We’ve already had a “climate craziness of the week” so I’ll just file this bit of blather under another category. First, this article in The Independent, which aims to scare the children.
Now here’s the press release from the University of Bristol. Note the simplistic experiment, followed by broad disclaimers about it, emphasis mine.
=======================================================
Ocean acidification leaves clownfish deaf to predators
Press release issued 1 June 2011
Baby clownfish use hearing to detect and avoid predator-rich coral reefs during the daytime, but new research from the University of Bristol demonstrates that ocean acidification could threaten this crucial behaviour within the next few decades.
Since the Industrial Revolution, over half of all the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels has been absorbed by the ocean, making pH drop faster than any time in the last 650,000 years and resulting in ocean acidification. Recent studies have shown that this causes fish to lose their sense of smell, but a new study published today in Biology Letters shows that fish hearing is also compromised.
Working with Professor Philip Munday at James Cook University, lead author Dr Steve Simpson of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol reared larvae straight from hatching in different CO2 environments.
“We kept some of the baby clownfish in today’s conditions, bubbling in air, and then had three other treatments where we added extra CO2 based on the predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for 2050 and 2100,” Dr Simpson said.
After 17-20 days rearing, Dr Simpson monitored the response of his juvenile clownfish to the sounds of a predator-rich coral reef, consisting of noises produced by crustaceans and fish.
“We designed a totally new kind of experimental choice chamber that allowed us to play reef noise through an underwater speaker to fish in the lab, and watch how they responded,” Dr Simpson continued. “Fish reared in today’s conditions swam away from the predator noise, but those reared in the CO2 conditions of 2050 and 2100 showed no response.”
This study demonstrates that ocean acidification not only affects external sensory systems, but also those inside the body of the fish. The ears of fish are buried deep in the back of their heads, suggesting lowered pH conditions may have a profound impact on the entire functioning of the sensory system.
The ability of fish to adapt to rapidly changing conditions is not known. Dr Simpson said: “What we have done here is to put today’s fish in tomorrow’s environment, and the effects are potentially devastating. What we don’t know is whether, in the next few generations, fish can adapt and tolerate ocean acidification. This is a one-way experiment on a global scale, and predicting the outcomes and interactions is a major challenge for the scientific community.”
The work was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council UK (Simpson) and the Australian Research Council (Munday).
Paper
‘Ocean acidification erodes crucial auditory behaviour in a marine fish’ by Steve Simpson, Philip Munday, Matt Wittenrich, Rachel Manassa, Danielle Dixson, Monica Gagliano and Hong Yan in Biology Letters.
=====================================================================
Translation: “we put the fish in a significantly different water environment, and they reacted differently”. Anyone who has ever owned a freshwater or saltwater aquarium can tell you about what happens when you transfer fish from the water environment they are used to, to one they aren’t. pH shock and Osmotic shock often often result from the abrupt change. The key is abrupt change, whether embryo or adult, the fish are wired for a specific ocean environment, change that environment abruptly and the fish change too. What they’ve done here is take 40 years of gradual change and compress it to the here and now.
And I have to think, these guys chose the absolute worst fish for the experiment, because I’m betting they didn’t go out and get wild embryos, but rather took the easy path of tank raised clown fish embryos. From Wikipedia:
Clownfish are now reared in captivity by a handful of marine ornamental farms in the USA. Clownfish were the first species of Saltwater fish to successfully be Tank-raised. Tank-raised fish are a better choice for aquarist, because wild-caught fish are more likely to die soon after purchasing them due to the stress of capture and shipping. Also, tank-bred fish are usually more disease resistant and in general are less affected by stress when introduced to the aquarium. Captive bred clownfishes may not have the same instinctual behavior to live in an anemone. They may have to be coaxed into finding the anemone by the home aquarist. Even then, there is no guarantee that the anemone will host the clownfish.
The “may not have the same instinctual behavior to live in an anemone.” is troubling. It suggests that tank raised clownfish may not be “normal”. And of course when I backtrack to the source method (from the Simpson paper) for obtaining embryos (Munday et al, 2008, referenced in the current paper) I find this:
Clownfish were reared at James Cook University’s experimental aquarium facility where the pH of unmanipulated seawater was 8.15 ± 0.07. This is similar to the pH that pelagic larvae would experience during development in the open ocean (1).
