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.
Wow Anthony, so this is your reply to my earlier post where I criticised you (and others) for commenting on something you haven’t read:
REPLY: Your sort of comment also suffers from foot in mouth disease. Look here and tell me where the full paper is? http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/highlights.shtml#fish
That’s the preview at PNAS. The full paper isn’t there, its behind a paywall The press release doesn’t have a link to the full paper either, http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/JCUPRD1_058449
They journal system leaves the public out in the cold, unless the public is willing to pay twice for the publicly funded work.
So you can’t read it (which you admit), but you thought it was valid to make comments anyway? Is that your normal modus operandi? (wait, don’t tell me, I think I know the answer)
You have the gaul to suggest that I have foot and mouth disease, yet I am not the one who made comment and expressed an opinion on a paper I haven’t read, on a subject I know nothing about – that would be you.
And for the record – I have read the paper. I am an Australian wildlife scientist, and I DO know what I am talking about on this issue. And the journal system does not leave ‘the public’ out in the cold. Just like every magazine in the world, they charge people to access their publications. Why don’t you act like the scientist you like to pretend to be and go out and buy a subscription?
REPLY: Why don’t you petition to make publicly funded science readable by everyone? It’s not full disclosure when a PR is put out, but the real paper is held at ransom. I don’t agree with your argument. Privately held magazines, sure, charge subscription. No worries. But publicly funded science pushed into the public forum by PR without the paper to go with it is just wrong in my opinion. If you are so upset about the paper not being read by people, post a link to it then.
And let me tell you something sir, I take exception to this snotty comment from a supposed scientist writing comments from a government institution:
So you can’t read it (which you admit), but you thought it was valid to make comments anyway? Is that your normal modus operandi? (wait, don’t tell me, I think I know the answer)
If some reporter (with no science training) can write about it in any newspaper or magazine, solely from the press release issued, why the HELL can’t I?? Your elitism astounds me.
-A
CO2 made the CRU fellows engage in risky behavior.
Apparently they survived.
I am a keen scuba diver and have for some time been considering leaving my job in insurance to do a degree in marine biology as it is the behaviour of creatures I encounter during my dives that fascinates me. I fondly recall spending the better part of half hour during a dive watching a couple of coral trout seemingly vie for occupancy of a crack/crevasse in the coral.
What is holding me back are concerns on how rabidly AGW, the position of JCU seems to be. I would assume this relates to where their funding derives from but it makes me think that only those who support the AGW hypothesis would be welcome in this field of science (at least at JCU). Studying the behaviour of clownfish in itself isnt going to attract sufficient funding. It has to be the impact of man-made global warming on clownfish.
How about a study on the impacts of human settlement in the vicinity of delicate reef systems (read sediment from farm activities). How about a study of the impact of enso events on sea levels and what implications this has for coral bleaching (outside of higher SST’s due to AGW causing coral bleaching). How about just plain scientific studies on the behaviour of the marine biospehere which isnt tied into climate change?
The article above does nothing to alleviate my concerns.
“……If some reporter (with no science training) can write about it in any newspaper or magazine, solely from the press release issued, why the HELL can’t I?? Your elitism astounds me.
-A…..
So you truly believe it is acceptable to make comment and form an opinion on a paper that you haven’t read, on a subject you know nothing about? Is it elitism to expect people to form opinions based on some form of informed knowledge, rather than just a preconcieved set of prejudices?
To be quite frank, I don’t care whether you or any of your other readers actually read the paper or not. That’s up to you and them. But I do take offence at people like yourself who make ill informed comment on things before they have the slightest idea what they are talking about. You make great claims to being a sceptic, and you have a huge following of people all over the world who hang on your every word and blindly accept your word as gospel on matters related to climate. It would appear that those people are being deluded – because you are forming your opinions and attempting to sway the opinions of others based on a complete lack of knowledge, particularly with regard to this issue. And you certainly are NOT a sceptic. A TRUE sceptic is someone who does not accept things at face value, but wants evidence before forming a view on a matter. You have formed your view on this issue without ANY knowledge – you have just dismissed it because it doesn’t fit with your worldview that climate change is not real.
If you want to tell people about the weather, go ahead. You are an expert and you know what you are talking about. But when it comes to the affects of environmental change on wildlife you are completely ignorant, and should refain from comment until or unless you attempt to garner some knowledge on the subject. I isn’t me who is suffering from ‘foot (in) mouth disease’ on this issue – it is you.
