Ocean acidification will likely reduce diversity, resiliency in coral reef ecosystems: new study

May 29, 2011
A new study of Papua New Guinea's "champagne reefs" in Nature Climate Change by the University of Miami, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Max-Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Germany concludes that ocean acidification, along with increased ocean temperatures, will likely severely reduce the diversity and resilience of coral reef ecosystems within this century. These reefs provide sobering illustrations of how coral reefs may look in 100 years if ocean acidification conditions continue to worsen. Credit: Katharina Fabricius/Australian Institute of Marine Science

A new study from University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science scientists Chris Langdon, Remy Okazaki and Nancy Muehllehner and colleagues from the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Max-Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Germany concludes that ocean acidification, along with increased ocean temperatures, will likely severely reduce the diversity and resilience of coral reef ecosystems within this century.

The research team studied three natural volcanic CO2 seeps in Papua New Guinea to better understand how will impact coral reefs ecosystem diversity. The study details the effects of long-term exposure to high levels of carbon dioxide and low pH on Indo-Pacific coral reefs, a condition that is projected to occur by the end of the century as increased man-made CO2 emissions alter the current pH level of seawater, turning the oceans acidic.

"These 'champagne reefs' are natural analogs of how may look in 100 years if ocean acidification conditions continue to get worse," said Langdon, UM Rosenstiel School professor and co-principal investigator of the study.

The study shows shifts in the composition of coral species and reductions in biodiversity and recruitment on the reef as pH declined from 8.1 to 7.8. The team also reports that reef development would cease at a pH below 7.7. The IPCC 4th Assessment Report estimates that by the end of the century, ocean pH will decline from the current level of 8.1 to 7.8, due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This is a video of Dr. Chris Langdon. Credit: University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science

"The seeps are probably the closest we can come to simulating the effect of man-made CO2 emissions on a coral reef," said Langdon. "They allow us to see the end result of the complex interactions between species under acidic ocean conditions."

The reefs detailed in this study have healthy reefs nearby to supply larvae to replenish the reefs. If pH was low throughout the region -- as projected for year 2100 -- then there would not be any healthy reefs to reseed damaged ones, according to Langdon.

Explore further: Weird weather lingers in Alaska's largest city

More information: "Losers and winners in coral reefs acclimatized to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations," Nature Climate Change, June 2011.

Related Stories

CO2 hurts reef growth

Jul 11, 2007

Coral reefs are at risk of going soft, quite literally turning to mush as rising carbon dioxide levels prevent coral from forming tough skeletons, according to UQ research.

Recommended for you

New challenges for ocean acidification research

20 hours ago

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

21 hours ago

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 19

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1.5 / 5 (17) May 29, 2011
Nature Climate Change should first focus its attention on evidence that world leaders, Al Gore, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, the UN's IPCC, and an army of government-paid climatologists misrepresented experimental data and observations in order to generate false evidence of CO2-induced global warming.

Nature should refrain from publishing more nonsense, like this advice to climate skeptics:

"The challenge is to rationally let go of our irrational belief in the mythical God of Perfect Reason" !

http://blogs.natu...2011/05/

George Orwell apparently saw the real danger ahead in 1948 and tried to communicate this fact in his book about the future, 1984.

www.online-litera...ll/1984/

On 17 January 1961 former President Eisenhower warned of the inherent dangers to our free society from:

1. An Industrial Military Complex, and
2. A Federal Scientific-Technological Elite.

http://mcadams.po.../ike.htm

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (16) May 29, 2011
Yup.. All of the worlds scientists are in on the conspiracy.

You seem quite upset that you didn't get a secret decoder ring in the mail like those of us in the global conspiracy did.

This message code ayx894cf9

"Al Gore, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, the UN's IPCC, and an army of government-paid climatologists misrepresented experimental data and observations in order to generate false evidence of CO2-induced global warming." - OmaTurd

SemiNerd
3.4 / 5 (10) May 29, 2011
Yup.. All of the worlds scientists are in on the conspiracy.

