From Smithsonian magazine and the ocean acidification stupid, it burns! department comes this giant load of crap masquerading as science. No really, that’s what it is. From the article:
It’s not easy to get people exercised about ocean acidification. Yes, it’s a nasty consequence of climate change, a potential death sentence for oysters, clams, sea urchins and, most of all, coral. But it’s slow-motion extermination, out of sight of most humans, and that makes it difficult for us to feel much of a connection—let alone any responsibility—for the calamitous process.
…
The Stanford team worked with marine biologists to build a virtual replica of a reef around the Italian island of Ischia. Underground volcanic vents there have been spewing carbon dioxide, and that has given researchers the opportunity to closely analyze the effect on marine life—specifically how, as ocean water absorbs more carbon dioxide and becomes more acidic, it corrodes coral and the shells of crustaceans.
From that model, the researchers programmed a VR experience that speeds up the destructive process, allowing a person to first interact with a reef full of life, and then be an up-close-witness to decay as species disappear. Ultimately, the person takes on the perspective of a coral, one whose branches break off with an audible crack.
At its best, virtual reality, says Bailenson, enables you to have a “dual presence,” where you know you’re still in a room wearing a headset, but also actually can feel that you’re at the bottom of the sea. It’s important, he says, for the VR environment to respond your body’s movements.
It also should to be an experience that stimulates multiple senses, including touch when possible. The coral reef VR, for instance, creates the sensation of a fishing net brushing against you. If it feels natural, notes Bailenson, the brain is able to treat the experience as authentic.
Gosh, but what if coral reefs didn’t actually go through a “destructive process”?
What if they actually come back to life when they have been declared dead?
Inconvenient: Giant Coral Reef That ‘Died’ In 2003 Teeming With Life Again
More Evidence of Coral Reef Resilience!
Or what if it isn’t “Ocean Acidification” after all? What if it’s all the oily tourists with underwater cameras?
I’ll bet they don’t have a VR segment for that one.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Added: On Twitter, this reaction amused me.
As virtual reality catches on, actual reality will matter less. Everyone can have the virtual climate that they . All problems solved! https://t.co/kDaTpnG42n
— Chip Knappenberger (@PCKnappenberger) October 26, 2016
As did this one:
Coming in to contact with acid, a bit like drinking a coke. That'll scare the kids for sure. https://t.co/ubHQ8FLmxU
— John Ferris (@JohnFerris62) October 26, 2016
No empirical evidence to relate ocean acidification to fossil fuel emussions
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669930
Caption from the photo, “Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab”. Does that mean one interacts with “virtual humans” in this lab? Maybe we can replace all of those well compensated climate “scientists” with some virtual humans and save us all a lot of money.
/snark
However,
1) seawater is a complex buffer that is not easily altered by a weak acid such as carbonic acid (distilled water is not a buffer),
2) even NOAA admits that ocean pH all over is currently within the normal pH range for the oceans,
3) photosynthesis is an alkalizing process that can drastically raise the pH of a bay or estuary up to 10 during the day, and nobody dies,
4) water passing through a coral reef is acidified by organic acid waste from all of those various species and organisms, and nobody dies,
5) “increased photosynthesis not only increases calcification, paradoxically the process of calcification produces CO2 and drops pH to levels lower than predicted by climate change models. A combination of warmer tropical waters and coral reef biology results in out-gassing of CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere, making coral reefs relatively insensitive to the effects of atmospheric CO2 on ocean pH.”
6) coral bleaching is not coral death; when the temperature rises or lowers too much or too fast, corals expel their photosynthetic dinoflagellate symbionts and then take up more suitable symbionts for that temperature; it takes time for the symbionts to reproduce and provide corals with color again,
7) the fact that living cells have physiology that evolved to control the internal pH of cells means that they have physiological power to resist and thus tolerate changes in ocean pH, and
8) Earth has spent the vast majority of the last 600 million years with CO2 at 4 to 10 times the current atmospheric concentration, which means that these organisms evolved handling much higher CO2 concentrations than now.
9) If ocean pH did decrease or even increase, it would take time and the corals and marine plankton would adapt to the new conditions. Adaptation by natural selection (i.e., evolution) appears to not have been part of the marine biology training these researchers had, or they have selective memory loss.
It is the terribly low current CO2 that is alarming, as plants stop growing at about 200 ppm and begin to die at less than that. CO2 is plant food on land and in sea.
coral bleaching is not coral death; when the temperature rises or lowers too much or too fast, corals expel their photosynthetic dinoflagellate symbionts and then take up more suitable symbionts for that temperature; it takes time for the symbionts to reproduce and provide corals with color again
Yes. Not unlike the behavior of Maple trees in fall. Martha look! All the Maple trees are losing their leaves! It’s the end of the world!
Will this report appear in the Print version of Smithsonian or is it just on the dot com site?
In the sense that someone paid for this (tax payers?) and that Stanford people (VR researchers?) were involved — it is, sort of, news.
Note that Jeremy Bailenson is a professor of communications, not salt-water science, nor even biology.
If real scientists at Stanford and science editors at Smithsonian are not appalled by this nonsense they are in way of their heads and should resign.
The lower eocene, a time of high co2 was also a period
of prolific worldwide coral reef growth also prolific growth of nummulite banks
Especially in mediterranean areas wher they have been a target for oil exploration.
These carbonate reefs and mounds grew all over the margins of the Tethys ocean.
Yes, the coral….be the coral….you are the coral…
I guess if you cannot breathe water, VR is the way to go. But maybe they can put on some SCUBA gear and try one of these numbers:
https://youtu.be/ElJFYwRtrH4
Over a generation ago we had a very good (otherwise) student who did some work on pH and arithmetically
averaged them. He did receive a lot of ribbing. Wonder if this is similar. No ribbing today?
Voila, a new form of “climate communication” is born. It’s all about feewings with them.
What if they gave the option to take on a Parrot fish persona?
I presume that everyone who takes the trouble to write here knows what what pH means. No? Well, it is negative logarithm (to base 10) of the concentration of hydrogen ions (acidic ions).
Because of its logarithmic basis it requires a tenfold increase in the hydrogen ion concentration to cause a decrease in pH of 1 unit, eg from 8.1 to 7.1 (effectively neutral by definition).
Think about it!
Robin this leads towards a pet criticism of mine; have you, or do you know of anyone, who’s taken the time to figure out how many billion tons of carbon dioxide would need to be released to change oceanic pH by one point (buffering considered)? I know it’s a very complex question, but I’ve always wondered if there’s enough CO2 bound in all known fossil fuel reserves to even do it?
I seem to recall there were serious complaints on this site about the politicalisation of science. Seems like there are lots of allegations against Clinton, but Trump is apparently untouchable. It seems that concern over the politicalisation of science only works in one direction.