Declining calcification on the Great Barrier Reef

As we’ve covered here before at Climate Shifts, the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the potential to slow the growth of reef-building corals by increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans.   By burning immense amounts of fossil fuels, humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by nearly 40%.  Roughly a quarter of this CO2 is being absorbed by oceans, where it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, acidifying the upper layers of the ocean.

Porites Cores

X-ray photographs of core sections from a massive coral (Porites lutea) showing annual density banding patterns similar to tree ring growth (Image courtesy of Bob Dunbar, Stanford University)

Several laboratory experiments suggest this could make it more difficult for corals and other organisms such as crabs and clams to secrete the calcium carbonate skeletons they depend on for survival.  The increased acidity essentially makes it more energetically costly to secrete skeletons and could eventually literally dissolve them.

A new research article published today in Science magazine (De’ath et al. 2009) takes the case for ocean acidification a step further.  The article suggests that the recent man-made increase in ocean acidity has lead to a reduced growth rate of massive reef-building corals.  A team of scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science measured the growth of hundreds of corals from 69 reefs on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia.  The team took core samples of the coral skeletons (up to 5m in length) and measured annual growth rings going back over 400 years. Their results strongly indicate that the vertical extension of massive, long-lived corals has slowed by roughly 13% since 1990.  This decrease in growth coincides with an increase in the acidity of tropical oceans. A previous paper from the group published earlier this year (see here) was widely criticized because it was based on corals from reefs close to shore and was limited to two geographic locations. However, the teams new paper found evidence of declines in calcification across over 300 corals growing across 2000 km of the GBR, which is indeed a cause for concern.

Whilst slower growth rates might not seem like a big problem in isolation, reef scientists are concerned that this will exacerbate the impacts of other threats to coral reefs.  Slower vertical growth of corals will make it harder for reefs to keep up with rising sea levels, whilst decreases in calcification makes corals more vulnerable to physical damage such as destructive storms and bioerosion.

Changes in (A) calcification, (B) linear extension, (C) density between 1905-2005 (328 corals from 69 different reefs across the length of the GBR. (D) shows trends in calcification between 1572-2001 (10 corals)

Changes in (A) calcification, (B) linear extension, (C) density between 1905-2005 (328 corals from 69 different reefs across the length of the GBR. (D) shows trends in calcification between 1572-2001 (10 corals). Light blue bands indicate 95% confidence intervals for comparison between years, and gray bands indicate 95% confidence intervals for the predicted value for any given year.

The fact that coral growth since the 1990’s has fallen to its lowest rate for 400 years is particularly worrying, and in stark contrast to the usual inductive reasoning portrayed in the media that “corals grow faster in warm water, therefore warm water is good for coral reefs” (see here for more discussion).

Given that global CO2 emissions are now exceeding the worse-case IPCC scenario, and the likely lag time of several decades between the addition of CO2 and the resulting increase in ocean acidity, we will almost certainly see such problems with coral calcification escalate over the coming decades. We can add this to the list of ‘surprises’ (such as deep water anoxia and the runaway collapses of iceshelves), and strongly suggests that we have seriously underestimated not only the rate of climate change, but the scale of the impacts on ecosystems across the globe. These results should compel the Rudd government to make immediate and drastic steps to decarbonise Australian economic systems as a urgent priority.

Did early climate impact divert a new glacial age?

Are we preventing a new ice age by burning greenhouse gases and increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?  Steve Vavrus presented a study at the annual American Geophysical Union meeting on Dec 17 suggest exactly that scenario.  Furthermore, he suggested that humans started impacting climate thousands of years ago via deforestation and agriculture.

SAN FRANCISCO — The common wisdom is that the invention of the steam engine and the advent of the coal-fueled industrial age marked the beginning of human influence on global climate.

But gathering physical evidence, backed by powerful simulations on the world’s most advanced computer climate models, is reshaping that view and lending strong support to the radical idea that human-induced climate change began not 200 years ago, but thousands of years ago with the onset of large-scale agriculture in Asia and extensive deforestation in Europe.

Using three different climate models and removing the amount of greenhouse gases humans have injected into the atmosphere during the past 5,000 to 8,000 years, Vavrus and Kutzbach observed more permanent snow and ice cover in regions of Canada, Siberia, Greenland and the Rocky Mountains, all known to be seed regions for glaciers from previous ice ages. Vavrus notes: “With every feedback we’ve included, it seems to support the hypothesis (of a forestalled ice age) even more. We keep getting the same answer.”

Link to the full article on EurekAlert here

Did global warming stop after 1998?

Anyone who has an interest in exploring patterns in global temperature should take a look  around WoodForTrees.org. Paul Clark, a British software developer and “practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist” has developed an online interface that allows anyone to go examine basic longterm trends in climate time series data (including the HADCRUT3 / GISTEMP Global Temperature & HADSST2 Sea Surface Temperature, along with sunspot activity and CO2 datasets).

