Pink salmon threatened by greenhouse gases and acidification in rivers

[Whole in the Water]

Not good news of the climate keeps changing for the worse! I wonder how the global warming deniers explain the increasing levels of CO2 in the environment - must be a lot of unnoticed volcanoes going off somewhere.

First chinook salmon:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/chinook-salmon-could-be-wiped-out-by-2100-new-study-claims-1.2881635

and now pinks:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pink-salmon-threatened-by-greenhouse-gases-and-acidification-in-rivers-1.3132011

Juvenile pink salmon on the West Coast face a double threat from the acidification of rivers linked to greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new study released by UBC.
The new study found that acidification of rivers could make young pink salmon, the most abundant type in the Pacific, smaller and more vulnerable to predators by dampening their ability to smell danger and slowing their early growth.

• Chinook salmon could be wiped out by 2100 new study claims
• Ocean 'blob' of warm water bringing poor food for B.C. wild salmon

In the Canadian experiments, pink salmon grew on average to only about 32 mm after 10 weeks, when raised in waters with roughly double current carbon dioxide concentrations, as expected in 100 years.
That was shorter than the 34 mm in waters with current levels. The young fish also weighed less and appeared less able to smell danger.
Furthermore, damage done by acidification "in fresh water in pink salmon could occur in all other salmonids", Colin Brauner, a co-author at the University of British Columbia, told Reuters.
Brauner said it was too early to say if the disruptions would last into adulthood and mean smaller commercial catches.
Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas caused by burning fossil fuels, reacts with water to produce a weak acid. That especially threatens creatures ranging from oysters to lobsters which find it harder to build protective shells.
An international study in 2013 said acidification of the oceans was happening at the fastest pace for 55 million years, because of human greenhouse gas emissions.
Scientists say it is unclear how far salmon, and other marine life, may adapt or evolve in future generations to cope with rising levels of carbon dioxide.
In the past, the impacts of rising carbon dioxide levels have been studied in the seas more than in fresh water, yet 40 per cent of all fish are freshwater, said Brauner.
"We need to think about how carbon dioxide is affecting freshwater species," he said.

Juvenile pink salmon on the West Coast face a double threat from the acidification of rivers linked to greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new study released by UBC.
The new study found that acidification of rivers could make young pink salmon, the most abundant type in the Pacific, smaller and more vulnerable to predators by dampening their ability to smell danger and slowing their early growth.

• Chinook salmon could be wiped out by 2100 new study claims
• Ocean 'blob' of warm water bringing poor food for B.C. wild salmon

In the Canadian experiments, pink salmon grew on average to only about 32 mm after 10 weeks, when raised in waters with roughly double current carbon dioxide concentrations, as expected in 100 years.
That was shorter than the 34 mm in waters with current levels. The young fish also weighed less and appeared less able to smell danger.
Furthermore, damage done by acidification "in fresh water in pink salmon could occur in all other salmonids", Colin Brauner, a co-author at the University of British Columbia, told Reuters.
Brauner said it was too early to say if the disruptions would last into adulthood and mean smaller commercial catches.
Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas caused by burning fossil fuels, reacts with water to produce a weak acid. That especially threatens creatures ranging from oysters to lobsters which find it harder to build protective shells.
An international study in 2013 said acidification of the oceans was happening at the fastest pace for 55 million years, because of human greenhouse gas emissions.
Scientists say it is unclear how far salmon, and other marine life, may adapt or evolve in future generations to cope with rising levels of carbon dioxide.
In the past, the impacts of rising carbon dioxide levels have been studied in the seas more than in fresh water, yet 40 per cent of all fish are freshwater, said Brauner.
"We need to think about how carbon dioxide is affecting freshwater species," he said.
<cite class="story-source">With files from Reuters</cite>

 

[OldBlackDog]

LOL.
Great science..

 

[Whole in the Water]

LOL.
Great science..

Care to explain why you are mocking this OBD?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Let's start with projections of what will happen in 100 years.
Scientist have been shown to have difficulty with projections of a few years.