REPLY: Oh puhleeze. I’ll expect you to complain the ABC reporter and Discover magazine and many others for covering this story, and forming an opinion using descriptive headlines, without “reading the paper first”. CC me a copy of your complaint. Otherwise you are just hypocritical. The issue here is that IF the paper was included with the PR, I’d have read it right then at the same time. That inclusion is something that should be done with all science PR’s but isn’t, but some Universities do. When papers are available I read them and I cite them with a link here on WUWT. As it stands we aren’t allowed to link this this publicly funded peer reviewed paper in full because of the journal/paywall system. Also, if I subscribed to every journal that we covered PR’s on, I’d be broke. I don’t have the luxury of unlimited govrenment coffers for such things. There’s also been cases where I’ve requested the paper and been denied. Shades of CRU.
You also assume I know nothing about the issue. You assume I have no benefit of knowledge gained about the issue prior to writing from either experience or research. You assume wrongly, like most government employees you seem to think you know what the public thinks. You of course have no idea what I’ve researched or learned, you only speculate from a position of being a pissed off anonymous government employee with no knowledge of what I did prior. You simply react because you don’t like my opinion. You may have noticed that I wrote “Rebuttal(s) follow in subsequent posts…”. That is because I already have research materials in hand. For example, where do you think the undersea photo from PNG came from? Do you speculate that I just “made it up”??
You have formed your view about me without ANY knowledge of what I know/don’t know beyond what you read, exactly what you accuse me of. All speculation on your part, and wrong. Per my experience it is not the normal MO of a scientist, to accuse someone of having no knowledge while at the same time they have no knowledge of how the person formed the viewpoint.
Just because some offbeat peer reviewed paper gets advance PR is hardly reason to accept it without question, much less take it on the word of an ABC reporter. Take offense all you wish, but unless you are willing to come forward and put your credentials and name to your complaint, you are just another troll. Some other articles are forthcoming on this issue. Troll on those.
Also, you should read the policy page (link in the header), before you write anything else.
– A
Since, the article is not freely available to the general public, I feel a commentary on the ABC news story is certainly not out of line. And the news story itself certainly is cringe worthy raising far more questions than it answers.
I’m a keen scuba diver and spend at least 4 weeks per year diving the reefs of Far North QLD. I’ve been doing so for a number of years and my observations are that the majority of damage to the Great Barrier Reef comes from the impacts of nearby human settlement. Go to the outer reefs and they look as good today as they did when I first started diving on them. Clownfish seem to be as abundant as ever and I havent yet been able to shoot footage of a clownfish willingly swimming into the waiting jaws of a predator.
When a lot of the funding that allows you to go out and study the reef relies upon a linking to AGW then it predetermines the nature and result of those studies. JCU is rabidly AGW and this is one of the reasons I shelved plans to pursue a degree in Marine Biology there.
As far as the clownfish go. I’m sure they will adapt to minor changes in the level of ocean acidification. There is a parasite that is affects rats and mice causing them to be drawn to the scent of cats instead of being fearful. This parasite is widespread and yet it hasnt lead to the extinction of mice or rats.
With regards ocean acidification. The overexaggeration of the impact of ocean acidification has been covered by previous threads on this blog. The ocean is in fact currently alkaline with a global average somewhere in the vicinity of 8 (7 being neutral, less than 7 acidic and over 7 alkaline) and is unlikely to become acidic any time soon.
Mandas – I haven’t read the paper, only the abstract. You claim to have read it so can you tell me if they looked at all the larval stages of the clownfish in their study? Did their sampling take into consideration that there are critical periods in each larval stage when there is a higher mortality rate? Did they sample over more than a year or sample in different years to account for seasonal differences and to generate an average data set of fish larvae survivability (this is typical of research developing fish larvae survivability curves)? Did they correct the sampling to account for bias when it is well known that larger, stronger and faster larvae will avoid the plankton net? Did they check for larval parasites that might be present in the field samples to determine if there was an adverse effect on the larval mobility and orientation ability? Did they address the fecundity of clownfish as some fish have an enormous fecundity to balance the natural high mortality (some have egg-yolk larvae survival rates as low as 2.8%)? Did they correct for larval extrusion through the sampling net? Just curious.
Also it is well known that the oceans are supersaturated with regard to calcite and aragonite and after a doubling of CO2 they will still be at saturation and there will be little change in pH. The ocean is not abiotic and bacterial degradation of many low molecular weight organic acids (produced anaerobically) results in the formation of bicarbonates which act to buffer the system. A major component in the buffering of the oceans is the carbonate system.
