps you can say what you think is “rather obvious”. Perhaps Nick may agree with your unstated understanding of what he meant.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 5, 2014 at 9:30 am
There is no reduction to the rate of sequestration as the sequestering ‘sinks’ fill. Clearly, the sinks do not fill.
Richard, the monthly data at Mauna Loa show that the seasonal uptake is saturating in September (which is a few months later than at ground level). If they were unlimited, the CO2 levels would go down until the CO2 level was back to equilibrium. From September on, the decay rate is larger than the uptake rate and CO2 levels go up again. Thus the sinks really fill up as they are limited in capacity, be it a huge capacity of ~60 GtC/season in and out.
The multi-year uptake is a much slower process and does take away ~1 GtC/year over the growing season.
hunter:
I write to support your post at June 5, 2014 at 11:42 am which says
Yes. And as you say it is important that
“The interesting thing in the ocean acidification claims is the recursive nature of it. The climate obsessed put these alarmist talking points out, they fall apart under scrutiny, but a small group of people don’t realize that the cliams were bunk. It is like ratchet effect of bogosity, never increasing actual real knowledge. Instead the public square is incrementally cluttered with bogus alarmist garbage that is never completely cleared away.”
Additionally, I point out that when called on their claims – as this thread shows – they retreat into semantic arguments about their claims.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post addressed to me at June 5, 2014 at 12:54 pm.
Sorry, but your repeatedly asserting that the sinks fill does not alter the fact that they don’t.
I yet again ask you to address the following information which I have repeatedly put to you (including twice in this thread).
This is the CO2 data from Mauna Loa
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The seasonal variation in each year is a slow rise indicating increase to atmospheric CO2 that is followed by a steep fall as sequestration of CO2 is greater than CO2 emission which is followed by a rapid reversal. There is no reduction to the rate of sequestration as the sequestering ‘sinks’ fill. Clearly, the sinks do not fill.
The annual rise of any year is the residual of the seasonal variation of that year.
The dynamics of the seasonal change is consistent with the carbon cycle adjusting to a new equilibrium:
(a) adjustment of mechanisms with long rate constants provides the annual rise
while
(b) adjustment of the mechanisms with very short rate constants provides the seasonal variation.
The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is consistent with adjustment of the carbon cycle to a new equilibrium but is NOT consistent with the CO2 sinks lacking ability to sequester all the CO2 emissions. The anthropogenic CO2 emission may be the cause of a changed carbon cycle equilibrium but other causes are more likely.
Richard
I don’t know how many sea creatures can keep up with all this ‘acid’, but here is something interesting regarding creatures not being able to keep up.
richardscourtney says:
June 5, 2014 at 1:06 pm
(a) adjustment of mechanisms with long rate constants provides the annual rise
while
(b) adjustment of the mechanisms with very short rate constants provides the seasonal variation.
Richard, the point that I tried to make is that (b) is clearly caused by vegetation as the 13C/12C ratio and the oxygen levels show, while (a) is clearly NOT caused by vegetation, as that is a net sink for CO2 over time, as derived from the oxygen balance. Neither is (a) caused by the oceans, as the difference in mass balance must go somewhere. Nor is an increase in turnover the cause of the increase in the atmosphere as there is no observed increase in turnover…
richardscourtney says:
June 5, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post addressed to me at June 5, 2014 at 12:54 pm.
Sorry, but your repeatedly asserting that the sinks fill does not alter the fact that they don’t.
I yet again ask you to address the following information which I have repeatedly put to you (including twice in this thread).
This is the CO2 data from Mauna Loa
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The seasonal variation in each year is a slow rise indicating increase to atmospheric CO2 that is followed by a steep fall as sequestration of CO2 is greater than CO2 emission which is followed by a rapid reversal. There is no reduction to the rate of sequestration as the sequestering ‘sinks’ fill. Clearly, the sinks do not fill.
You can’t be serious, “there is no reduction to the rate of sequestration as the sequestering ‘sinks’ fill.”
The rate of sequestration clearly becomes zero and then negative!
What school of mathematics/science did you attend?
The sinks are incapable of sequestering all of the CO2 entering the atmosphere during the year as every year over the last several decades the pCO2 has increased year over year!
Nick Stokes wrote:”On the contrary, CO2 dissolves CaCO3. When you sort out the carbonate chemistry, and get past the role of intermediates like H+, the nett reaction is:
CaCO3 + CO2 + H20 -> Ca++ +2HCO3-”
Net reactions don’t tell anything about reaction mechanisms. The increase in H+ (a result of increase pCO2) is the primary cause of the increased solubility of CaCO3, NOT (as you seem to suggest) the increase in CO2 concentration by itself.
So:
– if at elevated pCO2, pH is kept constant by addition of OH- ions, CaCO3 will not dissolve.
– if at constant pCO2, H+ is added, solubility of CaCO3 will increase.
Solubility of CaCO3 depends on Ca++ and CO3– concentrations:
Increase in H+ concentration causes a decrease in CO3– ( CO3– + H+ —>HCO3-) Decrease in CO3– causes a decrease in CaCO3– (equilibrium CaCO3 Ca++ + CO3– shifts to the right). The fact that in this case CO2 is causing the pH change, AND is a reactant, complicates things a bit, but still the basic rules of chemical equilibrium apply.
Allchemistry says: June 5, 2014 at 11:16 pm
“The increase in H+ (a result of increase pCO2) is the primary cause of the increased solubility of CaCO3, NOT (as you seem to suggest) the increase in CO2 concentration by itself.”
No, the primary cause is the addition of a Lewis acid, in this case CO2. That is what is actually added. Acidity is fungible. The nett result is adding acid dissolves CaCO3.
As FE kindly mentioned, I have an active calculator here. You can play around with adding H+, CO2 etc and see how everything is connected.
What continually amuses me is how climate alarmists manage to find the most miniscule changes, in this case from pH 8.2 = 0.00000000630957 to pH 8.1 = 0.00000000794328, and turn it into a scary number (25%) when in fact the actual change, when measured by it’s effects in the real world, is negligible, insignificant.
Reminds me of them claiming atmospheric CO2 levels have changed 40%, from almost nothing to next to nothing, with a resulting small COOLING of global temperatures, if any actual change, when they predicted catastrophic warming.
Doesn’t exactly lead one to have much confidence in so-called climate ‘scientists’ (apologies to the actual honest, non-alarmists ones out there, who I do not include in the ‘so-called’ category).