oysters and ocean acidity

[IanC]

More nonsense from an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. And you accept it over the expertise of real scientists. Here is an excerpt from a Royal Society report.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2005/9634.pdf

The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of the oceans). In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions.

Of course these are real scientist with decades of experiance in their fields, therefore not to be trusted. Ian, you are going off the deep end.

OR- do you honestly not see the deception involved with switching back and forth between pH and [H+]? and talking percentage relative to a tiny number?

neutral pH= 7 which is 100 H+ ions per trillion still not acidic

pH 8.2 which is 6 H+ ions per trillion slightly basic (ie. not acidic)

pH 8.1 which is 8 H+ ions per trillion slightly less basic

which sounds more 'impressive', with 'bigger numbers'?
you have to decrease the hydrogen ion concentration of neutral water by 94% to get pH8.2 or
you have to increase the hydrogen ion concentration of pH8.2 water by 1666% to reach neutrality?

people tie percentages to standard linear type conditions, not exponential ones (perhaps excepting compound interest which is typically low initial rise). not many people know what an H+ ion is, some people have a vague understanding that pH is a measurement of acidity, and most people know that acids are reactive liquids. when you mix up the terms in one sentence or paragraph most people only pick up 'acidic' and '30%' which misleads them to an erroneous conclusion because they have no idea what they are comparing the 30% to, and they have no idea that acidic is a direction rather than a property of the thing being described. "30% more acidic! on noes, we all gonna die"

of course misdirection is nothing new to CAGW, just look at the multitude of inappropriate choices that went into the Hockey Stick graph.

 

[IanC]

I actually tried to find the paper referenced BY THE BLOG cited in OP (don't let OopyDoo see you quoting from a blog!!!) but I couldn't.. But I remember reading an article about the collapse of the shellfish industry in Chesapeake Bay... The problem there was that in oyster/clam FARMING -- the shells are removed from the water WITH THE PRODUCT. THis is guaranteed to kill off the native populations over time which depend on a thick stock of carbonate shells in the water to breed on, build shell mass from the carbonate and counteract ACIDIFICATION..

Sure enough, I DID find the lead author of the OP study saying that EXACT THING about the West Coast problems that he has investigated..

OSU scientist: Coastal communities can fight ocean acidification

One such example, Waldbusser says, is in Puget Sound, where nutrient-loading from sewage treatment plants has created large plankton blooms that eventually die and contribute to greater acidification."

When these blooms die and sink to the bottom, they suck the oxygen out of the water," Waldbusser said. "Low oxygen is the flip side of high CO2. People in the Northwest are starting to become aware of hypoxia and its impacts, but there hasn't been the same awareness of ocean acidification on a local level."

Awareness of acidification may be growing. Waldbusser points to work at Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in Oregon's Netarts Bay, which monitors ocean water daily for acidification. The northwest oyster industry has been plagued by larval die-offs and ocean acidification may be to blame. The hatchery now takes water from the bay only at certain times of the day when acidification levels are lowest.

The OSU ecologist is also studying naturally occurring counter-balances to acidification, including the role of oyster and clam shells. Commercial oyster shells are typically removed from the water and native oyster populations have plummeted, so there are may be fewer shells in Oregon estuaries than ever before.

"Calcium carbonate shells help neutralize the effects of acidification," Waldbusser said. "In essence, they are akin to giving the estuary a dose of Tums. We're trying to determine how much of an impact shells may have and when conditions are corrosive enough to release the alkalinity from those shells back into the water."

Don't need to study it.. Just ask the folks in Maryland/Virginia who figured out this FARMING PROBLEM years ago.. Didn't stop NSF from giving him a grant to tell them what they wanted to hear about OA.. That it's all caused by SUVs..

what?!? you're not trying to say there are unaccounted for variables again, are you?

why do climate (and other) scientists ignore other factors so often in their rush to condemn CO2 as the evil culprit in any and everything?

 

[Old Rocks]

More research on acidification in the Arctic;

http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2365/2012/bg-9-2365-2012.pdf

 

[bobgnote]

Zombies: "Man-made global warming is a scam, has been shown to be so many times over. Thus I tend to believe the scientists who deny it over the scientists who belong to the religion."

