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
Rob Painting
December 29, 2011 12:14 pm

brc – “Just once, I’d like to see a news report that said ‘Reef health excellent, come and take a look’.”
That’s just wishful thinking though. The coral cover at the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is steadily declining. Even Sweatmann (2011), who argues that the GBR is okay, shows that cover has declined in the last decade. Only thing is he blames crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks and storm damage despite a lack of evidence for these.
A major El Nino next year, should it occur, will be a real test for the GBR. It’s possible we’ll see an episode of mass coral bleaching, but let’s hope not eh?

Rob Painting
December 29, 2011 12:21 pm

highflight 56433 – “The oceans are well buffered”
That’s another of those gross misunderstandings. Yes, the changes in the concentration of the various carbon species prevent the oceans from being more acidic, so it buffers acidity (an increase in hydronium ions in seawater) to a limited extent. But it does not prevent pH from declining – as is evidenced by pH time series from around the world.

December 29, 2011 12:22 pm

Obviously Rob Painting did not even read Dr Archibald’s article.

December 29, 2011 12:29 pm

Tom Davidson says: December 29, 2011 at 8:33 am
“In this case it means that adding CO2 to water will raise the concentration of bicarbonate ion, and that in turn will raise the amount of carbonate ion in the system.”

Well, before those freshmen learnt about Le Chatelier, they should have learnt about mass conservation. Where’s the carbon coming from?
And if you say, dissolving CaCO3 (sorta right), then ask Le C why that is happening when carbonate in solution is higher and Ca++ the same.
And Ged says: December 29, 2011 at 11:50 am
“When CO2 dissolves into water, it soaks up hydrogen ions and forms carbonate/bicarbonate. “

I’d love to see a balanced equation for that.

December 29, 2011 12:46 pm

Answer for Nick Stokes:
CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 = Ca(HCO3)2
Ca(HCO3)2 is both soluble and *alkaline*.
This is High School Chemistry.
Remember the lime water test for CO2? Bubble CO2 into lime water and it goes cloudy (CaCO3). Carry on bubbling CO2 into the lime water and the precipitate disappears as Ca(HCO3)2 forms and goes into solution.

Rob Painting
December 29, 2011 12:50 pm

JR Wakefield – “Anyone who thinks that the puny amount of CO2 we are putting into the air has to explain why life flourished so bountiful when CO2 was TWENTY TIMES today during periods in the recent geological past (200-400myo). Limestone deposits from that era dominates the continents when we had shallow seas. Limestone deposited from biological sources.Oh, I forgot, the planet is only 30 years old…”
The current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is perhaps unprecedented in at least 300 million years. The only global change occurring faster was the asteroid impact which wiped out the dinosaur. Puny is not a scientific term for it.
That you perhaps touch upon inorganic sediments, highlights a rather obvious flaw in your argument. Whereas other commenters here seem to believe ancient coral were somehow invulnerable to ocean acidification and elevated temperatures, their existence during times of slowly changing periods of high atmospheric CO2, and the presence of inorganic carbonate sediments (which can only precipitate in strongly supersaturated seawater) illustrates that ancient seawater wasn’t actually harmful to marine life.
Maybe the best example of this is the Cretaceous, so-named because of the massive coccolith deposits formed during period. The coccolith shells are made of calcium carbonate, or chalk, and Cretaceous means chalk. The White Cliffs of Dover, England are made from these coccolith deposits. If ancient seawater was corrosive, how did the coccolith populations explode to such an extent? And more importantly how did their skeletons manage to stay preserved in seawater that was corrosive to their shells?
The answer lies in slow feedbacks, the silicate and carbonate weathering process, the calcite compensation depth, the ocean mixing rate, changes in biological cycling of ocean carbon. All of which slowly feed alkalinity back to the ocean, and can cope with slow change (weathering of rocks is veeeery slow) but not rapid. That’s why the ancient oceans acidified with abrupt increases in CO2, but were fine and dandy with slow change and very high CO2.
It’s much more complicated that just the above though. I can point you to number of peer-reviewed scientific papers, if you like.

Rob Painting
December 29, 2011 12:57 pm

Smokey – of course I read the article, it’s just wrong. Sure it’s maybe just me, but I like to actually read what the peer-reviewed science says on a topic.

Jos Hagelaars
December 29, 2011 1:12 pm

Painting December 29, 2011 at 12:50 pm
“I can point you to number of peer-reviewed scientific papers, if you like.”
I have the impression that many here are not interested in such papers, but I am. Could you be so kind point me to some of them? Thanks in advance.

Philip Bradley
December 29, 2011 1:22 pm

Climate models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200 years.
No they don’t. These are assumptions/projections fed into the climate models.
That a professional scientists would make this basic error brings into question the rest of what he says.