Finally, I liked the previous comment of how the paper says the larvae can smell at 700 ppm but can’t at 850 ppm CO2.
Oops – They can’t smell at 700 ppm but can at 850 ppm CO2
The Clownfish were held in (4) 60L aquaria that were aerated all day with CO2 with no water exchange. The sea water was flushed from the tank at night with a CO2 aerated water exchange. The number of night time exchanges are not stated so I am assuming it was only one. I have a very hard time believing this set up mimics the dynamics of a coastal reef system. None of the biological pumps, mixing or sinks are present in the experimental enclosure and the fact that this was not a continuous flow thru system is problematic.
mandas
July 8, 2010 at 4:42 pm
“And for the record – I have read the paper. I am an Australian wildlife scientist, and I DO know what I am talking about on this issue.”
No you don’t. Some of us here actually do know something about the biology of Pomacentridae.
First the studies methodology is ridiculous. It in no way represents a any real ecosystem. It has so many problems that I am surprised that any wildlife biologist would take it seriously. Any experiment that could have demonstrated what these guys claim to have demonstrated would have needed to be far more complicated and would have taken far longer than what has been presented. In fact it would be so difficult as to be damn near impossible.
Second, it totally ignores the unique reproductive adoptions found within the suborder Labrodei. In the families Cichlidae and Pomacentridae, which I am most familiar, anywhere from 5% to 10% of each brood, displays exactly the same behaviour depicted as unusual. Very few larvae make it to maturity, and even fewer ever become females. It is the purpose of super-males to distract potential predators from bothering the rest of the brood. Just because some individuals head to “danger” does not mean that they will be eaten, at least right away. Almost all members of Pomacentridae are incredibly aggressive and will attack just about anything. ( I had one large female, in particular, that I had to be very careful of when working in her tank. If I lost concentration she’d attack me and her bites could draw blood!) This goes double for super-males. Most super-males will eventually become food before maturity, but even if they make it to maturity, they wont reproduce.
This comes back to the difficulty of doing this experiment. If I have a tank full of fry, and I net out half of them, they will not be equivalent. The netted out half will have almost all of the super-males.
Once again, I am at a loss to understand how and why people are commenting on, or being critical of this paper when they haven’t read it. ‘Churn’ at least is asking some intelligent questions about the paper, but the comments by David W such as this: “…..Clownfish seem to be as abundant as ever and I havent yet been able to shoot footage of a clownfish willingly swimming into the waiting jaws of a predator….:”, are completely irrelevant. No-one is saying that clownfish are swimming into the jaws of predators. What the paper is saying is that under certain environmental conditions, they exhibit different behavioural responses – and that’s all the paper is saying!!
For example, for those of you who haven’t read it, here is a small excerpt which speculates WHY this may be occuring:
“…….For example, disrupted internal acid–base balance caused by exposure of elevated CO2 might potentially affect neuronal pathways (30, 31) that could
mediate a range of functions, including olfactory discrimination, activity levels, and risk perception. Detailed investigations of the physiological processes responsible for the behavioral changes we observed would be required to separate these alternatives…..”
The authors also indicate that the issue may not be serious, because some sub-species of clownfish already live quite happily in higher CO2 levels:
“…..For example, CO2 concentrations in surface waters within several kilometers of Kaneohe Bay (Hawaii) average ∼400–500 ppm (29). Consequently, larvae may be adapted to CO2 concentrations concentrations in this range, because they are already encountered in the environments inhabited immediately before and after settling
to reef habitat….”
The authors also discuss the potential for an evolutionary response to adapt to changing environmental conditions:
“…..Assessing the capacity for biological adaptation is important for predicting the impacts of rapid climate change on ecological communities (32–34), although rarely is this possible. Our results suggest that 700 ppm CO2 is close to the threshold at which
adaptation of behavioral responses might be possible in reef fishes, provided that the variation in sensitivity to elevated CO2 we observed between individuals at this concentration has a genetic basis. The olfactory capacity of approximately one-half of
the larvae was unaffected by exposure to 700 ppm CO2, and these individuals exhibited less risky behavior in the field (remained closer to shelter) compared with affected individuals. Even a slight survival advantage could lead to rapid selection
given that a large proportion of all fish larvae that settle to coral reefs are consumed by predators within the first few days (35)…..”
So you see, if you actually READ these things before making hissterical comments, you might discover that the paper (like all good science papers) describes its research methodolgy, its results, and provides some discussion points on a range of issues. Press releases RARELY provide the full story (and are often wrong anyway), so it is important to go the source to discover what is REALLY being said. You should NEVER rely solely on a press release or the opinion of a blogger.
