Claim: Acidifying oceans could spell trouble for squid

This is junk science because…

First, the ocean seems to becoming slightly less basic — not more acidic. Next, the change is happening slow enough that marine life should be able to adapt, through natural selection if necessary. Warmists do believe in evolution, right? Finally, in this experiment, squid eggs were simply hatched in a tank with a 3-time less basic pH level anticipated in 100 years — i.e., no chance for natural selection to operate.

The media release is below.


Acidifying oceans could spell trouble for squid

New study reveals more acid seas could alter early development of Atlantic longfin squid

Acidifying oceans could dramatically impact the world’s squid species, according to a new study led by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) researchers and soon to be published in the journal PLOS ONE. Because squid are both ecologically and commercially important, that impact may have far-reaching effects on the ocean environment and coastal economies, the researchers report.

“Squid are at the center of the ocean ecosystem—nearly all animals are eating or eaten by squid,” says WHOI biologist T. Aran Mooney, a co-author of the study. “So if anything happens to these guys, it has repercussions down the food chain and up the food chain.”

Research suggests that ocean acidification and its repercussions are the new norm. The world’s oceans have been steadily acidifying for the past hundred and fifty years, fueled by rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Seawater absorbs some of this CO2,turning it into carbonic acid and other chemical byproducts that lower the pH of the water and make it more acidic. As CO2 levels continue to rise, the ocean’s acidity is projected to rise too, potentially affecting ocean-dwelling species in ways that researchers are still working to understand.

Mooney and his colleagues—lead author Max Kaplan, then an undergraduate student from the University of St. Andrews in the U.K. and now a WHOI graduate student, and WHOI scientists Daniel McCorkle and Anne Cohen—decided to study the impact of acidifying seawater on squid. Over the summer of 2011, Mooney and Kaplan gathered male and female Atlantic longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) from the waters of Vineyard Sound and transported them to a holding tank in the WHOI Environmental Systems Laboratory. When these squid mated and the females laid their egg capsules—each of which can contain 200 to 300 fertilized eggs—the researchers transferred some of the capsules to one of two smaller tanks filled with Vineyard Sound seawater.

These two smaller tanks represented two environments: today’s ocean, and the more acidic oceans of the future. One was continuously exposed to air pumped in from outside, to simulate the ocean’s current interaction with the atmosphere. The other received air enriched with higher CO2 levels that made the seawater about three times more acidic, a level of acidity that models predict will be widespread a hundred years from now.

The researchers watched as the eggs hatched and the squid began to develop in each of the two tanks, and measured their time to hatching, body length and other parameters as they grew.

“Amazingly, we found effects or changes in all those parameters,” Mooney says. “Animals raised in high CO2 took longer to develop, which is a big deal when you’re basically this egg mass on the bottom of the ocean and fish can just pop along and eat you.”

Squid reared in more acidic seawater were also 5 percent smaller on average, the team reports, and they developed smaller and misshapen statoliths, which are organs made of carbonate crystals that enable the squid to orient themselves while swimming. Earlier work has shown that squid with malformed statoliths may swim in circles or swim poorly, which leaves them likely to die when they can’t escape predators or catch their prey.

Squid that grew up in more acidic seawater formed statoliths with a disorganized, degraded crystal structure, Mooney says.

“That means the animal probably had a challenging time laying down those crystals,” he says. “It doesn’t look like they can do that in a very orderly or standard fashion in high CO2 because the acidified conditions keep dissolving the calcium carbonate as the animals are trying to lay it down.”

The results suggest that squid are vulnerable to the acidic conditions that higher CO2 levels create, and may face greater challenges to survival as the ocean acidifies than researchers anticipated.

“The fact that we found an impact in everything we measured was pretty astounding,” Mooney says. “That means that squid, this keystone species, might be really impacted by the environment that we’re changing, and that’s going to have ramifications down the line.”

Those ramifications could include significant changes to the ocean ecosystem, where squid play a vital role, as well as economic losses. Squid are a key food source for many commercially important fish, including tuna and hake, and are themselves a valuable commodity: In 2011 alone, U.S. fishermen harvested more than 300 million pounds of squid with a value of more than $100 million.

Mooney and his colleagues are planning additional studies to better understand how squid may fare in changing ocean conditions. Future experiments may look at a range of different levels of acidity, to determine which levels squid can and can’t tolerate, and at the effects of temperature changes, as seawater is also expected to warm in the coming century. The researchers also hope to observe and measure behavioral differences in squid reared in more acidic seawater to form a clearer picture of how the animals’ lives may shift as the ocean around them changes.


13 thoughts on “Claim: Acidifying oceans could spell trouble for squid”

  1. acidity is a measure of the concentration of H+ ions. By definition, “slightly less basic” means more acidic. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation.

  2. My God does no one take basic chemistry anymore? To move the Ph of the ocean one point would take so much acid that is beyond consideration. As for going more basic it would vary by location as it does now and always has been that way . . Amazon delta, Mississippi delta, and the Asian delta all have lower salinity due to the amount of fresh water invading the salt water areas.

    More Grant Science – end it here – Restore sanity to government and Universities . .

  3. I had a debate with a Chemistry teacher (University) level. He explains how the ocean was becoming more acidic because of CO2. I said to him that above 7 is alkaline and the ocean is 8.2PH so it is an alkaline solution. The prof got all angry and with, that look of contempt, explained how “Technically”A drop in the PH from 8.2 to 8.1 it is becoming more acidic not alkaline.So being my usual self. I said Thank you for the explanation and added … With a Big grin… what make 7 neutral ? He looked like he got kick where it hurt the most and his chemical challenged Ocean Acidification theory did not hole water. Amazing what a little common sense can do.

  4. Like you said . . University Grant Science is tilted toward the absurd. the part that concerns me is that many even that Prof believe the crap they just spew put as factual conjecture?

  5. Ph is a measure of the negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration. Not “acidity.” This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation.

  6. Look at Wilbert’s comment below 7.0 is neutral. You don’t become acidic until you drop below that level. It would be like saying that because the number 7 is lower than the number 8, then 7 is more negative than 8. Of course you don’t become negative until you go below zero.

  7. Saying that a drop in pH is more acidic when you are above the neutral “7” would be like saying the number 8 is more negative than the number 9 just because it is a lower number. Of course we all know that you don’t become a negative number until you go below zero, just like you don’t become acidic
    until you go below 7.

  8. First problem is they based their hypothesis on a computer model. Second it doesn’t appear there was any replication; just dump some egg capsules into a tank with local sea water and some into a tank with CO2 induced acidification. Did they use the same number of egg capsules in each tank and did each capsule have the same number of eggs?
    Frankly I would expect a little better science coming out of an institution like WHOI but one doesn’t get more grant money with negative results. Unverifiable maybe, but not with negative; especially when the end conclusion must support global warming and all the nasty changes that go with it.

  9. There’s a reason that the witness oath goes the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    If it is the technical truth, but phrased in a way to be deliberately deceptive, then it is effectively a lie. To say “more acidic” in a frightening tone conjures up deliberately false images of critters dissolving in acid right out of comic books, or your eyes burning in vinegar-sour lakes and rivers.
    Not fractionally lower pH values that are still basic.

  10. The EPA has clear and explicit procedures for biomonitoring of effluent streams. They were clearly not followed. Why not? Are misid shrimp and inland silverside not sensitive enough to fractional changes in pH? Does the fact that there are clear determiners for passing and failing not give sufficient wiggle room to ask for more funding?

Comments are closed.