Woody Harrelson and all kinds of farmers are now armed, with the head-shot cabbage, see Plants vs. Zombies, on many PCs.

Don't forget to link and paste something, for discussion, zombie-wingpunk fucktards. At least give us a wattsupwiththat.com or a heartland.org, WITH SOME ISSUES TO DISCUSS, stupid wingpunk assholes!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW Cultist caught with their fingers on the scale again.

It's a cult, it's not science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's why I started asking all those annoying questions about the acid that causing all this "damage"

It's fucking soda fizz carbonic acid, yet they never show how much carbonic acid is in the oceans.

Also, it's a physical impossibility that CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the measurable change in ocean chemistry.

Lie after lie after lie

Then I found this little nugget while researching this deadly acid...

"Theoretical calculations show that the presence of even a single molecule of water causes carbonic acid to revert to carbon dioxide and water."

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So this when this acid meets water it changes to CO2 and water.

 

[Old Rocks]

I actually tried to find the paper referenced BY THE BLOG cited in OP (don't let OopyDoo see you quoting from a blog!!!) but I couldn't.. But I remember reading an article about the collapse of the shellfish industry in Chesapeake Bay... The problem there was that in oyster/clam FARMING -- the shells are removed from the water WITH THE PRODUCT. THis is guaranteed to kill off the native populations over time which depend on a thick stock of carbonate shells in the water to breed on, build shell mass from the carbonate and counteract ACIDIFICATION..

Sure enough, I DID find the lead author of the OP study saying that EXACT THING about the West Coast problems that he has investigated..

OSU scientist: Coastal communities can fight ocean acidification

One such example, Waldbusser says, is in Puget Sound, where nutrient-loading from sewage treatment plants has created large plankton blooms that eventually die and contribute to greater acidification."

When these blooms die and sink to the bottom, they suck the oxygen out of the water," Waldbusser said. "Low oxygen is the flip side of high CO2. People in the Northwest are starting to become aware of hypoxia and its impacts, but there hasn't been the same awareness of ocean acidification on a local level."

Awareness of acidification may be growing. Waldbusser points to work at Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in Oregon's Netarts Bay, which monitors ocean water daily for acidification. The northwest oyster industry has been plagued by larval die-offs and ocean acidification may be to blame. The hatchery now takes water from the bay only at certain times of the day when acidification levels are lowest.

The OSU ecologist is also studying naturally occurring counter-balances to acidification, including the role of oyster and clam shells. Commercial oyster shells are typically removed from the water and native oyster populations have plummeted, so there are may be fewer shells in Oregon estuaries than ever before.

"Calcium carbonate shells help neutralize the effects of acidification," Waldbusser said. "In essence, they are akin to giving the estuary a dose of Tums. We're trying to determine how much of an impact shells may have and when conditions are corrosive enough to release the alkalinity from those shells back into the water."

Don't need to study it.. Just ask the folks in Maryland/Virginia who figured out this FARMING PROBLEM years ago.. Didn't stop NSF from giving him a grant to tell them what they wanted to hear about OA.. That it's all caused by SUVs..

what?!? you're not trying to say there are unaccounted for variables again, are you?

why do climate (and other) scientists ignore other factors so often in their rush to condemn CO2 as the evil culprit in any and everything?

Interesting. Ian, I assume you have read the original article and can point out that the scientist did not take into account other variables?

 

[bobgnote]

Now why in the world would I call somebody, "CrosstardPunk?"

Because that person is so fucking stupid, he drags the collective IQ of white people down, a couple of points, all by himself. That person makes anybody with darker skin look like a genius or a darned clever wizard. Crosstard has had CO2 and H2CO3 and CaCO3 explained to him, again and again, and he pretends he finally got to Wikipedia, to read something, and then he can't spell or construct sentences.

What an asshole. White people are getting tired of your shit, Crosstard. Can we give you away, to some negroes, from somewhere, who can use you, for anything, at all?

This shit is almost as bad, as your posts:

Barack Obama is a debit to his nation.

Obama telling his publisher that he was born in Kenya means one of only two things: he's a narcissist and pathological liar or he is ineligible to be POTUS.

“Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ******.” -- Dem Civil Rights "Hero" LBJ on Thurgood Marshall

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now why in the world would I call somebody, "CrosstardPunk?"

Because that person is so fucking stupid, he drags the collective IQ of white people down, a couple of points, all by himself. That person makes anybody with darker skin look like a genius or a darned clever wizard. Crosstard has had CO2 and H2CO3 and CaCO3 explained to him, again and again, and he pretends he finally got to Wikipedia, to read something, and then he can't spell or construct sentences.

What an asshole. White people are getting tired of your shit, Crosstard. Can we give you away, to some negroes, from somewhere, who can use you, for anything, at all?

This shit is almost as bad, as your posts:

Barack Obama is a debit to his nation.

Obama telling his publisher that he was born in Kenya means one of only two things: he's a narcissist and pathological liar or he is ineligible to be POTUS.

“Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ******.” -- Dem Civil Rights "Hero" LBJ on Thurgood Marshall

You're lying about the 30% increase in ocean acidity.

Busted.

Outed!

Done!

You have to lie about the "science" because you have no "science"

Your "science" fails common sense, that's why you keep repeating it, because neither you nor Old Rocks have a lick of it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I actually tried to find the paper referenced BY THE BLOG cited in OP (don't let OopyDoo see you quoting from a blog!!!) but I couldn't.. But I remember reading an article about the collapse of the shellfish industry in Chesapeake Bay... The problem there was that in oyster/clam FARMING -- the shells are removed from the water WITH THE PRODUCT. THis is guaranteed to kill off the native populations over time which depend on a thick stock of carbonate shells in the water to breed on, build shell mass from the carbonate and counteract ACIDIFICATION..

Sure enough, I DID find the lead author of the OP study saying that EXACT THING about the West Coast problems that he has investigated..



Don't need to study it.. Just ask the folks in Maryland/Virginia who figured out this FARMING PROBLEM years ago.. Didn't stop NSF from giving him a grant to tell them what they wanted to hear about OA.. That it's all caused by SUVs..

what?!? you're not trying to say there are unaccounted for variables again, are you?

why do climate (and other) scientists ignore other factors so often in their rush to condemn CO2 as the evil culprit in any and everything?

Interesting. Ian, I assume you have read the original article and can point out that the scientist did not take into account other variables?

The article is all speculative and uses the fraud IPCC as a base.

Speculation + Fraud = Ocean acidification

 

[flacaltenn]

I actually tried to find the paper referenced BY THE BLOG cited in OP (don't let OopyDoo see you quoting from a blog!!!) but I couldn't.. But I remember reading an article about the collapse of the shellfish industry in Chesapeake Bay... The problem there was that in oyster/clam FARMING -- the shells are removed from the water WITH THE PRODUCT. THis is guaranteed to kill off the native populations over time which depend on a thick stock of carbonate shells in the water to breed on, build shell mass from the carbonate and counteract ACIDIFICATION..

Sure enough, I DID find the lead author of the OP study saying that EXACT THING about the West Coast problems that he has investigated..



Don't need to study it.. Just ask the folks in Maryland/Virginia who figured out this FARMING PROBLEM years ago.. Didn't stop NSF from giving him a grant to tell them what they wanted to hear about OA.. That it's all caused by SUVs..

what?!? you're not trying to say there are unaccounted for variables again, are you?

why do climate (and other) scientists ignore other factors so often in their rush to condemn CO2 as the evil culprit in any and everything?

Interesting. Ian, I assume you have read the original article and can point out that the scientist did not take into account other variables?

Why didn't you post a link to the original paper?? I spent time looking for it on NSF site but came up with the lead authors alternative work showing all of the confounding issues that even he acknowledges are viable answers to the "farming" problem..

 

[konradv]

More nonsense from an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. And you accept it over the expertise of real scientists. Here is an excerpt from a Royal Society report.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2005/9634.pdf

The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of the oceans). In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions.

Of course these are real scientist with decades of experiance in their fields, therefore not to be trusted. Ian, you are going off the deep end.

