The fishes and the coral live happily in the CO2 bubble plume

Guest post by David Archibald

Willis Eschenbach’s post on lab work on coral response to elevated carbon dioxide levels, and The Reef Abides, leads to a large scale, natural experiment in Papua New Guinea. There are several places at the eastern end of that country where carbon dioxide is continuously bubbling up through healthy looking coral reef, with fish swimming around and all that that implies.

image

Coral Reef at Dobu Island with carbon dioxide bubbling through it (photo: Bob Halstead)

What that implies is that ocean acidification is no threat at all. If the most delicate, fragile, iconic ecosystem of them all can handle flat-out saturation with carbon dioxide, what is there to worry about?

That lack of a threat is a threat to a human institution though – the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) based in Townsville, north Queensland run by Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

To quote Walter Starck (http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6171:png-coral-reefs-and-the-bubble-bath&catid=99:walter-starcks-blog&Itemid=123) – “A never ending litany of purported environmental threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has maintained a generous flow of funding for several generations of researchers. The “reef salvation” industry now brings about US$91 million annually into the local economy in North Queensland.

Although none of these threats has ever become manifest as a serious impact and all of the millions of dollars in research has never found any effective solution for anything, the charade never seems to lose credibility or support. The popular threat of the moment is ocean acidification from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

So AIMS mounted an expedition to Papua New Guinea to examine the large scale, natural experiment that was a threat to their livelihood. They reported in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/pdf/nclimate1122.pdf?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201106) that while the reefs they examined looked healthy, they didn’t like them. The threat has been averted for the moment, but maintaining funding requires constant vigilance.

================================================================

To lend credence to David Archibald’s post, here’s a story on Bob Halstead’s diving website.

THE SHELL GAME

By Bob Halstead

According to Wikipedia “The Shell Game is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is a confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud”.

The shell game has been of particular interest to me after reading a scientific letter “Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification” published in Nature a couple of years ago. Since then there has been a deluge of alarmist warnings on “Ocean Acidification” – including one in the Feb/March issue of Dive Pacific from an organization called the “International Union for the Conservation of Nature” – but no actual reefs destroyed by it, of course.

The letter was illustrated by photographs of eroded shells and predictably concluded that this was due to ocean acidification, caused by too much atmospheric CO2 which Al Gore tells us is caused by bad humans burning fossil fuels to survive and prosper (as he did), instead of buying carbon credits from him and becoming poor.

The reason for my scepticism was my own well-publicised underwater observations at Dobu Island in Milne Bay where CO2 vents bubble through a thriving coral reef. Just maybe, I thought, these people do not a have a clue what they are writing about. So when they approached me to see if they could dive Dobu I said of course, but that I was not interested in cherry picking data to conform to any conspiracy to promote Anthropogenic Global Warming. Interestingly I never heard back from them.

Now we have the astonishing “Climategate” scandal revealing a huge scientific fraud producing the dodgy evidence used by the IPCC and environmental activists to predict Global Apocalypse, and a Copenhagen Treaty more designed to foster World Government than combat pollution. I originally wrote this before the Copenhagen conference so had no idea what a total fiasco and lie-fest it turned out to be.

But I have real news!!

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has, on 1st December 2009, issued a press release titled “In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production”. Here is some of what it says:-

“In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean—causing it to “acidify” —researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem.

But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased.

“Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate…dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them,” said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. “They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said.”

NOTE “the coral” in the previous paragraph. There is more to the news release, and it ends up by saying:-

Since the industrial revolution, Ries noted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. Climate models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200 years.

“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere,” Ries says.  However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost.

“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems,” he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”

Having studied Climategate it is not difficult to work out how this amazing and welcome press release actually got published instead of being censored or trivialised, as so many other inconvenient anti-AGW scientific papers and observations have been.

The last line is the key (…we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”). This inclusion was designed to appease the alarmist fanatics, and enable the paper – which is a staggering departure from the usual AGW propaganda – to be published. Brilliant.

Look out! Woods Hole has found a way of beating the Shell Game.

