Ocean "acidification" and threat

[JohnStOnge]

I'm sure you've all seen the concern expressed. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being absorbed by the oceans and the average PH of the oceans is believed to have fallen by 0.1 since around 200 years ago. The concern is that increasing carbon in the ocean will threaten marine animals that use carbonate ions to make and maintain their shells (http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/w ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Ok. So how is it that those animals evolved...got to this point... to begin with? I don't think I need to provide a reference supporting the premise that marine animals with calcium carbonate shells have been around for hundreds of millions of years. We all see pictures of fossils of them. They were around long before vertebrates were. Yet the atmospheric carbon dioxide level of today, in geological terms, is believed to be close to the lowest it's ever been.

See the model output at the bottom of the page at the NOAA web page at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/ ... ic_co2.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. "RCO2" means the ratio of atmospheric CO2 to present (I looked it up to be sure). Don't know why "0" on the time scale shows 0.98 instead of 1.0 but that's what "RCO2" means.

But anyway, that 0.98 at the "0" mark is the lowest value in the output. And the next value up, 0.99 at 10 million years ago, is the next lowest. We see pictures of ammonite shell fossils all the time. The linked model output includes the estimate that, when the ammonites were swimming around the oceans around 240 million years ago (it's believed), the Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 7 times what it is now. The article at http://www.dmns.org/main/minisites/foss ... rtres.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; says ammonite shells required less calcium carbonate due to their structures. But the article at http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/a ... ammonites/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; says they fed on crustaceans; which also need carbonate ions for their shells. As far as I can tell crustaceans appeared between 500 and 600 million years ago. The article at http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abs ... %2901127-X" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; describes one believed to have been around at about 520 million years ago. The model output estimate for 520 million years ago is 26 times current atmospheric CO2 levels TWENTY SIX times.

Marine animals that need carbonate ions for their exoskeletons have been around a very long time. There are other estimates of historical CO2 levels. The figure below depicts some and also depicts the model output I've been discussing. But they all suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels are very low in historical relative terms now and were much higher throughout most of the history of existence by those marine animals that need carbonate ions for their exoskeletons.

I am guessing someone has an explanation for why there is still reason for concern because the information is too obvious for someone not to have thought of it. But it's still something to think about.

[travelinman67]

Bracing for Kalm "Huffpo sez..." sourcing in 5-4-3-2....

[kalm]

Bracing for Kalm "Huffpo sez..." sourcing in 5-4-3-2....

I appreciate John's thoughts on this. You used to balance your smack with occassional substance. Sorry I'm getting under your craw so much. Maybe time to take a break?

[travelinman67]

Bracing for Kalm "Huffpo sez..." sourcing in 5-4-3-2....

I appreciate John's thoughts on this. You used to balance your smack with occassional substance. Sorry I'm getting under your craw so much. Maybe time to take a break?

Not going to waste time with myopic "people" who thoughtlessly parrot liberal dogma. Do your own homework.

JSO views the world with open eyes and common sense. Whether you agree or disagree with his somewhat sterile-moral view of humanity, his scientific self-discipline is exceptional.

Being a lifelong diver with educational and professional experience in the sciences, much of the IPCC/NOAA propoganda I've read about oceanic "threats" simply don't hold water.

[Pwns]

This is exactly the type of point I was trying to hammer with youngterrier months back...many of these proclamations Global Warming prohpets make just don't make any sense when held up to scrutiny with scientific knowledge outside of climate science. I've even read where some scientists have said climate change could end all life within 150 years...I guess it's a miracle the dinosaurs and all other mesozoic life didn't cook with their atmospheric CO2 being 12 times what it is today.

It's exactly the same thing with environmentalists raising a stink about how cow farts are destroying the planet but neglect the fact that 40% of the biomass of phytoplankton (which is many orders of magnitude larger than cow biomass) has disappeared over the last 50 years.

[kalm]

I appreciate John's thoughts on this. You used to balance your smack with occassional substance. Sorry I'm getting under your craw so much. Maybe time to take a break?

