Monday, 21 April 2008

Coral reefs doing OK in spite of global warming

One of the problems with all of the predictions of dire consequences of the effects of global warming is that researchers really have very little data to work with in the grand scheme of things.

For years now we've been told that global warming will cause an increase in ocean acidity (in fact, it's more a decrease in alkalinity, as the ocean's pH is still on the alkaline side of the scale) and that this will destroy the world's coral reefs. As custodians of the Great Barrier Reef that sent alarm bells ringing here in Australia.

Now comes a report that things are not as dire as supposed. Imagine that!
Contrary to expectations, a microscopic plant that lives in oceans around the world may thrive in the changing ocean conditions of the coming decades, a team of scientists reported Thursday.

The main threat to many marine organisms is not global warming but ocean acidification, as carbon dioxide from the air dissolves into the water and turns into carbonic acid. Acid dissolves calcium carbonate in the skeletons of corals, for example; many scientists fear that acidification of the oceans will kill many, if not most, coral reefs by the end of the century.

Similar concerns have been raised about coccolithophores, single-cell, carbonate-encased algae that are a major link in the ocean food chain. Earlier experiments with a species of coccolithophore, Emiliania huxleyi, had found that lower pH levels (more acidic) hindered the algae’s ability to build the disks of carbonate that form its shell.

In Friday’s issue of the journal Science, however, scientists led by M. Debora Iglesias-Rodríguez of the National Oceanography Center at the University of Southampton in England and Paul Halloran, a graduate student at the University of Oxford, report that they found the exact opposite. The algae grew bigger in the more acidic water.

Dr. Iglesias-Rodríguez said the conflicting findings probably arose from differences between how the experiments were conducted. In the earlier work, the researchers lowered the pH by directly adding acid to the water.

In the work reported in Science, the scientists added the acid indirectly by bubbling carbon dioxide into the water, which more closely mimicked the chemical reactions that are occurring in the oceans. As a consequence, in addition to the lowered pH, levels of carbon dioxide in the water also rose — speeding up the algae’s photosynthesis machinery — as did the levels of bicarbonate ions, the building material for the carbonate disks.

“It’s a really complex problem,” Dr. Iglesias-Rodríguez said. “You cannot look at calcification in isolation. You have to look at photosynthesis as well.”

The pH scale, which measures the concentration of hydrogen ions, runs from zero, the most acidic, with the highest concentration of ions, to 14, the most alkaline, with almost no ions. Ocean water today is somewhat alkaline, at 8.1, down from 8.2 at the start of the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago.

The laboratory findings agree with what has been observed in the oceans. Over the past 220 years, the average mass of a coccolithophore increased 40 percent as ocean pH levels dropped.

The hopeful news for coccolithophores, however, does not overturn the gloomy predictions for corals or negate ocean acidification as an impending ecological disruption, Dr. Iglesias-Rodríguez said. Rather, she said, it points to how little data biologists currently have.
Coral developed over a hundred million years ago at a time when CO2 levels were many times higher, which would mean that the oceans were much more acidic. It is therefore a bit of a stretch to claim that a drop from 8.2 to 8.1 in the ocean's pH will have any negative effect.

Do you like the last paragraph of the article? Gloomy predictions still reign in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

Yet another example of hysteria trumping reality in the world of climate 'science'.

(Nothing Follows)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

it's more a decrease in alkalinity - yes, and the rise in temperatures is more of a decrease in global coldness. Oil is undergoing a considerable decrease in its cheapness. War in Iraq has lead to a decrease in the wonderfulness of the life of Iraqis.

100 million years ago, CO2 concentrations were about 4400ppm. So, let's just assume for the moment that they dropped continuously until 1750. The rate of change was then -0.00004 ppm/year. The rate of change now is +2 ppm/year. Which rate of change do you think ecosystems will adapt to more readily?

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

Your first paragraph gives away your respect for totalitarianism re the comment on Iraq.

Life survives significant climate events brought on by things like meteor strikes, volcanoes etc so I think you're off beam with your consistent change statement.

kwakpwns said...

"Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification"
Science. Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp 1737-1742. (14 Dec 2007)

The concluding paragraph:

"It is sobering to think that we have used the lower range of IPCC scenarios in our analysis yet still envisage serious if not devastating ramifications for coral reefs. Emission pathways that include higher [CO2]atm (600 to 1000 ppm) and global temperatures of 3° to 6°C defy consideration as credible alternatives. Equally important is the fact that IPCC scenarios are likely to be cautious given scientific reticence and the inherently conservative nature of consensus seeking within the IPCC process (53). Consequently, contemplating policies that result in [CO2]atm above 500 ppm appears extremely risky for coral reefs and the tens of millions of people who depend on them directly, even under the most optimistic circumstances."

Anonymous said...

look this is just another person who thinks that they are smart because they disagree with what is generally scientifically accepted. pH levels are rising and there have been numorous studies showing that calcium carbonate based marine species have a much harder time forming their calcium carbonate structures with an excess of CO2 present. We have to do something about this or we will regret it later! stop looking the other way and use your brains to figure out a solution instead of playing scientist.