Ocean acidification could lead to collapse of coral reefs

September 29, 2014
Hebrew University and Carnegie Institute researchers measured effects of ocean acidification on coral calcification at Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Credit: Josh Chan

An expedition from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Carnegie Institute of Science has measured a roughly 40% reduction in the rate of calcium carbonate deposited in Australia's Great Barrier Reef in the last 35 years—a scenario that could damage the reef framework and endanger the entire coral ecosystem.

Coral reefs are the most ecologically diverse and productive ecosystem in the ocean, with rich and diverse communities of fish, corals and mollusks making them a major attraction for marine and underwater tourism. Producing almost 50% of the net annual calcium carbonate in the oceans, corals play an important role in the global carbon cycle.

The ecological success of depends on their (CaCO3, limestone) structures that function as a huge filter to obtain plankton from the open ocean. Yet recent environmental changes including coastal nutrient pollution, global warming and caused by atmospheric CO2 increasingly threaten the existence of these unique ecosystems.

To better understand the effect of acidification on coral growth decline, Hebrew University scientists led by Prof. Jonathan Erez and Prof. Boaz Lazar at the Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences, together with Carnegie Institute colleagues Dr. J. Silverman and Dr. K. Caldeira, carried out a community metabolism study in Lizard Island at the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.

The researchers compared documented in 2008 and 2009 to those measured using similar techniques in 1975-6. Despite the fact that the coral cover remained similar, the researchers found that the recent calcification rates had decreased by between 27% and 49%. These lower rates are consistent with predictions that took into account the increase in CO2 between the two periods, suggesting that ocean acidification is the main cause for the lower calcification rate at Lizard Island.

While previous studies on individual reef building corals have shown that they lower their calcification rates in response to ocean acidification, in the present study this was demonstrated for the whole community. These findings suggest that coral reefs are now making skeletons that are less dense and more fragile. While they still look the same, these coral reefs are less able to resist physical and biological erosion.

According to Erez and Silverman, "The results of this study show a dramatic decrease in the calcification of the reef, and that it was likely caused by ocean acidification. When the rate of calcification becomes lower than the rate of dissolution and erosion, the entire coral ecosystem could collapse and eventually be reduced to piles of rubble. The collapse of this habitat would ultimately lead to the loss of its magnificent and highly diverse flora and fauna."

Erez and Silverman added, "Routine measurements of net community calcification should be continued not only at Lizard Island but at other reefs around the world in order to monitor their well-being in a high CO2 world."

The research was published in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, a journal of the Geochemical Society and the Meteoritical Society, as "Community in Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef: A 33 year perspective." The research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Moore foundation.

Explore further: Coral growth rate plummets in 30-year comparison

Related Stories

Coral growth rate plummets in 30-year comparison

September 17, 2014

A team of researchers working on a Carnegie expedition in Australia's Great Barrier Reef has documented that coral growth rates have plummeted 40% since the mid-1970s. The scientists suggest that ocean acidification may be ...

Low calcification in corals in the Great Barrier Reef

August 31, 2012

Reef-building coral communities in the Great Barrier Reef-the world's largest coral reef-may now be calcifying at only about half the rate that they did during the 1970s, although live coral cover may not have changed over ...

Sea cucumbers could be key to preserving coral reefs

January 31, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Tropical sea cucumbers could play a key role in saving coral reefs from the devastating effects of climate change, say scientists at One Tree Island, the University of Sydney's research station on the Great ...

Specialized species critical for reefs

September 15, 2014

One of Australia's leading coral reef ecologists fears that reef biodiversity may not provide the level of insurance for ecosystem survival that we once thought.

Recommended for you

Caves in central China show history of natural flood patterns

January 19, 2017

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found that major flooding and large amounts of precipitation occur on 500-year cycles in central China. These findings shed light on the forecasting of future floods and improve ...

