Twitter headlines« Ballard to Partner with Shanghai Powertrain to Develop Fuel-Cell Vehicles for China | Main | Missouri Governor Signs State Renewable Fuels Standard: 10% by 2008 »
Rising Levels of Carbon Dioxide Threat to Marine Organisms
5 July 2006
|
| The shelled pteropod—an important food source for fish—is a small planktonic marine snail that may be unable to sustain its populations as the oceans become less alkaline. (Photo: Victoria Fabry, California State University, San Marcos). |
A new report finds that worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels are dramatically altering ocean chemistry and threatening marine organisms—including corals—that secrete skeletal structures and support oceanic biodiversity.
The report—Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers—released today summarizes the known effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on these organisms, known as marine calcifiers, and recommends future research for determining the extent of the impacts.
The report follows a workshop funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and hosted by the US Geological Survey Integrated Science Center in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Oceans act as a sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide. During the 1980s and 1990s, only about half of the anthropogenic CO2 remained in the atmosphere, with the oceans having taken up about 30% and the terrestrial biosphere 20%.
Researchers have determined that with emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide continuing to rise, the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) dissolved in the surface ocean is likely to double its pre-industrial value within the next 50 years. Oceans are naturally alkaline, and they are expected to remain so, but the interaction with carbon dioxide is making them less alkaline and more acidic.
Increasing the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean lowers the pH, decreases the availability of carbonate (CO32-) ions, and lowers the saturation state of the major shell-forming carbonate minerals. Carbonate ions are building blocks for the calcium carbonate that many marine organisms use to grow their skeletons and create coral reef structures.
Tripling the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause a reduction in surface ocean pH that is almost three times greater than that experienced during transitions from glacial to interglacial periods. This is often termed “ocean acidification”because it describes the process of decreasing pH.
—“Impacts of Ocean Acidification”
Measurements of carbonate chemistry worldwide are showing shifts in the carbonate equilibrium consistent with increases in atmospheric CO2. Other studies have determined that the calcification rates of most calcifying organisms studied to date decrease in response to decreased carbonate ion concentration.
Although there have yet to be detailed studies on the effects of reduced calcification on individual organisms and on ecosystems, researchers are inferring that decreased calcification in marine organisms is likely to impact marine food webs and, combined with other climatic changes in temperature, salinity, and nutrients, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity of the ocean.
Many calcifying organisms—including marine plankton such as pteropods, a planktonic marine snail—are affected by the chemistry changes. Shelled pteropods are an important food source for salmon, mackerel, herring, and cod. If calcifying organisms such as pteropods are unable to sustain their populations, many other species may be affected.
It is clear that seawater chemistry will change in coming decades and centuries in ways that will dramatically alter marine life. But we are only beginning to understand the complex interactions between large-scale chemistry changes and marine ecology. It is vital to develop research strategies to better understand the long-term vulnerabilities of sensitive marine organisms to these changes.
—Joan Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and lead author
This is leading to the most dramatic changes in marine chemistry in at least the past 650,000 years.
—Richard Feely, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)
Several other major ecosystems that are supported by marine calcifiers may be particularly threatened by ocean acidification. These include cold-water reefs, which are extensive structures that provide habitat for many important fish species, particularly in the coastal waters of Alaska.
The report outlines future research to understand this consequence of climate change. While scientists cannot yet fully predict how much marine calcification rates will change in the future, the report warns that the more critical question is: “What does this mean in terms of organism fitness and the future of marine ecosystems?”
Resources:
July 5, 2006 in Climate Change, Emissions, Ocean acidification | Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: t | July 06, 2006 at 06:17 AM
Anne: Well, that is one less worry for you then, since the gulf stream contributes little to the (relatively) mild climate you enjoy in northern Europe.
I hope these scientists pass muster with the group: "The source of Europe's Mild Climate"
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963?fulltext=true&print=yes
Posted by: Nordic | July 06, 2006 at 09:25 AM
I'm really tired of all the climate change skeptics. This blog is called "Green Car Congress," not "Oil Apologist's Congress." If you really think climate change is bunk, why do you even care about green cars? Go hang out with the fossil fuel lobby.
Green technology not only means reducing CO2, but also increasing efficiency, thus making better use of scarce resources, achieving higher productivity, and many other benefits.