OR- do you honestly not see the deception involved with switching back and forth between pH and [H+]? and talking percentage relative to a tiny number?

neutral pH= 7 which is 100 H+ ions per trillion still not acidic

pH 8.2 which is 6 H+ ions per trillion slightly basic (ie. not acidic)

pH 8.1 which is 8 H+ ions per trillion slightly less basic

which sounds more 'impressive', with 'bigger numbers'?
you have to decrease the hydrogen ion concentration of neutral water by 94% to get pH8.2 or
you have to increase the hydrogen ion concentration of pH8.2 water by 1666% to reach neutrality?

people tie percentages to standard linear type conditions, not exponential ones (perhaps excepting compound interest which is typically low initial rise). not many people know what an H+ ion is, some people have a vague understanding that pH is a measurement of acidity, and most people know that acids are reactive liquids. when you mix up the terms in one sentence or paragraph most people only pick up 'acidic' and '30%' which misleads them to an erroneous conclusion because they have no idea what they are comparing the 30% to, and they have no idea that acidic is a direction rather than a property of the thing being described. "30% more acidic! on noes, we all gonna die"

of course misdirection is nothing new to CAGW, just look at the multitude of inappropriate choices that went into the Hockey Stick graph.

I'm sorry, if someone doesn't know all that and aren't able to follow the reasoning, they should be reading up on the subject and definitely not posting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More nonsense from an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. And you accept it over the expertise of real scientists. Here is an excerpt from a Royal Society report.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2005/9634.pdf

The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of the oceans). In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions.

Of course these are real scientist with decades of experiance in their fields, therefore not to be trusted. Ian, you are going off the deep end.

Ahh, Big Cement is behind Ocean acidification.

Got it.

Let's stop using cement, right?

 

[bobgnote]

People also use CHAINSAWS, Crosstard. That cuts CO2 metabolizing, since the 1950s, as much as any cars or cement emit, and more. Like CARS, "c-saws" starts with a "C." Just sayin' . . . but I know you are the dumbest thing, since shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

More nonsense from an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. And you accept it over the expertise of real scientists. Here is an excerpt from a Royal Society report.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2005/9634.pdf

The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of the oceans). In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions.

Of course these are real scientist with decades of experiance in their fields, therefore not to be trusted. Ian, you are going off the deep end.

OR- do you honestly not see the deception involved with switching back and forth between pH and [H+]? and talking percentage relative to a tiny number?

neutral pH= 7 which is 100 H+ ions per trillion still not acidic

pH 8.2 which is 6 H+ ions per trillion slightly basic (ie. not acidic)

pH 8.1 which is 8 H+ ions per trillion slightly less basic

which sounds more 'impressive', with 'bigger numbers'?
you have to decrease the hydrogen ion concentration of neutral water by 94% to get pH8.2 or
you have to increase the hydrogen ion concentration of pH8.2 water by 1666% to reach neutrality?

people tie percentages to standard linear type conditions, not exponential ones (perhaps excepting compound interest which is typically low initial rise). not many people know what an H+ ion is, some people have a vague understanding that pH is a measurement of acidity, and most people know that acids are reactive liquids. when you mix up the terms in one sentence or paragraph most people only pick up 'acidic' and '30%' which misleads them to an erroneous conclusion because they have no idea what they are comparing the 30% to, and they have no idea that acidic is a direction rather than a property of the thing being described. "30% more acidic! on noes, we all gonna die"

of course misdirection is nothing new to CAGW, just look at the multitude of inappropriate choices that went into the Hockey Stick graph.

I'm sorry, if someone doesn't know all that and aren't able to follow the reasoning, they should be reading up on the subject and definitely not posting.

The 30% increase factoid IS referring to linear concentrations of H+ is it NOT??
Or do you want to elaborate?