 

[salmonkiller01]

Let's start with projections of what will happen in 100 years.
Scientist have been shown to have difficulty with projections of a few years.

Guess we should just trust you gut instinct instead of scholors with some education and background. Nuff said

 

[ClayoquotKid]

"In the Canadian experiments, pink salmon grew on average to only about 32 mm after 10 weeks, when raised in waters with roughly double current carbon dioxide concentrations, as expected in 100 years.
That was shorter than the 34 mm in waters with current levels. The young fish also weighed less and appeared less able to smell danger."

"Scientists say it is unclear how far salmon, and other marine life, may adapt or evolve in future generations to cope with rising levels of carbon dioxide."

One generation reared in a forced concentration of roughly double today's levels (not allowing for any natural processes which may occur, potentially offsetting or negating impacts, while the levels presumably rise over 100 years to those levels) reach lengths roughly 5.9% less than those reared in "normal" conditions.

It "appears" they may have lost some of their ability to smell danger when tested with a Lego figure in their tank.

I don't have any issue with increasing our knowledge of fish behaviour, environmental stressors and adaptability - but on the topic running these findings with alarmist headlines I'd have to agree with OBD.

 

[salmonkiller01]

"In the Canadian experiments, pink salmon grew on average to only about 32 mm after 10 weeks, when raised in waters with roughly double current carbon dioxide concentrations, as expected in 100 years.
That was shorter than the 34 mm in waters with current levels. The young fish also weighed less and appeared less able to smell danger."

"Scientists say it is unclear how far salmon, and other marine life, may adapt or evolve in future generations to cope with rising levels of carbon dioxide."

One generation reared in a forced concentration of roughly double today's levels (not allowing for any natural processes which may occur, potentially offsetting or negating impacts, while the levels presumably rise over 100 years to those levels) reach lengths roughly 5.9% less than those reared in "normal" conditions.

It "appears" they may have lost some of their ability to smell danger when tested with a Lego figure in their tank.

I don't have any issue with increasing our knowledge of fish behaviour, environmental stressors and adaptability - but on the topic running these findings with alarmist headlines I'd have to agree with OBD.

Thanks CK, I do not listen to the alarmists and looked at your info and it is has content not like my or OBD's posts.

 

[profisher]

OBD and so if in your opinion the best scientific minds are having problems predicting what impact humans are actually having...what would sway me to give an untrained scientific mind any credibility in the argument. I mean if I have to pick sides!?!?

 

[OldBlackDog]

You have the right to pick any side.
i hope you do your homework and look at both sides of the arguments, otherwise you really are just going with the flow.
In these days of the Internet information is everywhere, just check the sources of it.

Also remember agendas and the governments have a lot of them.

Read this thread from this site and note people not agreeing with government scientists because they feel they have an agenda.

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-Fraser-River-FN-Letter-Opposing-Salmon-Farms.

Just have an open mind.

People saying they can predict the future , as I said the history says they really are not good at it.

Why say 100 years? Who is going to be here to check it?

They still cannot project the weather yet!

OBD and so if in your opinion the best scientific minds are having problems predicting what impact humans are actually having...what would sway me to give an untrained scientific mind any credibility in the argument. I mean if I have to pick sides!?!?

 

[profisher]

You play a dangerous game that has been played by many of our ancestors with disastrous results. Doing nothing until it is too late. It will only take very slight changes to even our local climate to have huge negative impacts. What would happen to most Chinook salmon stocks on the west coast if those rains which are already beginning later than normal most years were to be delayed by another 2-3 weeks? Not a big change for the naysayers and the same amount could still fall over a period of a year. How would Chinook salmon fair under that slight change? They would all die pre-spawn as they can't wait until the first week of November for water levels to rise. It is not about predicting the future it is about protecting it. Maybe a visit to Beijing China might open your eyes as to how far humans will allow the environment to be abused. If you have already been there are those conditions that you are ok with here at some point in time?.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Please explain exactly what you mean by our ancestors doing things with disastrous results.
You do understand this covers over 6 million years?

Please advise what we are doing that created the present El Niño that is causing this weather?

