NOAA Headquarters
In first-of-its-kind research, NOAA scientists and academic partners used 100 years of microscopic shells to show that the coastal waters off California are acidifying twice as fast as the global ocean average — with the seafood supply in the crosshairs.
California coastal waters contain some of our nation’s more economically valuable fisheries, including salmon, crabs and shellfish. Yet, these fisheries are also some of the most vulnerable to the potential harmful effects of ocean acidification on marine life. That increase in acidity is caused by the ocean absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
100 years and 2,000 shells later
In the new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, scientists examined nearly 2,000 shells of microscopic animals called foraminifera by taking core samples from the seafloor off Santa Barbara and measuring how the shells of these animals have changed over a century.
Every day, the shells of dead foraminifera rain down on the ocean floor and are eventually covered by sediment. Layers of sediment containing shells form a vertical record of change. The scientists looked back through time, layer by layer, and measured changes in thickness of the shells.
“By measuring the thickness of the shells, we can provide a very accurate estimate of the ocean’s acidity level when the foraminifera were alive,” said lead author Emily Osborne, who used this novel technique to produce the longest record yet created of ocean acidification using directly measured marine species. She measured shells within cores that represented deposits dating back to 1895.
The fossil record also revealed an unexpected cyclical pattern: Though the waters increased their overall acidity over time, the shells revealed decade-long changes in the rise and fall of acidity. This pattern matched the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural warming and cooling cycle. Human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are driving ocean acidification, but this natural variation also plays an important role in alleviating or amplifying ocean acidification.
“During the cool phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, strengthened winds across the ocean drive carbon dioxide-rich waters upward toward the surface along the West Coast of the U.S.,” said Osborne, a scientist with NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program. “It’s like a double whammy, increasing ocean acidification in this region of the world.”
Scientists hope to build on the new research to learn more about how changes in ocean acidification may be affecting other aspects of the marine ecosystem.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“During the cool phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, strengthened winds across the ocean drive carbon dioxide-rich waters upward toward the surface along the West Coast of the U.S.,” said Osborne
If increased CO2 absorption in the atmosphere causes “acidification”, why are the deeper waters “CO2-rich”?
“why are the deeper waters “CO2-rich”?”
Higher pressure with in deep waters. Not sure what the propagation delay for out gassing is from the deep ocean to the top, but you you are likely to always have more CO₂ concentration the deeper you go.
So, my question could be if the pH is falling (less alkaline) with depth and does the vents on the bottom influence that?
As with the atmosphere, the hydrosphere is with so many factors involved, it seems to me like approaching stupidity to isolate everything to plant food (CO₂) dependency.
It is like a biology student I once knew. At the exam he was asked for the definition of a worm. His response was: “A worm is longer than it is round.” 🙂
Carl
It is more than just pressure. As the constant rain of dead organisms move from the surface to the bottom, the material is oxidized, to a large extent by bacteria. What is produced is CO2, which is dissolved in the cold, pressurized water. So, the environment allows the CO2 to stay where it is generated, instead of bubbling up to the surface. However, it is the decomposition of organic material that creates the CO2. Thus, the deep water invariably has a lower pH than the surface waters that upwelling replaces. Krauskopf has remarked that is it rare to find oceanic water that even achieves a pH of 7, and then usually in dead zones rich in hydrogen sulfide. However, that observation was made before the discovery of Black Smokers.
a) CO₂ solubility has an inverse relation to temperature. The colder the water, the greater the level of dissolved CO₂.
b) Once deeper than the level of significant sunlight penetration, chlorophyll is not functioning. Lots of consumers of O₂ that emit CO₂; virtually none that emit O₂.
Acidifying is a scaring sounding word, and that is the point of using not because of scientific validity . And that is all you really need to know about the claim.
Pretty good correlation to Pacific (multi-)Decadal Occilation which fits perfectly with Sunspot observations since 1980’s.
Not a perfect fit further back, probably based on bad PDO-data and bad shell-dating.
Oddgeir
Groan… Another proxy that they likely do not understand.
Their could be more than a single factor affecting shell thickness. Pollution, temperature, pH, the availability of other chemicals, the removal (locally) of salt, shorter life expectancy…any of these could effect shell thickness, and many of them probably do. Until you control for every other possible cause, it is ridiculous to assume that pH is the only or even most important factor – but because they already believe this they won’t go looking.
I think I’ll go increase the acidity of my Tums by swallowing one.
Robert
It is like a blacksmith taking a glowing, red-hot piece of steel out of the forge, and noticing that it is losing heat, remarks that it is becoming “more frigid.” Only someone who wants to obfuscate the truth would resort to such grammatical contortions.
I’m not very educated on this subject, but my rudimentary understanding is that colder water absorbs/holds more CO2 and therefore sea shells dissolve more readily in cold water. This is supported by observation of more sea shells and more sea shell based sands in warm seas than in colder ones. If this is true, wouldn’t movement to a more basic state be evidence of a cooling trend? Or is this more complex based on whether a body of water has reached its capacity to absorb CO2?
One of the problem with the careless, and politically-motivated, use of the term “ocean acidification,” is that it introduces ambiguity into discussions. As an example:
“His research over the last decade has focused on correlating flood basalts with the other major mass extinctions, and also with periods of oxygen-depletion and acidification in the oceans.”
[ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/earth-has-had-more-major-mass-extinctions-than-we-realized/ar-BBY7WOF ]
It isn’t clear from the above quote whether the oceans actually became acidic, or whether the pH just declined some unspecified amount, and the oceans remained alkaline. These are important distinctions because they speak to the magnitude of the changes, and the biogeochemical consequences of marine life being immersed in an acid! Those who are promoting climate alarmism are willfully trading off precision in language for hoped-for alarm among laymen. Thus, it ceases to be science and becomes political propaganda.
“Twice as fast as the rest of the world” is for me a sign of alarmism, unreputable or unreliable “science”, or of plain mystification.
As a consequence, when I come to this expression, my reading stops right there right then!
So the ocean water off Santa Barbara is not exactly like ocean water everywhere else? That is real science right there. The water and the paper could be full of Schiff…..
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]”“During the cool phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, strengthened winds across the ocean drive carbon dioxide-rich waters upward toward the surface along the West Coast of the U.S.,”
If the CO2-rich waters are driven UPWARD toward the surface, they must come from the deep ocean further away from the coast. Since the ocean depths are not in contact with the atmosphere, a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere would not affect the CO2 content of the deep ocean. So what is the source of the CO2 in the ocean depths?
Steve Z
See my remarks at 10:21 AM, or see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/
Just as water in a stream moving downwards from a temperature of 48 degrees to 44 degrees is becoming more frozen, so does an alkaline PH moving downwards yet remaining alkaline become more acidified. What a bunch of nonsense, and this is coming from people who call themselves scientists. More like scientologists.
Wait so the CA coast is going to turn into soda soon?
I’m off to send off a grant to the government to subsidize my new business, selling Ocean Soda! It’ll be a world wide hit!! Its just the opportunity I’ve been waiting for! Who’s in with me? We can write a grant proposing that by bottling Ocean Soda it will be taking the excess CO2 from the oceans and distributing it to a safer CO2 processing plant. The world might now smell too good, but dang, we’ll have processed all that dangerous CO2.
/sarc.