 

[konradv]

OR- do you honestly not see the deception involved with switching back and forth between pH and [H+]? and talking percentage relative to a tiny number?

neutral pH= 7 which is 100 H+ ions per trillion still not acidic

pH 8.2 which is 6 H+ ions per trillion slightly basic (ie. not acidic)

pH 8.1 which is 8 H+ ions per trillion slightly less basic

which sounds more 'impressive', with 'bigger numbers'?
you have to decrease the hydrogen ion concentration of neutral water by 94% to get pH8.2 or
you have to increase the hydrogen ion concentration of pH8.2 water by 1666% to reach neutrality?

people tie percentages to standard linear type conditions, not exponential ones (perhaps excepting compound interest which is typically low initial rise). not many people know what an H+ ion is, some people have a vague understanding that pH is a measurement of acidity, and most people know that acids are reactive liquids. when you mix up the terms in one sentence or paragraph most people only pick up 'acidic' and '30%' which misleads them to an erroneous conclusion because they have no idea what they are comparing the 30% to, and they have no idea that acidic is a direction rather than a property of the thing being described. "30% more acidic! on noes, we all gonna die"

of course misdirection is nothing new to CAGW, just look at the multitude of inappropriate choices that went into the Hockey Stick graph.

I'm sorry, if someone doesn't know all that and aren't able to follow the reasoning, they should be reading up on the subject and definitely not posting.

The 30% increase factoid IS referring to linear concentrations of H+ is it NOT??
Or do you want to elaborate?

Elaborate on what? My statement seems straight forward to me. I was commenting on those on the board who post on the topic. Now we're told we need to worry that they'd be "fooled" by concepts that anyone venturing to discuss the subject should already know and understand!

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sorry, if someone doesn't know all that and aren't able to follow the reasoning, they should be reading up on the subject and definitely not posting.

The 30% increase factoid IS referring to linear concentrations of H+ is it NOT??
Or do you want to elaborate?

Elaborate on what? My statement seems straight forward to me. I was commenting on those on the board who post on the topic. Now we're told we need to worry that they'd be "fooled" by concepts that anyone venturing to discuss the subject should already know and understand!

Maybe I'm wrong here.. But it appeared you were slamming IanC for illuminating the fantasy of the "30% more acidic" claim.. If not -- I apologize.. But this IS serious when the even the GOVT science agencies are misrepresenting the magnitude of the effect.

Or does their "fooling with the concepts" not bother you? Apparently, MANY on this board have repeatedly hoisted that claim of 30% without understanding the basis for it..

 

[bobgnote]

More response, to the urgent problem, of OA:

Sigourney Weaver: Important Step Forward for World's Oceans

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

Ocean Acidification - Cause for Alarm and Action

"Acidification affects the carbonate equilibrium in seawater, thereby affecting all the organisms relying on carbonate to develop their skeletons. And this could have huge repercussions, especially when affected species are habitat builders, like tropical corals," says Warnau.

Nuclear applications are especially precise in determining the inclusion of Calcium-45 in the skeletons of organisms. This helps scientists determine the organisms' capacity to grow under ocean acidification conditions.

Sarah Cooley from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the United States says, "All these organisms (molluscs or shellfish and corals) are at the lower level of the food chain. And as they are affected, their predators will also be affected."

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

Global ocean acidification monitoring network to launch at Rio summit - The Washington Post

And the Rio summit didn't get any really loud push, for CO2-neutral biomass, which I heard about.

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

California news:

Rapid Progression of Ocean Acidification in the California Current System

Nearshore waters of the California Current System (California CS) already today have a low carbonate saturation state, making them particularly susceptible to ocean acidification.

Here, we use eddy-resolving model simulations to study the potential development of ocean acidification in this system up to 2050 under the SRES A2 and B1 scenarios. In both scenarios, the saturation state of aragonite Ωarag is projected to drop rapidly, with much of the nearshore regions developing summer-long undersaturation in the top 60 m within the next 30 years. By the year 2050, waters with Ωarag above 1.5 have largely disappeared and more than half of the waters are undersaturated year-round.

Habitats along the seafloor become exposed to year-round undersaturation within the next 20 to 30 years. This has potentially major implications for the rich and diverse ecosystem that characterizes the California CS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More response, to the urgent problem, of OA:

Sigourney Weaver: Important Step Forward for World's Oceans

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

Ocean Acidification - Cause for Alarm and Action

"Acidification affects the carbonate equilibrium in seawater, thereby affecting all the organisms relying on carbonate to develop their skeletons. And this could have huge repercussions, especially when affected species are habitat builders, like tropical corals," says Warnau.