James Cook University in Townsville QLD has direct access to the ocean, so it would seem right that they have direct access to “unmanipulated seawater”. Still, they were tank raised, and that’s a different environment than the ocean and their wild cousins.
Let’s have a look at the paper.
======================================================
Ocean acidification erodes crucial auditory behaviour in a marine fish
Abstract
Ocean acidification is predicted to affect marine ecosystems in many ways, including modification of fish behaviour. Previous studies have identified effects of CO2-enriched conditions on the sensory behaviour of fishes, including the loss of natural responses to odours resulting in ecologically deleterious decisions. Many fishes also rely on hearing for orientation, habitat selection, predator avoidance and communication. We used an auditory choice chamber to study the influence of CO2-enriched conditions on directional responses of juvenile clownfish (Amphiprion percula) to daytime reef noise. Rearing and test conditions were based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions for the twenty-first century: current-day ambient, 600, 700 and 900 µatm pCO2. Juveniles from ambient CO2-conditions significantly avoided the reef noise, as expected, but this behaviour was absent in juveniles from CO2-enriched conditions. This study provides, to our knowledge, the first evidence that ocean acidification affects the auditory response of fishes, with potentially detrimental impacts on early survival.
- Received March 14, 2011.
- Accepted May 10, 2011.
- This Journal is © 2011 The Royal Society
Full paper here
=============================================================
First, note the time-line; it was fast tracked. It went from submission to approval in two months. It seems that according to this journal statement, they go for “fast track science” as a matter of policy:
Articles submitted to Biology Letters benefit from its broad scope and readership, dedicated media promotion and we aim for a turnaround time of within 4 weeks to first decision.
Looks like a paper mill to me.
And, this may indicate the paper was chosen on something other than scientific merit, emphasis mine:
Selection Publishing Criteria
The criteria for acceptance are: scientific excellence, work of outstanding quality and international importance, originality and interest across disciplines within biology. To be acceptable for publication a paper should represent a significant advance in its field, rather than something incremental.
All manuscripts are assessed by a member of the Editorial Board, who advises the Handling Editor on the suitability of the manuscript for Biology Letters. Based on this, the Handling Editor decides whether the paper should be rejected or sent for full peer-review. Many good papers are rejected at this stage on the grounds that they are insufficiently novel, due to high competition for space.
So, “novelty” is primary acceptance criteria and peer review is on a 4 week fast track. Check.
It seems volume of peer review is celebrated at this journal. That’s something I’ve never seen before in any other journal.
What really seems to be missing from this clownfish experiment is a control experiment. For example, did they test the fish by putting them in water that represents the CO2/ ocean environment of 10-40 years ago? I seems they only tested for the future representing 600, 700 and 900 µatm pCO2. Here’s what they say about the method:
The CO2-conditions of our rearing and test environments were current-day ambient (∼390 µatm), and elevated-CO2 treatments (approx. 600, 700 and 900 µatm), consistent with the range of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions for CO2 concentrations at the end of the twenty-first century [2].
This is very important, because the paper assumes that only an increase of CO2 will change clownfish behavior. Did they test for decreasing CO2 levels and what the fish would do then? Apparently not, and that basic use of a control seemed to have escaped those high volume peer reviewers racing to meet the 4 week deadline.
By not testing for a decreased CO2 situation, they invalidate their own premise. And that’s on top of the fact that they aren’t using wild clownfish embryos and they are making abrupt changes in the water chemistry that generations of the fish have not experienced and doing it only in one direction, up.
This is high school science stuff guys. I wait for an explanation as to why you didn’t test for a decrease to CO2 and the resultant pH on clownfish embryos.
So I wonder, if we take 10 peer reviewers from the “wilds” of science, put them in a think tank, increase the ambient CO2 levels to more than double they are used to, and then tell them they have 4 weeks to review 100 papers, will they still produce good science?
Maybe they need more peer reviewers in that clown car to be sure.
W.
To me, as a chemist (post-graduate, if it matters), buffering, given the huge reserves of CaCO3 (limestone) and of dolomite, has always made me dismiss any ‘acidification’ (sic) alarmism.
You third point is, to me, novel (although elegantly expressed). I agree.
Garbage.
Well, saltwater aquariums generally need a pH from 7.6 to 8.4, which from the table in an above comment represents an atmospheric CO2 level between 0 to 2000 ppm.
Anyway, a few minutes ago I was inspired to perform a somewhat similar experiment on one of the large goldfish in my outdoor pond. I wanted to see how it would react to a future climate where both temperatures and CO2 levels are elevated, and to eliminate the myriad variables involved with water chemistry I did the experiment in the air by holding him over my grill with a pair of tongs. This provided both higher temperatures and greatly enhanced CO2 levels. Unfortunately, the fish died. :^(
My conclusion is that pond fish are under direct threat of extinction due to CAGW.
It seems obvious that since there is no mearurable warming, and thus no climate emergency, that the fearmongers are now shifting to oceanic acidification in order to achieve their anti-human agenda.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
June 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Thanks, Anthony. This poor excuse for science ticks me off, as ocean acidification from carbon dioxide is, in fact, a valid concern
===================================================
Quick question….
The oldest know coral reef, scleractinia that laid down calcium skeletons (aragonite), is thought to be at least 450 millions years old. At that time, CO2 levels were also thought to be 10-20 times higher than they are now.
Since we know that we can not raise CO2 levels 10-20 times higher…..
How do you explain the evolution of aragonite forming corals in the Paleozoic, when CO2 levels were in the thousands ppm?
So I wonder, if we take 10 peer reviewers from the “wilds” of science, put them in a think tank, increase the ambient CO2 levels to more than double they are used to, and then tell them they have 4 weeks to review 100 papers, will they still produce good science?
Naw, just send them in a coal mine with a shovel and a honey bucket. Then we’ll check to see if the elevated CO2 has dulled thier senses.
Next, we’ll offer them the choice between a cold carbonated drink and a warm glass of the same with all the CO2 bubbled off.
Last, the choice will be between a hot shower at IPCC ph levels and a cold one at 395 ppm.
It’s all about the senses, right?
Finally, before allowed to sit down and eat supper, turn in todays ‘scientific’ findings.
There is a very good reason why they did not test with a higher PH than today’s ocean, that way more research (read funding) is needed.
Worse, with the elevation of atmospheric CO2, people likewise “could” be going deaf at an unprecedented rate! And, worse yet, surely Climate Science has accumulated a bunch of people who seem to have some kind of diffuse gray matter defect, so it could be drawing those most severely affected by “acid brain”? – while they seem to be more caustic at the same time, to boot.
Nah, I’m thinking fish control their internal pH to a certain optimal level, just like people do via automatically adjusting their respiratory rate and depth, with “metabolic” adjustments to follow if necessary. Fish don’t have cell phones yet, do they?
I think the experiment could also be showing that the higher CO2 levels improve clown fish eyesight and intelligence so that although they were hearing a threatening noise they did not see anything threatening and concluded there was no need to react.
The ocean’s ph is >= 7.4, varying depending on where you are. For the immediate time frame it is not acidic or even getting more acidic. It may be becoming less basic, but I’d need to see the numbers on that. What ever it is I cannot imagine any reason why it would remain what it is. There is no controlling authority on seawater ph (to paraphrase Al Gore). As such it will change as conditions mandate. I do wonder though how much CO2 it would take to move that much seawater 0.4 points on the ph scale.
“Since the Industrial Revolution, over half of all the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels has been absorbed by the ocean, making pH drop faster than any time in the last 650,000 years and resulting in ocean acidification. Recent studies have shown that this causes fish to lose their sense of smell, but a new study published today in Biology Letters shows that fish hearing is also compromised.”
============
Nature is once again underestimated, and misunderstood.
My hands are not big enough to do a proper facepalm to this nonsense. AGW is now
jumping the clownfish.
“Recent studies have shown that this causes fish to lose their sense of smell, but a new study published today in Biology Letters shows that fish hearing is also compromised.”
========================================================
This is too easy to fact check…..
Amemone fish/clownfish (Amphiprioninae) evolved from a common ancestor during the early Eocene, ~50 million year ago. They locate their symbiotic anemones by smell and communicate with each other through a series of “clicks”.
The Eocene was an optimum with high temperatures and high CO2 levels (~1000 ppm).
If high CO2 levels did this, they would not have evolved, they would not have been able to evolve symbiotic mutualisms with sea anemones, and would not be able to communicate and establish partnerships…..
According to these dimwits being able to hear and smell would be a recent development that had to have happened after these fish evolved.
The fact that a lot of questionable research has recently originated from James Cook University should not prejudice this experiment. However, serious questions must be raised about this one.
1. In my early days at research, I was involved in maze studies with rats. It was almost impossible to eliminate the clues they use, which are not the clues we present them in the experiment. Consequently, doing behavioural studies on fish in tanks or in the sea, must be viewed with the greatest suspicion as the opportunity of unintended clues is far larger.
2. The fact that these scientists blindly assume the propaganda of the IPCC must disqualify them outright. Should it not be their duty to remain skeptical and to inform themselves of contradicting studies and the complexities of the chemistry of CO2 and acidity in ocean water? Why then did they cherry-pick studies that support their bias while ignoring contradictory ones? Why were they not critical of their own experiment?
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate.htm
http://www.co2science.org/
3. There are highly questionable issues with their experiments:
a. Bubbling CO2 into tank water to increase acidity is fraught with side effects because it does not mimic a natural situation in time, calcium buffering and locally high concentrations. To their credit, they bubbled enriched air rather than pure CO2.
b. measured alkalinity did not change, which is strange but not mentioned.
c. The experimental setup is not symmetrical.
d. Their lining of the tanks with polystyrene to dampen sound is flawed because the air bubbles in polystyrene are perfect sound reflectors under water whereas above water they are not.
e. Sound was played only before releasing the fish who had to rely on memory in order to make a choice.
f. They tried to prove a predetermined position ‘increased levels of CO2 are detrimental’ rather than satisfying scientific curiosity where any outcome is an outcome.
4. The outcome of the experiment is that it is a failed experiment. They found a difference between fish that had no increase in CO2 and those that had. They did not find any effect of further increasing levels of CO2. So somehow between 400 and 600ppm a mysterious ‘jump’ occurred which was not further investigated. Neither did they try Beethoven’s Sonata or just pure tones. Rushed to publication. Scientific? Sad.
Translation of all that, we have lost this generation to the global warming cause so now we are concentrating on the next generation, other people’s children, and if we can capture their minds we have won.
Parents are being blindsided by these creeps who are so low in moral character they have no problem scaring children with their fraud.
To be honest, if all my bones went a bit wobbly and stopped working properly, going deaf would be the least of my worries.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to eliminate all of the predators ? has anyone asked the clownfish
Pat Frank says:
June 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Thank you for that detailed analysis.
Even presuming the effect claimed is real, the authors apparently overlook that little-known biological mechanism called natural selection. Presuming that any acidification proceeds gradually across multiple generations of Nemo fish it is highly likely an adapted version will evolve.
It was all probably due to lab-techs tapping on the glass. They hate that, you know?
Latitude says:
June 4, 2011 at 3:12 pm
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
June 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Thanks, Anthony. This poor excuse for science ticks me off, as ocean acidification from carbon dioxide is, in fact, a valid concern
===================================================
Quick question….
The oldest know coral reef, scleractinia that laid down calcium skeletons (aragonite), is thought to be at least 450 millions years old. At that time, CO2 levels were also thought to be 10-20 times higher than they are now.
Since we know that we can not raise CO2 levels 10-20 times higher…..
How do you explain the evolution of aragonite forming corals in the Paleozoic, when CO2 levels were in the thousands ppm?
======
REPLY As I said previously, I am quite unconcerned about anything to do with corals.
My concern is with photosynthesis, nothing else. Many of the phytoplankton that form the base of the food web incorporate calcium into their structure (coccolithophores for example), and the steady “rain” of dead/dying photic detritis is the source of nutrition for the grazing organisms below. It’s an amazing ecosystem.
Don’t give me this Paleozoic b.s., I could care less…..the ecosystem was totally different then. I’m using the tools of modern toxicology applied to an environmental problem. The data I’m reading is compelling. FYI, nobody in the climate community agrees with me….they all buy into the CAGW nonsense spun by Holdren, Hansen et.al
Well, there was no actual predator in the test, so it would appear that the increasing CO2 protocol improved the ability of the fish to maintain a rational response to their environment. Fish are not entirely stupid. I sat on a veranda at a hotel in Hawaii, once. The restaurant was surrounded by a moat full of fish. Diners would occasionally toss a fragment of bread out onto the water, where it would be shredded instantly by dozens of fish.
Equipped with a roll or two, I found that the fish would not only react to a piece of bread, but to an arm raised as if throwing a piece of bread. Now the question you must answer is this: How many times would these stupid fish respond to an arm that didn’t throw any bread? Twenty times? Ten times? More? Fewer?
