From JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY
Scientists find some thrive in acid seas
Researchers from James Cook University have found that ocean acidification may not be all bad news for one important sea-dwelling plant.
A JCU team led by Dr Catherine Collier studied seagrass growing near underwater volcanic vents in PNG. Carbon dioxide from the vents increases the acidity of nearby water.
The researchers found that the more acidic the water was, the more the plant grew.
“The increased growth has nothing to do with the acidified water as such, but increased acidification means more carbon, which means the seagrass photosynthesises quicker,” said Dr Collier.
Seagrass provides food and habitat to many species and is a significant carbon sink – soaking up 15 percent of the carbon stored in the ocean every year. But pollution and development mean the plants are declining at a rate of seven per cent a year.
Dr Collier said every one of the ten varieties of seagrass so far tested had done better in acidified water. But there were still questions over whether other aspects of climate change would adversely affect them.
“On the one hand, if acidification increases seagrass growth, they will be able to absorb more carbon from the ocean, which may slow the acidification. On the other hand, acidification is bad for coral, and erosion of the reef and rising sea levels could have detrimental effects on the seagrass meadows it protects,” said Dr Collier.
She said more investigation, incorporating other variables in the seagrass environment, needed to be done.
###
Warmists are in furious backpedal mode now, toning down the alarmism in a desperate effort to appear “reasonable” so they can keep the cAGW gravy train chugging along for at least a little while longer. It’s just more pathetic pseudoscientific grant-grubbing.
Much of the biosphere can be divided into organisms that consume CO2 and those that produce CO2.
Those that produce CO2 have an enormously higher CO2 concentration inside the organism than outside, so they don’t care and don’t need to care.
The organisms that consume CO2 mostly can’t get enough of it. This is true in the oceans and on land.
pH effects are minor, “CO2 acidification” is not a problem in fresh water lakes which should, in principle, be more sensitive.
It’s all very well using ‘acidified water’ but the sea isn’t acid and isn’t becoming acid either so how is this of any relevance?
Has anyone actually proven that the tiny decrease in alkalinity associated with higher CO2 levels is actually bad for coral? Or is it just another one of those things that alarmists assume must be true.
There is no convincing evidence that additional CO2 or slightly lower pH is at all harmful to coral in any way. In fact, the additional CO2 probably makes them grow much faster, since it feeds the photosynthesizing organisms that they are symbiotic with, and increases the availability of the carbonate that they use to make their shells.
This is nothing but another invented ” fact”, oft repeated but never demonstrated to have any merit…like that warmer worldwide temps are by definition harmful, or that melting ice in the polar regions represents a catastrophe for humans …or any other creatures.
“But there were still questions over whether other aspects of climate change would adversely affect them.”
I would love to see a more accurately worded statement such as ” But there were still questions over whether other aspects of climate variability would affect them either adversely or favorably” . But alas, funding would never come.
The report was trying to show that CO2 from the vents – they were trying to portray these high levels as a view of the future – was bad for every living thing nearby. The areas were bad for fish and some corals. I think they were disappointed that the seagrasses thrived. What the authors chose to ignore was that the volcanic vents also emit H2S which is toxic to most fauna – it’s nothing to do with the small pH change involved or CO2. One can show this to be so if one does the acid/base calculations. They show that CO2 levels will never be able to lower the pH sufficiently to cause any problems with shells, corals, etc.
[I show how one can simplify the calculations: My site’s Ocean pH chapter of “Planet Earth Climate Topics” at pjcarson2015.wordpress.com]
I learned long ago, that nothing is as it seems. My dad, The Rev. H. Benton Ellis, used to say about USDA zone map, “Some plants are like people, where one will die at freezing, another will be fine.” Of the same species. We lived in FL at the time and dad would dabble back into Biochem to help out some growers. But kind of hints at the whole Darrin Rocks in the variability of species.
Same here. Expect the unexpected.
My personal example with variability and “you may not be right about how sensitive they are” was the fish “high hats” (Equetus acuminatus). Said to be very intolerant of water change including salinity at the time. First time I saw one (and caught them) was off E. Heron Blvd, Palm Beach Gardens. Yep, in an inlet.
PS, If you are using this post to go running off to there with snorkel and fins in hand, this was A) 30 years ago, B) you might be in the boat channel, C) there was a high white spot infestation there, D) ergo, there are a lot of cleaner shrimp in the area too.