News Release : In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production (coral didn’t seem to care about CO2 level)
Climate Realist
Shell Production
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
December 1 2009
Source: Media Relations
In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s
(CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as
crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed
to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon
dioxide (CO2).
Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean—causing it to “acidify” —
researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms
to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to
trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in
seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to
build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.
The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline
in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance
of the ocean ecosystem.
But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led
by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven
of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when
exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be
because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to
them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even
though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased.
“Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow
able to manipulate…dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which
they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to
them,” said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the
University of North Carolina. “They were somehow able to manipulate
CO2…to build their skeletons.”
Organisms displaying such improvement also included calcifying red
and green algae, limpets and temperate urchins. Mussels showed no
effect.
“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we
expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research
specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really
interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam
and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it
was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current
atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level,
calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated
in the lobster
The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that
elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all
calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded
the work.
Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—
showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases
in CO2. In the most extreme finding, Ries, Cohen and WHOI Associate
Scientist Daniel C. McCorkle exposed creatures to CO2 levels more than
seven times the current level.
This led to the dissolving of aragonite—the form of calcium carbonate
produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers. Under such
exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and
tropical urchins began to lose their shells. “If this dissolution
process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose
their shell completely,” Ries said, “rendering them defenseless to
predators.”
“Some organisms were very sensitive,” Cohen said, “some that have
commercial value. But there were a couple that didn’t respond to CO2
or didn’t respond till it was sky-high—about 2,800 parts per million.
We’re not expecting to see that [CO2 level] anytime soon.”
The researchers caution, however, that the findings—and
acidification’s overall impact—may be more complex than it appears.
For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as
nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms
respond to carbon dioxide.
“We know that nutrients can be very important,” she says. “We have
found that corals for example, that have plenty of food and nutrients
can be less sensitive” to CO2. “In this study, the organisms were well
fed and we didn’t constrain the nutrient levels.
“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these
results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2
levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism
in detail.”
Ries concurs that any possible ramifications are complex. For
example, the crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its
prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification. “This may initially
suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-pray
dynamics. But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their
populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way,
as well,” Ries said.
In addition, Cohen adds, even though some organisms such as crabs and
lobsters appear to benefit under elevated CO2 conditions, the energy
they expend in shell building under these conditions “might divert
from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue
building.”
Since the industrial revolution, Ries noted, atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels have increased from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. Climate
models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200
years.
“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the
atmosphere,” Ries says. However, he warns that this natural buffer
may ultimately come at a great cost.
“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine
ecosystems," he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net
effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-
stabilize at a new steady state.
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in
the atmosphere.”
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, independent
organization in Falmouth, Mass., dedicated to marine research,
engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a
recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary
mission is to understand the oceans and their interaction with the
Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the
oceans’ role in the changing global environment.
Roger Coppock
On Dec 31 2009, 6:34 pm, Climate Realist <climate.real...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[ . . . ]
Climate Realist
>
> - Show quoted text -
Roger, that is the compulsory political message that must be included
in any article to get it published. The article itself does not have
to support the alarmist footnote.
What struck me about this article, was the surprise that the
scientists felt, at finding that CO2 wasn't all doom and gloom. The
language used, "In a striking finding", conveys this.
I was especially interested in seeing the effect on coral, since this
is an area that alarmists have been doing a lot of scaremongering
about. The result, “What was really interesting was that some of the
creatures, the coral, the hard clam
and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it
was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].”
"The 'take-home message, ' says Cohen, is that 'we can’t assume that
elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all
calcifying organisms.' "
The study still has some cautionary notes. However, Alarmists are
going to have to find a subject other than "coral" to use for their
scaremongering. Corals are fine, and are expected to still be fine,
even at higher CO2 levels.
Peter Franks
> ...
> The researchers caution, however, that the findings�and
> acidification�s overall impact�may be more complex than it appears.
> ...
> �The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in
> the atmosphere.�
I'm coming to the conclusion that 'scientists' are generally
closed-minded idiots.
They make assertions and conclusions based on single-case studies
(presuming there even /was/ a study), rarely recognize complexity, and
STILL stick to their previous agenda in spite of findings.
I really don't know what to think with these buffoons running around.
Peter Franks
> Read the entire article and you find.
>
> On Dec 31 2009, 6:34 pm, Climate Realist <climate.real...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> the atmosphere.�
RIGHT! Based on what? Obviously NOTHING to do with the study.
Bottom line my butt. These 'scientists' are charlatans.
I M @ good guy
There have been lots of articles on CO2 levels
in the atmosphere, but what about CO2 levels
over time in the oceans?
Would a cooler ocean nessecarily mean higher
CO2 levels (just because they could hold more)?
And why isn't there much talk about the
history of ocean temperatures? From 6 years ago;
http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Digest/2001digest/jan-feb/alas_global_cooling_strikes.htm
Man_of_Mind
>
> Climate Realist wrote:
>> ...
>> The researchers caution, however, that the findings�and
>> acidification�s overall impact�may be more complex than it appears.
>> ...
>> �The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in
>> the atmosphere.�
>
> I'm coming to the conclusion that 'scientists' are generally
> closed-minded idiots.
You should see the view from here..
> They make assertions and conclusions based on single-case studies
That would be yourself, actually..
> I really don't know what to think
That's self-evident..
--Keep telling on yourself..
Peter Franks
Really? That's the best you can come up with? Go re-read the original
post, and see what the 'scientists' base their conclusion on.