You play a dangerous game that has been played by many of our ancestors with disastrous results. Doing nothing until it is too late. It will only take very slight changes to even our local climate to have huge negative impacts. What would happen to most Chinook salmon stocks on the west coast if those rains which are already beginning later than normal most years were to be delayed by another 2-3 weeks? Not a big change for the naysayers and the same amount could still fall over a period of a year. How would Chinook salmon fair under that slight change? They would all die pre-spawn as they can't wait until the first week of November for water levels to rise. It is not about predicting the future it is about protecting it. Maybe a visit to Beijing China might open your eyes as to how far humans will allow the environment to be abused. If you have already been there are those conditions that you are ok with here at some point in time?.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/o...cus-at-climate-talks-scientists-say-1.3139960

Ocean acidification needs more focus at climate talks, scientists say

Study calls for 'immediate and substantial' reduction of CO2 emissions

CBC News Posted: Jul 06, 2015 2:47 PM ET| Last Updated: Jul 06, 2015 4:26 PM ET

A clam is seen among the corals at the Great Barrier Reef in Great Keppel island. Ocean acidification has emerged as one of the biggest modern threats to coral reefs across the world. New evidence indicates ocean acidification once also caused the worst mass extinction in history. (Daniel Munoz/Reuters)
Related Stories

■Urgent IPCC climate change warning demands action: Bob McDonald http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/u...warning-demands-action-bob-mcdonald-1.2827352
■Ocean acidification from CO2 blamed for world's worst mass extinction http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/o...d-for-world-s-worst-mass-extinction-1.3027938
■Climate change impact on lobster already visible http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/princ...e-impact-on-lobster-already-visible-1.3075529
■Methane-spewing microbe blamed in worst mass extinction http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/methane-spewing-microbe-blamed-in-worst-mass-extinction-1.2595797
■Rising acidity of oceans a major threat to coral reefs http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/rising-acidity-of-oceans-a-major-threat-to-coral-reefs-1.1148565
■Worst extinction ever linked to massive CO2 spill http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/worst-extinction-ever-linked-to-massive-co2-spill-1.1010028

External Links

■Summary of the paper in Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6243/aac4722.abstract

(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

The oceans play a key role in absorbing carbon dioxide, but international climate talks have only "minimally considered" the impact the gas is having as it turns these bodies of water acidic, scientists say in a new study.

More than 20 marine scientists worked to analyze two potential futures.

One involves meeting the target set out by the UN-established Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of limiting the rise in global warming to 2 C through CO2 cuts (the RCP2.6 scenario). The other (RCP8.5) reflects the current trajectory of business-as-usual CO2 emissions.
■Ocean acidification from CO2 blamed for world's worst mass extinction
■Rising acidity of oceans a major threat to coral reefs

The study, published last week in the journal Science, calls for negotiators at climate talks to stress the impact CO2 is having on ocean acidification.

They say their goal is to speak directly to policymakers, adding the study has the backing of the Oceans 2015 Initiative.
■Summary of the paper in Science

That group of experts says that each day, more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is absorbed by the oceans. Without this dynamic, the effects of climate change would be far greater.

By 2100, scientists predict that the oceans' pH level will have fallen by 0.4 units — or an increase of 150 per cent in ocean acidity — compared to its mid-19th-century level. That corresponds to a three-fold increase in the water's acidity.

Acidification makes it more difficult for marine animals to produce skeletons and shells, and puts the essential ocean habitat, coral reefs, at risk of eroding faster than they can be rebuilt.
■Beaufort Sea's fish population at risk due to acidification: study
■Pink salmon threatened by greenhouse gases and acidification in rivers

Researches taking part in the study say ocean warming and acidification are expected to "act synergistically to push corals and coral reefs into conditions that are unfavourable for coral reef ecosystems."

While they praised the goal of cutting emissions in order to keep warming to no more than 2 C above the pre-industrial level, they also said that scenario could still leave important marine ecosystems "substantially" altered.

"If CO2 levels are kept to the RCP2.6 scenario, by 2100, the risk of impact increases to high for warm-water corals and mid-latitude bivalves," the study said.

