From the “CO2 is the most deadly omnipotent force in the Universe department”, comes this tragic story of poor Nemo the clownfish, so disoriented by CO2 that he can’t choose the right path to swim. Rebuttal(s) follow in subsequent posts, but first here is the story on the research from James Cook University. Original press release here, ABC news story below. Look for a Disney/Pixar sequel soon, sure to frighten the children. – Anthony
Rising CO2 may lead Nemo to danger
By Katherine Nightingale for ABC Science Online
Global warming could have an unexpected effect on the clownfish star of Finding Nemo and his kind, by making them indulge in risky behaviour, say researchers.
Previous research indicates that as carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere climb the surface water of the oceans could become acidic.
Scientists have already shown that this acidification interferes with fish larvae’s sense of smell and ability to find a suitable home.
Now research led by marine researcher Professor Philip Munday of James Cook University (JCU) has found it could also make fish less aware of – and even attracted to – predators.
They publish their research this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
As part of the study, the researchers put clownfish and damselfish larvae into seawater equivalent to that which would be found if the atmosphere contained 700 ppm and 850 ppm of CO2 – levels that could be reached by the end of the century.
They found that after four days, half of the larvae in the 700 ppm group were less able to detect the smell of a predator, while all the larvae in 850 ppm group were actually attracted to the predator scent.
Damselfish larvae that were then released onto a reef were more active and behaved more boldly than normal, spending less time near shelter and more time near predators. They were also five to nine times more likely to die than normal fish born in 390 ppm conditions.
Profound implications
The results suggest this could have a huge impact on ocean biodiversity.
“Being attracted to the smell of a predator isn’t likely to be a very good thing,” Mr Munday said.
Professor David Booth, a marine ecologist at the University of Technology Sydney who was not involved in the study, says the behavioural choices made by young fish are thought to strongly affect populations.
“This finding of negative effects on such choices could have profound implications for the dynamics of fish populations,” he said.
The researchers are now trying to pin down why acidification causes the fish to behave more boldly, as well as looking at the wider effects on population balance in reef ecosystems.
Mr Munday says, for example, different species could have different tolerances, and acidification could make predators more or less inclined to eat.
Professor Geoffrey Jones, also of JCU and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said the research took the level of concern about the effects of climate change on coral reef fish “to a whole new level”.
“Without drastic action to cut emissions, all we can do is hope that fish will be able to adapt,” Mr Jones said.
“However, given that the rate of CO2 increase is unprecedented, there are no grounds for optimism.”
===================================
Gosh, look at this, CO2 (confirmed by sampling and analysis) bubbling right out of the sea floor next to healthy reef corals. More on this later.
as an Aussie I am Mortified that one of ours is so blatantly stupid, and if I could I would place said “scientist” ha! science?? in some acid water to reflect on his theory!
with a nice big man in a grey suit as the predator of choice to be sure it was done properly:-)
I did read that the clown fishes WERE at risk of extinction? hmm? or severe depletion..BUT
it was due to people blasting the hell outta the reefs where they live, to catch them!!!! for kids who wanted a Nemo!
Easy enough to check out in real life. Hawaii has an active undersea volcano.
As we male humans are natural predators, from now on all we need is carrying with us a CO2 cylinder and spray some on the girls we want.
Wouldn´t it be happening the same with those who suddenly feel attracted to jihadists? ☺☺☺
This is the bait and switch tactic used during acid rain. Chemical signals are used by fish to identify mates, to send and receive alarm signals. Salmon actually hatch early in response to the chemical “signature” of their redd mates being eaten eaten by invading sculpins. We know that low pH, as an example, can disrupt the ability of salmon to receive and learn the chemical signature of predators. Negative impacts to fish from declining pH is nothing new.
However – given the fact low pH can adversely impact fish does not imply (A) acidic conditions are or will occur or (B) that the cause of an acidic condition is the result of any given assumption (CO2 or SO2).
During the acid rain “crisis” we were treated to a drum roll of papers about the impacts of low pH on Atlantic salmon as the result of acid rain. The papers assumed acid rain impacts and then researched the impacts of low pH. The “availability” of papers on the impacts of acid rain was then used to justify the existence of acid rain. Basically if we can write enough papers with the same assumption we can market it as proof of the assumption. (There was a paucity of papers actually testing the assumption that mineral acids were driving the system- sound familiar?)
