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
Jos Hagelaars
December 28, 2011 12:40 pm

The original paper of Ries can be downloaded here:
http://www.unc.edu/~jries/Ries_et_al_09_Geology_Mixed_Responses_to_Ocean_Acidification_full.pdf
Some quotes:
“We show that 10 of the 18 species studied exhibited reduced rates of net calcification and, in some cases, net dissolution under elevated pCO2. However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all.”
and
“..the ability to convert HCO3(–) to CO3(2–) via proton regulation at the site of calcification, and/or utilize HCO3(–) directly in calcification, may explain, in part, why some of the organisms investigated in our experiments exhibited enhanced calcification under conditions of elevated pCO2”
It seems that some species are able to cope with the dropping of CO3(2-) concentrations or use HCO3(-) directly when building their shells. It’s a good thing that not all species will be negatively affected when the concentration of CO2 in the air will continue to rise, but it seems to me that, after reading the paper of Ries, a lot of them will.
The dropping of pH in the oceans, when the CO2 concentration in the air rises, is simple chemistry and is caused by a shifting of equilibriums. See the graph in: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Marine_carbonate_chemistry?topic=49553
Using the pK’s in this eoearth article one could calculate the concentration ratios of the carbonate species at different pH’s. More CO2 will lead to a drop in the CO3(2-) concentration and a higher H3O(+) and HCO3(-) concentration. The total amount of dissolved inorganic carbonate will rise, but less CO3(2-) influences the solubility of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), so it will be harder for a lot of species to maintain their calcium carbonate skeleton.

Latitude
December 28, 2011 12:41 pm

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.
==================
May be?
You move from saturated, to super saturated…..and may be?
I thought everyone knew they needed bicarbonates to work?

Gras Albert
December 28, 2011 12:43 pm

jmrsudbury
Did you not read Willis’ post that it should be ocean neutralization?
Indeed, funny how a conclusion becomes so much less controversial when expressed accurately…
.
coral reef eco-systems thrive as Ph becomes more neutral

December 28, 2011 12:46 pm

“..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.”
I made this point when I responded to bad chemistry in the ‘sea cucumber acidification’ post recently:
Gary Pearse says:
December 26, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“I’m always forced to educate biologists who twist chemistry to meet their requirements. The cuke lives in the sea and thus can not create excess acid without creating a compensating equal alkalinity. Sea creatures’ chemical activities are constrained to be neutral – changes have to come from outside the ocean as a system and it surely does with CO2 but ya know, inorganic carbonates are abundant in land and sea, too, and they are busy buffering any acidification that comes along.”
I might add that many of the coastlines in the coral zone are limestones that originated as coral that was exposed when sea level dropped and the beach sands are calcium carbonate grains of coral hard parts and shell fragments. Rising sea-level in recent times has increased the available limestone – organic and inorganic types- to buffer any acidification of the sea. So should we be crying about rising sea-level?

brc
December 28, 2011 1:02 pm

Professor Ove is second only to Tim Flannery when it comes to sounding the ‘general alarm’ klaxon in Australia. He is an activist masquerading as a researcher, and is knee-deep in anything that will raise his own profile and send some funds his way.
Time and time again I’ve had to explain to people that the Great Barrier Reef is still there. All the news that ever escapes about it is that it’s all doomed.
Each decade brings a new scare. When I was a kid it was the crown of thorns starfish. Then it was agricultural run off. Now it is climate change. I can remember being seriously concerned that it would all be dead by the time I could see it. These scare stories have a very real impact on tourist revenue.
The fricken’ thing is 1400 miles long. Most of it sees very little human impact. It’s not going anywhere in a hurry.
Just once, I’d like to see a news report that said ‘Reef health excellent, come and take a look’.

John J
December 28, 2011 1:10 pm

pH of the ocean is the result of a large multicomponent chemical equilibrium in which the limestone-carbonate-bicarbonate couple plays a huge role, not to mention other inorganic buffering systems. Realize also that the ocean contains vast amounts of weak organic acids and bases that also contribute to the system. And don’t forget photosynthesis that removes both CO2 and H+ from the water; increases in both of these two species will encourage aquatic plant growth, which is why there is such lush growth around CO2 vents.

Lew Skannen
December 28, 2011 1:13 pm

” while the reefs they examined looked healthy, they didn’t like them.”
So now CO2 makes reefs unlikable. I suppose that could be a kind of problem…
LOL.

JPeden
December 28, 2011 1:13 pm

“Also, day-to-night swings on the Palmyra reef terrace are about a quarter of a pH unit … which is about 60% more than the projected change from CO2 by the year 2100.”
Day to night swings vary by ~pH = 0.25
Likewise, at Jo Nova’s site Professor Brice Bosnich states that:
“On average, surface sea water is mildly basic, about pH of 8.1, although the measured pH can vary by as much as 0.3 pH units at different times in the same area and from area to area.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/
But since log 2 = 0.3, the alkalinity [“acidity!”] of sea water can physically nearly double or halve normally*. And we still haven’t “all died” yet!
*For example, log 10 = 1; log 20 = log 2×10 = log 2 + log 10 = 0.3 + 1 = 1.3

Dave Andrews
December 28, 2011 1:23 pm

Isn’t part of the problem here the increasing specialisation of the work of the so-called ‘experts’? They study ever smaller areas of a subject so that they can become the ‘expert’ in that field but inevitably lose sight of the bigger picture. Not for nothing does conventional wisdom speak of not being able to see the wood for the trees.

December 28, 2011 1:37 pm

Nick Stokes maintains more CO2 will lead to a drop in the CO3(2-) concentration and a higher H3O(+) and HCO3(-) concentration.
That is NOT true. In actuality, at equilibrium in the ocean more CO2 will lead to an increase both in the CO3(2-) and HCO3(-) concentrations and a relatively unchanged H3O(+) concentration.
Easily demonstrated: If you start with one liter of water containing 1 mole of pulverized CaCO3 (very low solubility in water), add 0.5 mole of CO2, you will end up after a few minutes of stirring, with a solution containing slightly less than 0.5mole of HCO3(-) and small amount of CO3(2-) with a pH of ~8,2. (slightly less than 0.5 mole of CaCO3 will remain undissolved)
If you now add another 0.5 mole of CO2 to this very same solution, you will end up with a solution that contains slightly less than 1.0 mole of HCO3(-) and ~2x as much CO3(2-) as you had before, with the pH still being ~8.2.
There is way more CaCO3 (limestone) in the ocean than we could ever add as CO2 from fossil fuels. CO2 is the limiting reagent, not CaCO3.

Charles.U.Farley
December 28, 2011 1:40 pm

Because the alarmistsa’s will never back down in the face of proof that shows them to be completely wrong, there will i feel come a time when they will turn their backs on the relatively peaceful ( thats sarcasm btw) lobbying they currently engage in.
That i feel could lead to them actively engaging in destruction of habitats, or attempting to destroy them by whatever means to support their flawed erm, logic, pointing to the dying coral and shouting “see!?”
We already know the dire state of reference checking thats going on in the media and especially with the ipcc, they simply want it to be true so they dont bother to do the legwork to verify anything theyre spoonfed, so it could quite easily be that areas are destroyed by these “earth children” in the pursuit of , yes, promoting the idea of agw.
After all, theyre quite happy to game data and reports and causes and smear opposing views and dissent to support the plot so why not attack the environment to further shore up their “evidence”?
As you can see, my trust is at an all time low in regard to anything that comes from the other side of the fence.
Does that make sense to anyone else or have my meds just kicked in? 🙂

December 28, 2011 1:42 pm

“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.”
However, the crustaceans mentioned don’t form their shells from calcium carbonate but chitin which is a totally different material, basically a sugar polymer, so no surprise that they aren’t negatively impacted by a change in pH.

December 28, 2011 1:42 pm

‘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’
Sums it up nicely.

December 28, 2011 2:29 pm

Nick Stokes says on December 28, 2011 at 11:35 am:
“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”
Try blowing into sea-water – or watch the bubbles from scuba divers – any film will do.

son of mulder
December 28, 2011 2:33 pm

How can you tell if fish or coral are happy? It is beyond me.

Curiousgeorge
December 28, 2011 2:33 pm

Doug Proctor says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:23 am
Scientists. Wizards. Priests. Politicians. Ideologues. Scammers, promoters and fraudsters. How can we tell the difference between them any more?
=============================================
I would exempt true scientists from your list, but as for the rest it’s an impossible task. That leaves you two options. Ignore the lot, or bulldoze them all.

December 28, 2011 2:38 pm

Blogger Tim Blair once characterised what Prof Ove and his gang do as “green collar crime”. Seems fitting to me.

