SHELLFISH: Ocean acidification is already impacting oyster hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest.
Image: Flickr/neil banas
MONTEREY, Calif. -- Move over, polar bear.
The white prowler of Arctic ice fields may now be an icon of climate change, but when it comes to ocean acidification -- the shift in ocean chemistry caused by rising carbon dioxide emissions -- it's the tiny Pacific Northwest oyster that dominates the discussion.
The little mollusk brings in an estimated $110 million for West Coast shellfish growers, an economic shot in the arm for many struggling communities in Washington and Oregon.
But today, the ongoing process of ocean acidification, fueled by man-made CO2 emissions, threatens that bounty. Scientists working with oyster hatcheries have linked recent widespread deaths of oyster larvae to periodic influxes of more acidic ocean water.
Oyster growers have developed temporary fixes for the problem, like cutting off the flow of ocean water into hatchery tanks when sensors show a pulse of acidified water is about to hit. But with a grim long-term prognosis, some hatcheries are taking more drastic steps. Washington-based Goose Point Oysters and Taylor Shellfish Farms have shifted some of their oyster operations to Hawaii.
The problem is so severe that Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) commissioned a blue-ribbon panel on the topic, which is expected to release its findings next month.
A 'sad story'
"The science around our industry has already told us a sad story," said Taylor spokesman Bill Dewey. "Our fate is sealed for the next several decades. Even if we change our CO2 emission policies today and stop the assault, [scientists] have told us it's probably going to get worse for the next 50 years before it gets better."
He and other experts who gathered in Monterey this week say they fear the fate of the Pacific Northwest's oysters is the first hint of widespread disruption of marine ecosystems and commercial fisheries that is likely to result as CO2 sours the world's seas.
Oceans have absorbed roughly two-thirds of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities since the Industrial Revolution began, leaving seawater 30 percent more acidic now than it was then. That corresponds to a drop of 0.1 unit on the 14-point pH scale scientists use to gauge a substance's relative acidity or alkalinity.
By one recent estimate, the chemistry of the ocean is shifting faster now than it has for at least 300 million years.
Scientists began studying the problem less than a decade ago, and the field has exploded. But much of the existing research looks at the fate of single species in isolation. Researchers are just now beginning more ambitious experiments to examine the fate of whole ecosystems.
"We started out with a pretty simple view, but like everything else with biology, it gets complicated very quickly," said Joanie Kleypas, a marine ecologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "There's a lot of ways ocean acidification affects organisms that we didn't predict, and there's a lot of variation in those organisms."
And that makes predicting the fate of the world's fisheries in a more acidic ocean a difficult task.
"What the science needs to do is move from single organisms, to move from the lab to the field to examine the food web," said Jean-Pierre Gattuso, a biogeochemist at the French National Center for Scientific Research. "We don't know how the impacts on the base of the food web will propagate up to the top predators."
In the Pacific Northwest, scientists have discovered that oysters are most vulnerable to today's acidified water as fast-growing young larvae.
Severe chemical shift
Some studies suggest that some strains of oysters and mussels may be better able to adapt to that chemical shift. Dewey says Taylor Shellfish Farms is already investigating the possibility of identifying ocean acidification-resistant strains as part of its ongoing selective breeding program.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentClimatewire and Unscientific American continue to publish propaganda regarding global warming and in particular ocean acidification.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the natural PH of the ocean varies in local areas by more in a month than the PH level may change in years due to it becoming more basic, why do some alarmists believe that the local sea life will be harmed? That is 100% proof that the local sea life survives quite well in a different PH level.
There are a number of things that humans are doing to polute the oceans and should be immediately stopped. People should be focusing on the real harms being done to the oceans and not on the propaganda based agenda surrounding CO2 based global warming
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about foreign fishing fleets using nets that vacuum up every living thing in the water column?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love to see a study on what happens to an eco system when the larger fish are totally removed due to overfishing. My bet is that the wholesale removal of fisheries such as cod has a vastly greater influence.
pH fluctuation is a red herring. Ocean waters fluctuate by far more than what these studies find naturally. If animals could not tolerate the minute changes to pH claimed by the Alarmists they would have all died out long ago.
The pH fable was discredited last year. I guess the Alarmists are counting on everyone having Alzheimer's as they keep re-hashing the same discredited ideas hoping for traction.
The invisible hand of free markets are weighing in on the reality of global warming. Or is the overreaching government dictating the business practices of private enterprises such as Goose Point Oysters and Taylor Shellfish Farms?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConservatives/denialists just don't understand free markets (except only in an idealistic sense that conforms with their utopian ideology).
