CO2, is there anything it can’t do? Add it to the list.
Over at WaPo, they call them “supersized”. From Counsel and Heal News (h/t to Gene Doebley):
Carbon To Blame for Oversized Blue Crabs
The use of genetic engineering or steroid enhancements to enlarge certain food products has been popular but highly controversial in the history of the food industry. Based on new research, it seems like certain animals, such as the blue crabs, have found another way of growing that does not require a lab setting. According to research, the side effects of pollution, particularly the emission of carbon dioxide, can lead to oversized blue crabs. Researchers found a link between the growing size of these crustaceans and the growing rate of carbon found in the waters. Although these crabs are growing bigger and faster without the help of scientists, this trend might not be safe for the marine environment.
Hmmm. They seem a little unclear on the giant crab mechanism:
Although carbon dioxide is emitted into the air, it dissolves into the water and saturates the oceans with carbon, which can change how these marine ecosystems work. Saturated waters become acidic, which is detrimental for certain marine animals, such as oysters and corals. These living creatures have calcium carbonate shells, which forms at a much slower rate when the waters become acidic, even if it is only by a small amount. Meanwhile, other creatures, particularly the blue crabs, thrive on the carbon in the water.
…
“Higher levels of carbon in the ocean are causing oysters to grow slower, and their predators – such as blue crabs – to grow faster,” said marine geologist, Justin Baker Ries from the University of North Carolina.
Full story here
Lessee, oysters grow slower, so they won’t reach breeding maturity and replace themselves as fast, and somehow this makes the crabs grow faster?
Maybe this is why it doesn’t make sense, from WaPo, it is recycled news:
The research showing the effects of carbon on marine organisms was published in the journal Geology in 2009. The study, led by Ries and co-authored with Anne L. Cohen and Daniel C. McCorkle, and found that crabs, lobsters and shrimp grew bigger more rapidly as carbon pollution increased. Chesapeake blue crabs grew nearly four times faster in high-carbon tanks than in low-carbon tanks.
Seafood lovers rejoice!
But, ah, another “not in the real world, aka ocean” experiment conducted in tanks. No mention of “giant, oversized, or supersized crabs” in the paper it seems. We’ve been down this road before with “tanked” experiments where they try to extrapolate captive life experiments to the real ocean.
Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification
Abstract
Anthropogenic elevation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (pCO2) is making the oceans more acidic, thereby reducing their degree of saturation with respect to calcium carbonate (CaCO3). There is mounting concern over the impact that future CO2-induced reductions in the CaCO3 saturation state of seawater will have on marine organisms that construct their shells and skeletons from this mineral. Here, we present the results of 60 d laboratory experiments in which we investigated the effects of CO2-induced ocean acidification on calcification in 18 benthic marine organisms. Species were selected to span a broad taxonomic range (crustacea, cnidaria, echinoidea, rhodophyta, chlorophyta, gastropoda, bivalvia, annelida) and included organisms producing aragonite, low-Mg calcite, and high-Mg calcite forms of CaCO3. 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. These varied responses may reflect differences amongst organisms in their ability to regulate pH at the site of calcification, in the extent to which their outer shell layer is protected by an organic covering, in the solubility of their shell or skeletal mineral, and in the extent to which they utilize photosynthesis. Whatever the specific mechanism(s) involved, our results suggest that the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO2 on marine calcification is more varied than previously thought.
- Received 7 March 2009.
- Revision received 16 July 2009.
- Accepted 21 July 2009.
PDF here: http://www.unc.edu/~jries/Ries_et_al_09_Geology_Mixed_Responses_to_Ocean_Acidification_full.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I hope they don’t do this experiment on Mike M. I would hate to see him become any more crabby than he already is.
Important public service announcement: Do not throw your toothpicks into the toilet. Crabs can pole-vault.
Climate change to blame for bumpier flights.
Possibly…..
According to models……
http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/climate-change-blamed-for-bumpier-flights/story-e6frfq80-1226615357985
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22063340
Lots of lazy speculation and silly humor, no references to research in the comments. Telling. Typical of WUWT comments.
One of the most ignorant and illogical comments was made in response to:
“Higher levels of carbon in the ocean are causing oysters to grow slower, and their predators – such as blue crabs – to grow faster,” said marine geologist, Justin Baker Ries from the University of North Carolina.
The comment: “Lessee, oysters grow slower, so they won’t reach breeding maturity and replace themselves as fast, and somehow this makes the crabs grow faster?”
NO. CLEARLY that was NOT the connection made between crabs, oysters and carbon.
Ries’ conclusion, to paraphrase what’s already clear as fresh air (sorely needed here!), was that carbon causes oysters to grow slower and also causes their predators to grow faster. No relationship between slower-growing oysters and faster-growing crabs was stated or implied. The link, which occurred in the same sentence, was too hard for the commenter to figure out: Each type of creature is affected by carbon, but in DIFFERENT ways.