December 29, 2011 1:30 pm

“…of course I read the article, it’s just wrong. Sure it’s maybe just me…”
Yes, it’s just you. The article is correct:

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.

See, empirical observations trump all peer reviewed papers. “Ocena acidification” is simply the latest climate alarmist scare. And like every other “carbon” scare, testable, empirical observations show that nothing unusual is occurring. Natural variability provides a full and complete explanation for all observations.
But if you absolutely must have a peer reviewed author explain the same thing to you, you can read Willis Eschenbach’s routine deconstructions of the “acidification” scare below. But something tells me your mind is made up and closed tight, and impervious to reason. But at least I tried:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-reef-abides
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test

Rob Painting
December 29, 2011 1:32 pm

Jos – The first paper gives a good overview, but here’s a handful to work your way through. I won’t hyperlink in case wordpress throws a hissy-fit over too many links:
-Ocean acidification in deep time – Kump et al (2009)
– Skeletons & ocean chemistry: the long view – Knoll & Fischer (2011) – a chapter from Jean-Pierre Gattuso’s new book: Ocean acidification
– History of carbonate ion concentration over the last 100 million years -Tyrell & Zeebe (2004)
– Effects of global seawater chemistry on biomineralization: past, present, and future – Stanley (2008)
– The ecological evolution of reefs – Wood (1998)
– A Mid Mesozoic Revolution in the regulation of ocean chemistry – Ridgwell (2005)
Full copies are freely available on the web.

mbabbitt
December 29, 2011 1:45 pm

Global warming hysteria summarized: Looking at a sewing push pin and claiming it to be a warrior’s spear.

Rob Painting
December 29, 2011 1:47 pm

Smokey – I read the Fabricius (2011) paper some time ago, and wrote a blog post about it months ago. I’m well aware of the papers findings – coral cover declines with decreasing pH. Who knew? Yes, there are still unresolved issues, for instance, is the mean pH at the CO2 seeps the determinant of coral growth and cover, or is it brief exposure to extremely low pH? We don’t know yet, so the observations of Fabricius may overestimate the impact of lowered pH.
I get the distinct impression from your posts that you don’t really understand a lot of this, otherwise you would not be making the erroneous comments you do.
And again, no point in referring to Willis’ post, he’s no more an expert on ocean acidification than I am. Experts are those in a given field that publish in the peer-reviewed literature, and whose papers stand up to scrutiny by other experts.
If you can point out contrarian peer-reviewed papers on OA I will certainly read them.

Pat Moffitt
December 29, 2011 1:48 pm

Rob Painting says:
“Yes, the changes in the concentration of the various carbon species prevent the oceans from being more acidic, so it buffers acidity (an increase in hydronium ions in seawater) to a limited extent.”
Acidity is NOT NOT NOT a measure of hydronium ions to anyone but a layman where its usage is much too common. pH is not a measure of acidity to a chemist although Wikipedia trained chemists may think otherwise. Acidity is the capacity of a system to neutralize a base. It is solution pH – not acidity – that is the relationship of the hydronium ion relative to hydroxide. Acidity – as a further differentiation – is expressed in mg/l and pH in units. If you gave a lab a water sample and asked them to measure acidity – they would use pH (or a calorimetric indicator) as an end point in a titration using a standard alkali. More importantly any permittee submitting to EPA a pH reading as a substitute for acidity would be in violation of their permit.
Your confusion about this important distinction explains your failure to understand buffering and why you can’t appreciate Willis’s insistence that neutralization was the proper term than ocean acidification.

December 29, 2011 1:50 pm

Rob Painting says:
“And again, no point in referring to Willis’ post, he’s no more an expert on ocean acidification than I am.”
Painting could not be more wrong, and he displays his ignorance in promptly replying; because he could not possibly have read the linked articles and comments that I provided. Thus, his mind is made up and closed tight.
But I tried.

December 29, 2011 1:52 pm

Philip Foster says: December 29, 2011 at 12:46 pm
“Answer for Nick Stokes:
CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 = Ca(HCO3)2”

That’s CaCO3 soaking up the protons. Let’s ee it just with CO2.
“Remember the lime water test for CO2? “
Yes!.

Pat Moffitt
December 29, 2011 2:35 pm

:Rob Painting says:
“The current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is perhaps unprecedented in at least 300 million years. The only global change occurring faster was the asteroid impact which wiped out the dinosaur. Puny is not a scientific term for it”
You are really amusing Rob. 300 million years? Really? So CO2s higher now than the late Miocene or all of the Eocene? Or just about the entirety of the last 250 million years. This comment is just laughable.

December 29, 2011 3:38 pm

Pat Moffitt says:
December 29, 2011 at 2:35 pm
:Rob Painting says:
“The current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is perhaps unprecedented in at least 300 million years. The only global change occurring faster was the asteroid impact which wiped out the dinosaur. Puny is not a scientific term for it”
You are really amusing Rob. 300 million years? Really? So CO2s higher now than the late Miocene or all of the Eocene? Or just about the entirety of the last 250 million years. This comment is just laughable.