Unfortunately Shosin, your propensity for belief in nonsense is not helping the people who are already losing their livelihoods. I predict that when the ocean's chain of life does inevitably collapse, Sisko and Shosin will still be spamming that their SUVs are not the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMakes me wonder where all the CO2 belongs... too much in the atmosphere, too much in the world's oceans... seemingly because we took hydro carbons out of the ground and burned them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it not possible to reverse that process? Can we produce necessities by binding that CO2 back into some compound that traps or sinks it into storage?
Did most of you see that SA article claiming the USN is mining seawater for the CO2 used in producing hydrogen that is reprocessed to make jet fuel @ $3-6/gal? I guess that this CO2 gets into the atmosphere and back into the oceans, too. (I really did not get it, that CO2 would be mined from the ocean water to get hydrogen from H2O, but it sounded like it would save many lives and billions of dollars in supply chain logistics)
@Sisko and Shoshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all have been reading your posts to various climate related articles published over the last few months on this website. The question I have is, do you really think, considering the diversity of science based theories/hypotheses presented here, that you both know more than those studying what is presented?
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/23/business/record-lobster-catch-helps-boost-last-years-fishing-figures/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do not hear about this.
Or this: Record Numbers of Wild Sockeye Salmon Return to the Pacific Northwest. http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2012/06/record-numbers-wild-sockeye-salmon-counted-pacific-northwest
"Is it not possible to reverse that process? Can we produce necessities by binding that CO2 back into some compound that traps or sinks it into storage?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoing Carbon Negative
If we’re serious about halting the rise of – and eventually lowering – CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, biochar could prove the best way. It also allows us to more sustainably manage organic waste from municipalities, croplands, wastewater treatment plants, and a certain amount of residues from forests. The problem, as with all other climate-mitigation approaches, comes with reaching scale. Can biochar be produced to a large enough scale to make a measurable impact? The answer lies in the triple-bottom-line perspective. In other words, the only way this will happen is if it can be produced in ways that meet the needs of people, planet and profit... http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/09/sldi-project-carbon-negative/
As ocean temperatures increase, seawater will gas off CO2 into the air, so it is in the colder seas that acidity will increase the most. The cold oceans are the least monitored, so we should not be surprised to see shellfish becoming very badly affected around the poles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLauren Morello and Climatewire continue to publish propaganda and lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe PH level of the ocean varies naturally at specific locations almost constantly. It regularly varies up and down more in a month than it could possible increase in years due to more atmospheric CO2. What the oyster farmers actually determined is that they should look at the PH of the ocean before mixing the ocean water with the water in their tanks. It actually had nothing to do with ocean acidification but those who like to spread untruthful propaganda do not like to let actual science get in the way of their untruthful stories.
Do I know more than the writers of the article? On that I can not comment. I can write that I am an engineer who has studied the issue for years and is honest, while Climatewire and scientific american publish things that are untrue
I agree sisko. People are dirty, disgusting creatures and we do enough to pollute the environment of two worlds! BUT.... attaching this "global warming" B.S. to the situation, makes anyone who tries to tie one to the other look like a mental midget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the trashing of the oceans before we even started putting extra greenhosye gases itno the atmosphere, a good source is Callum Roberts' book 'The Unnatural History of the Sea':
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.york.ac.uk/res/unnatural-history-of-the-sea/
On geoengineering, the Royal Society in Britain did an excellent report on this in 2009 - downloadable from http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/.
Geoengineering may become necessary, so we need to research it.
But it'd be better if we stopped putting extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - which means we need to stop burning fossil fuels and destroying natural habitats.
Sisko - there are three things I don't understand in your comments, and I would appreciate your answers:
1. If you don't believe climate scientists who've measured carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and carbonate and pH levels in the oceans, where do you believe the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel has gone to, and what evidence do you have for that belief?
2. Why do you not believe that climate scientists are right about climate change?
3. And why do you accuse them of lying, rather than at least believing them to be honest but just mistaken?
Shoshin: Please let the rest of us know what evidence you have that small changes in environment don't have a big impact on living beings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost ecologists who've studied the interactions between species and their environments have found that even small differences can make a big difference.
The fact that we're already causing huge destruction of habitats and species is not a reason to ignore yet another harm we're causing - it's a reason to take each harm we cause even more seriously.
Would you advise somebody with a life-threatening illness that it doesn't matter if they smoke, or eat rubbish food, or take no exercise? No, you'd advise them to do everything they could to increase their chances of survival. The same principle applies to the health of the oceans. Increasing acidity may be 'the straw that breaks the camel's back'.
Of course some form of life will almost always survive in even the most degraded habitats - but that doesn't mean that what has been lost wasn't richer, more diverse, more productive.
If anybody's missed the extremes to which damage can extend, see
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ocean-dead-zones