Then come on back and have a rational discussion, instead of playing
childish one-liner games.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was again laughing at the all-or-nothing fallacy from:
>>
>> On 1/1/2010 11:28 PM, Fetid Cranks wrote:
>>>
>>> Climate Realist wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> The researchers caution, however, that the findings�and
>>>> acidification�s overall impact�may be more complex than it appears.
>>>> ...
>>>> �The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in
>>>> the atmosphere.�
>>>
>>> I'm coming to the conclusion that 'scientists' are generally
>>> closed-minded idiots.
>>
>> You should see the view from here..
>>
>>> They make assertions and conclusions based on single-case studies
>>
>> That would be yourself, actually..
>>
>>> I really don't know what to think
>>
>> That's self-evident..
>>
>> --Keep telling on yourself..
>
> Really? That's the best you can come up with?
No, but it's almost better than you deserve, Cranks..
F'rinstance..
> Go re-read the original post,
I don't have to, I've read more science about this than
you'll ever care to understand..
> Then come on back and have a rational discussion
You first..
Start with the part that says..
"scientists report that some shell-building creatures�such as
crabs, shrimp and lobsters�unexpectedly build more shell when
exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."
--Then get back to me with your "rational discussion"..
Peter Franks
Ah, yes, you are special and much more well informed than I am. Please
share, oh wise one, with me, the uninformed peon, I beg of you...
>
>> Then come on back and have a rational discussion
>
> You first..
>
> Start with the part that says..
>
> "scientists report that some shell-building creatures�such as
> crabs, shrimp and lobsters�unexpectedly build more shell when
> exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of
> atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."
>
> --Then get back to me with your "rational discussion"..
So, if these animals build more shell in acidified water, how does that
drive the conclusion?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was again amused by the futile sniveling posted by:
As well as degreed in science. What's your special talent?
>>> Then come on back and have a rational discussion
>>
>> You first..
>>
>> Start with the part that says..
>>
>> "scientists report that some shell-building creatures�such as
>> crabs, shrimp and lobsters�unexpectedly build more shell when
>> exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of
>> atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."
>>
>> --Then get back to me with your "rational discussion"..
>
> So, if these animals build more shell in acidified water
That would only be some of them..
--You right-wing deniers really suck terribly at numerical amounts..
Peter Franks
And you at making rational conclusions based on the evidence.
Have a good one.
-pf
Ouroboros Rex
> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>> On 1/2/2010 6:47 PM, Fetid Cranks was writhing in denials:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was again laughing at the all-or-nothing fallacy from:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/1/2010 11:28 PM, Fetid Cranks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Climate Realist wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> appears. ...
>>>>>> �The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels
>>>>>> in the atmosphere.�
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm coming to the conclusion that 'scientists' are generally
>>>>> closed-minded idiots.
>>>>
>>>> You should see the view from here..
>>>>
>>>>> They make assertions and conclusions based on single-case studies
>>>>
>>>> That would be yourself, actually..
>>>>
>>>>> I really don't know what to think
>>>>
>>>> That's self-evident..
>>>>
>>>> --Keep telling on yourself..
>>>
>>> Really? That's the best you can come up with?
>>
>> No, but it's almost better than you deserve, Cranks..
>>
>> F'rinstance..
>>
>>> Go re-read the original post,
>>
>> I don't have to, I've read more science about this than
>> you'll ever care to understand..
>
> Ah, yes, you are special and much more well informed than I am. Please
> share, oh wise one, with me, the uninformed peon, I beg of
> you...
>>
>>> Then come on back and have a rational discussion
>>
>> You first..
>>
>> Start with the part that says..
>>
>> crabs, shrimp and lobsters�unexpectedly build more shell when
>> exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of
>> atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."
>>
>> --Then get back to me with your "rational discussion"..
>
> So, if these animals build more shell in acidified water, how does
> that drive the conclusion?
What does that mean to me personally?
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2010 6:47 PM, Fetid Cranks was writhing in denials:
>>>> Man_of_Mind was again laughing at the all-or-nothing fallacy from:
>>>>> On 1/1/2010 11:28 PM, Fetid Cranks wrote:
>>>>>> Climate Realist wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> appears. ...
>>>>>>> �The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels
>>>>>>> in the atmosphere.�
>>>>>> I'm coming to the conclusion that 'scientists' are generally
>>>>>> closed-minded idiots.
>>>>> You should see the view from here..
>>>>>
>>>>>> They make assertions and conclusions based on single-case studies
>>>>> That would be yourself, actually..
>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't know what to think
>>>>> That's self-evident..
>>>>>
>>>>> --Keep telling on yourself..
>>>> Really? That's the best you can come up with?
>>> No, but it's almost better than you deserve, Cranks..
>>>
>>> F'rinstance..
>>>
>>>> Go re-read the original post,
>>> I don't have to, I've read more science about this than
>>> you'll ever care to understand..
>> Ah, yes, you are special and much more well informed than I am. Please
>> share, oh wise one, with me, the uninformed peon, I beg of
>> you...
>>>> Then come on back and have a rational discussion
>>> You first..
>>>
>>> Start with the part that says..
>>>
>>> crabs, shrimp and lobsters�unexpectedly build more shell when
>>> exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of
>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."
>>>
>>> --Then get back to me with your "rational discussion"..
>> So, if these animals build more shell in acidified water, how does
>> that drive the conclusion?
>
> What does that mean to me personally?
Are you a small marine animal with a shell?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind continued having another laugh at the expense of:
*>LOL!<* That's all you've got to support your 'conclusion'?
An insinuation?
--I find that to be lacking in scientific merit, you fetid crank..