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.
Wraith says:
April 8, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Great. Now they’ll turn us all into metrosexuals.
😉
——————
:> Crab-Pe-ople-Crab-Pe-ople.
To Watcher:
You speak of larger while Anthony spoke of faster.
Growth size and growth rate are two separate things.
philincalifornia says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:31 pm
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.”
—–
I’m not doing research for you. More laziness on the part of readers here, anyone?? YUP. I’ve done research for 12 years on this issue. Can you say the same?
The overwhelming evidence is in the IPCC reports, RealClimate.org, SkepticalScience.com, and a host of other science sources you’ve obviously ignored as an Echo Chamber subscriber. Join Sarah Palin who “reads all of em…that have been put in front of me.” Can you possibly put real scientific evidence in front of you and ignore the BS on this site and in other skeptic sites?
Few if any postings here are science based. WUWT is based on cherry picking evidence to support previously held beliefs and nit-picking at science it doesn’t agree with, using the stone knives and bearskins of prejudice, fear, anger and sometimes pure nuttery. Not science. Science does not cherry-pick. It examines all relevant evidence, then winnows out chaff.
If the oil companies and the CIA believe in global warming due to human causes, and the latter are designing defense scenarios to deal with the fallout…you better believe it’s real. Only dummies don’t trust facts.
It just occurred to me that is possible, but by no means confirmed in any way (hence overwhelming evidence etc., ad. infinitum), that what we continue to witness could be a lower anthropogenic susceptibility to CO2 toxicity.
Or Hypercapnia.
From Wiki: “Hypercapnia is generally caused by hypoventilation, lung disease, or diminished consciousness.” Hmmmmm diminished consciousness……..
You don’t suppose that a lower threshold to CO2 driven “diminished consciousness” might exist somewhere around 350.org ppm for some members of the genus Homo constitutes, say, a tipping point?
Hey!!! I’m a crab (born July 18, never mind the year) and only 4’10 1/2″!!!! Explain me! Folks used to say the growing season must be short in NE Oregon.
[snip too much of a rant – try xanax – mod]
Claims like this one are both idiotic and true. After all, crabs are a carbon based life form dependent on various forms of carbon compounds for life, so of course carbon is responsible for any giant crabs, anf the bigger they are, the more carbon they need. If the “researchers” found otherwise, now that would be a startling discovery.
Other Andy @ur momisugly 5:55 PM. Thank you for the new, at least to me, phrase “natural climate change deniers.” I suggest that its use be encouraged.
Watcher. You’re a hoot. rofl
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 6:03 pm
=================
In other words:
“No I can’t”. Thank you.
Pamela Gray says:
April 8, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Hey!!! I’m a crab (born July 18, never mind the year) and only 4’10 1/2″!!!! Explain me! Folks used to say the growing season must be short in NE Oregon.
==================================
Thanks Pamela, you just reminded me, I’m a crab too. I was wondering how I put all that weight on since last Thanksgiving.
Dare I say it …………. eating too many oysters !!!!!
Addendum for Watcher:
It’s overwhelming, but you would have to do research ??
Not at your fingertips ??
OK, 3 bullet points. I won’t be so greedy this time.
Link to the research on “functional extinction” of oysters:
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Beck.pdf
Chuck Nolan says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:47 pm
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.
——
The quote above refers to research done now on insects living in prehistoric times. A quirk of English allows a part of a sentence to ambiguously refer to either of the two components, “research” or “insects.”
Duh. Playing rhetorical games with a language you don’t fully understand does not make you look bright.
Jerome,
My BS meter is still spinning after reading your missive.
Crabs and shellfish create their protective shell, breathe and to an amazing extent eat in the same way. They also have blood and internal mechanisms to show they are cousin creatures. So when one AGW paper says one functionally similar creature grows and another declines given the same conditions, then any sane person would reckon the “science” is pure loony tunes.
@watcher
1) larger insects were the result of no competition from other lifeforms, MUCH higher O2 atmospheric concentrations supposedly of over or approaching 30% but insects use spiracles and blood O2 transfer and ventilate the same as mammals do.
2) if you had followed the many prior discussions here concerning ocean “acidification”, you would have learned all you wanted to know about the topic like the fact that plants remove so much CO2 and it’s ionic products carbonates, etc that they change the pH of entire bodies of water as they ‘grow’ and that these changes dwarf the miniscule alterations caused by CO2 water atmosphere exchange. The oceans have such massive buffering capacity that worrying about tiny trace amounts of CO2 “acidifying” the ocean are completely laughable and absurd. Further, even if every jot of known fossil fuel was burnt, there would not be enough CO2 produced to “acidify” the ocean – period.
