But even species that appear undaunted by acidification in limited laboratory tests may not be home free.
Walleye pollock, a species that supports one of the largest and most valuable commercial fisheries in the world, appear able to cope with the level of ocean acidification scientists expect over the next century, said Thomas Hurst, a fisheries ecologist at Oregon State University.
But it's not clear whether their prey are as sturdy. Some research suggests that more acidic water shifts the balance of fatty acids in the plankton that pollock consume -- a change that could throw the fish off balance.
"There's still a lot of work to do," Hurst said. "This being one of the nation's fisheries, we can't close the book yet."
Beth Fulton, an expert in marine ecosystem modeling at Australia's Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization, said it is also important to note that the world's fisheries were struggling before ocean acidification was on the horizon.
In many parts of the world, fisheries catches have declined even as demand for fish has ratcheted up.
"We're starting at a baseline where the stocks of the world are already under pressure," Fulton said. "About two-thirds of the world's commercially fished stocks are recovering from past overfishing or are still overfished."
Her work modeling the effect of ocean acidification in southeastern Australia suggests that, if humans continue producing CO2 emissions at the current rate, the region could see a reduction of up to 40 percent of its biodiversity and the average size of many marine species could be cut in half by the end of the century.
"We will still have fisheries -- if we are willing to eat different fish," she said.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
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