43 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KDK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2014
So now that AGW has been proven to be false, "ocean acidification" will be the new justification for using increasing CO2 to redistribute money according to Agenda 21! It will take the scientific community generations to regain its credibility once its fraudsters are exiled.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2014
Perhaps the morons in the AGW Cult can explain how AGW "science" makes a warming ocean capture more CO2.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2014
Antiscience said:
Perhaps the morons in the AGW Cult can explain how AGW "science" makes a warming ocean capture more CO2.


Just for the peanut gallery, I will go over this again. Solubility is directly proportional to partial pressure above the water and is related to the fugacity in the water.

http://en.wikiped...Fugacity

As temperature goes up solubility goes down. However, the change in partial pressure is much more rapid than the change in temperature. So, the fraction of CO2 dissolved in the water goes up.

Anyone who has taken a single chemistry course (and passed it) would know that. I assume you know this and just toss it out as a red herring when you get the chance.

Now, please show us how this is wrong since you seem to think it is. I've showed you this before.
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2014
This is simply amazing; The article discusses measurements that shows the impact of ocean acidification on coral reefs from the excessive CO2 of anthropogenic global warming sources.

So the two dim bulbs, @antigoracle and @KDK demand "science". What a pair of weak minded slime. Facts are facts and you deniers lost the argument years ago. But, your so emotionally attached to your denier beliefs, it will take you many years of reality checks to realize how stupid you are. Stupid deniers.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2014
Hey howTurd, how was the block party in NY city?
Did your False "Profit" Al, let you get close enough to sniff that expensive dinner he had?
Yep, you ignorant morons will save the world.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2014
@antigoracle

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. You post a question, somebody patiently answers it, and then you post a fact free abusive tirade because the answer is accurate, incontrovertible, and doesn't fit with your worldview.

Now unless you can find anything wrong with thermo's answer I think you owe him an apology.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2014
So thermo, I guess you missed the AGW "science" part of my request, i.e. provide peer reviewed science as it pertains to CO2 being more soluble in warmer oceans.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2014
So now that AGW has been proven to be false
@kdk
can you provide the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE supporting this personal conjecture?
there is NO evidence from ANY reputable peer reviewed source that states AGW is false, only idiots who's personal opinion is coloured by their political beliefs.
ther IS a preponderance of info supporting the AGW conclusions, as well as the FACTS that people like YOU are pushing ANTI-science and being PAID for it by big oil/big business: see this study: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

I guess you missed the AGW "science" part of my request
@antiG
i guess you CAN'T read after all! WOW
Try reading his post again... and this http://en.wikiped...Fugacity AGAIN

you are only PROVING that you have NO GRASP of science with your posts...
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2014
Hey stunty, if I wanted shite from you, I would squeeze your head, now float back down to the bottom of your cesspool of ignorance. Turd
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2014
Antiscience said:
So thermo, I guess you missed the AGW "science" part of my request, i.e. provide peer reviewed science as it pertains to CO2 being more soluble in warmer oceans.


No, I just didn't realize how ignorant you are. The peer reviewed papers on solubility of gases in sea water were produced in the late 1800s. The partitioning of gases from the air to the oceans is based on chemistry that has been known since the 1800s. If you had ever taken a chemistry class you would know that.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2014
Hey stunty, if I wanted shite from you, I would squeeze your head, now float back down to the bottom of your cesspool of ignorance. Turd
troll post
off topic
irrelevant

your "cesspool of ignorance" is simple transferrence and you are applying your personal attributes to others in the hastily negative responses you are forming to throw off the point and redirect the conversation so that you don't have to prove your ignorance yet again.

you are also likely a paid anti-science troll based upon your historical posts (and this: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx ) and the facts that you are not able to provide empirical evidence from reputable sources refuting arguments, like above. (did you read all the links and studies on the page linked TO you? I thought not)

You were given a chance, now you are just trolling, so I will not respond further and just downvote/report your posts.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2014
So thermo, I guess you missed the AGW "science" part of my request, i.e. provide peer reviewed science as it pertains to CO2 being more soluble in warmer oceans.


from thermo's link

The concept of fugacity was introduced by American chemist Gilbert N. Lewis in 1901.