The whole topic is absurd and actually so stupid that it defies belief and thus all the stupid jokes.
Watcher says:
“I’ve done research for 12 years on this issue.”
But when asked for data, Watcher does a cop-out:
“I’m not doing research for you.”
If Watcher’s ‘evidence’ comes from censoring blogs like RC, SkS and the UN/IPCC, no wonder he is on the wrong track. The plain fact of the matter is that global warming has stalled, even as CO2 continues its steady rise. The consternation among the climate alarmist crowd is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The planet is not doing what they endlessly predicted it would do, and as a result people like Watcher can only emit ad-homs like “Sara Palin”. Pretty weak tea, no?
Watcher claims that “Few if any postings here are science based,” ignoring the fact that WUWT has won the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site Award for three years running. That is the consensus. How did RC and SkS do? In fact, those thinly-trafficked echo chambers didn’t even make the playoffs. That is because they are entirely pseudo-science based, and they routinely censor inconvenient skeptics’ comments.
The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptical scientist — and honest scientists are nowhere to be seen on SkS or RC. “Watcher” gets his comments approved here, but skeptics are censored at alarmist blogs. Why? Because they can’t handle the truth.
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
It will be a big test of Mr. Watts’ integrity …………….
—————————
Again Watcher, I’m impressed.
I did not know alarmists knew the word integrity.
I’m pretty sure Al Gore, Peter Gleick, Mike Mann, Jim Hansen, Phil Jones and the rest of the team would have to check the dictionary for the definition.
I’m believe it’s not a word that gets used a lot during their conversations. I don’t recall reading it in their emails.
Aren’t you embarrassed to be on their side?
Didn’t you learn that you’re judged by the company you keep?
If you sleep with dogs……………..
One thing you needn’t worry about is Anthony Watts’ integrity.
cn
Watcher,
I’ve noted you use the same buzz words and paraphrase constantly. Then you accuse us of the very same things.
That is a classic case of projectionism.
What’s more, your science class children on holiday paddling and swimming to reams of dead corals and high acidification merely yards from the sewage pipe only makes us look at you with a mixed bag of sadness and mirth.
Clay Marley wrote;
“I could write a Willis story about those family vacations to Destin years ago, hunting blue crab off the beach and off piers”
If Willis caught blue crabs on the Pacific Coast of the USA he would have been the first and only person to do so, they are strictly an East Coast Creature. South Carolina up towards Delaware and the Great Chesapeake Bay is their haunts. Great eating when you can get them, try the soft shelled ones (April to May), a great epicurean delight……
The West Coast gets the Dungeness Crab, the Snow Crab and the King Crab, OK, but not nearly the same as the Blue Crab. I have had FRESH King Crab in Anchorage, boy that was a treat. Much better than the frozen ones we get here in the “lower 48”.
I just noticed a funny itch, maybe it’s a ……..
Cheers, Kevin.
Off topic, gag faculae. Read if you’d like a few minutes of molar grinding.
http://www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html
I’ve been catching blue crabs from coastal NC around Florida and on through Texas for more than 40 years. My empirical datat shows that unfortunatley, they are not getting any bigger. How much extra CO2 would it take to make them grow to the size of King crabs? That should be our goal.
Giant crabs can usually be fixed with Kwellada (R). Though we did have a brave soul in a logging camp so driven to distraction he sprayed them with a can of Raid. Needless to say everyone heard about it an instant afterwards.
@ur momisugly Watcher
I gave up on pop culture after engineering school and have dedicated decades to serious study of science and history with a college level understanding. AGW has been an outcome based, publicly funded fraud to create more government….plain and simple. The Triassic insects may have lived in a 31% O2 environment [questionable proxy data]….but the flying insects and reptiles indicate that the atmosphere was also far denser. Fossil Pterodactyls have twice the wingspan of todays largest condor…and since “lift” is a function of wing area….double the wingspan would require FOUR times ambient the atmospheric pressure. It is obvious that the Earth’s atmosphere is under constant erosion from solar wind and from ionization from cosmic/solar rays. Millions of years mean lots of erosion. There are very few linear relationships and very few constants in the Universe. Click on my post name and visit my website where many defects in current dogma are refuted. Don’t let the giant blue crabs fool you.
I thought ocean acidification was supposed to dissolve the shells.
Let’s not forget the biggest shells grew and the oceans were totally dominated by the shell species (Ammonites and Trilobites) at a time when CO2 was many times higher than today. 8 feet across Ammonites and 1000s of species of truly scary Trilobites (the best fossils from the Atlas mountains in Morocco show a lot more detail).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Asteroceras_BW.jpg
http://digsfossils.com/fossils/pics/trilobites/morocco-trilobite001a.jpeg