The impacts to salmon from low pH are very real however the primary drivers for this acidity was and is organic acids from among other things the regrowth of forests and the loss of agriculture in a large part of the salmon’s range. Salmon continue to be adversely impacted by acidity because we cannot talk about a major cause of reduced pH- organic acids. All politically correct acidity must be the result of acid rain (mineral acids). Models “proved” acid rain- models justified the Clean Air Act amendments-models promised the rivers and lakes would recover. The models 20 years later have been proven wrong (well not wrong according to EPA because as always we just weren’t aggressive enough in our SO2 controls.) And salmon continue to decline because the pH they require is held hostage to the myth that acid rain controls will restore their rivers to the “natural” condition.
A word of caution to those concerned with climate change— acid rain teaches us no amount of contrary scientific evidence- no amount of failure to predict- are capable of undoing an environmental “belief.” Acid rain was the test run for the quest for the environmental Holy Grail- Global Warming. We may help the climate cause by making EPA explain the failures of its previous modeled crisis.
IF the increased CO2 interferes with the sense of smell in fish THEN it will PROBABLY interfere with the sense of smell of predators too. So while Nemo is getting more frisky Jaws MAY be starving to death.
Do you think I’m getting the hang of this style of writing yet?
It’s embarrassing to learn some scientists are so ignorant of how impossible it is for the oceans to become “acidic.” Less alkaline, yes, but acidic??? Idiots!!!
I notice while reading this that thier observations all seem to be short term, what about the adaptabilty of the test subjects over the long term. I notice the paper did not have anything about what kind of effects the same conditions have on predatory sea creatures, short term much less long term adaptability. IMHO is this not part of the peer review process, to ask these questions,and the authors are supposed to go back to the drawing board, Is this the whole process of having multiple people on staff to put thier minds together to come up with other experements to test the theory against!!!!!!!! I am a simple man with plenty of common sense that i use, but i am not seeing it being used by acdamia
Enneagram says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:11 am
As we male humans are natural predators, from now on all we need is carrying with us a CO2 cylinder and spray some on the girls we want.
a Co2 fire extinguisher is not that subtle 🙂
Neo says:
July 8, 2010 at 7:24 am
If you look at this by example, it’s pretty obvious that rising CO2 levels have driven a large number of otherwise “sane” politicians and scientists to “madness.”
Why not the same with clownfish ?
——————Reply: Because clownfish are neither elected nor grant-funded. Only humans seem to have an overabundance of a “stupid” gene.
Richard deSousa says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:29 am
It’s embarrassing to learn some scientists are so ignorant of how impossible it is for the oceans to become “acidic.” Less alkaline, yes, but acidic??? Idiots!!!
———-Reply:
Richard is right. It is possible for a solution or substance to undergo “acidification” but that certainly doesn’t mean the end result is a solution or substance that is acidic. Anything higher than a pH of 7 is basic/alkaline; anything less is acid/acidic. And at a pH of 7, it is neither; it is neutral (no predominance of either H+ or OH- species).
One could entertain the idea that all the CO2 from fossil fuel consumption is simply returning it from whence it came; some millions of years ago that CO2 had to come from the atmosphere, so returning it to that primordial level is simply re-establishing an ancient environment.
“Global warming could have an unexpected effect on the clownfish star of Finding Nemo and his kind, by making them indulge in risky behaviour, say researchers.”
Clownfish are having UNPROTECTED SEX, that’s the whole problem!!
Wow! Not only is the acidification slant totally bogus, as sea water is a complex buffer system, but it is highly unlikely that CO2 could get to 700 ppm, at least it will not be from our activities.
There is simply not enough carbon for us to burn to make this happen, since CO2 partitions 50 to 1 into the oceans, we would have to release 50 times more CO2 that needed to double atmospheric CO2. At best we could do 20%, but not 100%.
These guys also have no idea that the changing CO2 will select for CO2 tolerance in any case and the clown fish will be fine. Just as is true with all other species, their gene pool has seen much greater changes many times over millions of years and they are still here. And, real world, some species die and new ones arise. My God. it’s evolution in action! Golly Gee, Batman! Where did that come from?
Ken Harvey says:
July 8, 2010 at 6:50 am . . .
Good one Ken. Howzit?
I am still living in Harare but I think the folk ate the frogs cause there are none to be heard.
grayman says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:33 am
“I notice while reading this that thier observations all seem to be short term, what about the adaptabilty of the test subjects over the long term.”
The thrust of this research demonstrates what is already known for fish. Magicians understand misdirection- it is at work in the selling of ocean acidification. Don’t pay attention to the girl in the sequins (clown fish). Focus on the claims that this study actually recreates the oceans response to increasing CO2 levels. Been down this road before- focus- focus – focus- on whether or not the ocean behaves as claimed with respect to CO2. Attack the the methodology- not the results.