Not going to waste time with myopic "people" who thoughtlessly parrot liberal dogma. Do your own homework.

JSO views the world with open eyes and common sense. Whether you agree or disagree with his somewhat sterile-moral view of humanity, his scientific self-discipline is exceptional.

Being a lifelong diver with educational and professional experience in the sciences, much of the IPCC/NOAA propoganda I've read about oceanic "threats" simply don't hold water.

Which is why you unnecessarily called me out in your first post. Look, I'm flattered by your attention and branding...I really am. And I owe you an apology for calling you a "protoconk". You're clearly not.

“I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.”

Ronald Reagan, July 19, 1984

"The issue of environmental quality is one which transcends traditional political boundaries. It is a cause which can attract, and very sincerely, liberals, conservatives, radicals, reactionaries, freaks, and middle-class straights."

"To complete the rout of traditionalists, in America an impression began to arise that the new industrial and acquisitive interests are the conservative interest, that conservatism is simply a political argument in defense of large accumulations of private property, that expansion, centralization, and accumulation are the tenets of conservatives. From this confusion, from the popular belief that Hamilton was the founder of American conservatism, the forces of tradition in the United States never have fully escaped."

"...only the unscrupulous or shortsighted can defend pollution and degradation of the countryside."

"Nothing is more conservative than conservation"

-Russel Kirk

"The great Error of our Nature is, not to know where to stop, not to be satisfied with any reasonable Acquirement; not to compound with our Condition; but to lose all we have gained by an insatiable Pursuit after more."

-Edmund Burke

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Cool, this is BS story is being recycled again.........too bad Ted Danson beat you to it 27 years ago.

[biobengal]

I am guessing someone has an explanation for why there is still reason for concern because the information is too obvious for someone not to have thought of it. But it's still something to think about.

May I paraphrase your expansive treatise... we shouldn't be concerned about ocean acidification because CO2 (hence pH) has been higher in the last half billion years. Is that the gist? May I also say, a prevailing hypothesis of the day supposes that the Earth was completely locked in ice around 650 mya. Yet, we also wouldn't welcome these conditions back.

The fact is, coral reefs, those species which are expected to be impacted the most, have evolved under recent (relatively stable) atmospheric conditions. Increasing pH has decreased the productivity of near-shore coral reef habitats in the Caribbean and Australia. These habitats are particularly important for many fisheries. On geological timescales evolutionary processes might rescue some of these species from extinction; however, in the meantime, we've affected the use of these habitats for recreation and protein.

Is this something to be concerned about? It probably depends on your value system.

[JohnStOnge]

May I paraphrase your expansive treatise... we shouldn't be concerned about ocean acidification because CO2 (hence pH) has been higher in the last half billion years. Is that the gist? May I also say, a prevailing hypothesis of the day supposes that the Earth was completely locked in ice around 650 mya. Yet, we also wouldn't welcome these conditions back.

Not to be trite but just for reference I think the thing is that PH has been lower. As I understand it the concern is that PH is decreasing. Believe me I'm not putting you down for saying "higher." If I don't think about PH for a week I have to look it up and remind myself of which direction from 7 means more acid and which means more basic.

The gist is that marine animals that need carbonate ions to form and maintain their shells arose, persisted, and evolved under conditions whereby atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they're projected to be in 100 years.

The fact is, coral reefs, those species which are expected to be impacted the most, have evolved under recent (relatively stable) atmospheric conditions. Increasing pH has decreased the productivity of near-shore coral reef habitats in the Caribbean and Australia.

You wont be surprised to see me say that it's not possible to say that decreasing (which is what I think you meant to say) PH has decreased the productivity of near shore coral reefs. The most it could be correct to say is that's been associated with decreased productivity. It's the inferring cause and effect with observational data thing. I know you know what I'm talking about.

These habitats are particularly important for many fisheries. On geological timescales evolutionary processes might rescue some of these species from extinction; however, in the meantime, we've affected the use of these habitats for recreation and protein.

