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.
>>And CO2 is also responsible for creating
>>turbulence for airliners.
Actually, I think I see the logic behind this one. We are not all going to find huge crabs, but we will all experience airliner turbulence at some point. So we will all subconsiously think “Global Warming” every time we get it.
That is almost like introducing subliminal clips into films or adverts. Devious, eh?
.
Watcher:
At April 8, 2013 at 6:03 pm you say and ask
Well, I’ve done research on this issue for over 30 years and you assert you cannot say the same. So what?
You claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for AGW but when pressed fail to provide any such evidence.
In reality there is no evidence for discernible AGW; none, zilch, nada.
More than three decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost of over $5 billion p.a. has failed to find any such evidence. In the 1990s Santer pretended to have found such evidence but that shenanigans was soon exposed.
If you think you have any evidence for the existence of discernible AGW then publish it and get a Nobel Prize.
There is certain and incontrovertible evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but no evidence that an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration from current levels will have discernible effect on global climate. And the AGW hypothesis of such a putative effect is refuted by much empirical evidence; e.g.
Missing tropospheric ‘hot spot’
Missing ‘Trenberth’s heat’
Missing ‘committed warming’
Lack of global warming for at least 16 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
etc.
You assert evidence which I say does not exist. To prove me wrong you only need to provide one piece of the evidence you say exists.
Put up or shut up!
Richard
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:42 pm
***Editing a huge missive about Skeptisism being a religion then concludes***
“AGW IS”
=======================================================
Irony is always lost on left wing nutcases.
It is you who has put the “A” in GW” in the same way you assume we place the “G” in “od”.
We all know full well at times the Earth warms ever so slightly.
After ~40 years, AGW (not GW) is still an unproven THEORY. Prove the “A” in “AGW”, that’s all we ask. We are not interested in your constant reciting of buzz-words and mantras that prove you are nothing short of brain washed.
KevinK says:
April 8, 2013 at 6:33 pm
Kev, The west coast of Florida is Blue Crab country. Destin is a town in Florida.
” These living creatures have calcium carbonate shells, which forms at a much slower rate when the waters become acidic,”
This is a lie. These organisms can handle any tiny-tiny decrease in pH; they lay down shell just fine. The purported pH change is undetectable as sea water is a complex buffer well able to resist added carbonic acid. Furthermore, the added acidity (in the basic range) is part of an extended equilibrium which cannot affect itself. Metabolically, these organisms lay down shell faster than ever, having more carbonate to make and use. Coral reefs around the world are growing ever faster, while these guys lie ever larger to the public. Lies, lies and more lies.
“Although these crabs are growing bigger and faster without the help of scientists, this trend might not be safe for the marine environment.”
This is completely meaningless speculation meant to alarm people. They have no clue. When the larger crabs run out of food, competing with each other, there will be fewer and/or smaller crabs. The ecology will react and the problem will be handled, if it is a problem at all.
Years ago, a bird flu wiped out 75% of all East Coast sea gulls. With so few gulls, the food supply was huge, so the next generation was a bunch of huge Baby Huey-type gulls, giants compared to the parents. The assumption that their size would be bad for the environment is meaningless as we have no idea what it means to the environment, However, to think that such events have not happened many times in the past is nothing but arrogance on the part of these biologists.
CO2 has been much higher than now during 90% of the last 600 million years and blue crabs did NOT destroy the environment. The 100s of feet thick Cliffs of Dover were NOT built during low CO2 times. Corals clearly thrived with high CO2.
I’m a watcher too. I’ve been waiting for IPCC scientists to re-visit the Global Climate Models for re-work. They could not find the “Tropospheric Warm Zone”. Their hypothesis, as embodied in the models said this zone would be there, yet it isn’t. The scientific method calls for this hypothesis to be re-written, then tested again. No such thing has happened. Instead any actual science has been abandoned. The “science is settled”.
I’m still watching and waiting.
[snip . . repeat . . mod]
Watcher said ,”And belief in love for one’s neighbor (a quintessentially liberal idea) has molded society for the better.”
–fails to note attribution to God, in Mark 12:31. Should be, “…a quintessentially Christian idea…”
Add to the list: Global warming causes dinosaurs and B movies about giant ants. And they thought it was because of nuclear tests. Good thing we can fix THAT error!
They were fed??? No wonder. Fatted crabs who didn’t have to hunt.
From Watcher’s explanation of belief and put down of Christ, I take it he doesn’t believe in God. That means he believes his essential ancestors just crawled out from under a rock somewhere (or taken to the logical conclusion, developed from some single-cell protoplasm way back when). As a systems engineer, I have real problems believing the most complex organism–man–had such a progeny. My work requires all the intellect I can bring to bear on the problem and it pales compared to what Mother Nature puts on display with amazing panoply. So I believe in God–it’s a far more tenable explanation.
thelastdemocrat says:
April 9, 2013 at 6:25 am
Watcher said ,”And belief in love for one’s neighbor (a quintessentially liberal idea) has molded society for the better.”
–fails to note attribution to God, in Mark 12:31. Should be, “…a quintessentially Christian idea…”
—————–
How do we know God isn’t the cause of Climate Change? Maybe She’s having a bit of a laugh at our expense to help pass the time. Giving us something other than wine, women and song to help keep us busy. God the Ultimate Practical Joker.
Or maybe I have it wrong. CO2 seems to be the cause of just about everything these days. Is it possible that CO2 created God, thus solving that age old question: where did God come from; what created God?
Watcher – If you want to be taken in any way seriously, do not use the word “carbon” when you mean carbon dioxide. In the article, the so-called scientists, by using the CAGW buzz word “carbon” in lieu of carbon dioxide, show their true pro CAGW colors, which causes BS meters to peg.