You seem quite upset that you didn't get a secret decoder ring in the mail like those of us in the global conspiracy did.

This message code ayx894cf9

"Al Gore, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, the UN's IPCC, and an army of government-paid climatologists misrepresented experimental data and observations in order to generate false evidence of CO2-induced global warming." - OmaTurd


10 stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SemiNerd
3.9 / 5 (11) May 29, 2011
Its easier for some people to believe that everyone is engaged in a global conspiracy than to simply accept that the data and reports are real. Why would anyone insist that the most absurd, and the most difficult to implement solution is the correct one?

I don't see why these Luddites aren't insisting that quantum mechanics isn't real, or that the laws of physics have been faked. Why then is climate science singled out for ideological and religious attacks?
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (14) May 29, 2011
Good news:

1. The Environmental Law Center of the American Tradition Institute obtained a court order to compel the University of Virginia to honor FOI (freedom of information) requests about supposedly scientific evidence of CO2-induced global warming:

www.atinstitute.o...inia-to/

2. France: Russia, Japan and Canada today announced today that they will not join a second round of carbon cuts under the UN's Kyoto Protocol.

www.smh.com.au/en...NmvGevYa

3. Western economies may survive!

Bad News:

Leaders of the Western scientific community - US National Academy of Sciences, the UKs Royal Society, UNs IPCC, heads of government research agencies (NASA, EPA, DOE, NOAA, etc.), editors of once prestigious research journals like Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy, Proceedings of the Royal Society, etc. - were apparently unaware of their changing fortunes.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (10) May 29, 2011
Re the "American Tradition Institute"

Paul Chesser Executive Director - is executive director for American Tradition Institute. Previously he was special correspondent for the Heartland Institute.

Christopher C Horner is a senior fellow with the Washington DC think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institut

Poor OmaTard. Taken time and time again by Lying anti-science Libertarian crooks and thieves.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2011
"I don't see why these Luddites aren't insisting that quantum mechanics isn't real, or that the laws of physics have been faked" - SemiNerd

Well - the Heartland Institute - behind the group that OmaTard references above, still maintains that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

omatumr
1.8 / 5 (13) May 29, 2011
Sorry, VD, but the game is over now.

Al Gore and associates lost.

Despite efforts by Nature to convince skeptics to let go of their "irrational belief in the mythical God of Perfect Reason,"

http://blogs.natu...rception

Leaders of France, Russia, Japan and Canada are not buying another layer of global rubbish:

www.smh.com.au/en...NmvGevYa

The good news is that Western economies may survive !
Gilbert
3.3 / 5 (7) May 30, 2011
There is a Psychological diagnosis for people like Omaturd. Borderline personality disorder ( which is given a scale of intensity), these people with high prevalence will not be able to accept that they can make a mistake, and will do anything they can, subconsciously, in order to shape their vision of reality in order to avoid a realization that they have any fault or part to play, something that perhaps QC /Spectator have in common they should form a club
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (11) May 30, 2011
Thank you very much for the dumb opinions Oma. Facts are very different when you look at real data and see the train wreck ahead. Fools think 10 degrees of global warming is as acceptable, and yet they would find a potential comet strike as alarming and demand action.

Ocean acidification is one result of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientific fact.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) May 30, 2011
"Ocean acidification is one result of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientific fact." - Howhot

To members of the Denialist Faith, facts never have any power. They are all denied as being part of the vast conspiracy against them.

One thing is clear, OmaTurd and the other Denialists are motivated by fear of change.

Change is what the Cowardly Conservative mind fears most.
d_robison
4.5 / 5 (4) May 30, 2011
"Ocean acidification is one result of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientific fact." - Howhot

To members of the Denialist Faith, facts never have any power. They are all denied as being part of the vast conspiracy against them.

One thing is clear, OmaTurd and the other Denialists are motivated by fear of change.

Change is what the Cowardly Conservative mind fears most.