http://www.jstor....20021635

antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2014
Well stunty, I asked because I know what a lying moron you are and here is the proof.
http://wwwbrr.cr....3-77.htm
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2014
Antiscience said:
Well stunty, I asked because I know what a lying moron you are and here is the proof.
http://wwwbrr.cr....3-77.htm


Now you really have me curious. What do you think that link says that refutes what I have been saying or what Truck Captain has been saying? Please let me know what you interpret that as saying.
howhot2
4.8 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2014
So @antisnoracle says here is proof. He then proceeds to abuse the science he distrusts so much, by presenting us in a matter of fact manner, the "Modeling Gas Solubilities: CO 2 at High Pressures" and then calls everyone with any science knowledge 'lying morons'!

Thank yooouuu @antisnoracle for such a great waste of time. From the title of the article is; "Ocean acidification could lead to collapse of coral reefs" The subject is about coral reefs and most of those are very shallow but could extend to depths of 50 meters. So how does CO2 solubility effect the coral (and calcium shelled organisms)? 50 meters is about 6atm. From your reference that amounts to little change from surface solubility of CO2.

http://www.calcto...th_press

So by analysis you point is wrong. What that implies though is that ocean is just like a soda bottle. Solubility of CO2 in water is larger at warmer temperatures. Which will increase ocean acidification and kill life.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2014
Howhot said:
Solubility of CO2 in water is larger at warmer temperatures. Which will increase ocean acidification and kill life.


You must have made a typo because the solubility of gases goes down as temperature goes up, I know you are aware of that from other conversations so it must have been a slip of the fingers. The issue with AntiScience is that he seems to not understand the concept of activity, fugacity, and partial pressure. That is why I asked him for clarification of his link. I think he just completely misunderstood it.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2014
Solubility of CO2 in water is larger at warmer temperatures

Clarification eh thermo. Now I know you are a fraud. Why don't you go and take that single chemistry course again and then have another look at the link, especially figure 27.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2014
Antiscience said:
Solubility of CO2 in water is larger at warmer temperatures

Clarification eh thermo. Now I know you are a fraud. Why don't you go and take that single chemistry course again and then have another look at the link, especially figure 27.


I have no idea what you think figure 27 shows, but it does not say anything to back up what you are saying. The reason CO2 is going up is that the change in temperature is much slower than the increase in CO2 partial pressure. Your diagram does nothing to refute that. In fact, if you think it does, you are even more poorly educated than I thought (and that is a very low bar).
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
Well stunty, I asked because I know what a lying moron you are and here is the proof.
http://wwwbrr.cr....3-77.htm
@AntiG
At least this post was relevant and on topic
But still far from proving your point... in fact, it only supports Thermodynamics, Runrig as well as Howhot's conclusions.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all as to what you think your link meant?
What exactly do you think you are posting?
As long as you refrain from your typical denigration and derogatory troll posting, we can converse logically as well as factually.

if you have the ability to refrain from your other style postings, then provide the information Thermodynamics and I are asking for and lets see where you are coming from.

Sorry for the late post.
GOOD answer THERMO... it is also a stationary temp with no graduated points showing how solubility reacts under changing heat, just atmosphere.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2014
So thermo, what do you think figure 27 shows?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2014
Further to your fraud thermo.
http://www.carbon...an-sink/
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
Antiscience said:
So thermo, what do you think figure 27 shows?


Anti: What do you have to lose by showing me up with your own answer? Just point out why I am stupid when you have given us answers that refute ocean acidification,
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2014
Perhaps the morons in the AGW Cult can explain how AGW "science" makes a warming ocean capture more CO2.


http://www.carbon...an-sink/

"It's a combination of atmospheric CO2 levels and seawater chemistry that determines how much CO2 seawater can hold, and warmer water cannot hold as much dissolved CO2 as cold water."

So It's a combination of atmospheric CO2 levels and seawater chemistry, unless you want to dispute the link.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2014
Thermo, you are a liar and fraud, so no amount of scientific evidence could ever satisfy your ignorance. You refuse to provide any scientific evidence to substantiate your claims, wait LIES.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
@Thermodynamics
Good luck with trying to get an intelligent response from anti, but I'm sure you know that is something he is incapable of. He's already proven he can't read a graph. The last link he offered didn't say what he thought it said.