"Projections with RCP8.5 indicate a very high risk of impact on most marine organisms considered."

The researchers said that to avoid that kind of risk requires limiting the increase in global surface temperature between 1990 and 2100 to below 2°C and the increase in SST (sea surface temperature) below 1.2°C.

Their analysis, they said, shows "immediate and substantial" reduction of CO2 emissions is required in order to prevent the "massive and effectively irreversible impacts" on ocean ecosystems that are projected with emissions scenarios more severe than those under the two-degree warming limit.

 

[OldBlackDog]

To demonise CO2 yet again, a false claim is that human production of CO2 will cause the oceans to become acid.
‘Acid’ is an emotive word to the general public, which is why it is seized upon by the alarmists in their search for yet another scare. In reality increasing CO2 makes the ocean become ‘less alkaline’, but never ‘acid’.
pH is a measurement of the amount of hydrogen ion concentration in a solution, the log of the hydrogen ion concentration with the sign changed. Because it is a log scale it is very hard to move a pH of 8.2 to 7.0, which is neutral.
The pH needs to be less than 7 to be ‘acid’, and this has not happened through at least the past 600 million years because it would dissolve limestones, and limestone have been deposited in the sea and not re-dissolved in the sea through all that time.
Many marine organisms need CO2 to make their coral skeletons, carbonate shells and so on. Corals also have symbiotic plants within their flesh that use CO2 in photosynthesis.
Marine life flourishes where CO2 is abundant. Professor Walter Stark wrote about a favourite place for scuba divers, the ‘Bubble Bath’ near Dobu Island, Papua New Guinea. Here CO2 of volcanic origin is bubbling visibly through the water so that the water is saturated with CO2. Abundant life flourishes to make the spot a spectacular diver’s delight. He reported many accurate measurements of pH in the area and concluded “It seems that coral reefs are thriving at pH levels well below the most alarming projections for 2100.”
The pH of sea water can be very variable and makes temperature measurement look like child’s play. Ocean pH varies regionally by 0.3, and seasonally in a particular location by 0,3. But nobody has ever measured ocean water below 7, which is what “acid” means. Rhodes Fairbridge told me that he found the day-night variation in a coral pool was 9.4 to 7.5.
There is another factor called Henry’s Law. Cold water can hold more CO2 than warm, so if you warm saturated water it gives off CO2. You can see the effect if you warm a glass of fizzy drink: it goes flat. The ocean-air interface is usually rough so interchange is rapid. Actually if the aim of the AGW activists is to keep the world cooler by reducing atmospheric CO2 they are going in the direction of increasing ‘acidification’ of the oceans.
One of the factors affecting ocean pH is photosynthesis by plants. Experimental results show that plants grow better if CO2 is increased, and greenhouse managers commonly increase the CO2 artificially to increase crops, often by 30% or more. There is every reason to suppose that marine plants also thrive if CO2 is increased. There is also experimental evidence that carbonate secreting animals thrive in higher CO2. Herfort and colleagues concluded that the likely result of human emissions of CO2 would be an increase in oceanic CO2 that could stimulate photosynthesis and calcification in a wide variety of corals.
Marine life, including that part that fixes CO2 as the carbonate in limestones such as coral reefs, evolved on an Earth with CO2 levels many times higher than those of today, as reported by Berner and Kothaval. It may be true to say that today’s marine life is getting by in a CO2-deprived environment.
Tuvalu has long been ‘hot news’ as the favourite island to be doomed by sea level rise driven by global warming, allegedly caused in turn by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. But if a coral island is sinking slowly (or relative sea level rising slowly) the growth of coral can keep up with it. In the right circumstances some corals can grow over 2 cm in a year, but growth rate depends on many factors. Coral islands, made of living things, are not static dip-sticks against which sea level can be measured. We have to consider coral growth, erosion, transport and deposition of sediment and many other aspects of coral island evolution – not just the pH of seawater. Webb and Kench studied the changes in plan of 27 atoll islands located in the central Pacific, and found that most had remained stable or grown in area over about the past twenty years (despite measured rises in atmospheric CO2 over the same period), and only 15% underwent net reduction in area. One of the largest increases was the 28.3% on one of the islands of Tuvalu. This destroys the argument that the islands are drowning, and coral growth is not reduced by ‘acidity’.
Marine life depends on CO2, and some plants and animals fix it as limestone, which is not generally re-dissolved. Over geological time enormous amount of CO2 have been sequestered by living things, so that today there is far more CO2 in limestones than in the atmosphere or ocean. This sequestration of CO2 by living things is far more important than trivial additions to the atmosphere caused by human activity.
Emeritus Professor Cliff Ollier is a geologist and geomorphologist.
References
Berner., R.A. and Kothavala, Z. 2001. A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. American Journal of Science, 301, 182-204.
Herfort, L, Thake, B. and Taubner, I. 2008. Bicarbonate stimulation of calcification and photosynthesis in two hermatypic corals. Journal of Phycology, 44, 91-8.
Webb, A. P. and Kench, P. S. 2010. The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific, Global and Planetary Change, 72, 234-246.
- See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/the-ocean-acidification-scare/#.dpuf