Where exactly in one’s brain can one make such a nonexistent connection? And why? I suggest a deficiency in analytical prowess. Or reading too quickly without grasping the content. Or jumping to an assumption (a common error made by conservatives) based on a previously held belief: that scientists doing this work are 1) dumber than you and 2) wrong for any reason (no matter how true, logical or verified) that doesn’t fit your previously held schema that holds AGW can’t be true.
Moving on towards a more science-based approach at comments…
Let’s try to figure this out instead of ignorantly putting down research you really don’t have a scientific context for, or understand, eh? Grasping at straws. This is for the poster, too.
Maybe respiratory systems are related. Just a starter hypothesis. Why suggest that? Research on insects in prehistoric times reveals that they grew larger with greater amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere that powered bigger muscles. They got smaller when faced with evolutionary pressures like birds evolving to become efficient hunters, as well as lower oxygen content in the atmosphere. http://insects.about.com/od/evolution/f/Why-Prehistoric-Insects-Were-So-Big.htm
Maybe we can infer something using *educated* guesswork. Maybe not. But at least use existing science and research, not supposition, voodoo and inventing fact-free hypotheses based on scant evidence (phlogiston, for example) to account for what you don’t understand.
Insects are similar to crustaceans. But most crustaceans, being larger, have different breathing mechanisms. I wonder if respiration is related to the crustaceans’ increased size? “Crustacea usually have gills that are modified appendages.” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod#Internal_organs
I’m not getting anywhere so far, I have to admit, but it was fun to pop the balloons of the windbags here along the way! 😀
Now, if any real scientists are reading this, will you please help those with limited abilities to understand? Hoping I lit the fire of understanding…until some dullard’s inane “Yeah right–trust Wikipedia, loser!” comment comes flying by.
FYI, Dullard: Wikipedia, despite being a user-sourced entity with concomitant risks for accuracy in specific articles, has been researched and pronounced as nearly as factually accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica, according to the science journal, Nature: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
“Anthropogenic elevation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (pCO2) is making the oceans more acidic…”
The oceans are alkaline. Adding more CO2 makes them less alkaline, not “more” acidic. My BS detector went off, and I don’t have to read any more of this drivel.
Reg Nelson says: “Just what exactly were they expecting the crabs to do?”
Join claws and sing Kumbaya?
Giant crabs!
We’re doomed!
First:
“According to research, the side effects of pollution, particularly the emission of carbon dioxide….”
CO2 is a side effect of pollution?
Are they mad (OK, that was a rhetorical question)?
CO2 is essential for life on the planet Earth.
Second
“CO2, is there anything it can’t do? ”
Nope.
Bumpy plane rides climate change’s newest problem
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10876366
Maybe it’s not the CO2. Maybe it’s the colder temperature favoring survival and growth of shellfish. I’ll take the 2009 paper referenced above and raise you a 2011 paper:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Climate-related+hydrological+regimes+and+their+effects+on+abundance…-a0256170402
And if you’re going to reference giant crabs, why not go the full Monty and include 1957’s “Attack of the Crab Monsters”? These crabs got smarter as they ate more people. Cheers –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Crab_Monsters
It will be a big test of Mr. Watts’ integrity if he posts my previous comment. And replies with some measure of civility, which I’ve frequently done without here. Would you at least note your mistake in making the “Lessee…” comment?
I admitted mine, being unable in 20 minutes to help figure out the mechanism for why blue crabs are growing larger. At least I started with established science. (Well…maybe not established to a Creationist, lol.) But, then again, I don’t claim to be an expert in anything but writing and editing.
Are you truly expert enough on blue crabs and ocean carbon absorption to make an educated comment? Or preaching, on a pulpit glaringly empty of evidence, to a choir of those who also refuse to believe in the overwhelming evidence of AGW?
[Note that your previous comment was posted. — mod.]
Be afraid. Be very afraid…
Yeah, right, I’ll make a note.
Does not more CO2 equals more plankton, equal more food for fish, equal more food for crabs equals bigger crabs.
As that might be seen as something that would be good from more CO2, work on the chemistry of the shell is what makes them bigger not that there is more food in the food chain.
So the authors claim that the oceans are growing “…more acidic…” Where did they document the oceans as having an average oceanic pH level? What about the pH varying with time and place? When I took Chem 1, the pH scale was logarithmic and anything over 7.0 was a base. Perhaps a “climate scientist” ™ who is lurking will be kind enough to attempt to explain why a pH of 7.9 is more acidic than a pH of 8.0.
“Holy Crab BatMann it’s a street fight!”
“the hockey stick will defend us.”
[BatMann reaches for a small device and taps away furiously as the climate villains disappear into thin air]
kapow!
ker-plop!
zamm!
thwacke!
“nice blocking BatMann, but what does that have to do with the hock…”
plop!
[BatMann stands alone. Fades.]
/sarc brought on by dissident crabs in the camp
@ur momisugly Watcher. Have you seen the warmlist? (Linked right at the top in the very first sentence.)
