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.
There is a kind of bait and switch here.
First, we are told that ocean acidification — caused by increased CO2 ocean uptake as atmospheric CO2 levels climb from today’s ~ 400 ppm — will prevent calcifiers from growing, will cause some to be dissolved or become extinct.
But then people do the research, and find (as Ries did in his 2009 Geology paper) that many species actually add more shell, are better calcifiers, going from today’s CO2 levels up to 600 ppm CO2, or up to 900 ppm CO2, and even higher in some species. That was good research. So we learn, as in so many things having to do with warming, that the initial headlines are wrong, that nature is more resilient, because nature has seen these CO2 levels before and can handle them.
So what happens next? We are told that ocean acidity increases are bad not because they decrease calcification — that was yesterday’s scare story — but because they INCREASE it!
So if anything changes, it is bad. Clearly, there are limits, there always are. But it doesn’t seem like we will reach those limits, whatever they are, for quite a while.
Sounds like someone wants it both ways, and I don’t think it is Ries, I think it is the people who fund him and other researchers. There has to be a bad story from your research, we don’t care what it is, just find it.
Whatcher wrote:
“For you who are stuck in AGW, CAGW or GW skepticism, never examining new facts, never thinking you could have missed something–you’re mired. You can’t learn and you can’t change. The facts *don’t matter*. You’ll keep sucking in only facts that fit The Main Idea stuck inside you (Protect Myself, Don’t Worry About Others?), always rejecting those facts that counter your rigid beliefs.”
The essence of skepticism and true science IS the examination of facts, IS identifying missed data, IS realizing facts DO matter and that being rigid in one’s position IS doomed for failure.
Upon a true skeptical analysis of CAGW theory, it now seems painfully obvious CAGW is an invalidated theory. Here are just a few salient points:
1) CO2 Climate Sensitivity: 2C~4.5C isn’t happening. A more skeptical view would put it at around 1.0C or less; certainly below 2C, which even the IPCC admits wouldn’t be a problem.
2) Ocean Acidification: From 1850’s to 2012, ocean pH has only dropped from around 8.15 to around 8.10, which is STILL alkaline and NOT a problem. For 100’s of MILLIONS of years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 3,000 ~ 4,500ppm and the oceans were STILL alkaline and teaming with life.
3) Warming Trend: The global warming trend has stalled into its 17th year, despite 50% of total manmade CO2 emitted since 1750 occurring over the last 10 years. The 0.80C in warming in the 20th century is NOT unprecedented and can easily be attributed to the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurring between 1933 and 1996.
It interesting the warming trend ended the year after these strong solar cycles ended, isn’t it…
4) Polar Ice Extents: Total global polar ice extents are still close to the 1979-2008 average. The Arctic extent has fallen since 1995 (when the AMO entered its 30-yr natural warming phase) and the Antarctic is setting ice extent records (currently about 972,000 KM^2 above the 1979-2008 average.
5) Water Vapor: Climate Models depend on a rapid increase in WV for CO2 climate sensitivity to reach 2.0C~4.5C. NASA’s 22-yr NVAP-M water vapor report released in 2012 shows no increasing trend in water vapor occurring over the past 22 yrs. Without increasing WV, CAGW is dead in the water…so to speak…
6) Extreme Weather– Empirical evidence shows floods, droughts, rainfall, tornadoes, cyclones, hurricanes, snowfall, etc. are at or near 100-yr historic averages. The ONLY thing that HAS increased is the politicized reporting on one-off weather events and Doppler Radar that has greatly increased the reporting (not incidence) of F0~F2 tornadoes. F3 and up tornado incidence at 100-yr levels.
7) Glacier Melts: This has been going on for the past 11,400 yrs. Get over it. Once glaciers start growing again, THEN start worrying, because it may mean we’re heading into a new Little Ice Age or a full-blown Ice Age, which could kill billions of people.
I could go on, but you got nothin’, Watcher.. Just invalidated GIGO CAGW models and weather propaganda.
You ironically seem to exemplify the very things you say you despise…. Telling…very telling.
Watcher, you lost all credibility when you made the statement “Liberals are mostly smart;” and used studies by liberal professors to support that assertion. You mean the liberals who thought communism was the wave of the future and Eastern Europe was a ecological paradise (John Kenneth Galbraith just before the fall of the Eastern Block showed it to be a cesspool). That list of “smart” liberals could go on for pages. But then then you’re a liberal so you and your ilk must be smart right and anyone who disagrees with you must be dumb? Right? You put yourself right up there above Dyson, Christie, Motl, and Curry to name just a few. What ignorant arrogance.