I should thank him though. I've bookmarked their resource page and signed up for the daily and weekly Carbon Briefs.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2014
Antiscience said:
Thermo, you are a liar and fraud, so no amount of scientific evidence could ever satisfy your ignorance. You refuse to provide any scientific evidence to substantiate your claims, wait LIES.


Let me summarize. I explained how it works. I gave you a link to how it works. You came back with a link that makes no sense in the context of the question. I ask you to just explain it, and all you can come back with is epithets. Just explain why you think figure 27 proves your point. I explained why mine did.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
@Thermodynamics
Good luck with trying to get an intelligent response from anti, but I'm sure you know that is something he is incapable of. He's already proven he can't read a graph. The last link he offered didn't say what he thought it said.

I should thank him though. I've bookmarked their resource page and signed up for the daily and weekly Carbon Briefs.



VietVet: I also signed up.

I know Antiscience can't answer the questions, but it is fun to give him every opportunity and watch him resort to name calling.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
Thermo, you are a liar and fraud, so no amount of scientific evidence could ever satisfy your ignorance. You refuse to provide any scientific evidence to substantiate your claims, wait LIES.
@antiG
Actually, from what I have seen above: Thermo answered, in fact, his summary above points out specifically that it is not HE that is a "liar and fraud" but YOU

Therefore, your posts are not relevant and are TROLL posts
We can now assume, because you are not able to answer with any serious science or with intellect, that your posts are nothing but TROLLING for feedback, and now we can ignore you, down-vote you, and just report your posts.

Bye bye, troll
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2014
Thermo, I've provided you links that confirms a warmer ocean will absorb less CO2 and what do you have a wiki link to fugacity. The only one you can deceive with your fraud are the other ignorant Chicken Littles.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2014
@Anti

This is the question you asked and Thermo answered

Perhaps the morons in the AGW Cult can explain how AGW "science" makes a warming ocean capture more CO2.


Your own link explains

"It's a combination of atmospheric CO2 levels and seawater chemistry that determines how much CO2 seawater can hold, and warmer water cannot hold as much dissolved CO2 as cold water."

Your question has been answered, now how about an apology for all the abuse.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
@anti
You're getting frustrated because you aren't grasping some salient facts.

The oceans acidity has increased by 30% since wide spread use of fossil fuels and is still rising.

Your link suggest the RATE of absorption is in the North Atlantic is slowing but hasn't stopped.

Some organisms might adopt to higher acidity but others are already suffering.

If the ocean becomes less effective as a carbon sink it means more CO2 in the atmosphere, leading to more AGW.

Those are the facts
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
Antiscience said:
Thermo, I've provided you links that confirms a warmer ocean will absorb less CO2 and what do you have a wiki link to fugacity. The only one you can deceive with your fraud are the other ignorant Chicken Littles.


Anti: I will try one more time to explain this to you.

First, the link you provided to figure 27 shows the X axis in atmospheres and the real CO2 concentration is in parts per million. Your graph would have to be blown up a million times to give us a view at the ppm level.

Second, you seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that the fugacity is related to both temperature and pressure. Both SteveS and Vietvet pointed this out to you.

Third, the temperature relationship is relative to the absolute temperature change. Can you calculate that?

Fourth, the pressure relationship is related to the absolute pressure change. Can you calculate that?

If you take both into consideration it answers your question.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2014
Thermo, what's the longest job you have had? I want to know how long it took for them to see the fraud you are.
If you have to blow up that graph to see that CO2 solubility decreases with increasing temperature then you are absolutely ignorant.
Further, you dispute directly observed evidence.
http://www.carbon...an-sink/
You can only fool the moronic Chicken Littles in your AGW Cult.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
Thermo, what's the longest job you have had? I want to know how long it took for them to see the fraud you are.
If you have to blow up that graph to see that CO2 solubility decreases with increasing temperature then you are absolutely ignorant.
Further, you dispute directly observed evidence.
http://www.carbon...an-sink/
You can only fool the moronic Chicken Littles in your AGW Cult.


