Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to scientists who bubbled CO2 through a tank full of wild algae, we need to be concerned about the health of the world’s seas 80 years from now.
Acid oceans are shrinking plankton, fuelling faster climate change
August 27, 2019 5.59am AEST
Katherina Petrou Senior Lecturer in Phytoplankton Ecophysiology, University of Technology Sydney
Daniel Nielsen Casual Academic, University of Technology SydneyIncreasingly acidic oceans are putting algae at risk, threatening the foundation of the entire marine food web.
Our research into the effects of CO₂-induced changes to microscopic ocean algae – called phytoplankton – was published today in Nature Climate Change. It has uncovered a previously unrecognised threat from ocean acidification.
In our study we discovered increased seawater acidity reduced Antarctic phytoplanktons’ ability to build strong cell walls, making them smaller and less effective at storing carbon. At current rates of seawater acidification, we could see this effect before the end of the century.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/acid-oceans-are-shrinking-plankton-fuelling-faster-climate-change-121443
The abstract of the study;
Acidification diminishes diatom silica production in the Southern Ocean
Katherina Petrou, Kirralee G. Baker, Daniel A. Nielsen, Alyce M. Hancock, Kai G. Schulz & Andrew T. DavidsonDiatoms, large bloom-forming marine microorganisms, build frustules out of silicate, which ballasts the cells and aids their export to the deep ocean. This unique physiology forges an important link between the marine silicon and carbon cycles. However, the effect of ocean acidification on the silicification of diatoms is unclear. Here we show that diatom silicification strongly diminishes with increased acidity in a natural Antarctic community. Analyses of single cells from within the community reveal that the effect of reduced pH on silicification differs among taxa, with several species having significantly reduced silica incorporation at CO2 levels equivalent to those projected for 2100. These findings suggest that, before the end of this century, ocean acidification may influence the carbon and silicon cycle by both altering the composition of the diatom assemblages and reducing cell ballasting, which will probably alter vertical flux of these elements to the deep ocean.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0557-y
Essentially they exposed algae collected from seawater to different levels of CO2, and observed those exposed to higher levels of CO2 appeared less healthy and less dense. The scientists are concerned this means the captured CO2 would not be dragged as quickly to the ocean floor when the algae died.
Though they admit that in the real world, there are a lot of uncertainties;
…
The future of oceanic carbon sequestration remains ambiguous because of the uncertainties associated with potential changes to the biological carbon pump25. Current predictions of climate-driven changes to ocean productivity are incomplete because many of the effects of these environmental changes on phytoplankton groups, on the interactions among lower trophic levels and on the feedbacks to climate change are poorly understood. The effect of ocean acidification on species selection and silicification and the consequences for carbon export may be mediated by exposure to coincident environmental stresses imposed by changing climate53,54,55,56 or higher trophic interactions. Yet, this study establishes that silicification is sensitive to ocean acidification, with potentially crucial consequences for both trophodynamics and elemental cycling in Antarctic coastal waters and beyond.
…
Read more: Same link as above
In my opinion the headline claim that CO2 is putting algae at risk seems far fetched. The Algae in question exist in vast numbers, and multiply rapidly, which implies the ability to quickly adapt to changed conditions.
Diatoms appear in the fossil record for at least the last 185 million years, so the ancestors of current species have thrived during periods of far higher CO2 levels than today.
In a 18 April 2008 Science paper Rodriguez et al showed that CaCO3 based coccoliths thrived in an enriched CO2 environment.
Aargh!! This is a big world. They should try taking a look at it.
Like this:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/largest-seaweed-bloom-ever-detected-atlantic-ocean-2018
One of the explanations for this bloom was increased nutrients from the Amazon River flowing into the Atlantic. The pH of the Amazon at its mouth is about 6….
Does it really need to be said again? The Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years of the earth’s history, all with far greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, right up through the Cretaceous. I learned this in one minute of looking at Wikipedia for crying out loud! This pseudoscientific trope about ocean certification needs to be stopped dead in its tracks and removed from the narrative by any means necessary.
Oops, stupid voice to text – acidification, not certification obviously. 😁
Apparently they didn’t “bubble up” some Iron molecules, as well a the other trace minerals that phytoplankton rely upon in order to produce Chlorophyll and conduct photosynthesis.
The late Dr. John Martin did extensive research on what has essentially become the “extended Redfield ratio” showing that High Nutrient/Low Chlorophyll regions of the oceans are due primarily to an Iron deficiency (Chlorosis). His acolytes actually proved his theory by adding Iron Sulphate (and I believe Iron Silicate) to HNLC zones and resulted in large blooms of phytoplankton.
I can’t find any research on the issue of coral zooxanthellae algae, but I bet if the proper protocols were followed, we might find that iron deficiency has an impact on coral bleaching as well.
My personal “gut feeling” is that zooxanthellae get expelled from corals because they become a liability to the coral, because they are unable to produce the necessary energy the coral relies upon.
Given the proper nutrients, most forms of life are able to adapt to changing conditions, thickening their shells, reproducing.. etc, etc.
CO2 is plant food.. ;0)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Martin
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfield_ratio#Extended_Redfield_ratio
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html
Anything that causes stress to the corals can cause bleaching.
It is ell understood that this is an adaptive response by the coral, and they almost always reacquire new symbiodinium that are better adapted.
It has been known for many decades that about 10% of all corals in the world bleach in a given year, on average.
But like average rainfall or average temp, everything being exactly average may be the rarest thing to ever happen.
Coral bleaching is just another hair on fire fake emergency.
You know the Redfield Ratio ? 😉 This is a very important ratio of N and P to coral propagators and somewhat unknown to ‘academics’. However, Fe is toxic to corals.
