- or more correctly, increased levels of bicarbonate in ocean waters.

It's an easier subject for even the most skeptic to understand. As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase, and you can track them on the Mauna Loa site, it is relatively easy to predict what the concentration will be in seawater at various temperatures.

Krill are a major part of the food chain, especially for whales. A recent study was carried out by the University of Tasmania to determine the viability of Krill eggs at various Atmospheric CO2 levels.

"In Ms [Lilli] Hale's study, the division's world-first krill breeding research facility near Hobart was used to hatch 200 larvae in jars with an artificial atmospheric carbon dioxide level increased to the worst-case 2100 level. "Their anatomy wasn't quite right," Ms Hale said. "They were a bit deformed, and they were listless. It's unlikely they would have survived through to adulthood."

When carbon dioxide levels were raised even further, fertilised eggs did not hatch at all.  "

http://www.aseachange.net/2008/10/krill-kill-in-a.html

Is there an equilibrium issue at play there? Maybe in a glass jar you could wait for the CO2 concentration to reach equilibrium with the air, but that won't happen with the ocean because the sink is too big to fill.

That is evolution at play. Adapt or extinct.

The problem is that it's happening too quickly for organisms to evolve.

The other issue is that as temperatures rise, whole marine ecosystems will split geographically. Benthic organisms are extremely limited in their rate of migration compared to Pelagic fish for example.  

FD - I'm not sure that I understand your point. The ocean never reaches a true equilibrium with the air because the air temperature, humidity etc  varies all the time, even over a 24 hour period. The ocean alkalinity however remains relatively constant over such short periods.

Equilibrium for water vapour for example would be 100% Relative Humidity. That usually only occurs during rain.

The alkalinity reaches a predicable level with varying levels of atmospheric CO2, and that's what the experiment was seeking to replicate.

Of course, the levels were worst case.

tallowood wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 9:19pm:

That is evolution at play. Adapt or extinct.

Well, extinction anyway. Adaptation takes a bit longer than a few generations.

The predominant shallow water coral species today has changed since the Eocene for example.

1/3 of the world's coral species are facing extinction because of rising CO2 levels. How long do you think it would take a coral species to evolve?

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/features/s2311753.htm?page=Page3

"Evolution takes time, and what we are seeing is a mismatch between the rate at which evolution can adapt to change, and the rate of change. Coral reefs can't keep up, and we're seeing an increased rate of coral degradation as a result."

"What we're planning to inflict on the earth is about 100 to 1,000 times faster than the Ice Age transitions that transformed the entire planet,"

Muso, what I meant was, was the experiment based on 'normal' seawater exposed to high CO2 air, but not given time tio be affected by it, or was it based on seawater that had reached equilibrium with that air? If it was based on seawater that had reached equilibrium, it may not be a reflection of what could happen in the ocean.

Even with short term variation, it is still possible to get an equilibrium of sorts. It's just based on equilibrium with the 'average' atmosphere. I think the time delay for ocean response to CO2 concentration is of the order of decades at least.

Another factor is the speed at which they can move. Animals can move plenty fast enough, so long as they don't hit the southern/northern end of their land/niche. The same is not true of a forest. Not only do large trees take a long time to grow, but the conditions for them to colonise a new area take a long time to arise. In most cases new artificial barriers (eg coastal cities) are blocking their path. Islandisation and rapid climate change is a disastrous mix.

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 9:41am:

Muso, what I meant was, was the experiment based on 'normal' seawater exposed to high CO2 air, but not given time tio be affected by it, or was it based on seawater that had reached equilibrium with that air? If it was based on seawater that had reached equilibrium, it may not be a reflection of what could happen in the ocean.

I passed on the link, but the way I would have done it would be to gradually increase the bicarbonate concentration until it corresponded to the projected seawater bicarbonate concentration at 2100. Average ocean pH has already decreased by 0.1 pH units.

The lag you're talking about is for temperature, not CO2 concentration.

Tallow,

You're right. A few years ago I was involved in a project for the biodegradation of toxic wastes. The bacteria took about 3 months to evolve.

For human, say 20 years as you said. For corals, the equivalent time is about 8 years before they are sexually mature. So the marine biologists were quite right in their statement about the mismatch. I guess you'd expect Coral specialists to know that kind of thing.  

By the way, I sent you a Private message. I er accidentally deleted your last post. :-[

muso wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 12:33pm:

Tallow, You're right. A few years ago I was involved in a project for the biodegradation of toxic wastes. The bacteria took about 3 months to evolve. For human, say 20 years as you said. For corals, the equivalent time is about 8 years before they are sexually mature. So the marine biologists were quite right in their statement about the mismatch. I guess you'd expect Coral specialists to know that kind of thing.   By the way, I sent you a Private message. I er accidentally deleted your last post. :-[

No worries.
In short summary I was saying how cruel evolution is to life forms that are complex.  Here I want to add that mass breeding can be winning evolutionary factor too but I don't know how massive is coral procreation is.

It's pretty massive, but only occurs once a year about November / December. It has some as yet unknown connection with the moon phases.   At my coastal location (as opposed to my work location) we get spawn from the reefs being washed up on shore about that time.

muso wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 3:05pm:

It's pretty massive, but only occurs once a year about November / December. It has some as yet unknown connection with the moon phases.   At my coastal location (as opposed to my work location) we get spawn from the reefs being washed up on shore about that time.

Is the rate of gene mutation in corals known? Is there any data on diversification of existing coral population?
If both questions are answered yes then superimposing that info on the info about environmental change may give fairly accurate prediction I think.

tallowood wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 3:39pm:

Is the rate of gene mutation in corals known? Is there any data on diversification of existing coral population? If both questions are answered yes then superimposing that info on the info about environmental change may give fairly accurate prediction I think.

I'd say it might be academic given that coral polyps take roughly 8 years to sexual maturity. Could they adapt in 4 generations?................nah  (It's 32 years until 2040)

That would be like my bacteria mutating in 3 days instead of 3 months.

We actually had to start anew with the bacteria. We fed them cyanide at slightly too high a rate. We killed them off after 6 weeks. The second batch adapted nicely and were munching away at 50ppm cyanide within 3 months.

muso wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 9:38pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 20th, 2008 at 3:39pm: Is the rate of gene mutation in corals known? Is there any data on diversification of existing coral population? If both questions are answered yes then superimposing that info on the info about environmental change may give fairly accurate prediction I think. I'd say it might be academic given that coral polyps take roughly 8 years to sexual maturity. Could they adapt in 4 generations?................nah  (It's 32 years until 2040) That would be like my bacteria mutating in 3 days instead of 3 months. We actually had to start anew with the bacteria. We fed them cyanide at slightly too high a rate. We killed them off after 6 weeks. The second batch adapted nicely and were munching away at 50ppm cyanide within 3 months.

But if every generation is really massive in numbers then it is possible that there are enough of favourable mutation per generation.
Of course I'm only guessing.

This is not a bad (easy to read) article on ocean acidification. The chemistry has been dumbed down beyond belief, but the overall conclusions are valid.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_acidocean.html

This Wikipedia article has a better description of the chemistry that's going on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification