Some possible good news regarding ocean acidification and its effect on oceanic calcifying organisms. I'm leary about expressing any joy in this because of the complexity of the issue but it is nice to hear that some species may actually benefit from increased CO2 levels. Unfortunately I have a feeling that the role these organisms play in climate change/stabilization may be small compared to that of the planktonic calcifying organisms that are negatively affected by increased CO2 levels. In Carbon Dioxide-Rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production In carbon dioxide-rich environment, some ocean dwellers increase shell production * I don't have access to the school's resources right now so I'm working on getting ahold of the original paper.
Interesting. Crabs, shrimp, and lobsters have chitin-based shells, so the finding for them was not that surprising (to me anyway). (Chitin is a carbon-based polymer nearly identical to cellulose.) I think the concern is mainly around creatures with calcium carbonate shells, and it was a surprise that some of them did better. Very interesting. The coral finding is particularly odd. I though there was a pretty good body of experimental studies showing decreased coral growth with more acid water. Yeah, sure, there have been controlled experiments showing exactly that, as 60 seconds on Google reveals, here, at the USGS: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1847 Here's an overview cited by NOAA, again with the conclusion of reduced coral growth, though the basis is a doubling of atmospheric C02: http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/oa/description/oaps_intro_oa_and_reef.html I think I'll take this with a grain of salt until confirmed. The finding of no impact on coral below 1000 PPM atmospheric C02 seems to run contrary to just about every other study that pops up on Google.
That is what I was thinking. I want to find the paper to see what other organisms were included in the tests.
Interesting. Didn't read the whole thing, but I assume that they held temperature constant? I believe that rising ocean temperatures also lead to the decline of coral, too, right? Will rising ocean temperatures be offset by increased CO2?
The OP article mentioned calcifying red and green algae, limpets, and temperate urchins doing better, no affect on mussels, and soft clams and oysters doing worst. Not as specific as what the paper says, but the study looked at calcium shelled critters. The algae doing well isn't shocking. Carbon dioxide is an important nutrient for them, and may even be a limiting one. Planted, freshwater aquariums benefit from CO2 fertilization. Available calcium might be less, but there may have been a surplus to the algae's perspective to begin with, or it now as the energy to make use of previously unavailable calcium. Many corals and some clams have symbiotic relationship with a algae, so they will likely benefit along with their algae. Here is the abstract to the USGS study: Decreased abundance of crustose coralline algae due to ocean acidification : Abstract : Nature Geoscience It states they simulated conditions increased CO2 levels, but not exactly how. Perhaps the method used didn't provide elevated CO2 levels to the algae.
Yes, in a dramatic way. First you see bleaching, then eventually death of the coral. You also tend to see stronger hurricanes with higher sea surface temps, so that is another negative impact on coral colonies.
I have this pdf and a related one from the same issue by Zhuravlev and Wood. PM me to discuss your access options edit: the hurricane vs. SST topic has been quite controversial, and perhaps have to say that it could still be +/0/-? There are a couple of interesting studies that landfalling hurricanes greatly increase the transfer of terrestrial nutrients and alkalinity to coastal waters, and perhaps increase uptake of atmospheric CO2? A interesting Gaia-like effect if one cares to view the world in those terms.
Hurricane intensity vs. SST is not that controversial as the heat engine is well enough defined. The vapor pressure of water at temperature (and therefore the driving force available) is well known. What is controversial is attributing SST solely to AGW, or attributing an individual hurricane event to AGW. The error there is like saying a person developed a specific cancer because they smoked or chewed tobacco. The sample size is small enough and the lack of precise historical records will make "statistical analysis" dubious unless we start having 200 mph sustained winds...a couple of those and the discussion would be over very shortly. With high SST's the storms have been much quicker at ginning up than before--faster in fact than what was believed possible at the time. The difference could be seen in SST contours following the storms, there was not as much cooling as anticipated. 2005 was a nightmare. I did the I-10 drive several times after the slew of Cat 5's and there was over 500 miles of hurricane damage.
I aev the paper you linked. I used it for a paper I wrote for a biology class a few years ago. I agree that the enriched CO2 may benefit algae based on observations in my own freshwater plant and coral reef tanks I've had over the years. I doubt it would help with respect to zooxanthellae in corals and clams though because of the SST increase (rapid warming of of water surrounding corals causes well documented bleaching events, I've experienced this in my own tanks with a rise of only 2deg F.) and the likelyhood that the increased acidity of surrounding water (I used to regularly dose my tanks with calcium carbonate and alkalinity solutions) would inhibit calcium carbonate test and shell formation. I did not, however do any scientific tests with my tanks so these were just obersvations and not worth much. As SST increase so does the release of CO2 (and water vapor) into the atmosphere which then acts as a positive feedback. There are negative feebacks to counter some of this but I need to study more before I try to delve into that discussion on the future of the oceans. lol PM sent tochatihu.
I hadn't thought about this consequence previously. As a chemist myself, I know very well that CO2 dissolved into water equilibrates to H2CO3, carbonic acid. Last night, Al Gore was on David Letterman and he mentioned this. I was in complete amazement. It makes PERFECT sense; I had just never thought about it. By the way, Al was on Letterman to inform the public of his new book, which details the facts and consequences of climate change.
Which are of course an important foodsource for sea urchins. I've seen some reef areas undergo phases of high algae growth followed by a sea urchin population growth explosion followed by a decline. It was interesting as urchin species I had never seen in the area appeared en masse, then nearly disappeared again.
I assume he meant photosynthesizing calcifying organisms like phytoplankton or coccolithophores and foraminifera in particular. The macro algaae of the world would not be considered a true carbon sink due to their short life span and role in nutrient cycling. To truly store carbon one would need to lock it away in a fashion that takes it out of the carbon cycle for a great length of time. Some phytoplankton do this when they die and sink to the ocean floor and, under great pressure become, sedimentary rock. Here is another paper on a different species of coccolithophore and its reaction to high CO2 levels. Phytoplankton Calcification in a High CO2 World (it is a Science article so a subscription is required) Abstract: Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate. are significantly increased by high CO
Interesting study F8L. Like you (or someone) said, it would seem to run counter to other studies so it will be interesting to see if it can be validated. As for hurricanes Shawn - this does remain controversial as tochatihu mentioned. Hurricane expert Chris Landsea (of NOAA) explains here and resigns from the IPCC over their misrepresentation of this issue here.
Green Car Congress: Synthesis Study Finds Ocean Acidification from CO2 Emissions Could Increase by 150% by 2050; Substantial Irreversible Damage to Ocean Ecosystems So it seems that even if you don't think that CO2 will noticably affect climate, it's certain that no action will significantly affect the oceans.
Supposing that this is the most appropriate thread to post a notice: The December 2009 issue of Oceanography is focused on ocean biogeochemistry under increasing atmospheric CO2 (link): Oceanography: Current Issue all the articles download freely to my internet connection, but if they do not to yours, PM me and I can get pdfs for you.
Did anyone else see the new paper bit today re: ocean acidification? doesn't sound very good! McClathchy/Les Blumenthal
Refers to this NAS report Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean The science summarized in it appears mostly to be from publications mentioned here previously. Recommends to study the matter in greater detail. Indeed the worst case scenario for 2100 is quite bad. But WC scenarios usually are eh?
