2010-10-11 02:12:27Feedback required: The human fingerprint in coral
John Cook


Atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by nearly 40% since pre-industrial times. Of course, all this extra CO2 coinciding with our dumping of billions of tonnes of CO2 into the air might be pure coincidence. How can we be sure we're responsible? Extra evidence comes from the different types of carbon isotopes found in the air. The most common carbon isotope is carbon-12 (12C) which is found in roughly 99% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The slightly heavier carbon-13 (13C) makes up most of the rest. Plants prefer carbon-12 over carbon-13. This means the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 is less in plants than it is in the atmosphere. As fossil fuels originally come from plants, it means when we burn fossil fuels, we're releasing more 12C into the atmosphere. If fossil fuel burning is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, we should be seeing the ratio of 13C to 12C decrease.

That is exactly what we observe. Atmospheric measurements of carbon dioxide find the ratio of 13C to12C (otherwise refered to δ13C) has been steadily decreasing over the last few decades (Ghosh 2003). However, this data only goes back to the 1980s. Fortunately, corals provide a window further into the past. In Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia (Wei et al 2009), the authors drilled a coral core from Arlington Reef, situated in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef. This enabled them to measure δ13C going back to 1800.

Ratio of Carbon-13 to Carbon-12 in Great Barrier Reef coral
Figure 1: Change in δ13C (13C/12C ratio) in coral from Arlington Reef (in the centre of the Great Barrier Reef).

What they find is the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 is relatively steady over much of the last two centuries. However, it starts to dramatically decrease in the latter half of the 20th Century. Increasing anthropogenic emissions of CO2 not only increased the levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration but also decreased the δ13C composition of the atmosphere. Thus, the decrease in δ13C is attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

The story doesn't end there. As CO2 increases in ocean waters, seawater pH levels fall. Some key marine organisms, such as calcareous micro-organisms and corals, have difficulty maintaining their external carbonate skeletons when pH levels drop. The coral core extracted from Arlington Reef also provided measurements of boron isotope levels (δ11B), which act as a proxy for seawater pH. They found that from 1941 to 2004, there was an overall trend of decreasing δ11B which corresponds to a drop in pH levels. The positive correlation between coral δ11B and δ13C provides strong confirmation that seawater acidification is closely linked to the anthropogenic CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels.

Thus fossil fuel burning is a cause of both global warming (which causes coral bleaching) and ocean acidification. To add further insult to injury, the paper also finds that coral bleaching may have the effect of further reducing pH levels. It seems coral reefs just can't catch a break.
2010-10-11 02:47:01

Looks good.
2010-10-11 02:51:27Thought on these corals
Robert Way

Hey John,
Good post. I'm kinda curious as to why the contributions of greenhouse gases are so distinct past the mid 1970s in the corals. That to me coincides very well from a time perspective with when it is said that the modern warming forced by CO2 began. I'm sure its coincidental to some degree that the two occur on par with one another and yet it still has me curious as to why after that point the isotope drops so much. Overload mother nature's carrying capacity?
2010-10-11 07:15:36decreasing oxygen
Dana Nuccitelli
Looks good.  You could also link to the CO2 is coming from the ocean rebuttal and/or CO2 is a pollutant which also mention the decrease of atmospheric oxygen as evidence that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic.  It's not relevant to this post since it doesn't relate to corals, but it might be worth a brief mentioning and link.
2010-10-11 13:15:29Thanks for the feedback
John Cook


Robert, don't know why the C13/C12 ratio only really starts to drop sharply in the 1970s, considering we'd been emitting fossil fuels all throughout the 20th Century. Maybe it was only when we really started emitting at high levels that it showed up in the ocean signal. Or maybe there's an ocean buffer that delays the reaction. It's not discussed in that paper. But I'm planning a few follow-up posts as I have a few other papers on the topic - maybe they'll have more details and I'll unpack them in later blog posts.

Dana, thanks for the suggestions. Ordinarily I'm a big fan of interlinking between posts (and love how you're always interlinking between your advanced rebuttals). I'm also a big fan of keeping posts as simple and on-topic as possible to avoid readers (aka skeptics) getting distracted by off-topic points. I think I would veer slightly off-topic if I were to shoe-horn those links in but will keep them in mind for future posts. Thanks!

2010-10-11 14:55:44good point
Dana Nuccitelli
Sure, that's a valid point, it's a good idea to stick to the coral-based evidence.  Very nice post.