From the “non-news in the MSM because it doesn’t support the cause” department comes this inconvenient study from the NIOZ ROYAL NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR SEA RESEARCH.
Unexpected result: Ocean acidification can also promote shell formation
Proton pumping accompanies calcification in foraminifera

Fact: More carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air also acidifies the oceans. It seemed to be the logical conclusion that shellfish and corals will suffer, because chalk formation becomes more difficult in more acidic seawater. But now a group of Dutch and Japanese scientists discovered to their own surprise that some tiny unicellular shellfish make better shells in an acidic environment. This is a completely new insight.
Researchers from the NIOZ (Royal Dutch Institute for Sea Research) and JAMSTEC (Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) found in their experiments that so-called foraminifera might even make their shells better in more acidic water. These single-celled foraminifera shellfish occur in huge numbers in the oceans. The results of the study are published in the leading scientific journal Nature Communications.
Since 1750 the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30%. According to the prevailing theory and related experiments with calcareous algae and shellfish, limestone (calcium carbonate) dissolves more easily in acidic water. The formation of lime by shellfish and corals is more difficult because less carbonate is available under acidic conditions. The carbonate-ion relates directly to dissolved carbon dioxide via two chemical equilibrium reactions.
Self-regulating biochemical magic trick
The classical theory is based on purely chemical processes by which the rate at which lime is created is determined entirely by the acidity of the water. NIOZ researcher and shared first author Lennart de Nooijer: “In our experiments the foraminifera were regulating the acidity at the micro level. In the places where shell formation occurs, the acidity was substantially lower than in the surrounding seawater. Foraminifera expel large amounts of hydrogen ions through their cell wall. This leads to acidification of their immediate micro-environment causing the equilibrium between carbon dioxide and carbonate to change in favour of carbon dioxide. The organism take up the increased concentration of carbon dioxide quickly through its cell wall. On the inner side of the cell wall, a low acidity prevails due to the massive excretion of protons. Under these conditions the ingested carbon dioxide is again converted to carbonate, which reacts with calcium to form lime. Such an active biochemical regulation mechanism has never been found before.”
Can self-regulating single-celled organisms lead to a more rapid global warming?
The surface layer of the ocean is in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Therefore, more carbon dioxide in the air also leads to more dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean’s surface . “This finding may have important implications for the relationship between carbon dioxide levels in the air and the formation of calcareous structures by organisms,” says co-author Professor Gert-Jan Reichart. “If the classic hypothesis holds and more carbon dioxide leads to less lime production, the oceans can continue to take up CO2 from the atmosphere. But what if the majority of the organisms can regulate the chemical form of their inorganic carbon by biochemical processes like our foraminifers did, and continue to form lime structures in a more acidic ocean? Over time, the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans may start to increase. Consequently, the ability of the oceans to take up a large part of the carbon dioxide in the air may start to decrease. This would mean that more carbon dioxide would remain in the air, leading to a more rapid warming of our planet.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The intellectuals talk of simple answers to complicated problems;
unable to fight their chaos, to divide the complications into step for step for step.
The oceans are a net sink for CO2. Millions of years of layers of carbonate rock
in evidence in the Grand Canyon prove this.
CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere. The first illustration of the OCO2 satellite
readings proved this and was so disturbing to the administration that it was some
time before we received another reading.
CO2 reading where ice cores are drilled are less than readings closer to the
equator.
Ice core readings are at best an average of many hundreds or even thousands
of years, if gasses can be accurately preserved in snow at all. I do not think
they can.
Plant stomata should be an accurate reading of CO2 except for several
confounds.
CO2 is not well mixed, therefore stomata are only a local reading, although
a very accurate local reading.
Plants are very close to their major source of CO2, and are very supply
dependent.
Topsoil richness is very dependent, in general, on the amount of natural gas
up welling through it. The oxidation of these hydrocarbons by microbes,
supply the local and immediate CO2 to which plant stomata react.
A study of world soil maps show the variance of soil richness, and this
indicates, in general, the immediate supply of CO2 available and therefore
the variance of plant stomata.
I will add references to CO2 reading in ice below.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
just to clarify what I am saying
if there truly is a decrease in pH of the oceans – which I think has not been clearly proven –
then it could not have been the CO2 in the air that did it.
it is most probably caused by the acid that we put into the rivers that end up in the oceans?
But even if that is so, it ain’t that bad for life….Like I said: I found that the bugs thrive in water where the pH had dropped below 7.
Seems more CO2 and more acid is just like dung in the air and the seas, respectively.
During the ice ages, the great sheets of ice push most CO2 even further
from the ice core sites. This further devalues ice core CO2 readings.
A basket of readings of stomata from the tropics, I believe, will show much
higher and healthier readings from that period.
The amount of CO2 dissolved in ocean water is limited. The excess is always
deposited in carbonate or chalk layers. See Cliffs Of Dover.
One way to obtain an idea of ancient CO2 levels is to core drill the sea bed
in as many long undisturbed locations as possible.
The oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and then deposit the surplus
on the ocean floor. The same functions which prevent oceans from becoming
too “acid” make their deposits of carbonates a reliable but very blunt indicator
of past atmospheric CO2 readings.
In the pH range found in the vast majority of the world’s oceans, the chemically dominant form of dissolved carbon is the bicarbonate ion – HCO3-. This is the ONLY form that can be absorbed by marine life to be used for building coral, shells, etc.
Tadchem, CACO3 can precipitate from the oceans and lakes directly
without marine life’s intervention. My point is that the amount of disolved
carbon in these bodies of water is self limiting. Cliffs of Dover are mostly
CACO3.
http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml