Global emissions hit record levels

[Old Rocks]

What is Ocean Acidification?

The Biological Impacts

Ocean acidification is expected to impact ocean species to varying degrees. Photosynthetic algae and seagrasses may benefit from higher CO2 conditions in the ocean, as they require CO2 to live just like plants on land. On the other hand, studies have shown that a more acidic environment has a dramatic effect on some calcifying species, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Many jobs and economies in the U.S. and around the world depend on the fish and shellfish in our oceans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pteropods

The pteropod, or “sea butterfly”, is a tiny sea creature about the size of a small pea. Pteropods are eaten by organisms ranging in size from tiny krill to whales and are a major food source for North Pacific juvenile salmon. The photos below show what happens to a pteropod’s shell when placed in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100. The shell slowly dissolves after 45 days. Photo credit: Used with permission, National Geographic Images.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Feely et al. 2010.pdf

Puget Sound is a large estuary complex in the U.S. Pacific Northwest that is home to a diverse and
economically important ecosystem threatened by anthropogenic impacts associated with climate
change, urbanization, and ocean acidification. While ocean acidification has been studied in oceanic
waters, little is known regarding its status in estuaries. Anthropogenically acidified coastal waters
upwelling along the western North American continental margin can enter Puget Sound through the
Strait of Juan de Fuca. In order to study the combined effects of ocean acidification and other natural and
anthropogenic processes on Puget Sound waters, we made the first inorganic carbon measurements in
this estuary on two survey cruises in February and August of 2008. Observed pH and aragonite saturation
state values in surface and subsurface waters were substantially lower in parts of Puget Sound than
would be expected from anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake alone. We estimate that ocean
acidification can account for 24e49% of the pH decrease in the deep waters of the Hood Canal sub-basin
of Puget Sound relative to estimated pre-industrial values. The remaining change in pH between when
seawater enters the sound and when it reaches this deep basin results from remineralization of organic
matter due to natural or anthropogenically stimulated respiration processes within Puget Sound. Over
time, however, the relative impact of ocean acidification could increase significantly, accounting for
49e82% of the pH decrease in subsurface waters for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. These changes may
have profound impacts on the Puget Sound ecosystem over the next several decades. These estimates
suggest that the role ocean acidification will play in estuaries may be different from the open ocean.

Ecosystems in estuaries have HUGE natural swings in PH from day to day, even hour to hour. It's where PH 7.0 water is meeting the ocean. I doubt that we know enough about adaptation to assume that a .2 change in PH over 100 years to have a discernible effect. I posted the results of bio surveys showing Min Max PH varying in (Elkhorn Slough which I've canoed on) estuaries by even twice that amount in a MONTH.

 

[Old Rocks]

PLoS ONE: High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison

Abstract Top

The effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is quasi-predictable at best. While perturbation studies, in the form of incubations under elevated pCO2, reveal sensitivities and responses of individual species, one missing link in the OA story results from a chronic lack of pH data specific to a given species' natural habitat. Here, we present a compilation of continuous, high-resolution time series of upper ocean pH, collected using autonomous sensors, over a variety of ecosystems ranging from polar to tropical, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef. These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100. Our data provide a first step toward crystallizing the biophysical link between environmental history of pH exposure and physiological resilience of marine organisms to fluctuations in seawater CO2. Knowledge of this spatial and temporal variation in seawater chemistry allows us to improve the design of OA experiments: we can test organisms with a priori expectations of their tolerance guardrails, based on their natural range of exposure. Such hypothesis-testing will provide a deeper understanding of the effects of OA. Both intuitively simple to understand and powerfully informative, these and similar comparative time series can help guide management efforts to identify areas of marine habitat that can serve as refugia to acidification as well as areas that are particularly vulnerable to future ocean change.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Feely et al. 2010.pdf

Puget Sound is a large estuary complex in the U.S. Pacific Northwest that is home to a diverse and
economically important ecosystem threatened by anthropogenic impacts associated with climate
change, urbanization, and ocean acidification. While ocean acidification has been studied in oceanic
waters, little is known regarding its status in estuaries. Anthropogenically acidified coastal waters
upwelling along the western North American continental margin can enter Puget Sound through the
Strait of Juan de Fuca. In order to study the combined effects of ocean acidification and other natural and
anthropogenic processes on Puget Sound waters, we made the first inorganic carbon measurements in
this estuary on two survey cruises in February and August of 2008. Observed pH and aragonite saturation
state values in surface and subsurface waters were substantially lower in parts of Puget Sound than
would be expected from anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake alone. We estimate that ocean
acidification can account for 24e49% of the pH decrease in the deep waters of the Hood Canal sub-basin
of Puget Sound relative to estimated pre-industrial values. The remaining change in pH between when
seawater enters the sound and when it reaches this deep basin results from remineralization of organic
matter due to natural or anthropogenically stimulated respiration processes within Puget Sound. Over
time, however, the relative impact of ocean acidification could increase significantly, accounting for
49e82% of the pH decrease in subsurface waters for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. These changes may
have profound impacts on the Puget Sound ecosystem over the next several decades. These estimates
suggest that the role ocean acidification will play in estuaries may be different from the open ocean.

Ecosystems in estuaries have HUGE natural swings in PH from day to day, even hour to hour. It's where PH 7.0 water is meeting the ocean. I doubt that we know enough about adaptation to assume that a .2 change in PH over 100 years to have a discernible effect. I posted the results of bio surveys showing Min Max PH varying in (Elkhorn Slough which I've canoed on) estuaries by even twice that amount in a MONTH.

Very good. We don't know what the adaptability parameters are, therefore we can just go on creating a more acidit environment. No worry as to it's effects.

 

[Saigon]

Ecosystems in estuaries have HUGE natural swings in PH from day to day, even hour to hour. It's where PH 7.0 water is meeting the ocean. I doubt that we know enough about adaptation to assume that a .2 change in PH over 100 years to have a discernible effect. I posted the results of bio surveys showing Min Max PH varying in (Elkhorn Slough which I've canoed on) estuaries by even twice that amount in a MONTH.

True.

We also know the local effects of changes in ocean pH in places like the Great Barrier Reef, where entire sections of the reef are bleaching and dissolving.

This may have an enormous effect on the entire food chain, given the importance of coral reefs.

Do you think we should be studying this issue, or simply ignore it and hope for the best?

 

[flacaltenn]

PLoS ONE: High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison

Abstract Top

The effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is quasi-predictable at best. While perturbation studies, in the form of incubations under elevated pCO2, reveal sensitivities and responses of individual species, one missing link in the OA story results from a chronic lack of pH data specific to a given species' natural habitat. Here, we present a compilation of continuous, high-resolution time series of upper ocean pH, collected using autonomous sensors, over a variety of ecosystems ranging from polar to tropical, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef. These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100. Our data provide a first step toward crystallizing the biophysical link between environmental history of pH exposure and physiological resilience of marine organisms to fluctuations in seawater CO2. Knowledge of this spatial and temporal variation in seawater chemistry allows us to improve the design of OA experiments: we can test organisms with a priori expectations of their tolerance guardrails, based on their natural range of exposure. Such hypothesis-testing will provide a deeper understanding of the effects of OA. Both intuitively simple to understand and powerfully informative, these and similar comparative time series can help guide management efforts to identify areas of marine habitat that can serve as refugia to acidification as well as areas that are particularly vulnerable to future ocean change.

Now THERE YOU GO -- Mr MillionLinks I haven't read.. That's EXACTLY the science that needs to be done here. Congrats. First time I can recognize that you are actually following the conversation...

 

[flacaltenn]

Ecosystems in estuaries have HUGE natural swings in PH from day to day, even hour to hour. It's where PH 7.0 water is meeting the ocean. I doubt that we know enough about adaptation to assume that a .2 change in PH over 100 years to have a discernible effect. I posted the results of bio surveys showing Min Max PH varying in (Elkhorn Slough which I've canoed on) estuaries by even twice that amount in a MONTH.

True.

We also know the local effects of changes in ocean pH in places like the Great Barrier Reef, where entire sections of the reef are bleaching and dissolving.

This may have an enormous effect on the entire food chain, given the importance of coral reefs.

Do you think we should be studying this issue, or simply ignore it and hope for the best?

It's BEING studied.. I just don't want to link all that to man-made CO2 at the moment. Because it's a funny thing about science. You can't FIX stuff generally if you don't know the cause. A doctor can give you a symptomatic relief, but never cure you if he doesn't make a proper diagnosis first.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet the 'Conservatives' are actively fighting any attempt to investigate the issues involved in the amount of GHGs we are releasing into the atmosphere.

 

[Saigon]

It's BEING studied.. I just don't want to link all that to man-made CO2 at the moment. Because it's a funny thing about science. You can't FIX stuff generally if you don't know the cause. A doctor can give you a symptomatic relief, but never cure you if he doesn't make a proper diagnosis first.

So what DO you think it is linked too?

 

[flacaltenn]

It's BEING studied.. I just don't want to link all that to man-made CO2 at the moment. Because it's a funny thing about science. You can't FIX stuff generally if you don't know the cause. A doctor can give you a symptomatic relief, but never cure you if he doesn't make a proper diagnosis first.

So what DO you think it is linked too?

I'm not a marine biologist but I KNOW that there are MANY theories.

Coral Reef Bleaching

Coral reef bleaching is caused by various anthropogenic and natural variations in the reef environment including sea temperature, solar irradiance, sedimentation, xenobiotics, subaerial exposure, inorganic nutrients, freshwater dilution, and epizootics. Coral bleaching events have been increasing in both frequency and extent worldwide in the past 20 years. Global climate change may play a role in the increase in coral bleaching events, and could cause the destruction of major reef tracts and the extinction of many coral species.

There are NINE possible causes from the mouth of a REAL marine biologist. For all I know, the cause may be fresh water and fertilizer runoff from all the hotels that have to built to house all the marine biologists studying these reefs..

What I do know -- is that the MEASURED ocean acid increase is MINISCULE compared to what the ecosystem is NATURALLY exposed to. So a logical person would not expect to see ANY SIGNIFICANT damage from a 0.1 change in PH right now. So much for Ocean Acidification being a coral reef problem TODAY eh?

Temperature?

Bleaching events occur during sudden temperature drops accompanying intense upwelling episodes, (-3 degrees C to –5 degrees C for 5-10 days), seasonal cold-air outbreaks.

AS WELL AS higher temperatures...

Actually the article posits a pretty narrow temp range. And considering that the earth has warmed more than that since the Ice Age -- maybe corals are doomed if they don't adapt. Darwin and all that.. We'd just have to accept that wouldn't we?

 

[Saigon]

There are NINE possible causes from the mouth of a REAL marine biologist. For all I know, the cause may be fresh water and fertilizer runoff from all the hotels that have to built to house all the marine biologists studying these reefs..

There are several possible causes - though some you mention here can be factored out by the scale of the problem.

Major causes:

increased (most commonly), or reduced water temperatures
increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light)
changes in water chemistry (in particular acidification)
increased sedimentation (due to silt runoff)
bacterial infections
changes in salinity
herbicides
low tide and exposure
cyanide fishing
elevated sea levels due to global warming (Watson)


"Thomas Goreau, president of the Global Coral Reef Alliance in Chappaqua, New York, says he has received reports in recent days of bleached, dead coral across much of the South Pacific, including Tahiti, the Cook Islands, New Caledonia and Fiji."

So it probably isn't run off of fertilizers.

"The bleaching follows record sea temperatures since the beginning of the year. "Almost all the Great Barrier Reef was 2°C or more above normal for more than two months from early January to mid-March," says Goreau. "This was hotter and longer than the bleaching that wiped out the Maldives, Seychelles and western Australian reefs in 1998.""

Massive coral bleaching strikes Great Barrier Reef - 12 April 2002 - New Scientist

 

[bobgnote]

It's BEING studied.. I just don't want to link all that to man-made CO2 at the moment. Because it's a funny thing about science. You can't FIX stuff generally if you don't know the cause. A doctor can give you a symptomatic relief, but never cure you if he doesn't make a proper diagnosis first.

You can't link to any study, of cumulative human deforestation and defoliation, since nobody kept those records, sufficient to posting this, on the internet. No relevant cumulative data loads and doesn't do the swirly, on a browser, Fatass!

You just have to move your FAT, GIGATONNE-emitting ASS, and imagine the devastation, since humans first started lumberjacking around, and then figure out emissions damage, since the major human-caused environmental damage was done, by REMOVING CO2-metabolizers, over a lot of time, which does far more damage, than recent emissions.

 

[flacaltenn]

There are NINE possible causes from the mouth of a REAL marine biologist. For all I know, the cause may be fresh water and fertilizer runoff from all the hotels that have to built to house all the marine biologists studying these reefs..

There are several possible causes - though some you mention here can be factored out by the scale of the problem.

Major causes:

increased (most commonly), or reduced water temperatures
increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light)
changes in water chemistry (in particular acidification)
increased sedimentation (due to silt runoff)
bacterial infections
changes in salinity
herbicides
low tide and exposure
cyanide fishing
elevated sea levels due to global warming (Watson)


"Thomas Goreau, president of the Global Coral Reef Alliance in Chappaqua, New York, says he has received reports in recent days of bleached, dead coral across much of the South Pacific, including Tahiti, the Cook Islands, New Caledonia and Fiji."