In the grand scheme of things I do not think coral reefs are all that important to fisheries. I'm talking about when you look at total landings, value of fisheries, ect. I'm not saying I'd like to see them go away. But if you were to look at fisheries landings and ask yourself how much total pounds landed and total value would change if coral reefs disappeared tomorrow it would be a very small percentage. Now if you tell me estuaries are going to go away that'd be a different story.

Is this something to be concerned about? It probably depends on your value system.

Yes it does. A person needs to contemplate what the impacts of doing the things the IPCC would have us to are and contemplate what the impacts of what not doing them will be. Wrapped up in that is the question of how certain one can be about IPCC projections about what will happen if we do and/or don't do things.

And I think that there is a point at which most people would say, "If that's what I have to go through to save coral reefs, goodbye coral reefs." It's nice when it's in the abstract and everybody ooos and ahhs about how pretty coral reef environments are. But then if you tell them it's going to cut YOUR standard of living significantly to save the coral reefs those oooos and ahhhs might go away pretty quickly.

[JohnStOnge]

By the way, even the term Ocean "acidification" is hyperbole. The oceans are not going to go acid. Assuming it's true that the average PH of the oceans went from 8.2 to 8.1 over the past 200 years...and that's another area of question...the oceans are still basic. Neutral PH is 7. So what's happening...to the extent that anything is happening at all...is that the oceans are moving towards being less basic. NOBODY, as far as I can tell, is predicting that the oceans are going to become acid.

In my opinion, use of terminology like "acidification" is fear mongering.

[biobengal]

You wont be surprised to see me say that it's not possible to say that decreasing (which is what I think you meant to say) PH has decreased the productivity of near shore coral reefs. The most it could be correct to say is that's been associated with decreased productivity. It's the inferring cause and effect with observational data thing. I know you know what I'm talking about.

Of course... but I think you push it way too far. Altering pH in controlled situations and observing the response coupled with observational studies of a time series of pH and productivity moves far beyond mere correlations. In fact, I think you might appreciate the evidence based approached, something EPA and others have been working on: http://www.epa.gov/caddis/index.html

In the grand scheme of things I do not think coral reefs are all that important to fisheries. I'm talking about when you look at total landings, value of fisheries, ect. I'm not saying I'd like to see them go away. But if you were to look at fisheries landings and ask yourself how much total pounds landed and total value would change if coral reefs disappeared tomorrow it would be a very small percentage. Now if you tell me estuaries are going to go away that'd be a different story.

Some figures seen indicate near shore commercial reef fisheries are around 6% of total wild caught fish and are especially important to poor and/or indigenous peoples. This figure does not include deep sea corals or recreational fisheries.

And I think that there is a point at which most people would say, "If that's what I have to go through to save coral reefs, goodbye coral reefs." It's nice when it's in the abstract and everybody ooos and ahhs about how pretty coral reef environments are. But then if you tell them it's going to cut YOUR standard of living significantly to save the coral reefs those oooos and ahhhs might go away pretty quickly.

No, I don't imagine coral reefs will play much impact on whether strict rules on carbon are put in place. Yet, taken together, the impact of increasing CO2 on coral reefs, coastal development, productive farmland, drinking water, tropical diseases and biodiversity may have an impact. I'm no climate warrior.... I just think you're being way to cavalier about which parts of body we can acceptably lose.

[JohnStOnge]

I think you might appreciate the evidence based approached, something EPA and others have been working on: http://www.epa.gov/caddis/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me the problem with the chain there, in concept, is the point at which you "List candidate causes." You have to assume you know what all the candidate causes are. That's where a controlled experiment situation is so different. In a controlled experiment, you test the hypothesis of a cause. The randomization and control takes care of the issue of potential causes you are not aware of. The effects of any such causes would be subject to random distribution between the experimental and control groups.