Watcher = pwned
Watcher, I do not have a problem with you voicing your views on this forum, as far as I am concerned the majority of people who post and read this forum live in countries with democracies and are used to free speech.
I have a scientific background but not in climatology, I visit this site regularly because common sense tells me that CAGW theory is flawed.
I have asked these question many times but no advocate of the CAGW theory has ever provided me with answers. Watcher will you please be the first to do so?
1) How can a trace gas rising from 0.0032% to 0.04% possibly influence the climate?
2) If it does then how can the process stall for 17 years when CO2 continues to rise?
3) Why do advocates of global warming insult those of us who don’t believe it, in extreme cases calling for execution? This is what the Catholic Church did in the 16th and 17th centuries to the likes of Galileo and Bruno (who was burned alive). This bigotry has no place in 21st century science and I would be interested in your opinion as to whether this is scientific or appropriate?
Watcher says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
… believe in the overwhelming evidence of AGW?
—————-
“Overwhelming evidence” is something for the courts. It is not science.
Science relies on absence of evidence as its proof. If there is no evidence against a theory, then a theory may be considered “correct”. Whether the theory has “value” depends on what it tells us.
So, when a theory predicts warming, if that warming fails to occur that is evidence that the theory is wrong. No matter how many times the theory gets it right, it is the exception that proves the rule.
Thus GR replaced Newton as our accepted theory of gravity, because Newton got it wrong about the orbit of Mercury. We still use Newton for simplicity, but only for those problems where the error has been shown to not be significant.
GHG and CO2 theory has been shown to be wrong at predicting future temperatures. We now have 16+ years of high quality records that clearly establish this. NAAO is on record as saying 15 years would be sufficient to show the GHG/CO2 climate models were not correct.
Thus, by the rules of science we should not be using these models or the theory on which they are based as the basis for temperature forecasting. Instead we should concentrate our attention on competing theories that have shown more skill at forecasting temperature.
Unfortunately the Climate Clergy that control Climate Science are no different than the Church in the days of Galileo. They recognize full well what impact this would have on the power and prestige they enjoy and are not about to willingly give thus up.
Thus the common person in the street is kept in the dark, routinely stampeded over cliffs and systematically robbed of their possessions to maintain the divine right of kings to rule over them. That we are left any crumbs at all is no accident. Without the masses who would feed the collection plate?
ferdberple says
Thus the common person in the street is kept in the dark, routinely stampeded over cliffs and systematically robbed of their possessions to maintain the divine right of kings to rule over them. That we are left any crumbs at all is no accident. Without the masses who would feed the collection plate?
It’s called “The Mushroom Policy” Kept in the dark and fed on s**t
Given the increasing rate of obesity in children (and the population as a whole) over the last 30 years, I assume “research” would show that it tracks well with rising carbon dioxide levels, but it certainly would not be increased food or calorie intake that is responsible. I smell grant money here (or perhaps it is just the acidity from the pickles on my super-sized roast beef and provolone sub).
For your information, Watcher, over 31,000 preacticing degreed scientists have signed a statement (the Oregon Petition) saying that there is no discernible effect of man’s activities or carbon dioxide on climate. Compare that to the 70 or so paranoids associated with the IPCC that are the ones actually promoting the AGW fantasy (while many others even in the IPCC doubt it), and you have a majority of about 450 who reject it to 1 who accepts it. That’s not 97 percent – it’s 0.22 percent (2/9 of one percent) supporting it.
That 450 to 1 majority gets even bigger if you count all the scientists who haven’t spoken out for fear of losing their jobs at institutions infected with the AGW virus.
Doesn’t a solution have to have a ph below 7 to be considered acidic?
In what salt water body has this occurred due to dissolved CO2?
@ferdberple –
Let us not forget that the documented historical record of non-correlation between CO2 and global temperatures actually goes back at least to the Hittite-Minoan-Mycenean golden age, and that actual observed temperature records show the overall decline, despite minor ups and downs, of temps since the 1930s.
We’ve got a hell of a lot more than 16 years of documented records to show there is no relartionship between CO2 and global temps. It’s more like 3,800 years.
A gentle caution to RockyRoad –
I am a nonbeliever in a supreme being who happens to have a moral code based on honesty, responsibility, well-being and the Golden Rule, and this moral code is a big part of why I am so determined to resist the AGW cabal – it violates every moral principle. At the same time, I have no difficulty comprehending how man could have evolved from a single-celled organism, or taking it back even further, from simple organic compounds.
You should know that there are some theologians who say that there is no conflict between Scripture and evolution. An example is John H. Walton, author of “The Lost World of Genesis One.”
If it surprises you that an atheist would refer you to a theologian, well, we live oin a world where everyone is supposed to be entitled to their beliefs, and I respect others’ beliefs that differ from my own – as long as they accord me the same respect.
The lack of that kind of respect is so central to the AGW crowd’s attitude towards skeptics. But it’s typical of leftist ideologues. Too bad they don’t understand the danger they put themselves in by refusing to listen
Just re read my post wrt questions for watcher. 0.04% is a typo, it should be 0.004%!
I’m a woodworker. Will increased atmospheric CO2 cause walnut, cherry, rosewood, maple, and oak trees to grow faster and bigger? If so, I am idling my car all night long and switching my home heating to coal fueled.
Chad Wozniak says:
April 9, 2013 at 11:24 am
And I wouldn’t disagree with that at all. I prefer to believe God is the quintessential scientist.
But I do take offense with this “Watcher” who (contrary to his name, which is typical) thinks he knows everything about science and religion. I believe we’re still on the frontier in both disciplines.