Feb 2010

======================================================================

David Archibald sent another report to me last year by Walter Starck in PDF form, titled: Observations on Growth of Reef Corals and Sea Grass Around Shallow Water Geothermal Vents in Papua New Guinea

He has similar photos not only of Coral and CO2 bubbling up, but of sea grass patches.

image

Dobu I. corals aerated by bubbling CO2

image

One of the numerous smaller bubble streams coming up through lush beds of Thalassia.

He writes:

On 14 February 2010 we visited two geothermal areas in the D’Entrecasteaux Islands, Milne Bay Province, PNG. One is located near the north end of Normanby Island about 30 m S.E. of the outer end of the wharf at the village of Esa’Ala. The other is a well known dive site known as the “Bubble Bath”. It is located about 20 m offshore near the mid-north coast of Dobu Island, an extinct volcano.

At Esa’Ala the area of bubble venting is scattered along the inner edge of a fringing reef which is about 10 -15 m in width. The outside edge slopes steeply into deep water and the inside edge is bordered by grass beds (Thalassia sp.) on silty bottom of mixed reef and volcanic sediments. The bubbling is near continuous small trickles at numerous points scattered amid both grass and coral areas in water depths of 3 – 5 m. The location is sheltered from prevailing wind and wave action.

Both coral and plant growth were unusually luxuriant. In the grass beds small juvenile rabbitfish (Siganus sp.) are abundant feeding on the epiphytic algae growing on the grass blades.

The pH of water samples was measured using a Pacific Aquatech PH-013 High Accuracy Portable pH Meter with a resolution of 0.01 pH. It was calibrated with buffered solutions at pH 6.864 and pH 4.003 immediately before measuring the samples. The Esa’Ala sample was taken immediately adjacent to a Porites coral and about 10 cm from a small bubble stream. The pH was 7.96. A sample from next to a Porites coral at the “Bubble Bath” measured 7.74. This was also about 10 cm from a somewgat larger bubble stream and about 12 m from the main gas vent. A sample next to the main vent measured 6.54. A sample from the open ocean just outside Egum Atoll about 100 Km N.E. of Dobu read 8.23 which is near typical for open ocean in this region.

It seems that coral reefs are thriving at pH levels well below the most alarming projections for 2100. The biggest threat we face isn’t to Barrier Reef tourism. The whole modern economy is founded on cheap abundant energy. High energy liquid fuel is essential to all mobile heavy machinery. Trucks, tractors, trains, ships, planes and earth moving equipment cannot be run on sunbeams and summer breezes. The International Energy Agency along with virtually all oil industry analyst groups now recognise that future global oil supplies are likely to be increasingly tight and more expensive.

==================================================================

Read the full report with more photos here (PDF) Walter Starck on coral and other marine life

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

159 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
M Carpenter
December 28, 2011 10:05 am

I have a CO2 trickle system in my home Aquarium, the plants and fish thrive on it…
http://www.aquariumfish.net/pages/co2_systems.htm

Max
December 28, 2011 10:06 am

Maybe I don’t understand the mechanism completely, but if the globe is warming, then CO2 solubility goes down in the warming oceans causing CO2 to off-gas from the oceans as seen in Mauna Loa, which in the end cause a reduction in acidity, not an increase. Or do I have that wrong?

oeman50
December 28, 2011 10:08 am

Just a word of caution on the chemistry of subsea volcanic gas vents. Volcanic eruptions usually contain sulfur and sulfur compounds like H2S, SO2 and SO3. They form acids in solution and the sulfuric acid formed by SO3 in water is a very strong mineral acid. It would not surprise me to see eroded shells or corals attributed to the effects of CO2 when the damage actually comes from these sulfur bearing acids. Unless the gasses are analyzed, we will not know their specific content. And I do know there are natural, relatively pure CO2 sources, but we just need to make sure.

Robertvdl
December 28, 2011 10:12 am

another one bites the dust
(of course we already knew it would)

JEM
December 28, 2011 10:14 am

One needs a research paper comparing how long humans spend on the toilet at various bathroom temperatures.
Wrap it up with a closing paragraph about the need to bring down atmospheric CO2 levels and submit it to Nature.
You, too, can be a published researcher.