CAGW is supported by models not facts. Your “smart liberals” are the Club of Rome and Paul Erlich’s of our time and they are just as prone to fanatical beliefs as any “dumb” conservative you despise. You accept facts you want to because some authority says they are true and don’t even bother to look at the competing evidence. You’re the worst sort of fanatic. You just assume anyone who disagrees with you or your authorities must be stupid. Try reading the scientists and statisticians who’ve torn great gaping holes in the CAGW religion. Oh wait, you obviously can’t read them because that would be heresy, wouldn’t it?
Watcher Sez: …
“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?”
So you cite “the overwhelming evidence” and when challenged to produce, this is what you come up with?!? Nothing? No citations? Please.
Then finish with a question?
….. and an attempted insult. I would take Palin over you anyday, nimrod. (sorry if snipworthy, Mods)
Classic troll behavior.
You have been challenged to produce the “overwhelming” evidence. If it’s overwhelming it should be easy to produce ………… What is your response ……?
Cue …….. “crickets”.
Once I realise that someone is a troll (probably a paid one) I never respond to them again. Goodbye.
TJR
Watcher says: April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
“[ … ] But, then again, I don’t claim to be an expert in anything but writing and editing.”
———————————–
LOL, shows there too … in your shoes, pal, I wouldn’t be claiming anything at all. And wipe that snot off your nose.
Thanks for the shot from “Mysterious Island,” Anthony! A personal favorite from years ago!
Tick tock, tick tock
Just one
Just one teeny, teeny one
You can phone-a-friend even
For someone who claims to have studied the subject for 12 years, Watcher doesn’t seem to have noticed that the warming stopped 17 years ago. So… what, exactly, is supposed to be “happening NOW”?
Anyway, love the crab story, I’m sure the giant jellyfish will put them in their place.
“””””…..Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Other_Andy says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
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.
—
This brings up a highly relevant point about belief.
Belief largely is the purview of religion. People come to beliefs based on many factors, including evidence, hearsay, the persuasive power of their peers, associates, family, community members, and individual experience. Science, however, isn’t based on belief, but evidence and reason……”””””
Some definitive assertions there “Watcher”. Of course the weight carried by assertions depends a lot on who is doing the asserting.
And there is very little credibility that one should place on assertions that are made by those who are ashamed of their own name, to the point they would rather it not be known, so they can not be credited with their enlightening essays.
As for belief and science, how can you possibly separate the two, since 100% of our science is based on pure fiction. There is not one single thing, described in any theory, in any branch of science, that s not a total fabrication of the human mind. Absolutely nothing that is described in any branch of mathematics, actually exists anywhere in the physical universe. We simply made it all up in our heads.
When YOU read a “therrmometer”, no matter what its functioning principle is, it is an act of faith on your part, that the “reading” you take from the instrument, is actually the true Temperature of something; let alone that it is the something whose Temperature you think you are observing.
Or take Black Body Radiation for example: It is said that Max Planck calculated its spectrum by studying the radiation properties of a cavity. Not any cavity, mind you, but one with perfectly reflecting walls, and zero heat loss through those walls. And the Black body itself, is the antithesis of perfectly reflecting walls. It must have a zero reflectance, and 100 % absorptance, for any EM radiant energy from zero to infinite frequency, sans those two end points.
No physical material of any kind, anywhere in the universe, actually has either zero or 100% reflectance or absorptance; not even at any one frequency or wavelength of the radiation,let alone for all frequencies.
So there is no such thing anywhere in the universe, as a black body; nor does Planck’s radiating cavity exist anywhere.
Yet one will find few scientists, who do not believe Planck’s theory of the black body radiation, and the results derived from it; and will willy nilly apply it to actual real bodies, as if it was a scientific fact, instead of the ultimate fiction.
So watch what you believe “watcher”; well in your case it doesn’t matter, since even you are not willing to stand behind what you assert.
I have no problem with those who talk anonymously; they, of all people should know what their ideas are worth.
Watcher;
As you have cited the IPCC as an authoritative source that “proves” global warming, I was wondering if you were aware that of the top 16 radiative forcings that they study, they rank their own LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) as either “Low” or “Very Low” in 11 of 16 categories? That they rank their own LOSU as “high” in only a single category?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html
You see Watcher, if you stick around to learn a thing or two in stead of preaching, you might discover that the very sources you are certain prove what you say, in fact do nothing of the sort. I’m a skeptic not because I’ve rejected the IPCC out of hand, but because I have read it in detail and know what it says and what it doesn’t. You however seem to be operating on the basis of what other people have said about it rather than reading it yourself.
