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.
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.
Dobu I. corals aerated by bubbling CO2
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Jos Hagelaars said:
December 28, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Actually, I don’t think this is the same paper as the Nature paper referred to in the original post – the Journal is different as also are the authors. The following is the Nature paper from the Uni website:
http://oceanacidification.msi.ucsb.edu/workshops/reading-resources/Fabricius%202011-1.pdf
(Mod. Sorry if this has been mentioned before. Please feel free to remove if it is redundant.)
No matter,if c02 wont damage the reefs, I would suggest that we try these as terrible apocalyptic threats to the sustainable health of the GBR:
mine dust (lots of money there),
fishing (sorry we already tried that one),
plastic rubbish swirling in from the Great Pacific Gyre,
volcanic dust caused by inceased earthquakes and volcanism from climate change,
SUV exhaust fumes,
cosmic rays (got that one from the skeptics),
lack of comsic rays,
cooling,
warming,
steady temperatures,
increasing alkalinity,
increasing acidity,
steady pH,
climate stagnation,
sea level rising too fast,
sea level risign too slow,
sea level falling too fast/tooslow
sea level not rising or falling at all
water too murky
water too clear
…..you get my drift…just be sure to add some wort of phrase about the inevaitable doom if we dont reduce/change our whatever.
@Phil 3.13 pm
Actually the CO3(2-) concentration decreases when the CO2 concentration goes up. You can calculate it yourself using the pK’s in the eoearth link I gave in my reaction at 12:40 pm.
You can find some carbonate concentration data for several CO2 levels of surface seawater in:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_acidification
@Alan Bates 3:45 pm
I was referring to the large amount of quotes from:
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”
You can find the original press release here:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
Not only bubbles of natural co2 but also natural oil seeps. See the Gulf of Mexico or off the Californian coast which both release vast amounts of oil into the sea each year. (Shhhhhhh! apparently some microbes like chomping it).
When is this scam going to end?
Alcheson: An excellent post which all should read pointing out how adding carbon dioxide does not alter the pH of the oceans. (I hope you won’t mind that I’ve added a screen capture in the footnote on the carbon cycle at my site http://earth-climate.com )
I’d also appreciate your views on my summary of the carbon cycle…
By the process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide reacts with water and sunlight to form carbonic acid and oxygen. Carbon dioxide also dissolves in the waters of the oceans, lakes and rivers up to a point where it is in equilibrium with that in the atmosphere. Some of the carbon dioxide in the water then converts to carbonic acid which is instrumental in weathering processes in rocks etc. This weathering yields bicarbonate ions (and other ions) and these end up in limestone beds on the ocean floor. Now the process of weathering is enhanced by warmer temperatures and the additional acidity due to greater photosynthesis. But, by LeChatelier’s Principle, equilibrium will be maintained by more carbon dioxide being dissolved out of the atmosphere to provide more carbonic acid.
@David Archibald
Your article is brilliantly written. I plan on stealing as much as I can.
Your observations on CO2 vents makes me wonder how many there are and their relationship to existing CO2 observatories. Has this been covered before?
The problem is that these scientists don’t read biochemistry papers. In reality, carbonate deposition is an active cell chemistry process controlled by enzymes, The carbonate is laid down in a complex protein matrix. pH and ocean chemistry has little effect. There are freshwater mussels that build their shells in highly acidic peat water.
Living cells have long been able to isolate themselves from a changing environment.
kiwistonewall says:
“The carbonate is laid down in a complex protein matrix. pH and ocean chemistry has little effect.”
Good point -few here have highlighted the role of proteins especially in things like nacre.
“oeman50 says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:08 am
Just a word of caution on the chemistry of subsea volcanic gas vents. Volcanic eruptions usually contain sulfur and sulfur compounds like H2S, SO2 and SO3. They form acids in solution and the sulfuric acid formed by SO3 in water is a very strong mineral acid. It would not surprise me to see eroded shells or corals attributed to the effects of CO2 when the damage actually comes from these sulfur bearing acids. Unless the gasses are analyzed, we will not know their specific content. And I do know there are natural, relatively pure CO2 sources, but we just need to make sure.
=======
And yet life thrives around black smokers with ph less than 3. Likely the place were life started.
What was that phrase from Jurassic Park? “Life finds a way.”
The pH of the oceans has changed over several decades from 8.2 to 8.1–below the error range.
