Science study reports that coccolithophores’ abundance has increased by an order of magnitude since 1960s, significantly changing ocean garden

Ocean Ecology Laboratory, Ocean Biology Processing Group NASA Goddard Space Center
Coccolithophores–tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web–have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period. This finding was diametrically opposed to what scientists had expected since coccolithophores make their plates out of calcium carbonate, which is becoming more difficult as the ocean becomes more acidic and pH is reduced.
These findings were reported in the November 26th edition of Science and based on analysis of nearly a half century of data collected by the long-running Sir Alister Hardy Foundation (SAHFOS) Continuous Plankton Recorder sampling program.
“The results show both the power of long-term time-series of ocean observations for deciphering how marine microbial communities are responding to climate change and offer evidence that the ocean garden is changing,” said Dr. William Balch, senior research scientist at Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences and a co-author of the paper. “We never expected to see the relative abundance of coccolithophores to increase 10 times in the North Atlantic over barely half a century. If anything, we expected that these sensitive calcifying algae would have decreased in the face of increasing ocean acidification (associated with increasing carbon dioxide entering the ocean from the burning of fossil-fuels). Instead, we see how these carbon-limited organisms appear to be using the extra carbon from CO2 to increase their relative abundance by an order of magnitude.
“This provides one example on how marine communities across an entire ocean basin are responding to increasing carbon dioxide levels. Such real-life examples of the impact of increasing CO2 on marine food webs are important to point out as the world comes together in Paris next week at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change,” Balch added.
“Something strange is happening here, and it’s happening much more quickly than we thought it should,” said Anand Gnanadesikan, associate professor in the Morton K. Blaustein Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Johns Hopkins and one of the study’s five authors.
Gnanadesikan said the Science report certainly is good news for creatures that eat coccolithophores, but it’s not clear what those are. “What is worrisome,” he said, “is that our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function.” The result highlights the possibility of rapid ecosystem change, suggesting that prevalent models of how these systems respond to climate change may be too conservative, he said.
Coccolithophores are often referred to as “canaries in the coal mine.” Some of the key coccolithophore species can outcompete other classes of phytoplankton in warmer, more stratified and nutrient-poor waters (such as one might see in a warming ocean). Until this data proved otherwise, scientists thought that they would have more difficulties forming their calcite plates in a more acidic ocean. These results show that coccolithophores are able to use the higher concentration of carbon derived from CO2, combined with warmer temperatures, to increase their growth rate.
When the percentage of coccolithophores in the community goes up, the relative abundance of other groups will go down. The authors found that at local scales, the relative abundance of another important algal class, diatoms, had decreased over the 45 years of sampling.
The team’s analysis was of data taken from the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea since the mid-1960s compiled by the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey. The CPR survey was launched by British marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy in the early 1930s. Today it is carried on by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Sciences and is conducted by commercial ships trailing mechanical plankton-gathering gear through the water as they sail their regular routes. Dr. Willie Wilson, formerly a senior research scientist at Bigelow Laboratory, is now director of SAHFOS.
“In the geological record, coccolithophores have been typically more abundant during Earth’s warm interglacial and high CO2 periods. The results presented here are consistent with this and may portend, like the “canary in the coal mine,” where we are headed climatologically,” said Balch.
###
I remember, back in the 1970s, a bunch of Soviet scientists were conducting environmental studies by releasing radioactive tracers and tracking where they went. They starting publishing what seemed for all the world like legitimate tracer studies, except they released megacuries of radiation. For the longest time, western scientists assumed a mistranslation and microcuries was what had been intended, which would be reasonable for an environmental study. But the papers kept coming, and the authors kept using megacuries. Finally it was revealed that the scientists were attempting to tip off the west to the worst nuclear accident in history, and do it under the watchful eyes of the soviet censors.
So when I see a paper like this one, full of conflicting interpretations, I wonder how much of it is just to get it past the censors, get it published, and keep the funding. Perhaps the thing to do is just look at the data and see what value is there, and ignore the mandatory political interpretations.
God how accurate that could be. The message is clear – we believe in communism/cagw. Yet the actual results are rather not what they claim to be.
Exactly like the “vaccines are useful and (almost) safe and you need to keep vaccinating babies for sex-transmitted infections” on top of a study showing hep B vaccine causing MS.
The true believers will trust the conclusion not the data.
“ignore the mandatory political interpretations.” Precisely.
I remember a maths research paper written by a Soviet scientist in the 70s where the author had to put in the preface some drivel about “dialectical marxism” and “the struggle of the proletariat”. 🙂
So in addition to feeding plants and tress and helping to green the earth, now we are helping to feed the whales?
The science is unsettling. Perhaps, he said tongue in cheek, the scientists don’t understand the science all that well else they’d never say it was settled.
The first thing that I would assume is that they were possibly miscounted in the first place.