I make and/or recommend decisions based on associations characterizing observational data all the time. And in some cases I have gone through a process of looking at each candidate cause I can identify. But I NEVER say something caused something else. I say something like, "Here are the potential causes we looked at and, among the potential causes we looked at, the most plausible explanation appears to be Cause X." When it's observational data, to me, you ALWAYS have to allow for the possibility that something you haven't thought of as a potential cause is involved. Not so with experimental data. With experimental data, you can quantify the confidence level with respect to some unknown cause or set of causes being responsible.

Well...there's a limit to that I admit. As I've said before, if I see a dog get hit by an 18 wheeler and the dog dies I think I can say getting hit by the 18 wheeler caused the dog to die. But dealing with environmental data isn't like that.

[JohnStOnge]

But anyway back to the main point Bio. Here are a couple of links to articles on the evolution of corals:

http://coral.aims.gov.au/speciesPages/h ... ution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cnidaria/scleractinia.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The second link says that corals the Order Scleractinia "...are now the world's primary reef formers." And it says that the Schleractinia arose during the Triassic period. The article at the first link says they were not the "ecological equivalent" of modern corals. But it says "A high proportion of the families of extant Scleractinia have their origins in the Middle to Late Jurassic." The Middle to Late Jurassic would have been something like 150 to 200 million years ago. The historical atmospheric CO2 levels estimated by that model I linked ranged from about 4 to 9 times current atmospheric CO2 levels during that time frame.

I realize that today's corals have had tens of millions of years to evolve within a certain set of conditions characterized by much lower CO2 levels and it's a different set of species now. But, still, reef building Corals actually evolved into existence under conditions where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now as well as much higher than what climatologists are projecting them to be 100 years from now. I think it does call into question the idea that the kind of CO2 elevations they're talking about are going to, on their own, cause coral reefs to disappear. And maybe that's not what they're saying. But to me the impression you get when you read the "ocean acidification" stuff is that there is this big concern not only about corals but about all the marine life that depends on carbonate ions to build and maintain shells.

[UD77]

I'm sure you've all seen the concern expressed. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being absorbed by the oceans and the average PH of the oceans is believed to have fallen by 0.1 since around 200 years ago. The concern is that increasing carbon in the ocean will threaten marine animals that use carbonate ions to make and maintain their shells (http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/w ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Ok. So how is it that those animals evolved...got to this point... to begin with? I don't think I need to provide a reference supporting the premise that marine animals with calcium carbonate shells have been around for hundreds of millions of years. We all see pictures of fossils of them. They were around long before vertebrates were. Yet the atmospheric carbon dioxide level of today, in geological terms, is believed to be close to the lowest it's ever been.

See the model output at the bottom of the page at the NOAA web page at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/ ... ic_co2.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. "RCO2" means the ratio of atmospheric CO2 to present (I looked it up to be sure). Don't know why "0" on the time scale shows 0.98 instead of 1.0 but that's what "RCO2" means.

But anyway, that 0.98 at the "0" mark is the lowest value in the output. And the next value up, 0.99 at 10 million years ago, is the next lowest. We see pictures of ammonite shell fossils all the time. The linked model output includes the estimate that, when the ammonites were swimming around the oceans around 240 million years ago (it's believed), the Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 7 times what it is now. The article at http://www.dmns.org/main/minisites/foss ... rtres.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; says ammonite shells required less calcium carbonate due to their structures. But the article at http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/a ... ammonites/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; says they fed on crustaceans; which also need carbonate ions for their shells. As far as I can tell crustaceans appeared between 500 and 600 million years ago. The article at http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abs ... %2901127-X" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; describes one believed to have been around at about 520 million years ago. The model output estimate for 520 million years ago is 26 times current atmospheric CO2 levels TWENTY SIX times.

Marine animals that need carbonate ions for their exoskeletons have been around a very long time. There are other estimates of historical CO2 levels. The figure below depicts some and also depicts the model output I've been discussing. But they all suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels are very low in historical relative terms now and were much higher throughout most of the history of existence by those marine animals that need carbonate ions for their exoskeletons.

I am guessing someone has an explanation for why there is still reason for concern because the information is too obvious for someone not to have thought of it. But it's still something to think about.

How dare you bring facts and logic to this discussion.