 

[GLG]

Thank you OBD for your view on Ocean Acidification, it's a view that the vast majority of society does not hold but your are entitled to have your own opinion.

If anyone is interested on what the science say's then this video will be of interest.
[W1TZ8g8JYVU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1TZ8g8JYVU

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.businessinsider.com/lobsters-move-north-as-ocean-warms-2015-6?

A big shift is coming to the Maine lobster population — and it could devastate the local economy

Cody Sullivan

Jul. 7, 2015

Lobster AP PhotoThe American lobster's population is moving further north as ocean temperatures rise.

Something strange is happening to the Maine lobster population this year — and it could drastically raise prices

There aren't many foods more closely associated with Maine than the lobster.

So it's pretty scary that this valued American crustacean could one day soon become a Canadian treasure — a change that could have a devastating impact on Maine's local economy.

The problem is, lobsters like cold water. And oceans are warming, especially in New England.

The waters in the Gulf of Maine, specifically, are warming 99% faster than the rest of the world's oceans.

And as a result, lobsters are moving north toward colder climates.

Over the last decade, southern lobster fisheries along Long Island and Connecticut have already seen their catches drop due to lobsters moving north into Maine, which hauled record catches during the same time period, according to the Portland Press Herald.

Maine lobsters have already moved north about 43 miles per decade between 1968 and 2008, according to a 2013 study.

The visual below illustrates this change over time, with red areas representing the highest lobster densities:

lobster movement
NOAA/Leah Lewis and D. Richardson

While we can't know for sure what the future holds, it seems that as ocean temperatures continue to increase, lobsters will likely keep moving north, study researcher Malin Pinsky, of Rutgers University, told Business Insider.

At a rate of 43 miles per decade, it could only be 30 years or so until Maine lobsters are mostly in Canadian waters.

Two factors will impact how quickly this happens, Pinsky told Business Insider: Greenhouse gas production and the rate of ocean temperature increase.

If temperatures and gasses continue to rise, Pinsky says lobsters moving to Canada is, "not out of the question."

Lobster is Maine's biggest fishery, the economic heart of many of Maine's coastal and island communities. And locals are already adjusting their lives due to migrating lobster populations.

lobster boatDina Spector/Business InsiderLobster fisherman now buy bigger boats so they can make longer trips to where the lobsters now live.

Fishermen used to go out at 5 a.m. and come home at 3 p.m.

But now, Susie Arnold, a researcher at the Island Institute who works with local communities, says that fisherman are beginning to buy larger boats to make longer, even overnight, trips to where the lobsters now live.

And while government climate reports recognize moving lobster fisheries as a potential issue, Maine doesn't have any solutions in place to help the fisherman.

So local communities, with the help of people at the Island Institute, are looking into other fisheries, like shellfish and seaweed aquaculture, to diversify their income if the local lobster fishery collapses.

Some fishermen may adapt by diversifying, but a 2014 report from The U.S. Global Change Research Program says these climate-related changes "may push these fishermen beyond their ability to cope."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lobsters-move-north-as-ocean-warms-2015-6#ixzz3fPadg0wa

 

[OldBlackDog]

Thank you OBD for your view on Ocean Acidification, it's a view that the vast majority of society does not hold but your are entitled to have your own opinion.

If anyone is interested on what the science say's then this video will be of interest.
[W1TZ8g8JYVU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1TZ8g8JYVU

Science says:
[h=1]Crucial ocean-acidification models come up short[/h]

NOAA
Marine snails from the US West Coast show signs of shell weakening as a result of ocean acidification.


As the oceans’ chemistry is altered by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the response of sea-dwellers such as fish, shellfish and corals is a huge unknown that has implications for fisheries and conservationists alike. But the researchers attempting to find an answer are often failing to properly design and report their experiments, according to an analysis of two decades of literature.
Oceans absorb much of the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emitted by human activities such as coal burning. This leads to a variety of chemical changes, such as making waters more acidic, which are referred to as ocean acidification.
The United Nations has warned that ocean acidification could cost the global economy US$1 trillion per year by the end of the century, owing to losses in industries such as fisheries and tourism. Oyster fisheries in the United States are estimated to have already lost millions of dollars as a result of poor harvests, which can be partly blamed on ocean acidification.
The past decade has seen accelerated attempts to predict what these changes in pH will mean for the oceans’ denizens — in particular, through experiments that place organisms in water tanks that mimic future ocean-chemistry scenarios.
Yet according to a survey published last month by marine scientist Christopher Cornwall, who studies ocean acidification at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and ecologist Catriona Hurd of the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, most reports of such laboratory experiments either used inappropriate methods or did not report their methods properly (C. E. Cornwall and C. L. Hurd ICES J. Mar. Sci. [url]http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv118; 2015[/URL]).
Cornwall says that the “overwhelming evidence” from such studies of the negative effects of ocean acidification still stands. For example, more-acidic waters slow the growth and worsen the health of many species that build structures such as shells from calcium carbonate. But the pair’s discovery that many of the experiments are problematic makes it difficult to assess accurately the magnitude of effects of ocean acidification, and to combine results from individual experiments to build overall predictions for how the ecosystem as a whole will behave, he says.
The survey, published in the journal ICES Journal of Marine Science, was based on a search of the Scopus database of research papers. Cornwall and Hurd analysed 465 studies published between 1993 and 2014 that manipulated seawater chemistry and found that experiments often failed to implement widely accepted measures to ensure quality.
For instance, to ensure robustness, manipulation studies should use multiple arrays of independent ocean-mimicking tanks. And in experiments that compare sea animals under acidified conditions with controls, these tanks should be randomized to remove bias. But the pair found that in several papers, researchers used one main seawater tank to supply multiple, supposedly independent smaller tanks.
[h=2]Chemical errors[/h]The researchers also found mistakes in basic chemistry: some authors simply added acid to a tank and ignored other chemical changes that result from the absorption of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], such as increased levels of carbonates. Although the frequency of these chemistry errors has dropped since the 2010 publication of an international ‘best practice’ guide for ocean-acidification experiments (see go.nature.com/sp5kgn), the researchers found no evidence for improvements in the design of tank arrays.