Mick November 28, 2015 at 1:03 am:
“The first thing that I would assume is that they were possibly miscounted in the first place.”
Exactly my first thought! When I read the article I was so astounded by all the conflicting rhetoric of doom, when I came to the part about the author’s being perplexed by the unexpected population growth I thought to myself “Self, I’d be double checking my source population data…”
I mean, what could go wrong with data taken in an obscure field 65 years ago? 🙂
“When the percentage of coccolithophores in the community goes up, the relative abundance of other groups will go down. The authors found that at local scales, the relative abundance of another important algal class, diatoms, had decreased over the 45 years of sampling.”
WR: what about the absolute amount of biomass in the 45 years of sampling? Increasing, decreasing?
You should not play their game. The ocean is not becoming ‘more acidic’. If anything, it is becoming ‘less alkaline’.
Playing “their” game by “their” rules and winning provides much more satisfaction than endlessly whining about the idiosyncrasies of the game.
You got that right.
More neutral is also an accurate statement.
More acidic is not at all true…as the term is defined in every single dictionary ever published.
Excuse me…the actual term being misused is acidification, which is and has always been defined as the process of being converted to an acid.
Since the ocean is not, and will not become, acidic, the term acidification is completely inappropriate.
the actual term being misused is acidification, which is and has always been defined as the process of being converted to an acid.
Not true, in chemistry it’s the process of adding an acid.
Thanks, Anthony.
It figures: More food (CO2) -> more plankton
WOWEE, and just how many gigatons of carbon (CO2) have those little fellows removed from the ocean waters each and every year for the last 45 years?
Me thinks that Ferdinand Engelbeen will have to re-guesstimte his estimation of the carbon (CO2) sink rate of the ocean waters …. and re-calculate all of his “fuzzy” math calculations for the outgassing of CO2 from the ocean waters to derive “new” quantity figures that are still supportive of his guesstimated quantity figures for human emitted CO2.
I wonder how many more there are of those “mini-black holes” for sequestering CO2 that no one knows about?
It would not hurt if you presented your estimation, for starters, pretty please.
This new data could of course mean that the coccolithophore sink is significantly larger than previously estimated, thus other sinks are smaller, or sources are larger or both. How this affects on the central statistics, like excess CO2 half-life, or airborne fraction? I assume this is a negative feedback, but how large?
Hugs,
I prefer not to offer you an estimation of the carbon (CO2) sink rate of the ocean waters until after I discuss the matter with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yours truly,
Eritas Fubar
Ferdinand’s calculations are based on what has actually happened in the past, so they already allow for the actions of plankton.
In other words, they are all eating carbon. They should be celebrated by the global warmists, ‘our saviors’!
since coccolithophores make their plates out of calcium carbonate….
Please tell me this was from some press release….or some dolt just made it up…and it did not come from a real marine scientist.
Nothing could be more wrong……..
Well their theory
‘[]ocean acidification, one of the major threats to marine ecosystems2 and particularly to calcifying organisms such as corals3, 4, foraminifera5, 6, 7 and coccolithophores[..]’
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/nature10295.html
Hugs…they make their plates out of bicarbonate, calcium, and oxygen…..not calcium carbonate
Interesting,
My quick thoughts on Coccolithophores increases and how they can effect SST’s.
When you cover more areas of Northern oceans in Summer with Coccolithophores they block warming light from reaching deeper into oceans.
A feedback effect? , with more C02 in atmosphere, ocean cooling will occur from less sunlight being absorbed and more sunlight reflected back into space from the milky white color of Coccolithophores.
Just a theory,
Any thoughts?
…Increased carbon dioxide enhances plankton growth, opposite of what was expected…
Surely only with the raw data?
Once that has been adjusted, I’m sure the right answer will be forthcoming. Or the grant renewal won’t be…
Here is the takeaway —
Originally they thought that due to higher levels of CO2 in the ocean coccolithophores would decrease in number — AND THAT WAS BAD!!!!
Now they find the due to higher levels of CO2 in the ocean coccolithophores have dramatically increased in number — AND THAT IS BAD!!!!
It just boggles the mind.
Eugene WR Gallun
In greenie minds all change is bad, so their minds are immune to this particular boggle.
I am pretty sure they start out boggled, and it is downhill from there.
Facts tend to just confuse them…to a warmista, facts are just like a roaring noise in their ears…and are ignored.
When you were a child, weren’t you scared of the Boggle Man? 🙂
Yeah, I used to play Big Boggle with my kids when they were young.
The fact that anyone could seriously consider that increased CO2 would not enhance biology that consumes CO2 illustrates just how out of touch with reality CAGW believers are, It was all part of a hypothesized smoke screen to make ocean acidification seem relevant when they started to see data that undermined their position (i.e. the pause).