December 28, 2011 10:23 am

“Our empirical data from this unique field setting confirm model predictions that ocean acidification, together with temperature stress, will probably lead to severely reduced diversity, structural complexity and resilience of Indo-Pacific coral reefs within this century.”
There it is, in a nutshell: although the reef community is robust, it isn’t the reef community they see elsewhere, and therefore the reef communities throughout the world will die. They “change” for loss (intent, not words), take as an assumption that the models predict both accurately, and use both to affirm prior statements underpinning their jobs, livelihoods, careers, public- and self-image.
Scientists. Wizards. Priests. Politicians. Ideologues. Scammers, promoters and fraudsters. How can we tell the difference between them any more?

Jason
December 28, 2011 10:24 am

“Although none of these threats has ever become manifest as a serious impact and all of the millions of dollars in research has never found any effective solution for anything, the charade never seems to lose credibility or support.”
That about sums up the last three decades in climate science.

Leon Brozyna
December 28, 2011 10:27 am

Gee, I guess the sky isn’t falling.

December 28, 2011 10:28 am

Reblogged this on letsreasonitout.

December 28, 2011 10:30 am

“Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—” From WHOI? So sad!
This is a patent lie! CO2 is part of an extended equilibrium from CO2 to carbonic acid to bicarbonate to carbonate to calcium carbonate precipitation. Add more CO2 and you get more calcium carbonate precipitation. The protons (H+) given off by the carbonic acid cannot affect the equilibrium.
Only an outside source of protons can affect this equilibrium. Add to this the fact that they cannot show the serious acidification they claim, as sea water is a complex buffer, and that the weak carbonic acid cannot alter this much at all. They only assume acidification as distilled water would have a decreased pH with CO2 dissolved in it.
Ocean pH has not moved outside the normal fluctuation range, so where do they get the low pH levels? The fact is also that photosynthesis is an alkalizing process and pH can rise to 10.5 in bays and estuaries on a sunny day. It is the high pH that is most threatening. A 10th or so less acidity is not going to change their day.
What is really sad is that we have so many marine biologists who know so little about the ocean, or do not want to know about it, to keep up their funding. Thus, they can keep making really stupid statements about CO2 and acidification.
As CO2 has been much higher than now for the vast majority of the last 600 million years, why on Earth would anybody begin to think a little added CO2 to an already very low CO2 concentration would be a bad thing? The Cliffs of Dover were not laid down during low CO2 periods, that’s for sure.

Andrew
December 28, 2011 10:34 am

JEM says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:14 am
One needs a research paper comparing how long humans spend on the toilet at various bathroom temperatures.
I have found a direct correlation to ‘time spent on the toilet’ and the entertainment value on WUWT threads…but that is purely anecdotal and I doubt there is any correlation…but that never stopped Mann did it?
What’s that I hear? It must be Nature calling!
Andrew

R. de Haan
December 28, 2011 10:44 am

CO2 isn’t a problem. Period

Martin Mason
December 28, 2011 10:52 am

Max, isn’t that only if the water is CO2 saturated?

Peter Miller
December 28, 2011 11:21 am

Leaving aside the fact that carbonic acid is an extremely weak acid when in very concentrated forms, so in very diluted form, such as in the oceans……………………
There are approximately 37,400 billion tonnes of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. If 50% of man’s 30 billion tonnes of annual CO2 production is dissolved in the oceans, then over a 100 year period this will add 4.0% to the oceans’ carbon dioxide content – obviously, this is runaway acidification before our very eyes!!!
Put another way, the oceans contain around 1.34 billion cubic kilometres of sea water, or 1.34 billion billion tonnes. At current levels, around 1,500 billion tonnes of CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans each 100 years – that’s one part CO2 per 89,330 parts ocean per century!
The subject of ocean acidification from CO2 is complete BS and a typical unfounded alarmist story; where it happens it is very localised and the local fauna easily adapts, As usual, it’s all about the grants and not about the science when it comes to the purveyors of ‘climate science’.

alcheson
December 28, 2011 11:24 am

WHOI says “Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.”
Perhaps because that same process also increases the concentration of bicarbonate ion, which more than likely is just as readily used by marine organisms. When CO2 is added to seawater, the total amount of bicarbonate plus carbonate increases, not decreases.
In fact, how does one prepare a solution of Ca(HCO3)2 in the lab since solid Ca(HCO3)2 is not stable? CaCO3 has very low solubility in water. SImple, you bubble CO2 into a solution of pulverized calcium carbonate. In a few minutes the CaCO3 is completed dissolved yielding a clear Ca(HCO3)2 (aq) solution with a pH of 8.2 (if you add just enough CO2 to completely dissolve all the CaCO3).
H2CO3 + CaCO3 2HCO3- + Ca2+(aq) pH = 8.2

alcheson
December 28, 2011 11:29 am

Sorry for the incorrect ” H2CO3 + CaCO3 2HCO3- + Ca2+(aq)” equation.
I had some special characters in there that were interpreted as tags and got left out….
hopefully H2CO3 + CaCO3 ———> 2HCO3- + Ca2+(aq) pH = 8.2 comes out a little better.