Greg Cavanagh
December 28, 2011 2:42 pm

Quote”…scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell…”
I think this sort of phrasing encapsulates the “begging the question” sort of misleading contortions found throughout climate science.
Personally, my body grows bones. I don’t know how my body decides their shapes and lengths, wall thickness and joint spacing, but I know that if I do workouts at the gym, my bones grow larger and stronger. If I laze about doing little, they grow thin and lighter. I don’t know how it all works, and I doubt these crabs and shell fish think too much about it either. These are misleading questions which form a conclusion, which is unrealistic.

December 28, 2011 2:58 pm

If a solution has a pH of around 8.0 (basic) and you add an acid to it, wouldn’t that tend to neutralise rather than acidify it?

kcom
December 28, 2011 3:00 pm

“How can you tell if fish or coral are happy?”
Why, they smile, of course.

December 28, 2011 3:07 pm

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

Thank you Bob Halstead for presenting the most explicit possible example of…what do we call this? — where none of the lines above the bottom line point to its orthodox conclusion. I have seen examples of this in late medieval theology and early scientific speculation under a church hegemony, but none were the non sequitur is so explicit. That a scientific institution of such standing could permit such a release, and that the release could occur without scandal, is an indicator of the acceptability within the scientific community of a level of corruption for which one struggles to find precedent.

December 28, 2011 3:13 pm

alcheson says:
December 28, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Nick Stokes maintains more CO2 will lead to a drop in the CO3(2-) concentration and a higher H3O(+) and HCO3(-) concentration.
That is NOT true. In actuality, at equilibrium in the ocean more CO2 will lead to an increase both in the CO3(2-) and HCO3(-) concentrations and a relatively unchanged H3O(+) concentration.
Easily demonstrated: If you start with one liter of water containing 1 mole of pulverized CaCO3 (very low solubility in water), add 0.5 mole of CO2, you will end up after a few minutes of stirring, with a solution containing slightly less than 0.5mole of HCO3(-) and small amount of CO3(2-) with a pH of ~8,2. (slightly less than 0.5 mole of CaCO3 will remain undissolved)
If you now add another 0.5 mole of CO2 to this very same solution, you will end up with a solution that contains slightly less than 1.0 mole of HCO3(-) and ~2x as much CO3(2-) as you had before, with the pH still being ~8.2.

Unfortunately the concentrations you refer to have no relevance to the ocean chemistry!
For an atmosphere containing 350 ppm CO2 in equilibrium with water you get the following composition:
pCO2 3.5 × 10−4 (atm)
pH 5.65
[CO2] 1.18 × 10−5
[H2CO3] 2.00 × 10−8
[HCO3−] 2.23 × 10−6
[CO32−] 5.60 × 10−11
Increase the pCO2 by a few orders of magnitude and the [CO32−] will increase to 5.61 × 10−11 but [CO2] and [HCO3−] will increase by orders of magnitude!
[Ca2+] in seawater is about 0.01 mol/kg.

Curiousgeorge
December 28, 2011 3:18 pm

son of mulder says:
December 28, 2011 at 2:33 pm
How can you tell if fish or coral are happy? It is beyond me.
=============================================
I laugh every time I hear some pronouncement like this. I’ve spent a great deal of my life in ‘natural’ environments, and I can verify that ‘Nature’ is not warm and cuddly. Nature is a continuous cycle of life and death. Eat and (not ‘or’) be eaten. Next time you run across some starry eyed ecoloon, explain that to them. Tell them the next time they bump into a major predator – lion, grizzly, gator, etc. – to not run. They will just die tired.

Mike the convict
December 28, 2011 3:23 pm

Living in Townsville, Queensland I must then be living next to the largest dead organism on the planet then as AIMS/Greens and PEW seems convinced that anything from Crown of Thorns Starfish (1970’s), Silting (1980’s), Fertilizer runoff (1990’s), Coral Bleaching (1990’s), Global Warming(Current), Ocean Acidification, Coral Bleaching (2000’s), over fishing, ship groundings (20009), recreational fishing, commercial fishing (20005) etc must surely have managed to completely destroy the reef sometime last week. I wonder if anyone has told the tourist industry yet?
Is it just me or is there a 10 year disaster cycle for funding required by AIMS to continue it’s um investigations?

u.k.(us)
December 28, 2011 3:31 pm

erl happ says:
December 28, 2011 at 1:42 pm
‘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’
Sums it up nicely.
===========
Good to hear from you.
Yes, even when almost all threats have been conquered, we are still hard-wired to mitigate threats.
When small minds, ego, and profit motive are combined; I imagine the only threat remaining is the loss of ones status.