A ten fold change in any population merits concern. Is it natural? If anthropogenic, what is the mechanism? What are the ramifications? I would definitely agree it needs more study, hopefully by scientists who go in without pre-conceived expectations.
In small species, tenfold or even thousandfold increases or decreases are not unusual. But a sustained, long term increase in a group of species certainly merits interest. That’s why I ask about the number of species of coccoliths involved, and their geographic spread. And yes, though I’m always impressed by F. Engelbeen’s posts, I’m still deeply suspicious of his mass balance numbers in relation to the biosphere so, yes, I like some knowledgeable person to trawl the estimates critically.
So it has only taken these “experts” 45 years to discover what their mentors told them?
“I do not know”, is the heart of science.
The Team IPCC ™ approach of certainty first, data later has only one result possible.
Profound ignorance.
Who would have suspected that more plant food would encourage more plant growth?
Such an illogical concept. In Climatology.
For persons this irksome, banishment is the only logical solution.
Tar, feathers and a new home on Coates Island Canada, where we can monitor their carbon phobic lifestyle by camera drone.
What was that beautiful line from the Late John Daley, where he calls the Team exactly what they have since turned out to be?
I was also wondering how it took 45 years to notice a 10-fold increase from a supposedly ‘Continuous Plankton Recorder survey.
Where were these people 5/10/20 years ago when their data would have been showing increases counter to their expectation of decreases?
Nothing to do with COP21, of course, just impartial ‘scientists’ doing their bit to advance knowledge (/sarc).
They were probably trying to hide the incline until someone realized they could spin it to be a development of grave concern.
Surely this should be filed under ‘The Science is Settled’…….??
As to be expected, not a word about this in The Guardian, but they are getting sooooo excited about the Paris bean feast and plugging protest marches that will feature big scientific names like Charlotte Church and Vivienne Weatwood.
They are however apoplectic over the UK Government’s announcement today that they are going to force fracking to start by taking over tha planning process. Also not too chuffed at the withdrawal of taxpayer support for Carbon Capture projects earlier this week.
I visit the site on days like this just to chuckle at the level of self righteous angst. Of course, access to the site is still free and the scale of posting reflects this rather than being a true reflection of National concern.
Sorry – Westwood
Don’t coccolithophores produce dimethyl sulfide (DMS)? DMS evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere and gets oxidized to sulfuric acid which condenses on particles that then act as cloud condensation nuclei. That has no effect of the amount of clouds, but more condensation nuclei results in the cloud water being spread out over more droplets with more surface area. And that means more reflection of sunlight. Negative feedback.
This is not a new idea; Bob Charlson put it forward a quarter century ago. But at the time, no one new if the coccolithophore population would go up or down, so no one knew the sign of the feedback. It seems that now we know.
Perhaps they increase when reduced global cloudiness allows more sunlight into the oceans so that co2 out gassing occurs and they can take it up more readily?
Paper: RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
“When applied to atmospheric CO2, this procedure shows that the correlation between the annual rate at which anthropogenic emissions are introduced into the atmosphere and the annual rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, though significant, does not survive into the detrended series and is therefore likely to be spurious or an artifact of the common direction of their long term drift in time to which no anthropogenic cause can be ascribed.”
Russ, I’d like to download the linked paper, but cannot because I decline to create an “account” on a website unknown to me. Is there another way to get the paper?
Bill,
I just double clicked on the “Download This Paper” button, and it took me here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2648461_code2220942.pdf?abstractid=2642639&mirid=1
Then a ‘Save or Open’ popup window was displayed.
I wasn’t asked to create an account.
Good luck,
Russ
Thanks, Russ.
Site apparently working again. I got it this time.
Renewable energy: – Clean.
The world is so dirty and mean.
Never mind the expense
and it doesn’t make sense.
CO2 is what makes the world green.
http://lenbilen.com/2015/08/03/co2-reductions-to-solve-climate-change-wrong-solution-for-the-world-a-limerick/
Coccolithophores (plants) are thriving with a slightly enriched C02 concentration. I need ‘science’ to tell me this? Increasing one of the three primary inputs to photosynthesis results in an increased output. Who knew?
The other element of the study I have a problem with is the 45 years of data part. We have no reliable way of determining global plankton density even now (a rough guess from satellite photos perhaps?) so how, exactly, were they determining this measure 45 years ago?
The 45 year-long survey is of the North Atlantic and North Sea, so probably mostly Emiliana huxleyi:
http://www.sahfos.ac.uk/
“We have nothing real here upon which to base our phony baloney opinions but, sh*t, everyone else gets away with it – why shouldn’t we?”
Will somebody get Willis out of bed and throw this piece of junk ‘study’ onto his breakfast table? I’m guessing twenty minutes of his time.
Not at all surprising to geologists, considering the life of the Mesozoic Era.
And, if true, this means what for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?