Neither pH has ever been acidic. As a chemist I find that claim frankly infuriating. 8.2 and 8.1 are mild BASIC pH’s.
As a physiologist, I am even more outraged by the dishonesty of the “ocean acidification” claims. The pH of blood is 7.4, in the neutral range, slightly basic. It is believed that this indicates that multicellular life arose under conditions around that pH or more neutral than today. While we aren’t talking about huge changes in any case, the best evidence we have is that partially neutralizing the world’s basic oceans should be beneficial to most marine life, yielding an increase in the total tonnage of organisms.
All living things on Earth are carbon-based (ask any “organic chemist”) and all rely on reduction of CO2 for starting the formation of their tissues. Therefore, those who complain about CO2 at anything remotely close to current atmospheric levels, or up to five times those levels, are enemies of all Earthly living things.
Period.
Phil says :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
Phil, as with most warmists, you ignore the real system and present an strawman argument. The real system has 10000+ gigatons of undissolved CaCO3 available.This is not listed in your water composition.
Try your experiment again using pCO2 3.5 × 10−4 (atm) over a beaker of water containing pulverized, undissolved CaCO3 and then tell me what the composition is. This is more more representative of the ocean and why the pH tends to be 8.2 and not the 5.65 you show above.
In case you are a little slow with the calcs, I can tell you what the pH will be. It will be ~8.2 until all of the CaCO3 is dissolved. Problem for the warmists is, in the real ocean, you will run out of CO2 before you run out of undissolved CaCO3.
It isn’t the equilibrium pH of the ocean that is really of concern as warmists mistakenly/misleadingly try to convince people of, it is only a possible problem of kinetics… how fast the CO2 gets neutralized by the available undissolved CaCO3. As a few people in this thread have already alluded to, even from the warmist side, is that in the presence of CO2(aq), solid CaCO3 dissolves rather quickly. So all of those published papers that focus on the supposed future pH of the ocean water and only talk about equilibrium concentrations as you have done above, and ignore the only real issue, the kinetics, their results are not worth much and their predictions quite likely to be wrong.
kiwistonewall says:
December 28, 2011 at 5:20 pm
The problem is that these scientists don’t read biochemistry papers. In reality, carbonate deposition is an active cell chemistry process controlled by enzymes, The carbonate is laid down in a complex protein matrix. pH and ocean chemistry has little effect. There are freshwater mussels that build their shells in highly acidic peat water.
Living cells have long been able to isolate themselves from a changing environment.
Thanks! The Climate Scientists have been acting all along like reef forming corals and shell fish are not alive: “This just in! Expert body of Scientists says Fifth Assessment Report contains Smoking Gun! Ipcc Climate Scientists to say that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations is expected to cause Osteoporosis, if not Total Collapse!”
“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.”
[My apologies. It looks like my December 28, 2011 at 1:13 pm post is on the wrong thread.] But while looking around for how coral actually live, relative to Willis’ discussion of how “The Ocean is Not Acidifying”, I found this below and wondered if increasing availability of CO2 to the zooxanthellae living symbiotically within them would allow the coral to produce even more calcium carbonate:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Anthozoa
“All cnidarian species [including corals] can feed by catching prey with nematocysts; sea anemones are capable of catching fish and corals of catching plankton. Some of the species also harbour a type of algae, dinoflagellates called zooxanthellae, in a symbiotic relationship; the reef building corals known as hermatypic corals rely on this symbiotic relationship particularly. The zooxanthellae benefit by using nitrogenous waste and carbon dioxide produced by the host or[?] , and the cnidarian gains photosynthetic capability and increased calcium carbonate production in hermatypic [reef building] corals.”
Or else kill the coral? Apparently not, regardless of the exact mechanism by which the coral “were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”
Phil. says:
December 28, 2011 at 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.
——————————————–
Thanks Phil. Many people eat soft shell crabs or small shrimps, shell and all. Oyster shells, OTOH, tend to be left on the plate.
How ignorant are these people not to know the difference? Failing that, why didn’t one of them with the brains of a mollusc ask themselves why the shells of crabs, shrimp and lobsters are either eaten or used in making stock, whereas clam shells are used as garden borders? Could it be that they are made of different substances?
Coming soon – ocean acidification retards the growth of finger and toenails in surfers.
Charles.U.Farley said @ur momisugly December 28, 2011 at 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!?”