Antiscience: In other words, you can't make the absolute calculations I explained would answer your question. Go pout since you can't make a simple calculation.
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2014
Howhot said:
Solubility of CO2 in water is larger at warmer temperatures. Which will increase ocean acidification and kill life.

You must have made a typo because the solubility of gases goes down as temperature goes up,
Your right @termo. Of course. This 1940 landmark study shows exactly the relationship of CO2 solubility to temperature.

http://pubs.acs.o...1861a033

I was recalling an experiment where this group supersaturated water on a hotplate with CO2 but come to think of it, it was under pressure so it would supersatureate. An icecube made the solution erupt violently just like a hot shaken coke bottle just opened.

In a saline solution (salt water), solubility of CO2 is not that clearcut and in the ocean, there are many variables involved. Regardless of the fact CO2 solubility does decrease with increasing temperatures, the point to @antigorefukle that needs to be made is the more CO2 in the air, the more acidic the oceans will become regardless.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2014
Howhot said:
Regardless of the fact CO2 solubility does decrease with increasing temperatures, the point to @antigorefukle that needs to be made is the more CO2 in the air, the more acidic the oceans will become regardless.


Absolutely correct. Anti just doesn't have the background to understand the difference in proportions of the temperature change and the proportions of partial pressure change. He is blinded by a single temperature curve at high pressures.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2014
Wow!! These are the morons who believe they will save the earth.
No wonder they went in droves to NYC, in air polluting buses, just to have a free block party.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2014
Antiscience said:
Wow!! These are the morons who believe they will save the earth.
No wonder they went in droves to NYC, in air polluting buses, just to have a free block party.


I notice you have not been able to make the calculations I showed you to demonstrate the idea that partial pressure is going up faster than temperature and therefor the partial pressure is the driving force. I am sure you don't understand it, but it is just simple ratios. Too bad you flunked 5th grade.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2014
Thermo you're a fraud.
BTW the word is thereforE.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2014
Antiscience said:
Thermo you're a fraud.
BTW the word is thereforE.


I consider your branding me a fraud as a compliment because you have no idea what science is about. Thank you for correcting my spelling since you can't correct anything else I have said.
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2014
Wow!! These are the morons who believe they will save the earth.
No wonder they went in droves to NYC, in air polluting buses, just to have a free block party.
The @antigorefukle being a hater, lackey to the GOP, and oil baron slave, must be jealous of the "free block party" that brought in 1/2 million folks to the streets of NY. All had the exact same claim; deniers are pretty pathetic human-beings. The part I like is that the ignorant GOP has taken up denialism as there cause. Haha. It's just like every other cause the GOP champions; its always something that is selfish, or belittling of ordinary citizens actions. In this case it the @antigorefukle moaning about gas used in buses to transport 1/2 million people in NYcity. I didn't see 1/2 million tea party jokers holding signs saying "I want to save the planet from extinction"!

Nope; deniers are the opposite, and I seriously wonder if it is their desire to see the extinction of the planet, and mankind as we know it!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2014
Hey howhot, were you born that stupid or dropped as a baby. Not everyone on this forum is from the US nor care for you and your ignorant politics. Seriously, grow a brain turd.
Now, when is the next block party?
Did Al let you sniff that expensive dinner he had?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2014
Thermo you're a fraud.
BTW the word is thereforE.
@AntiG
nope
as I happen to know him, I can tell you that he is not only every bit the scientist (I have also read some of his published papers) but he is also FAR more capable than you have demonstrated with your continual denigration and troll posts with no content.

And he is doing far more than you are to protect the environment as well.

Tell you what... if you are sure he is fraudulent in his assessment, then go through the math and show where he is wrong.
Or better yet, post the refute here to prove something.

that is the ONLY way you are going to get people to believe you are correct... especially given your historical posts here, from "turds" to "born stupid"... you've only displayed TROLL characteristics (which are downvoted and reported)

try some science now...

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.