I think everyone here understands that CO2 is one of the factors in ocean acidification, the question that most people have a hard time answering is how much of this is a natural process and how much is the human race contributing to this process? I live sustainably and try to conserve as much as possible, but I also understand that the Earth does go through natural changes.
That being said I believe people should try their hardest to have as little impact on the environment as possible, not try to control the environment.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) May 31, 2011
I think everyone here understands that CO2 is one of the factors in ocean acidification, the question that most people have a hard time answering is how much of this is a natural process and how much is the human race


The other thing some people question is the concequences. There are some reputable oceanographers and marine biologists who have recently reported that the corals can adapt as they have in the past. I personally have no opinion on that one, since I havn't done nearly enough reading on the subject. I guessing the extremists above haven't either, but they still have such strong opinions. I wonder why?

As a side note: I noticed that SemiNerd's account was just created on 4/15. I'm willing to bet it's a sock pupet account for Vendicar. How sad to rate and respond to your own posts.

Vendicar: name-calling is stupid, but when you don't know enough to argue facts, or you're too lazy to look up references, I guess that's all you can do.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2011
Gilbert:

this is way off topic, but what you said about Borderline Disorder is right on the money. That doesn't mean that Oliver is Borderline though. My daughter's mother (ex-wife) was diagnosed with BD, so I have first hand exerience with a severe case. I don't think a person with BD would be likely to post under their real identity on a site like this. I especially don't think a person with BD would continue to post after receiving the amount of derision that Oliver gets here. It just doesn't fit the BD patterns. My ex was too paranoid to talk in front of an ATM machine, so posting on open forums with her real name is out of the question. Calling Dr Manuel a nut because he doesn't believe the same as you isn't a very good debate tactic.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2011
"Calling Dr Manuel a nut because he doesn't believe the same as you isn't a very good debate tactic." - Tootie Frutie

How about calling him a Fruitcake because he is a Fruitcake?

"Mass-fractionation enriches light elements and the lighter isotopes of each element at
the solar surface, making a photosphere that is 91% H and 9% He. However, the solar
interior consists mostly of elements that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites Fe, O, Ni,
Si, S, Mg and Ca elements made in the deep interior of a supernova. Solar energy arises
from a series of nuclear reactions triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed
supernova core on which the Sun formed. Solar mass-fractionation, solar neutrinos, and the
annual solar-wind output of 3 x 10
43
H atoms are by-products of solar luminosity." - OmaFruitcake
Gilbert
not rated yet Jun 04, 2011
GSwift7:

I agree, about Dr Oliver, after seeing that he is still here, however I definatly stand by my words for describing Q conundrum spectator.. as you described, havn't seen one of their posts in a while. Although if you look at Oliver's other forum posts on other forums, news-sites etc, you will find a trail where he has gone from site to site after being rejected/ removed, and his debates with other scientists etc are quite indicative, perhaps it is accompanied and so differs. I'm not calling him a "nut" though i hope i'm not that judgmental. Actually my hope was to lessen the insults goin from others thinking that they would ignore more if they thought about the bigger picture :/
3432682
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2011
The oceans are base, not acidic; pH varies from 7.5-8.4. It would take a fantastic amount of chemical action to push that base nature into the acidic range. Impossible.

If there were warming (the ocean temps are now stable to cooling) it would drive off CO2 and increase the pH, away from the acid range.

I'm impressed by how little science is known and expressed, even on this site. The more you know, the less you believe in global warming. AGW is a religion, a faith, based on belief in authority - legions of bought-off scientists.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 04, 2011
I'm impressed by the fact that so many fail to understand the term "acidification," who mistakenly believe that it means "acidic."

There is, of course, the distinct possibility that such do not misunderstand, but rather choose to deliberately misrepresent.

Who can say which is the case?

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2011
Acidification is the ongoing process of decreasing the Ph levels. Look at Wikipedia; good discussion there. Who is to say how much CO2 has been absorbed into the oceans and when does it max out? It's bad enough to have bleaching of the coral reefs.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.