…
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? :)”
Sadly, the greenies started damaging the environment they claim to want to protect here in southern Tasmania many years ago. We used to have a dolomite limestone quarry at Lune River a short distance from where I farm. Nearby the quarry is a cave system (water + dolomite = caves + pretty stalactites & stalagmites).
The greenies decided that the pretty stalactites & stalagmites needed to be protected by closing down the quarry. Apparently, blasting in the quarry could cause stalagmites to fall from the cave roof and die an agonising death, impaled on the stalagmites beneath. When the authorities failed to act, the greenies acted, by smashing up parts of the cave system. In a week when there was no blasting.
The quarry was closed and we now have to import dolomite from outside the district. Bob Brown suggested we should be purchasing it from Japan!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/soon_carbon_myopia_talk.pdf
A good read. Note the pictures of frankencrabs thriving in low pH when CO2 is used 🙂
The whole acidification scare is junk science.
Phil says:
Dec 28, 2011 at 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).”
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.
——
Context is everything. You quote one part of the article, and then spout off as if WHOI scientists can’t tell the difference between mollusks and crustaceans. However, later in the article is the following:
“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].”
Hard clams and corals definitely do use calcium carbonate for their shells. Furthermore, the primary constituents of the polysaccharides that make up chitin include lots of carbon and oxygen, as is the case for all sugars. It’s possible the scientists expected some other interaction between the shells of the arthropods and less alkaline seawater with higher CO2 levels.
// Start Satire Mode //
CO2 that occurs in Nature is “good CO2”, but CO2 that man creates is “bad CO2”. Just ask the IPCC.
// End Satire Mode //
I’d like to see more about the liquid CO2 seen oozing from deep-sea vents. CO2 is liquid under those pressures, (just as it is liquid within a fire extinguisher.) I don’t recall reading anything about the deep-sea clams in the area lacking shells.
I assumed I wouldn’t see any further study, because it doesn’t advance the “cause” to have liquid CO2 trickling by a deep sea clam. In fact funding might even be cut off.
However the paper this thread is about gives me hope. Apparently all you need to do is make some -bleep- statement, at the end, and Alarmist sensitivities are assuaged. The entire paper can be anti-Alarmism, but all you need to do is tack on, “The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.” (The joke is that it actually is the “bottom line.”)
I believe the proper word for this is, “Genuflection.”
I thought that the whole idea was that rising temperatures would drive CO2 OUT of the oceans as warmer water hold LESS CO2.
That gives the dreded positive feedback which rises temperatures further and drives even more CO2 out of the oceans and so ensures that we are all certained DOOMED if we don’t renounce our wicked ways and ……. so forth and so on.
OR have I got it all back the front?
Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere perhaps drives CO2 into of the oceans which causes the oceans to turn acidic, just like my insides, which kills off all sea life, which rot and give off a lot of methane which turns to CO2 in the presence of oxygen, which rises atmospheric CO2 which has come from the ocean, which lowers PH levels just in time which …….
OR pehaps ….
Then perhaps NOT.
More money needed, obviously.
Jos Hagelaars says:
December 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm You can find some carbonate concentration data for several CO2 levels of surface seawater in:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_acidification
While this webpage has some fine and dandy calculations on it, it has a critical flaw when it comes to future ocean pH and ocean carbonate chemistry. In all of the calculations a constant TA is assumed. What this in effect does is take undissolved CaCO3 sources out of the calculations. In reality, it is not the TA that remains essentially constant with increasing CO2 but the pH. (For reasons why this is, see one of my previous posts)
What is ignored is
CO2(aq) + CaCO3(s) ——> Ca(+2) + 2HCO3(-).
Instead they only consider the entirely misleading reaction
CO2(aq) + CO3(2-) ———> 2HCO3(-). Unless the ocean has been depleted it’s huge reservoir of undissolved CaCO3, performing the calculations ignoring the buffering component (the undissolved CaCO3) is of little value.
I’m very concerned about the effects of ocean acidification on sea cucumbers. Full immersion in an already briny solution driven to an acidic pH could put those poor sea cucumbers in a real pickle! And that wouldn’t be Kosher… or Would It??!!
Oh dear…oh deary deary me….another greenie myth/lie goes spiralling down in flames!
How many other CO2 vents are there hidden around the ocean floors? Do we know where they all are? Do we know how much CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere from these vents collectively?
JDN says:
December 28, 2011 at 4:58 pm
There would be a lot of vents – all along the ocean ridges. It is safe to assume though that the system is in equilibrium.