Pat I suggest you read what he said, then apologize.

Rob Painting
December 29, 2011 3:42 pm

Smokey – “Painting could not be more wrong”
Care to point me to a peer-reviewed paper on ocean acidification by Willis then? Or shall I expect more bubkes?
Pat Moffit – “So CO2s higher now than the late Miocene or all of the Eocene?”
One can forgive your lack of knowledge on ocean chemistry, despite the fact you previously claimed some expertise, but really, a failure to understand a plainly written sentence does not bode well for your level of comprehension.
Here’s what I wrote, and what you quoted, and the bit you failed to understand- in bold:
“The current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2……”
Of course you could prove me wrong by linking to a scientific peer-reviewed paper which indicates otherwise. Personal incredulity and rhetoric only fools the sycophants.

Rob Painting
December 29, 2011 3:45 pm

Well, my last comment should read:
“The current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2……”
But I expect readers will understand a rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is somewhat different to the absolute value.

old44
December 29, 2011 3:46 pm

Could you please refrain from using Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldbergs name as I tend to bash my head against a brick wall whenever I hear it. The number of times this lunatic has predicted the demise of the Great Barrier Reef is beyond counting, and still he is regarded as an expert.

December 29, 2011 3:58 pm

As Rob Painting makes clear, he has no understanding of the scientific method. It is not the responsibility of scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientist] to prove a negative. The onus is entirely upon the alarmist cult to provide testable, reproducible, empirical evidence showing that human emissions are changing the oceans’ pH. They have failed miserably, primarily because the error bars for measuring pH are much wider than the claimed rate of change. So they post worthless pal reviewed papers that are good for grant trolling, but not much else.
For a look at the corruption endemic to the climate peer review system, see:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Anyone who relies on pal review papers over contrary empirical observation is a credulous fool. For further enlightenment, order A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, available on the right sidebar. And of course, read the free Climategate 1 & 2 email dumps to see just how corrupt the peer review system has become. If it were not for the endless Appeal to Pal Review Authority, the alarmist contingent would have nothing but psychological projection to fall back on.

December 29, 2011 4:14 pm

Ged says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:50 am
Stokes,
You are so wrong, it is painful reading your stuff.
We use direct CO2 gas in culture incubators, where there is no CaCO3 or anything but normal cell media, to PREVENT the pH from becoming acidic. When CO2 dissolves into water, it soaks up hydrogen ions and forms carbonate/bicarbonate. The pH of that is around 6.90 or so. Thus, direct CO2 gas is used to keep cells alive and prevent them from turning their media acidic from cell waste products like lactic acid.

Well you need to tell us what’s in your cell media, TE buffer perhaps, because in pure water an atmosphere with 0,1ppm pCO2 would give you pH 6.90. Our current atmosphere would give pH ~5.50, I think you need to check what buffers are added to your media (Tris would be my guess), it isn’t as simple as you think

Pat Moffitt
December 29, 2011 4:22 pm

Rob-
You are unbelievable- are you seriously claiming an ability to differentiate the rate of change in CO2 on a decade or even century time scale going back 300 million years? The chuckles keep coming.
You keep alleging I’ve misrepresented my CV – not a good idea.

December 29, 2011 4:34 pm

Tom Davidson says:
December 29, 2011 at 8:33 am
I simply MUST take exception to the statement: “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.”
There is a complicated equilibrium in water between dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2), bicarbonate ion (HCO3-, the biologically available form of dissolved carbon), and carbonate ion (CO3=). The equilibrium is dependent on pH and temperature, but can be simply described by a Principle learned in freshman chemistry classes (at least, those who aren’t daydreaming of scuba diving during the lectures!)
Le Chatelier’s Principle holds that “If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change and a new equilibrium is established.”
In this case it means that adding CO2 to water will raise the concentration of bicarbonate ion, and that in turn will raise the amount of carbonate ion in the system. The effect on pH will be negligible because carbon dioxide in water is a weak acid, and bicarbonate is both a weak acid and a weak base. Together they create as a buffer system on the oceanic pH.

No not in freshwater, add more CO2 and bicarbonate (the dominant ion) will increase but carbonate won’t.
In equilibrium with an atmosphere at 1000ppm CO2 there will be:
[HCO3−] 3.78 × 10−6 (mol/L) and [CO32−])5.61 × 10−11 (mol/L
In equilibrium with an atmosphere at 10,000ppm CO2 there will be:
[HCO3−] 1.19 × 10−5 (mol/L) and [CO32−])5.61 × 10-11 (mol/L)
As for seawater the OP was right refer to the site linked by Jos Hagelaars