Right, everyone (including me) has had some fun but it’s time to look at the paper. Everywhere one looks one sees potential problems with the methodology as published.
It starts with the statement that seawater surface pH has decreased by 0.1 pH units since the start of the industrial revolution and that seawater surface pH is predicted to decrease by a further 0.3-0.4 units this century. The first statement is to my way of thinking dubious if only because no-one knows what the pH of pre-industrial revolution seawater was. The concept of pH was not proposed until1909 and even though the glass electrode had been disccovered in 1906, the results of investigations were not published until 1922. Glass electrodes (“pH electrodes”) are also sensitive to other ions such as Na+).
A range of test organisms was collected from sites varying from Maine down to Florida. In the data the temperature ranges that these organisms are usually exposed to is given, but the tests were all carried out at a constant temperature of 25C +-1, on the grounds that all of the test organisms are exposed to this temperature at some time of the year. Additionally, the constant temperature was required to maintain the aragonite saturation as a constant.
The water used was obtained from Great Harbour off Cape Cod. It was then micro filtered (0.2 micron) before use. There were no comparative analyses of the chemistry of the test and original source waters. The micro-filtration was presumably to sterilise the water (0.2 micron is a filter that will retain almost all bacteria, but has little effect upon viruses). It has the additional result of removing virtually all of the suspended solids, whether organic or inorganic.
I do not know but wonder whether filter feeders obtain some of their mineral requirements from filtered particulates from the water and whether the absence of particulates has an effect either positive or negative on hunting/scavanging (gilled) species?
The sample tanks were illuminated using an aquarium light source of 8000K giving 426W, 213W or zero for 10 hours per day. No data is given to show that these intense lights (all or nothing as opposed to the natural condition of slow increase to a maximum and then a slow decline to zero) do not have an effect that is not seen in the wild. 8000K lamps, in my experience have an intense UV spectrum, again no data is given to relate this to the natural spectra at the source habitat of the test subjects. The test aquaria were small, 38 litres, or a little over 1 cubic foot (1.34 ft3) and as such should have had little impedence to UV radiation. UV of course has major effects on both life chemistry and inorganic chemistry. No mention is made regarding the ability of the test organisms to escape the light.
The test subjects were fed standardised semi-artificial diets (brine shrimp, edible shrimp and green alga depending on the subject species. There is no mention of how these diets relate to the diets of the test subjects in the wild or even if the diet is available to the test organism in the wild.
The subjects were “acclimatised” to laboratory test conditions before the experiment started, but there is no indication that the test conditions have no effect upon the subjects. Mention is made of the possibility of heat stress but it appears that no attempt was made to either discount this or to allow for it. The acclimatisation period was 14 days at laboratory conditions followed by 14 days at the test conditions before the experiment started. Presumably there was an abrupt change from laboratory conditions to test conditions without a slow acclimatisation. The test was then run for 60 days.
The test water was equilibrated to the test levels of CO2 by bubbling air with a known ,and in most cases, enhanced CO2 concentration continuously through the water. The CO2 level therefore was not subject to diurnal (or seasonal) variation. The same is true of O2 levels. This never occurs in nature. As an aside, their environmental level of CO2 was 409 ppm, somewhat higher than what is usually accepted (395.94ppm on WUWT main page).
So to sum up. A number of organisms were taken from environments ranginging from sub-tropical to sub-arctic, subjected to a number of environmental shocks, fed a diet that was different from their normal, exposed to high levels of UV radiation, at a constant high temperature, a constant CO2 and O2 tension, denied their usual mineral diet, in a sterile environment and the experimenters were able to deduce that OMG its worse than we thought.
My short look at this paper makes me wonder how it was approved for investigation in the form given let alone approved for publication.
OK Watcher, it’s time to put up or shut up:
One bullet point from the “overwhelming evidence”. Just one.
Failing that (which is, of course, inevitable), I suggest you look in a mirror and say to yourself ….
Maybe the alarmists are breathing CO2, that magic gas with hallucinogenic properties, and so experiencing mass hallucinations. What next, giant plankton?
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:42 pm
………This brings up a highly relevant point about belief.
————————————————————-
Watcher, belief is all you and I have to go on.