Patrick Davis says:
July 8, 2010 at 8:16 am
“PC will never hold the throne, it isn’t “popular” with the idiotic British public.”
Now I would acknowledge that not all of my fellow ex country folk are the full shilling but the vast majority of them are and it strikes me a little odd to call them all idiots. It’s a little over the top in an ad hominem type of way to broadbrush an entire nation don’t you think ?
As for Prince Charles I care not a whit about whether he’s the next monarch or not. I am not a Monarchist but I do know that provided he outlives her of course it would take an Act of Parliament for him not to succeed his mother as Monarch whatever the British public think.
I also believe that he wants the job, he’s been interning for it for over 60 years now.
mandas says:
July 8, 2010 at 12:24 am
Wow – did any of you people actually read the paper before commenting?
It’s a fair cop guv. The study appears to have been done methodically and with a great degree of care. I disagree with their ridiculous alarmism though as they tend to ignore that evolutionary responses can be quite rapid when the species has a high reproductive output.
Loss of habitat and human predation is a more pressing problem and they really should not extrapolate from one narrow study an overall impact on a complex system such as the ocean. It is though one of the better studies I have read and they appear to have been as thorough as can reasonably be expected when dealing with a difficult subject.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/24/1004519107.full.pdf
I have recently discovered in a meta-study an important co-factor that correlates very well with the effect that CO2 caused AWG has on animals and plant life. This is the C-factor*. The C-factor multiplied by the CO2 anomaly perfectly ranks the effects CO2 will have on the flora and fauna in all of the studies published in Nature and Science.
If C-factor = -10 to +10, and Benefit = -10 (extinction) to +10 (massive growth) then:
Benefit = – (Cfactor x CO2 anomaly).
Examples of C-factor: Clown Fish = 10; Polar Bears=8; Koala Bears=10, Dandelions = -5, Scorpions = -7; Tarantulas = -10, Anopheles mosquito = -10
*note: the C-factor is the Cuteness factor and decided by a class of junior high school girls.
Please send grant money to fund my 30 year research proposal to study the effect of the C-factor in a tropical paradise.
MartinGAtkins says:
July 8, 2010 at 10:48 am
“[…]I disagree with their ridiculous alarmism though as they tend to ignore that evolutionary responses can be quite rapid when the species has a high reproductive output.[…]”
It is also likely that the genome pool of a fish species contains a pool of recessive gene variations from a past with different environmental conditions. A change in conditions will shift the fitness balance between individuals and lead to rapid spread of such a “hidden”, already existing gene; this is how an “experienced” species – one that has lived through changes – can survive changes in the future. Such an adaptation of a population is in this case possible without a new mutation.
Epigenetics (methylation patterns of genes) might also lead to a rapid adaptation of the phenotype of the offspring.
This article reminds me of an old joke:
A scientist (probably a global warming alarmist, but that’s not established) trained an ant to dance when he (the scientist) played the violin. In the interest of science the scientist decided to study the ant’s ability to dance sans legs. So he pulled off the ant’s front two legs and played his violin. Other than losing his balance every so often, the ant danced remarkably well. The scientist then pulled off the ant’s back two legs and played his violin. The ant’s motions couldn’t really be called “dancing”, but he was obviously trying. The scientist then pulled off the ant’s middle two legs and played his violin. The ant lay there like a brick. The scientist gave the matter some thought finally concluding in a scientific paper that when you pull of all six legs of an ant, he becomes deaf. His paper is currently under PNAS review.
Animals acting boldly due to CO2.
NOW this makes sense.
To Idiota:
Thanks for answering my question. As I expected the realities of the past are once again contradicting the models of the future.
Of course, if they’d simply looked at the history of the species, and what they lived through, then they wouldn’t have been able to scam up some of that easy global warming money for “research.”
Pat Moffitt says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:15 am
‘We may help the climate cause by making EPA explain the failures of its previous modeled crisis.’
I believe there is another failed modeled crisis: the ozone hole.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html
Perusal of the graphs on the above site shows that despite what many people would like to believe, the ozone hole is not recovering and was already at about its current size before any changes were made by regulation of ozone depleting gases.
Go figure.
Robert says:
July 8, 2010 at 9:35 am
I was thinking in a hand size small pressurized container made perhaps out of PP . Anyway a small block of “dry ice” would work the same. ☺
How long did the fish’s poor little nosies have to adapt to the CO2 increase to 700 – 850 PPM in the atmosphere. (and what adjustments to the water temperature and Co2 absorption for this shocking greenhouse Earth).
It’s good to see mony so well spent!