Nuclear applications are especially precise in determining the inclusion of Calcium-45 in the skeletons of organisms. This helps scientists determine the organisms' capacity to grow under ocean acidification conditions.

Sarah Cooley from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the United States says, "All these organisms (molluscs or shellfish and corals) are at the lower level of the food chain. And as they are affected, their predators will also be affected."

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

Global ocean acidification monitoring network to launch at Rio summit - The Washington Post

And the Rio summit didn't get any really loud push, for CO2-neutral biomass, which I heard about.

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

California news:

Rapid Progression of Ocean Acidification in the California Current System

Nearshore waters of the California Current System (California CS) already today have a low carbonate saturation state, making them particularly susceptible to ocean acidification.

Here, we use eddy-resolving model simulations to study the potential development of ocean acidification in this system up to 2050 under the SRES A2 and B1 scenarios. In both scenarios, the saturation state of aragonite Ωarag is projected to drop rapidly, with much of the nearshore regions developing summer-long undersaturation in the top 60 m within the next 30 years. By the year 2050, waters with Ωarag above 1.5 have largely disappeared and more than half of the waters are undersaturated year-round.

Habitats along the seafloor become exposed to year-round undersaturation within the next 20 to 30 years. This has potentially major implications for the rich and diverse ecosystem that characterizes the California CS.

Sigourney Weaver

Lol

 

[waltky]

Global warming changing ocean acidity...

US scientist: Ocean acidity major threat to reefs
9 July`12 — Oceans' rising acid levels have emerged as one of the biggest threats to coral reefs, acting as the "osteoporosis of the sea" and threatening everything from food security to tourism to livelihoods, the head of a U.S. scientific agency said Monday.

The speed by which the oceans' acid levels has risen caught scientists off-guard, with the problem now considered to be climate change's "equally evil twin," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco told The Associated Press. "We've got sort of the perfect storm of stressors from multiple places really hammering reefs around the world," said Lubchenco, who was in Australia to speak at the International Coral Reef Symposium in the northeast city of Cairns, near the Great Barrier Reef. "It's a very serious situation." Oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, increasing sea acidity. Scientists are worried about how that increase will affect sea life, particularly reefs, as higher acid levels make it tough for coral skeletons to form. Lubchenco likened ocean acidification to osteoporosis — a bone-thinning disease — because researchers are concerned it will lead to the deterioration of reefs.

Scientists initially assumed that the carbon dioxide absorbed by the water would be sufficiently diluted as the oceans mixed shallow and deeper waters. But most of the carbon dioxide and the subsequent chemical changes are being concentrated in surface waters, Lubchenco said. "And those surface waters are changing much more rapidly than initial calculations have suggested," she said. "It's yet another reason to be very seriously concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now and the additional amount we continue to put out."

Higher acidity levels are especially problematic for creatures such as oysters, because acid slows the growth of their shells. Experiments have shown other animals, such as clown fish, also suffer. In a study that mimicked the level of acidity scientists expect by the end of the century, clown fish began swimming toward predators, instead of away from them, because their sense of smell had been dulled. "We're just beginning to uncover many of the ways in which the changing chemistry of oceans affects lots of behaviors," Lubchenco said. "So salmon not being able to find their natal streams because their sense of smell was impaired, that's a very real possibility." The potential impact of all of this is huge, Lubchenco said. Coral reefs attract critical tourism dollars and protect fragile coastlines from threats such as tsunamis. Seafood is the primary source of protein for many people around the world. Already, some oyster farmers have blamed higher acidity levels for a decrease in stocks.

Some attempts to address the problem are already under way. Instruments that measure changing acid levels in the water have been installed in some areas to warn oyster growers when to stop the flow of ocean water to their hatcheries. But that is only a short-term solution, Lubchenco said. The most critical element, she said, is reducing carbon emissions. "The carbon dioxide that we have put in the atmosphere will continue to be absorbed by oceans for decades," she said. "It is going to be a long time before we can stabilize and turn around the direction of change simply because it's a big atmosphere and it's a big ocean."

US scientist: Ocean acidity major threat to reefs - Yahoo! News