No, but I once knew a guy name Red and he had a field behind his house.
I do not know how often he listened to the ratio though.
I think maybe he was an album guy.
It should be noted that the places highest in CO2 in the ocean is upwelling areas where water that has been down in the deep ocean for 1,000 years or more and has been depleted in oxygen and enriched in CO2 comes back to the surface.
When this nutrient-rich water comes up into the photic zone there is a great bloom of phytoplankton (algae, broadly speaking), which are the basis of nearly all food chains in the ocean. Those “acidic” waters are the biologically richest parts of the ocean, the best fishing waters and have most seabirds, whales and seals.
A map of ocean pH, the bluer, the more “acidified” the ocean is:
http://www.space-awareness.org/media/cache/fe/a5/fea5bfab425db0c74f386dd808d71195.jpg
And a map of chlorophyll concentration in the ocean, the bluer, the less life there is in the ocean
Notice something? What is blue in one map is yellow in the other and vice versa.
So, the more “acidic” the ocean is, the more algae there is in it.
And of course these “scientists” know that perfectly well. It is Oceanography 101.
And of course these “scientists” know that perfectly well.
Actually, I sincerely doubt that they do know this. It is the sworn duty of most universities these days to misinform their students. As Reagan said, “So much of what they know isn’t so”.
It is as if the real world does not exist for them. If their models or over-simplified lab exercises say it is ‘x’, it must be ‘x’, everywhere, under all circumstances. If the actual world shows ‘y’ to be the case, it is a travesty. The data must be rejected.
How has the science community degraded to this extent? Do any of them know how to do research anymore? Is researching other relevant research no longer required?
Oh, goody; another badly designed, mismanaged salt water aquarium research project.
No mention of how they;
A) Validated the aquarium was stable and healthy.
B) Controlled all possible variables, including Lighting, salt, O₂ and CO₂
C) Established an identical control portion of the experiment where separate aquariums are never identical.
D) Got CO₂ levels to reach equilibrium and exactly what those levels were and at what temperature and salinity.
E) Fed the algae and dealt with dead algae.
F) Listed nitrate and ammonia levels throughout the experiment.
G) Listed and controlled aquarium rocks, coral, bottom of the tank media (rocks, sand, CaCO₃ and the aragonite form of CaCO₃.
H) How did the researchers control for NaCl solution PH of 7.0? Compared to a PH of 8, adding NaCl to their aquarium reduces the alkalinity.
Experienced folks will testify that keeping a salt water aquarium clean and viable can be tough. Keeping several synchronized is very tough.
From the abstract: data availability
1361ppm CO₂? 3.4 times current atmospheric concentration?
650 liter (171 gallons) aquariums, in Antarctica, during a short summer? Were the tanks put right on the ice?
One suspects these researchers aren’t playing with a full set of marbles.
Greenhouse gas-driven climate change is being blamed for algal blooms…but it is supposed to do the opposite?
‘At current rates of seawater acidification, we could see this effect before the end of the century.’
GREAT! I had expected to die around 2050, when I will be a hundred years old.
Slightly off topic, but I just spent $1,500 to get the algae removed from the carburetor of my motorcycle. The algae flourishes in ethanol, which, of course, is in all gasoline on the market today. And all of this, not for the environment, or to get better mileage, but to mollify the corn farmers.
They probably didn’t add any macro and micro nutrients to the water. If you don’t add macro and micro nutrients, a lot of CO2 and light. the algae will starve from lack of N, K, Ca, Mg, P, S, Cl, Fe, Mn, B, Zn, Cu, Mo, and Ni elements. Now if they had provided more macro and micro nutrients in addition to the light and CO2 they would have gotten a lot more healthy looking algae.
Whoever peer reviewed the paper should all be defrocked.
It passed peer review because they stayed with the correct narrative.
As many here have noted,sea water measured in the open ocean is basic with a pH of about 8.2.
The oceans will never be acidic.
What these scientists are talking about is a fear of impacts from a reduction in alkalinity.
According to computer models, doubling of atmospheric CO2 would decrease ocean pH to about 7.9, still basic but less so.
I am indebted to Steve Goreham in his book for these lucid thoughts and also for a reference to Hoffman et al ( 2011).
“A December 2011 study by scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography found large variations in ocean pH by month, week and even time of day. Dr. Gretchen Hoffman led a team that measured pH at 15 locations in the Atlantic,Pacific and Antarctic Oceans.
They found that pH changes were large, from 0.1 to 1.4 units over a thirty day period. They also found that pH changed by as much as 0.35 units over a course of days!
The study concludes that ‘climatology-based forecasts consistently under estimate natural variability’ and that ocean residents ‘are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100’ by the climate models.”
The alarmists would have everyone believe that life is exquisitely fragile and exists on a knifes edge.
The truth is far from that.
How can I be so sure?
Lots of reasons and many specifics.
We have many examples, and here is one of them:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/11/the-kavachi-sharcano/
In a marine aquarium, algae thrives in a lower pH environment. Serious marine aquarists would laugh at these clowns.
When the clowns can demonstrate that they are able to firstly sustain healthy growth of marine macro algae for 6 months prior to their ‘experimentation’ then I’ll read beyond their alarmist clickbait.
Eric ==> What is wrong with this study is that they have not followed the very specific recommendations of either Cornwall and Hurd (https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/572/2458712) or even the earlier EPOCA “Guide to best practices for ocean acidification research”.
According to the methods section of the highlighted paper, only ONE mesocosm tank was used for each experimental condition (five variable and one control). There were no tank replications — in my opinion, invalidating the entire project.
Refer to Cornwall and Hurd (2015) with link above on acceptable tank designs. Without even a basic acceptable tank replication design the results mean (almost) nothing.