So it probably isn't run off of fertilizers.

"The bleaching follows record sea temperatures since the beginning of the year. "Almost all the Great Barrier Reef was 2°C or more above normal for more than two months from early January to mid-March," says Goreau. "This was hotter and longer than the bleaching that wiped out the Maldives, Seychelles and western Australian reefs in 1998.""

Massive coral bleaching strikes Great Barrier Reef - 12 April 2002 - New Scientist

\

See Saigon -- that's where you run right off the science rails. Tahiti and Fiji are HIGHLY populated and it doesn't take many beach resorts with their fancy landscaping to cause SIGNIFICANT fertilizer or other contaminant run-off. Especially if their sewage and drainage is not excellent.

And like I said.. If the optimum temp for coral is +/- a couple degrees and the species cannot adapt -- it may just be time for it to bow out. We're coming out of an ICE AGE, have they ADAPTED to that?

We can't stop predation and evolutionary pressures on each species. We are not godly zookeepers in this life. We need to concentrate on proper stewardship and fix the problems that MAN actually causes...

 

[Saigon]

. Tahiti and Fiji are HIGHLY populated and it doesn't take many beach resorts with their fancy landscaping to cause SIGNIFICANT fertilizer or other contaminant run-off. Especially if their sewage and drainage is not excellent.

.

Um....no...they are NOT highly populated at all.

I agree that run off could be an issue even on a lightly populated atoll if there is a lot of tourism or intense agriculture, but in this case that explanation doesn't hold up - the damage is spread right across the South Pacific ocean.

Measure the distance from Tahiti to the GBR and we are talking, what, 4 hours air travel.

That is not run off.

 

[flacaltenn]

. Tahiti and Fiji are HIGHLY populated and it doesn't take many beach resorts with their fancy landscaping to cause SIGNIFICANT fertilizer or other contaminant run-off. Especially if their sewage and drainage is not excellent.

.

Um....no...they are NOT highly populated at all.

I agree that run off could be an issue even on a lightly populated atoll if there is a lot of tourism or intense agriculture, but in this case that explanation doesn't hold up - the damage is spread right across the South Pacific ocean.

Measure the distance from Tahiti to the GBR and we are talking, what, 4 hours air travel.

That is not run off.

Your joking about "not highly populated".. Maybe not the density of Saigon -- but for a tropical paradise --- Tahiti with 200,000 residents and another 200,000 tourists a year is enough to do environmental damage if they are not careful..

And the GBR is not in proximity to run-off? Or marine traffic? C'mon man.. THINK. These are not wilderness areas.

 

[Saigon]

I really don't consider 200,000 people to be densely populated.

Hong Kong is densely populated. Cities like Sydney, LA, New York or Rotterdam are densely populated, and produce significant amounts of urban pollution - Papae'ete and Suva do not.

I think you realise yourself that agricultural run off does not cause bleaching of coral across tens of thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean.

Why would that all occur in one year and at much the same time?

 

[bobgnote]

I really don't consider 200,000 people to be densely populated.

Hong Kong is densely populated. Cities like Sydney, LA, New York or Rotterdam are densely populated, and produce significant amounts of urban pollution - Papae'ete and Suva do not.

I think you realise yourself that agricultural run off does not cause bleaching of coral across tens of thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean.

Why would that all occur in one year and at much the same time?

Again, you are right on, S. O.R. found a great moving graphic, from somewhere, which he posted at one of these threads, so go over his posts. This shows year-to-year aragonite CaCO3 concentrations, all over the globe.

Acidification can thereby be seen, to proceed, from colder, more acidic waters, originating at both poles, toward the major reef-areas, of the Earth. You can also check my thread, on how acidification is problem #1, if you can stand sorting all my posts, where I cuss the different wingpunks, at USMB. Oddball, for instance does stuff, which encourages the many wingpunk zombies, so they ALL try to jack threads or deflect science.

Fatass is just the latest wingpunk to try to take all of us off, with wingpunk non-science. He claims a science background, he seldom loads links or graphs, and he can't read a graph. Good luck.

 

[Saigon]

Here's a nicw graphic of those CaC03 concentrations....and check out the GBR - first blue, then green, then yellow - that is why it is bleaching.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/225333-global-emissions-hit-record-levels-8.html