Rise in Ocean Acidity May Lead to Thinner Plankton Shells

[Beaun]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/science/10obshell.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rssNYTimes Article

Here is a very short NYTimes article on ocean acidity and shell thickness. Its an interesting brief read on a paper published in the Journal Nature Geoscience. Shells are 30 to 35% lighter than in historical samples, they believe it is becuase as ocean acidity increases, the saturation levels of carbonate minerals in the water decreases, making it more difficult for organisms to precipitate out the carbonate for their shells.

They are now looking for impacts on the ecosystems.

 

[Rossini]

This is a major concern amongst experts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/carbon-emissions-oceans-copenhagen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/1


I wonder what the "carry on as normal"/denial gang have to say about this issue.......

:bum:

 

[andrewk529]

from what i've read its the coraline algae which will be the most effected on reefs that leading to lack of stability of the reef structures as a whole due to lack of their deposition of calcium

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14597093#post14597093 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by andrewk529
from what i've read its the coraline algae which will be the most effected on reefs that leading to lack of stability of the reef structures as a whole due to lack of their deposition of calcium

It's all animals that need to excrete calcium carbonate.

The Australian Institute Of Marine Sciences have predicted there could be no nett growth on the great barrier reef by 2050 (its already 10% down), because of acidification from absorbed co2 emmisions.

 

[Beaun]

It's definitly something that needs to be watched carefully. Obviously something needs to be done, but that is up to the people in washington to take action. The question is, is it too late for the effects to be reversed? We really have very little understanding of the complexity of the ocean system.

 

[jenglish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14601071#post14601071 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by superstein61
Yes, but they are interrelated. The articles discuss rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere as being responsible for ocean acidification - and climate change impacts CO2 levels

I believe for the most part that relationship is reversed, CO2 levels are thought to be the cause of climate change. There are thought to be some forward feeding loops of warming trends and greenhouse gasses but those are primarily methane based. I have not read anything suggesting climate change forward feeding CO2. I don't get to read everything though

Whethor or not the CO2 effects climate change can be debated, the fact that there is increased CO2 is not really contened is it? I think we can discuss acidification and CO2 w/o mention of climate change, at least temperature change.

 

[billsreef]

I've pulled out the sidetrack problems...lets keep this one clean of politics and on track.

 

[jenglish]

You can probably go ahead and pull my last post as it no longer makes any sense without the context it was written in.

 

[ctenophors rule]

andrewk529

yeah i have heard that they wiull be one of the first affected, that is because the calcium skeleton they secrete is magnesium calcite (i think) and that dissolves rapidly at 7.8 ph. next is aragonite, and then calcite.

we should see a gradual switch from aragonite to calcite in most shallow water corals, will be interesting.

 

[ctenophors rule]

i have heard that it is too late to be reversed, i have also heard that we can continue to live the way we do, just melt all our cars to build a co2 scrubber that reaches the moon, and i have heard if we realy start pushing to mend our current lifestyles, and start passing legislation we can possibly stop it.

we should all plant poison ivy plants, they use a huge amount of co2, in fact i read in a weekly reader some scientist are geneticaly altering poison ivy to make them more efficient at c02 uptaking.

jmo

but we all already know what needs to be done, all thats left is to do it. write letters people.

"even the smallest person can change the course of the future"

 

[greenbean36191]

i have heard that it is too late to be reversed

No, under "business as usual" scenarios it's been estimated that we should still have around 10 years to address the problem before the inertia in the system makes the loss of reefs inevitable (which would take several decades more).

we should see a gradual switch from aragonite to calcite in most shallow water corals

It's not clear that most shallow water corals can switch from aragonite to calcite. Some apparently can, but others seem to just slow and eventually stop calcifying as pH drops. Also, it's a question of the integrity of the reef ecosystem as a whole. Whether they can switch or not is irrelevant if they still can't calcify at least as fast as the reef is being eroded or fast enough to prevent overgrowth by algae. The zero net growth threshold is likely to be reached long before most corals have the chance to switch to calcite skeletons.

There are thought to be some forward feeding loops of warming trends and greenhouse gasses but those are primarily methane based. I have not read anything suggesting climate change forward feeding CO2.

Sure CO2 is a forcing AND a feedback- hence the "CO2 lags temperature" meme. Warming oceans hold less dissolved CO2, so less is sequestered away as temps rise. As temps get even higher the ocean can become a source of CO2. Also, when tundra thaws the rotting vegetation releases methane and CO2. And what does methane break down into (among other things)? CO2.

 

[ctenophors rule]

thanks for clearing that up greenbean36191 .

have you heard about the poison ivy theory? is it a good idea, or not?

 

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14607547#post14607547 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
No, under "business as usual" scenarios it's been estimated that we should still have around 10 years

Predictable. The end of the world is always 10 years away.

 

[greenbean36191]

I keep re-reading the quote and I don't see anything in it about the end of the world. In fact I can't find any claims that the world or even reefs are going to end in 10 years in this entire thread.

If you feel you must post in this thread at least try to contribute to the actual discussion, even if it's about issues you find with the research. Cynical little quips and even "that's sad" type posts don't add much substance.