Atter wading through all those claims, why would you take ANY of it seriously? Even if ANY of it is true, why would ANYONE think it matters? It would be a natural development along with natural changes, something occuring constantly. Relax and laugh already.
If you don’t want to scroll to the top of the page, here’s the URL. Have a look:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Sorry – butter fingers to me = “Atter” should read “After”
Watcher says:
“…preaching, on a pulpit glaringly empty of evidence, to a choir of those who also refuse to believe in the overwhelming evidence of AGW?”
Watcher, I challenge you to post your “overwhelming evidence of AGW”. Make sure it is measurable and testable, per the Scientific Method. Avoid the usual Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy, wherein you presume that CO2 is the cause of AGW simply because you cannot think of any other cause.
In fact, there is no measurable, testable evidence for AGW. AGW is a conjecture. It is not a testable hypothesis because there are no empirical measurements of AGW. Further, because you are a true believer in AGW, the onus is upon you to provide scientific evidence and measurements to support your conjecture.
And Anthony Watts’ integrity is not the issue here. Yours is. The alarmist crowd is devoid of scientific integrity. They universally ignore the Scientific Method, they hide out from any real debates, and they refuse to admit it when they are found to be flat wrong.
Commenters are making fun of this ridiculous crab scare for a good reason. Do a WUWT archive search for ‘acidification’, and you will find that the daily variation in ocean pH is far larger than what is being claimed as ‘acidification’. The entire “carbon” scare has become ridiculous, and claims like giant crabs do nothing to correct that foolishness.
GlynnMhor says: April 8, 2013 at 3:23 pm: “Also to consider here is that the genetic variability of many of these creatures is extremely high. Each year produces thousands or millions of offspring, of which only a few survive to breeding age. That sort of strategy means that in cases of environmental change, the population can be replaced quickly with descendants more adapted to the new conditions.”
It is this weak grasp of evolution that surprises me on a blog that has a fairly savvy audience – you see this view among educated blog commenters…the genetic drift explanation of the emergence of new species.
Well, “Watcher” is sure a bigger crab.
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
…….. who also refuse to believe in the overwhelming evidence of AGW?
======================================
Why do so many people use this phrase “overwhelming evidence”, but then never say what it is. Go on Watcher, humor us – 10 bullet points please.
Actually, looking over that warmlist again, I noticed “giant oysters invade” so I guess they are not as hapless as these researchers fear. Aggressive little buggers, when roused (a bit like climate scientists).
In a few hundred years, these shellfish will be as big as we are. And then …
http://cdn.superbwallpapers.com/wallpapers/meme/why-not-zoidberg-14333-1920×1080.jpg
Watcher;
“I admitted mine, being unable in 20 minutes to help figure out the mechanism for why blue crabs are growing larger.”
Frankly I don’t give a d–n why they are (supposedly) growing larger, but now I REALLY, REALLY, WANT A DOUBLE ORDER of them delicious little (whoops, HUGE) devils.
Nothing in the seafood world is as delicious as a nicely pan fried soft shelled blue crab…………………… Hard to get in most parts of the world.
Lighten UP, you guys are WAY TOO SURE OF YOUR PREDICTIVE ABILITIES, crabs have been eating oysters for a long time, and humans have been eating both for a long time as well.
Cheers, Kevin.
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 4:58 pm
…………….Research on insects in prehistoric times reveals that they grew larger with greater amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere that powered bigger muscles.
————————————–
Thanks Watcher.
This is why I come to wattsupwiththat. You learn something new everyday.
I did not know they did research on insects in prehistoric times.
I’ll have to check for the article you mentioned in wikipedia.
Many climythology ( I love that term) scientists would be right at home doing research in prehistoric times because they like not having to archive or share their data.
cn
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
…….. who also refuse to believe in the overwhelming evidence of AGW?
Now that’s a strawman if I have ever seen one.
Why is it that all natural climate change deniers bring this up, time after time?
‘Non-believers’ come is many shapes and forms and almost all believe in AGW, just not in CAGW.
Many believe that the extra anthropogenic CO2 causes some warming but that this is insignificant.
Many believe that the extra anthropogenic CO2 causes some warming but that ‘natural’ phenomena overwhelm the effects.
Many believe that the extra anthropogenic CO2 causes some warming but that this actually beneficial.
Many believe that the extra anthropogenic CO2 causes some warming but trying to prevent this is economically and socially unjustified as the cost of preventing this is many times higher than trying to adapt to this.
However, many ‘non-believers’ find that this whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Extreme Weather, Climate Chaos quasi-religious scam is causing mass hysteria or collective obsessional behavior among a certain, un-educated gullible, segment of the population. Useful idiots (Karl Marx) edged on and whipped up into a frenzy by the ‘intellectual elite’ and politicians with an agenda.
Yea, I don’t see a downside here. I could write a Willis story about those family vacations to Destin years ago, hunting blue crab off the beach and off piers, with nets and string and chicken wings, then having an incredible family feast of boiled crab in melted butter.