So I will reiterate – read the papers before commenting. It stops ‘foot in mouth’ disease!
I wrote earlier:
[sarcasm on] 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 [grant money] so well spent![/sarcasm off]
I forgot to sign-off: “Embarrassed of Melbourne” (Victoria), on behalf of Queensland, the far north-eastern state of Oz. However, people up there are not all affected by the warmer weather and higher CO2 levels, and some good things do come from there. For instance, there is this bio-extract for Bob Carter whom hails from a more hands-on part of the same university as that “Nemo scientist”:
EXTRACT: Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999…”
Check out his book: “Climate: the Counter-consensus (Independent Minds)”
Available for UKP 8.51 from Amazon UK
Mandas says:
July 8, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Once again, I am at a loss to understand how and why people are commenting on, or being critical of this paper when they haven’t read it. ‘Churn’ at least is asking some intelligent questions about the paper, but the comments by David W such as this: “…..Clownfish seem to be as abundant as ever and I havent yet been able to shoot footage of a clownfish willingly swimming into the waiting jaws of a predator….:”, are completely irrelevant. No-one is saying that clownfish are swimming into the jaws of predators. What the paper is saying is that under certain environmental conditions, they exhibit different behavioural responses – and that’s all the paper is saying!!
Sadly, though this is far from whats being said the ABC news story. A point that you seem blindlingly oblivious to. Heres an idea, before you get all high and mighty about people reading the paper (which has restricted availability), how about you actually read at the news story. You did read it didnt you or did you just go straight to your trolling?
The news story talks of “a huge impact on biodiversity”. Of fish behaving “more boldy than before”. That “such choices could have profound implications for the dynamics of fish populations,”. That “the research took the level of concern about the effects of climate change on coral reef fish “to a whole new level”. And to put the final nail in the coffin:
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.”
Now whatever the content of the actual research peice that I’m not inclined to fork out the money to gain access to, I’m calling the ABC news story for exactly what is. Utter horseshit. Are the authors of the paper going to ask ABC to print a retraction if this is not what they are saying? I highly doubt it.
I’m of the opinion that the tone and quality of what gets reported in the media is far more important than a research paper produced by a bunch of elitist, arrogant fools who were funded to get a predetermined result by people whose motives are far from pure. A research paper which due to its distribution method will be read by only a minority of individuals as opposed to the many more who will be misled by rubbish distributed through the ABC story.
mandas
July 8, 2010 at 10:49 pm
The quotes from the paper that you provided make me feel a lot better about the quality of research being done here. Sounds like these guys are trying to do real science. I, like most people, really underestimate the capacity of press releases to misrepresent that which they are reporting. I find it frustrating that, for most of us, the only thing we have to go on are these lying press releases that are trumpeted wide and far. I really want to read this paper. Though I am pretty certain that I would find problems with the methodology of this experiment, it sounds like an interesting read.
mandas –
Predator avoidance is the result of alarm signalling initiated by a fish “smelling” the odor of an injured conspecific. The next odor received is then “learned” as a threat. As an example we can cut a young trout at a hatchery replace it back into the raceway and then enter the scent of a pike and all the fish in the raceway will “learn” that pike are a threat. This paper makes no mention as to how the clown fish are to recognize the predator threat plume as there is no mention I saw of injuring any of the clown fish. It would seem critical that this paper state how the clown fish are to recognize the odor as a predator threat. Unless it can- it is difficult to make a claim that it is the predator odor that is being avoided.
Similarly the observations of how the young fish reacted within 3 minutes of release onto a natural reef to which it has not been acclimated or accustomed seems to make way too may assumptions.
I don’t eat clown fish any more. They taste funny.
mandas says: July 8, 2010 at 10:49 pm
From the press release:
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.
As you are well aware, Mandas, the absolute effect of CO2 on ocean ph is very much in dispute, with wide estimates and poorly constrained error bars. Since you have access, either post here the authors definition of “seawater equivalent” for review, or the validity of the entire experimental process used in this research is based upon an ill-defined assumption. That would put this in the category of flawed research, appropriate for a Disney movie.
