- 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

That is evolution at play. Adapt or extinct.

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


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,"

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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