December 28, 2011 11:35 am

higley7 says: December 28, 2011 at 10:30 am
“This is a patent lie! CO2 is part of an extended equilibrium from CO2 to carbonic acid to bicarbonate to carbonate to calcium carbonate precipitation. Add more CO2 and you get more calcium carbonate precipitation. The protons (H+) given off by the carbonic acid cannot affect the equilibrium.”

No it’s true. It’s elementary chemistry, and the world’s marine scientists haven’t been getting it wrong for years.
The protons do affect the equilibrium. They convert carbonate ions to bicarb, just as stated. The overall reaction is:
CO2 +CO3– + H2O→ 2HCO3-
More CO2, then less CO3–.
This is the old school experiment. Blow into limewater. First it goes milky as CaCO3 is formed. Then (when OH- is gone) the CaCO3 dissolves (video).

Tez
December 28, 2011 11:36 am

If you look at CO2 levels for the past 500 million years or so, you will find that we are curently contending with historically low levels of CO2.
I have a fossil collection that contains many samples from geologically different time periods which to me indicates that an increase in CO2 levels presents no problem to the survival of coral. Possibly the opposite.
No doubt the scare will now be related to the “unprecedented” rate of change which coral cant keep pace with in this goal post shifting climate “science”.

AndyG55
December 28, 2011 11:36 am

As I have said before, the CO2 increase in the atmosphere has ONLY BENEFICIAL EFFECTS.
The CO2 from buried coal deposits is MEANT to be in the atmosphere.

alcheson
December 28, 2011 11:48 am

Also since [HCO3]/[CO3]=[H]/Ka2 ; at a constant pH, if [HCO3} increases due to added CO2, then [CO3] also must increase. Since there is way more CaCO3 in the ocean (in excess of 10000 gigatons) than we could ever add CO2 from burning fossil fuels, the net effect of adding CO2 to the ocean is to increase [CO3] once equilibration occurs. Based on the CO2 vents discussed in the article, it would seem equilibration occurs fairly rapidly or else the water would be considerably more acidic than it is.

Jon at WA
December 28, 2011 11:48 am

‘Lost Opportunity’
In my opinion this sums up the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), the Great barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and not to mention our mate Ove from the University of Queensland. Tasked with managing and understanding the ecosystem, these institutions have been used as a platform to attack farmers, fishermen and industry, no management, just vicious smears. Fortunately the reef has rarely complied with these doomsayers. The damage and very real danger to the reef will in my opinion result from the waste of human energy dealing with the legislation created by these latte sippers. Their ability to impoverish the productive people in the neighbouring communities has long been the real threat to marine ecosystems. Students of history know what happens when small minds start dressing up in uniforms, giving awards to each other and bossing people around, this is the modern Australia, a lost opportunity and AIMS is a monument to this failure!

Jeremy
December 28, 2011 11:50 am

CO2 isn’t the problem. FRAUD is th problem!

Luther Wu
December 28, 2011 12:25 pm

And nary a word about the role of sea cucumbers…

jmrsudbury
December 28, 2011 12:31 pm

“What that implies is that ocean acidification is no threat at all.”
Et tu David? Did you not read Willis’ post that it should be ocean neutralization?
🙂
John M Reynolds

timg56
December 28, 2011 12:37 pm

What I don’t get is that anyone truly concerned about the welfare of coral reefs should be worried about the human related impacts which we know are damaging. Worrying about CO2 seems to draw attention away from actual threats, such as discharge of sewage or boat and ship anchors, or any of the other identified threats to healthy reefs.
Why I can’t help believing it is more about money and not science or a true interest in stewardship.

1 2 3 7