The interface is incredibly intuitive, and allows a variety of transformations, averaging and trend estimations within graphs. After having spent literally hours playing around on this site, I completely agree with the warnings of ‘cherry picking‘ a dataset (i.e. choosing a certain year to start the trend to exacerbate a trend). To illustrate this ‘technique’, Paul has produced this classic graph:

trend2

Which goes to show that the temperature is either: 1) falling,  2) static, 3) rising, or 4) rising ‘really fast!’ -all depending on where you place the trendline.

As John eloquently explained in this comment a few days ago, “global warming stopped after 1998” is turning into one of the most common memes of the ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’. Alot of their argument relies on very heavily cherry-picked data – skeptical Science also have a great in detail discussion and counterpoint to this argument here. Contrast the above graph with the longer term view (consistent across multiple datasets), showing warming between 0.13-0.17°C/decade:

trend1

Coral springs back from tsunami

Coral transplantation in Indonesia after the impact of the boxing day 2004 tsunami.

Coral transplantation in Indonesia after the impact of the boxing day 2004 tsunami.

BBC News, 26th December

Scientists have reported a rapid recovery in some of the coral reefs that were damaged by the Indian Ocean tsunami four years ago.

It had been feared that some of the reefs off the coast of Indonesia could take a decade to recover.

The New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) found evidence of rapid growth of young corals in badly-hit areas. A spokesman said reefs damaged before the tsunami were also recovering. Some communities were abandoning destructive fishing techniques and even transplanting corals into damaged areas, the WCS said.

“This is a great story of ecosystem resilience and recovery,” said Stuart Campbell, co-ordinator of the WCS’s Indonesia Marine Program.

“These findings provide new insights into coral recovery processes that can help us manage coral reefs in the face of climate change.”

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a reef expert from the University of Queensland in Australia who did not take part in the study, said the findings were not surprising since corals typically recovered if not affected by fishing and coastal development.

“We are seeing similar things around the southern Great Barrier Reef where reefs that experience major catastrophe can bounce back quite quickly,” the scientist told the Associated Press.

Countries across the Indian Ocean have been remembering the 2004 disaster, which claimed some 230,000 lives. Prayers were said in Indonesia, Thailand and India on Friday, while Sri Lanka declared a two-minute silence in memory of the dead.

Death of corals is oceanographer’s murder mystery

There is a nice story in today’s News and Observer, the local paper for the Research Triangle,  in North Carolina.  Wade

“Marine scientist John Bruno became interested in coral reefs as a boy snorkeling in the turquoise waters off the Florida Keys above reefs of golden corals the size of football fields.

“It just went on for acres and acres,” recalls Bruno, 43, an associate professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. “They were just full of fish. We’d see hammerhead sharks on the reef and big critters. That is all gone. The corals are gone and the big fish are gone,” he says. “That’s happened in my lifetime.”

“It’s a wonderful murder mystery for ecologists,” says Bruno, who has been the studying the effects of disease and warming sea water on coral reefs. “It’s not obvious what the cause is. There are lots of potential culprits.”

Among the suspects are pollution, destructive fishing practices, predators that feed on corals, disease and warmer ocean waters.

In the ocean, reef-building corals, which are marine polyps, a class of animals, typically exist in colonies of many identical individuals. They fill the role of trees in a forest, Bruno says. The skeletons of corals create the hardened framework of a reef and, over time, build up and provide habitat for thousands of other animals and plants. Corals require warm, clear water and are sensitive to temperatures.

A warming of the ocean by just a degree or two for a few weeks in summer can disrupt the life cycle of corals, Bruno says. Reef-building corals contain tiny plant-like algae that live within their tissue in a mutually beneficial relationship. The algae provide the coral with food and oxygen, as well as the vibrant colors for which corals are known. In return, the organisms receive shelter and nutrients.

Ocean acidification could impact jumbo squid metabolism

A new study published in PNAS (Rosa and Seibel 2008) indicates that decreased ocean pH could affect the metabolism of large squid.  See the summary article in the NYT here.

squid

Synergistic effects of climate-related variables suggest future physiological impairment in a top ocean predator

By the end of this century, anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are expected to decrease the surface ocean pH by as much as 0.3 unit. At the same time, the ocean is expected to warm with an associated expansion of the oxygen minimum layer (OML). Thus, there is a growing demand to understand the response of the marine biota to these global changes. We show that ocean acidification will substantially depress metabolic rates (31%) and activity levels (45%) in the jumbo squid, Dosidicus gigas, a top predator in the Eastern Pacific. This effect is exacerbated by high temperature. Reduced aerobic and locomotory scope in warm, high-CO2 surface waters will presumably impair predator–prey interactions with cascading consequences for growth, reproduction, and survival. Moreover, as the OML shoals, squids will have to retreat to these shallower, less hospitable, waters at night to feed and repay any oxygen debt that accumulates during their diel vertical migration into the OML. Thus, we demonstrate that, in the absence of adaptation or horizontal migration, the synergism between ocean acidification, global warming, and expanding hypoxia will compress the habitable depth range of the species. These interactions may ultimately define the long-term fate of this commercially and ecologically important predator.