What's more, it's becoming clearer, as in this post, that simple warming is not the only effect we should be concerned with. The study about ocean acidification is only one of many effects which are sure to compound in their severity. The others are desertification, disruption of ocean currents, more and stronger hurricanes, and rising waters. The potential impacts on human civilization are simply enormous. Even the insurance industry is starting to pay attention.
What exactly is the intellectual point of questioning the 99% consensus on climate science? Is anyone here seriously arguing for continued and unmitigated burning of fossil fuels until they are all gone?? At what point do we acknowledge that policy needs to be changed, and begin to make the difficult transition. It could have happened 30 years ago, but oh, no. Better to keep sucking what might as well be called "black tar heroin" from the Middle East. Look where THAT got us.
Carbon mitigation, sequestration, and renewable technologies are justified WITHOUT even considering climate change. Oil and coal externalities are NOT being paid for by users. Government policy supports cheap fossil fuel use to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. (Health costs, depletion costs, military expenditures, etc. - this has been exceedingly well-documented). Now comes the science to say "This is about more than money. We are ruining our future." The climate change deniers just want to keep their gravy-train free-ride going. They are looking for unattainable certainty before taking any action. Well of course they are. Because it would cost them dearly.
As Gore said in his movie "There's a trillion barrels of easily recoverable oil still left to pump. At an average price of $100 per barrel, that's $100 trillion dollars." But what is the financial value of a functioning ecosystem? What would be the true cost of ignoring this problem?
Climate change deniers are greedy thieves who want to keep stealing from our collectively owned natural capital, raising CO2 levels with no taxes or economic disincentives, and running the earth into the ground. Greed and mendacity are the ONLY explanations there could be for taking such a preposterous and anti-human position.
It would be only fair if the Michael Crichtons of the world were the first to feel the effects of their denial. But there is no justice--those who will suffer most will be the poorest citizens. The suffering won't be felt as much by the pampered lobbyists and celebrity authors who are still trying to sell us their pathetic and absolutely unscientific snow job.
Enough is enough. Stop this nonsense. Let's call a spade a spade.
Posted by: BlackSun | July 06, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Forget about cars, we should be developing electric & hybrid BOATS.
Posted by: Dursun | July 06, 2006 at 04:34 PM
I'd like to see a worldwide anonomous pole of CLIMATOLOGISTS (appologies to the biologists but you guys are too close to the result and too far away from the cause to be objective) as to their level of support for the scientific theory that anthropogenic GHG emmisions are the primary cause of our current warming. With all the name calling and motive attributing going on it looks more like a religious argument than a scientific debate.
For the record I have not seen enough data (nor do I have the expertise to analyse it if I did, my science degree was not in climatology) to form an oppinion on the Theory. But I do subscribe to the theory of better safe than sorry and would like to see humans make a smaller foot print.
Posted by: Neil | July 06, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Neil,
although my opinion is that your survey would show clear support for human induced climate forcing you are missing an important point that cuts across all scientific disciplines. Opinions don't mean anything unless they are backed by data. It is the hypotheses with supporting data that get published. This is why the statistical analysis done by Oreskes published in Science is important. In this they demonsrate a clear consensus in the published literature. If you look up the following address at realclimate.org they discuss this in detail, I highly recommend it. This is also part of why I have such a firm opinion on all this even though I am a biologist. I respect the published work of fellow scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80
Posted by: marcus | July 06, 2006 at 06:45 PM
I'll correct my previous post to say that unpublished opions do mean somthing, just not nearly as much as opions backed up by data (posting this before someone lynches me!).
Posted by: marcus | July 06, 2006 at 06:53 PM
And here its going on and on: one says that he skeptical about TEORY and especially about its IMPLEMENTATION, others immediately saying that HE is villain on payroll of evil…
Posted by: Andrey | July 07, 2006 at 01:37 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d8349e952053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rising Levels of Carbon Dioxide Threat to Marine Organisms:
I would suggest that those interested in climate change, especially the skeptics, go over to realclimate.org and debate the experts there who are real climate scientists. I belive they will be fully capable of addressing any doubts people may have about the validity of climate change, including whether or not a significant part of this change is due to the release of co2 by human activities.
As far as the scientists often referenced here, one does not help one's case by referencing scientists who work for an industry front group funded by the likes of Exxon. Sorry, but Exxon has a clear financial interest in supporting the idea that man induced climate change is a hoax.