Tim Clark- The researchers used aquaria for the clown fish and pumped in a air enriched CO2 mix. The paper has no diagram of the system as designed and the written description provided is incomplete. A big problem is that the clown fish water was only replaced “flushed” once a day. Pumping an enriched CO2 air mixture into a glass aquaria cannot replicate the complex carbonate chemistry of a natural system. The paper unfortunately provides no analysis of the water chemistry and surprisingly no pH data. They also do not explain why the set up for the clown fish was not the same as the damsel fish which was a flow through system but used for an entirely different purpose in the study. Bottomline -the lab system they created may in no way reflect how the actual reef system will respond to increasing levels of CO2.
The authors acknowledge the potential that clownfish may have already adapted to higher CO2 levels but somehow find that their projected 90% mortality in 30hours at 850ppm would not allow continuing adaption. Lost is the fact that clownfish will not see a sudden jump to 850ppm CO2 as it may take -as they admit- more than a century for this to happen. So until they show at what rate adaption is or is not possible-they can’t make this logic jump.
I also have a huge problem with their assumption that the predator odor the clown fish were supposed to avoid would indeed be perceived as a predator or a threat. Fish learn the smell of a threat by an injured relative releasing a “I’m hurt smell” or kairomone. The next new smell is processed as what caused the hurt – linking threat (something injured something just like me) with what caused that injury (predator). They did not discuss how the freshly hatched clownfish were supposed to know this new smell was a threat and did not discuss and directed injury of clownfish prior to the addition of predator odor. My understanding is that fish are born naive to the smell of predators. Without this information we have no idea why the clownfish may or may not have avoided the smell of a “predator”. Perhaps the the smell of the predator was novel or a sign of a food source. Who knows because the study does not say how we should know.
Oh dear!!!!
David said this:
“…….Sadly, though this is far from whats being said the ABC news story. A point that you seem blindlingly oblivious to. Heres an idea, before you get all high and mighty about people reading the paper (which has restricted availability), how about you actually read at the news story. You did read it didnt you or did you just go straight to your trolling?….”
Ummm no – if you read my post, I said this:
“……Press releases RARELY provide the full story (and are often wrong anyway), so it is important to go the source to discover what is REALLY being said. You should NEVER rely solely on a press release or the opinion of a blogger…..”
Which is my whole point!!! Never rely on what is written in newspapers or on the opinions of bloggers who have not read the source document that they are commenting on. You need to read the original document!
If you want to be critical of the newspaper report for not reporting correctly then good! If you want to be critical of the report for not providing a link the source material that is good also. And if you want to be critical of science journals for not providing open access then that is fine as well. Finally, you should also be critical of Anthony for making comment on the paper when he hadn’t read it either.
I will say it once again. Stop relying on inadequate press reports and the opinions of bloggers. Read the source material before forming an opinion.
mandas says:
July 9, 2010 at 4:38 pm “Read the source material before forming an opinion.”
Mandas- I have read the source material and have posted comments to you– perhaps you can respond to my comments or do you only reply to straw men?
Oh no. itt’s worse than ewe thought. It’s not merely the sky that is falling.
If only it was the AGW clowns that were threatened with extinction, we could all be happy
mandas says:
July 9, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Oh dear!!!!
David said this:
“…….Sadly, though this is far from whats being said the ABC news story. A point that you seem blindlingly oblivious to. Heres an idea, before you get all high and mighty about people reading the paper (which has restricted availability), how about you actually read at the news story. You did read it didnt you or did you just go straight to your trolling?….”
Ummm no – if you read my post, I said this:
“……Press releases RARELY provide the full story (and are often wrong anyway), so it is important to go the source to discover what is REALLY being said. You should NEVER rely solely on a press release or the opinion of a blogger…..”
Which is my whole point!!! Never rely on what is written in newspapers or on the opinions of bloggers who have not read the source document that they are commenting on. You need to read the original document!
If you want to be critical of the newspaper report for not reporting correctly then good! If you want to be critical of the report for not providing a link the source material that is good also. And if you want to be critical of science journals for not providing open access then that is fine as well. Finally, you should also be critical of Anthony for making comment on the paper when he hadn’t read it either.
I will say it once again. Stop relying on inadequate press reports and the opinions of bloggers. Read the source material before forming an opinion.”
Unforutnately, Mandas, as the majority of people will read the news story and only an handful will read the actual paper itself, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to highlight the deficiencies in the news story as they are the most likely to create an erroneous understanding in the wider community.
JCU almost certainly had the opportunity to address the problems with the story as it would seem Prof Munday and Prof Jones from JCU had communications with ABC regarding the paper but reading Prof Jones quote it appears the were quite happy with the crap ABC put out. I guess when so much of your funding relies on being pro AGW you dont get too critical eh?