As in most case throughout life, you can think whatever you want and you can put your trust in whoever you want but you don’t know.
Is the globe warming? You and I don’t know but a lot of scientists say it is.
IMHO I don’t think they know either. They’re making literal swags.
They may have some idea but I call bs to 2 decimal places.
I doubt they can figure long term future temperature either.
Seems to me the earth is expecting another ice age anytime now.
I’ve seen how scientists, governments and NGOs work together to build scares like alar, DDT, and influenza of all sorts. It’s their M.O. It’s to save the children or the planet or the poley-bear.
They ended DDT use (allowing millions of people to suffer and die) to save the raptors then they build money making wind mills that chop the raptors to pieces.
Today, they’re all politicians. They’re not to be trusted. Follow the money.
Besides, I like the idea of more CO2 and global warming. It frees up more useful land, grows more food and releases needed fresh water. What’s not to like?
What’s the downside? Where’s the “C” agw?
cn
‘Watcher’ Sez: “Certain segments of the (mostly US) population refuse to accept overwhelming evidence for AGW.”
Certain segments of the Borg Collective refuse to question the substance of “overwhelming evidence”, cannot comprehend the existence of a ‘Straw’/False collective computational error, and see the Global, ongoing, processor Idiot Loop malfunction as a ‘local (mostly US)’ phenomenon.
The wheels of truth grind slowly, but they care not one whit for your yammering protestations of the existence of Climatological Perpetual Motion.
@ur momisugly KevinK says: April 8, 2013 at 8:10 pm You asked about your order for some pan fried soft shelled. Great idea. I’ll have some too and a bottle of Dagueneau Pouilly Fume. Thx
Hi Watcher,
If you’re genuinely interested in finding out more about violations of the scientific method try spending a bit of time over at climateaudit.org (reading as opposed to commenting as there’s a lot to consider). I can promise you’ll find a lot more than petty nit picking as Steve’s identified some pretty basic flaws in published papers over the years. If it’s truth you’re after you’ll be pretty grateful to him for helping you out.
If you want to know more about the underlying data collection methods have a look at Athony’s surfacestations project. If you’re still certain that the science is settled after that….
Watcher 6:18 pm
i admit that i only skimmed the article you suggested about the “functional extinction” of oysters.
It was a inclusive article — and they did not mention CO2. So the people you tout as experts don’t recognize CO2 as a danger to oysters.
So what was the point of suggesting we read that article — or do you just like shooting yourself in the foot?
Eugene WR Gallun
Richard of NZ says:
April 8, 2013 at 10:04 pm
*
Wow, nicely done. Richard, and I totally agree with your conclusions.
Watcher 6:19
“Research on insects in prehistoric times”
Research on insects OF prehistoric times
Research on prehistoric insects
Prehistoric refers to that time period during which modern man existed but had no system of writing. So, as written, your sentence refers to only those insects that co-existed with modern man. I think the giant insects you are referring to existed before modern man came into existence.
Did you mention that you were an editor?
Eugene WR Gallun.
Chuck Nolan says:
April 8, 2013 at 10:44 pm
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:42 pm
………This brings up a highly relevant point about belief.
————————————————————-
Watcher, belief is all you and I have to go on.
As in most case throughout life, you can think whatever you want and you can put your trust in whoever you want but you don’t know.
Is the globe warming? You and I don’t know but a lot of scientists say it is.
IMHO I don’t think they know either. They’re making literal swags.
==================================
Now we DO know that the ‘scientists’ know tends towards zero …
Met Office’s Private Briefing Document For The Environment Agency
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/met-offices-private-briefing-document-for-the-environment-agency/
“As far as I know, this document, which I obtained through FOI, has never entered the public domain. It is brutally honest in admitting how little the Met’s scientists understand about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year. This is in stark contrast to many of the hyped up claims, made in public statements in the recent past by, among others, the Met Office themselves.”
Watcher 7:42pm
I think you are really a 15 or 16 year old kid who really needs to get a girlfriend.
Eugene WR Gallun
And CO2 will also cause more turbulence for airliners over the Atlantic. Red all about it……!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22063340
.
Seems like Aircraft Turbulence is increasing due to CO2!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9979395/Planes-set-for-bumpier-rides-scientists-warn.html
Wow!
Ouluman says:
April 8, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Maybe the alarmists are breathing CO2, that magic gas with hallucinogenic properties, and so experiencing mass hallucinations. What next, giant plankton?
*
Which will choke the whales. Poor whales.