Well, the answer is about three times. That’s how long it took most of them to learn that not every arm threw bread and to adapt. By the fifth breadless toss, there were no fish responding at all. How long would it have taken them to figure out that a simulated predator noise had no predator to go with it? Not long, I expect.
Note that (as near as I can tell) there is no reported correlation coefficient for the results of the experiment. Note also that the results indicate that the percentage of fish swimming in the half of the apparatus closest to the speaker was 27%, 58% 64% and 61% (reading by eye) for 400, 600, 700 and 900 ppm, respectively. It never went to zero, even for the lowest concentration. The significance of the half-way point in the apparatus is moot, particularly since it would appear from above comments that the entire apparatus may have been acoustically live.
Since the speed of sound in water varies somewhat with dissolved gas concentrations, it may be that the recorded noise was distorted in the presence of more CO2 sufficiently to no longer emulate a predator. What would happen in actual ocean conditions might be totally different. I’d be curious to know whether cavitation bubbles accumulated at the speaker during the experiments, which would have invalidated the method. I’d also be very curious to know whether fish positions were tracked by automatic methods or by methods with a subjective component. Differences in fish positions may have been transient as the fish adapted to the test. Longer tests may have revealed similar results for all concentrations.
“Sorry to disappoint anyone. For those who truly think CO2 is biologically innocuous, please keep in mind that we warning labels on dry-cleaning bags for a very good reason.” –CRS, DrPH, University of Illinois of course.
False analogy. QED, PDQ, SPQR, QSDF.
Pat Frank says: June 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Thank you, Pat, for a proper scientific follow-up. Older chemists are taught this material as second nature. You saved me from having to write it.
Even Wiki advises caution – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH#Seawater
“The pH of seawater plays an important role in the ocean’s carbon cycle, and there is evidence of ongoing ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide emissions. However, pH measurement is complicated by the chemical properties of seawater, and several distinct pH scales exist in chemical oceanography.
“As part of its operational definition of the pH scale, the IUPAC defines a series of buffer solutions across a range of pH values (often denoted with NBS or NIST designation). These solutions have a relatively low ionic strength (~0.1) compared to that of seawater (~0.7), and, as a consequence, are not recommended for use in characterising the pH of seawater, since the ionic strength differences cause changes in electrode potential. To resolve this problem, an alternative series of buffers based on artificial seawater was developed. This new series resolves the problem of ionic strength differences between samples and the buffers, and the new pH scale is referred to as the total scale, often denoted as pHT.” etc.
Despite these difficulties, an approximation of the variation of pH with ocean depth is given in White http://www.imwa.info/geochemistry/Chapters/Chapter15.pdf
and shown as a graph here: http://www.geoffstuff.com/Ocean_pH_White.jpg
We know that some mixing of waters occur between depths, so this is a further difficulty when measuring ocean pH. The deeper waters are quite acid compared to the Amphiprion spp. habitats described.
These poor little Clownfish were not even tested for old sound versus new sounds. Would they run from Lady Gaga and crowd to hear Beethoven?
Sorry, James Cook Uni was one of my alma maters, but this paper is best used for yesterday’s fish wrapper.
A preliminary study with a sample size of n=2 in a house-hosted tank indicates that 50% of goldfish do like to listen to “Back in Black” by AC/DC.
That, or one of them is raving mad and believes it’s a great white shark. Amazing what a little more CO2 in the air can do!
Since surface waters are solidly within the alkali section of the pH table and will remain there due to the bicarbonate loop of the reaction dissolving CO2 into sea water I do not see a problem.
And for a fish to use noise as a predator defense when coral reefs are very noisy places I find somewhat unbelievable. And in that background predator fish would be like silent assassins.
No doubt, a document soon to be quoted as further proof of whatever alarmist BS the IPCC wishes to highlight in its next fantasy report on climate.
It is self-evident this piece of ‘research’ is complete rubbish.
I have read and agree on the many comments here on the differences between fishing living in the ocean and an aquarium, but nobody has mentioned the Pooh Factor.
I should imagine the fish pooh to fish ratio is very much higher in an aquarium than in the ocean. Being forced to live in an environment containing a high level of your own excrement is likely to be detrimental to your health, including possibly affecting your hearing.
Ridiculous comment? Of course it is, but it is probably better science than the original ‘research’ article.