Reference


Convincing the climate-change skeptics

A op-ed published in the Boston Globe by Barack Obama’s new science advisor John Holdren:

By John P. Holdren, August 4, 2008

Convincing the climate-change skeptics

THE FEW climate-change “skeptics” with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.

Long-time observers of public debates about environmental threats know that skeptics about such matters tend to move, over time, through three stages. First, they tell you you’re wrong and they can prove it. (In this case, “Climate isn’t changing in unusual ways or, if it is, human activities are not the cause.”)

Then they tell you you’re right but it doesn’t matter. (“OK, it’s changing and humans are playing a role, but it won’t do much harm.”) Finally, they tell you it matters but it’s too late to do anything about it. (“Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it’s too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we’ll just have to hunker down and suffer.”)

All three positions are represented among the climate-change skeptics who infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and cocktail-party conversations. The few with credentials in climate-change science have nearly all shifted in the past few years from the first category to the second, however, and jumps from the second to the third are becoming more frequent.

All three factions are wrong, but the first is the worst. Their arguments, such as they are, suffer from two huge deficiencies.

First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun’s output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.

Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the denier fringe should ask themselves how it is possible, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that:

The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early, concerted action.
This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world.
All three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has been awarded for studies of the atmosphere (the 1995 chemistry prize to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, for figuring out what was happening to stratospheric ozone) are leaders in the climate-change scientific mainstream.
US polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans. These Republican skeptics should wonder how presidential candidate John McCain could have been taken in. He has castigated the Bush administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change, and the policies he says he would implement as president include early and deep cuts in US greenhouse-gas emissions. (Senator Barack Obama’s position is similar.)

The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.

John P. Holdren is a professor in the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Update:  You can download a nice lecture with lots of great graphics that Dr. Holdren gave at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
November 6, 2007 here

Scientists continue to debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Good to see that the ‘official’ number of skeptics increased in 2008 to over 650 – up from the 400 reported in this groundbreaking report from 2007.

“This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.  The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”

In other (related?) news, over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution:

“Dissent from Darwinism has gone global,” said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman, former US Ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna. “Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding US scientists that disproved that statement. Now we’re finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don’t subscribe to Darwin’s theory.”

Thanks to Jennifer Marohasy for the original link.

UPDATE (22/12/08):

Tim Lambert over at Deltoid Science Blog has written a great article discussing the ‘skeptics’, and comparing exactly which ‘scientists’ have signed both lists:

Here are the five people who couldn’t stop at rejecting just one science:

Edward Blick, Professor Emeritus of the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma. In an article published by the Twin Cities Creation Science Association, he wrote:

The predecessors of today’s unbelievers replaced the Holy Bible’s book of Genesis with Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Now with the help of Al Gore and the United Nations they are trying to replace the Holy Bible’s book of Revelation with the U.N.’s report Anthropogenic Global Warming. They tell us that man’s use of fossil fuels results in too much atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which causes excessive warming and melting of polar ice caps. They say if we don’t take drastic steps (trillions of dollars of taxes, year after year, after year), we will either roast to death, or drown in the rising seas. The plan is for the U.N. to take control of the world’s economy and dictate what we can use for transportation (bikes?), what we can eat, where we can live, and what industries we must shut down. This whole scheme is a “Trojan Horse” for global socialism! …

For thousands of years our earth has undergone cooling and warming under the control of God. Man cannot control the weather, but he can kill millions of people in his vain attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel that we use. How does God control our warming and cooling? Scientists have discovered it is the Sun! Amazing, even grade school children know this. The Sun’s warming or cooling the earth varies with sunspot and Solar flairs.

Marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco to head NOAA

jane

As if having Barack Obama win the US election wasn’t enough good news, we just learned that he has named Dr. Jane Lubchenco as the new head of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration!  This is really incredibly good news.

The fact that the new president, and as they say “world’s most powerful person”, even knows a marine ecologist is rather amazing.

Jane has been an international leader in marine conservation for several decades.  She is probably the most visible advocate of Marine Protected Areas.  Her initial fame came from her elegant test of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis as a PhD student.  She manipulated the density of herbivorous snails in tide pools in Nahant Massachusetts and found that intermediate levels of grazing pressure maximized macroalgal diversity.  She has been president of the Ecological Society of America, The American Association for the Advancement of Science and is a member of member of the US National Academy of Science.  In addition to being a fantastic and very active scientist and conservationist, she also has a fair amount of management experience.  She developed and heads several large programs including COMPASS, the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program and PISCO.

After having breakfast with Jane and her family in Sydney a few weeks ago, I told my wife I could envision her as President (as in of the USA).  She is highly articulate and generally very impressive (and a little intimidating).  Jane will also be the first woman to head NOAA and one of the few biologists anywhere near the top of that organizaion, that is usually run by stodgy old white guys with degrees in math, chemistry or physics.

obama

This is just great news.

See coverage of this story here and here.