Thats the problem with so much of climate science. So much of what finds its way into media stories is just sensationalist drivel. Its little wonder the public is losing faith in the field of climate science. Perhaps, if climate scientists took a little more responsibility in ensuring their research is accurately portrayed this wouldnt be occuring. Instead they seem to be quite happy to have the results of their research turned into stories of incoming armageddon as long as it keeps the research dollars pouring in.
This research paper regardless of its accuracy or flaws probably never warranted the type of story ABC ran. At best JCU did little to stop this, at worst they were complicit in the manner of the reporting.
As far as Anthony is concerned, I’ve re-read the orginal blog post a number of times and it appears mainly directed at the news story which is where the immediate problem lies. This does not warrant criticism.
I would also add that others in this thread have already pointed to some of the flaws in the paper itself. Since you’ve clearly got access to the paper how to you respond to those posts.
Mandas, further to the ABC account of the paper, for bulk consumption, what about this article released by James Cook University (JCU) itself? Is this JCU release not authoritative enough?
Carbon emissions threaten fish populations
SOME EXTRACTS: July 7, 2010 – Humanity’s rising CO2 emissions could have a significant impact on the world’s fish populations according to groundbreaking new research carried out in Australia…
…“Instead of avoiding predators, they [baby clownfish] become attracted to them. They appear to lose their natural caution and start taking big risks, such as swimming out in the open – with lethal consequences.”
Dr Mark Meekan from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a co-author on the paper, says the change in fish behaviour could have serious implications for the sustainability of fish populations because fewer baby fish will survive to replenish adult populations…
…“In our experiments we created the kind of sea water we will have in the latter part of this century if we do nothing to reduce emissions. [my bold added]. We exposed baby fish to it, in an aquarium and then returned some to the sea to see how they behaved.
“When we released them on the reef, we found that they swam further away from shelter and their mortality rates were five to eight times higher than those of normal baby fish,” Professor Munday says…
BTW;
1) I see in the full article, that JCU use the description “more acidic” to describe what is actually less alkaline seawater. Sounds more scary eh?
2) The methodology in the experiment, and the conclusions drawn, strike me, as an engineer, (or any applied scientist I do suggest), to be academic nonsense with so many holes in it you could drive a London double decker bus through it. (good for future funding though)
3) Taxpayers substantially fund universities for this sort of stuff. That rather irritates me, and insult is added when we are asked to pay for the paper, or rely on press releases.
Pat Moffitt,
I think you make some good points, but you seem to be missing my point completely.
I am not now, nor have I said, the paper is perfect, or that it is not open to criticism. I encourage people to make criticisms of the paper – every paper – and to point out any limitations in the methodology and results. That’s how science works.
My point always has been that that is EXACTLY what people should be doing, and not criticising something they have not read. Go back and read some of the comments from people who have posted here. They are ill informed. They come from a preconceived world view and they automatically determined that there was something wrong with both the paper and its authors, when the commenters had no idea what had been said, or by who. That is just disingenuous, and it weakens any case you might like to make on your opinions.
I have said it before and I will say it again till people here – and everywhere – get it. Read the source material before criticising, and don’t rely on newspaper articles and opinion websites as being reliable sources for anything. You know – be sceptical (and not just of opinions you don’t agree with – be sceptical of opinions you DO agree with as well).
Why is it they need to put a price on these publications. Given the level of funding for climate science, I’m sure its actually not to raise money but rather to discourage anyone apart from other scientists to access it. I find your arguments disingenuous Mandas.
You know very well that very few people will read the research paper but plenty will see the news story. Don’t try and tell me this isnt the way climate scientists want it to be.
Mandas-
I don’t agree that what we are seeing is science. Science doesn’t use press releases as a marketing tool. And their press release claim “In our experiments we created the kind of sea water we will have in the latter part of this century if we do nothing to reduce emissions” is utterly false. How in the world is pumping CO2 into a glass aquaria with little water exchange representative of the infinitely buffered oceans?
And come on- you don’t think using Nemo had a lot to do with this study. If you are a scientist and concerned about ocean acidification you spend your time first on developing what data is needed, next you go out and get the data, then you develop some hypotheses and test them. You share your ALL your test results with others. If there is evidence for a pH decline – you first spend all your time asking one question- what happens to the phytoplankton?
If however your intent is to scare the public to give you money more research money and to bolster the claims for climate catastrophe- You run to the media and scream – “NEMO IS GOING TO DIE!”
When they act like scientists they will be treated like scientists.