“Truly rigorous designs are logistically complex and expensive.”
​

Bayden Russell, an ocean-acidification researcher at the University of Hong Kong who reviewed drafts of the latest paper, has also noticed that some researchers fail to take into account the complexities of ocean acidification when designing their experiments. “It is these complexities that will drive ecosystem responses to ocean acidification,” he says.
Overall, Cornwall and Hurd found that in only 27 cases could they be certain that an appropriate experimental design had been used, and in 278 cases, the design was clearly inappropriate. The remaining studies had insufficient detail on experimental set-up — a problem in itself, note the researchers.
The pair present a series of recommendations for well-designed experiments and suggest a checklist of details that should be included in papers to allow replication of experiments, including which chemicals were used to manipulate the seawater chemistry and the configuration of tank arrays.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in St Lucia, Australia, suggests that researchers also need to take account of natural variations in temperature and CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in experimental set-ups and ensure that experiments that manipulate acidity also simulate the accompanying rise in temperature from global warming, which many do not.
[h=2]Pressure to publish[/h]Russell thinks that most research groups are now trying to use appropriate designs, but says that there are still problems, which he attributes to a variety of factors. “Unfortunately, truly rigorous designs are logistically complex and expensive in both set-up costs and ongoing maintenance time,” he says. “When superimposed on the increasing pressure to publish rapidly, and in top journals, some researchers or research groups are still attempting to publish what I would consider sub-standard research.”
Jonathan Havenhand, who works on marine invertebrates at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and who co-authored the 2010 guide, welcomes the latest paper: “Everybody should know the stuff that’s in Cornwall and Hurd’s paper. It’s good that they wrote it. It’s disappointing that they had to.”
Havenhand suspects the paper will be highly cited. “Whether people are going to be happy to be citing it, I don’t know.”

 

[GLG]

Thanks for the article OBD, it's interesting..... I think the author of the article missed the point of the paper but perhaps we should let one of the people that wrote the paper speak.

http://www.nature.com/news/crucial-ocean-acidification-models-come-up-short-1.18124

<cite class="vcard" style="font-style: normal; font-size: 13.4803504943848px; float: left; clear: left; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 23.9167499542236px;">Catriona Hurd</cite>•<time datetime="2015-08-07T06:26+00:00" style="font-size: 12.3207492828369px; color: rgb(119, 119, 119); float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 23.9167499542236px;">2015-08-07 06:26 AM</time><dl style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; float: left; clear: left; width: 555.5px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 14.4949998855591px; line-height: 23.9167499542236px;"><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(68, 68, 68);">It was pleasing to see our research on experimental design and data reporting (Cornwall and Hurd, in press) highlighted in the Commentary by Cressey. However, we were surprised by the negative connotations of the title and subtitle, which send an incorrect message to readers that Ocean Acidification (OA) research is not rigorous. Laboratory experimental design methods in OA research are no more ‘sub-standard’ than in any other biological field; indeed they are probably more rigorous as the OA research community has benefited greatly from the availability of a comprehensive ‘Guide to Best Practices for Ocean Acidification Research and Data Reporting’. Our study simply highlights the ongoing need for experimental rigour and data reporting in an OA context; by further refining experimental systems and their design, the OA community will be able to more thoroughly test the multi-faceted effects of OA on marine life. The global OA community has made tremendous progress on a particularly challenging topic in a very short time (< 15 years). Our publication focusses on the design and implementation of laboratory experiments, and it is aimed particularly at researchers new to this complex field - to facilitate them in setting up appropriate culture systems and avoiding common experimental pitfalls (e.g. pseudo-replication as outlined by Hurlbert in 1984) that the OA community has worked diligently to overcome during the past decade. Field-deployed experimental systems such as the Free Ocean CO2 Enrichment (FOCE) take a different, complementary, approach to examining the effects of OA. This holistic FOCE approach has a terrestrial equivalent ‘FACE’ (Free Air CO2 Enrichment; e.g. http://climatechangescience.ornl.gov/content/free-air-co2-enrichment-face-experiment). Experimental design requirements for these long-term field systems are very different to those of laboratory experiments. Catriona L. Hurd and Christopher E. Cornwall References cited Cornwall C. E. & Hurd C. L., in press. Experimental design in ocean acidification research: problems and solutions. Ices Journal of Marine Science. Hurlbert, S. H. (1984). Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54:187-211. Riebesell U, Fabry VJ, Hansson L & Gattuso, J-P (2010). Guide to best practices for ocean acidification research and data reporting. 260 p. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.</dd></dl>

 

[OldBlackDog]

http://fisherynation.com/archives/45771

Ocean acidification theory appears to have been fatally flawed almost from the start. In 2004, two NOAA scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, produced a chart showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels. But then, just over a year ago, Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with 30 years’ experience, noticed while researching his PhD that they had omitted some key information. Their chart only started in 1988 but, as Wallace knew, there were records dating back to at least 100 years before. So why had they ignored the real-world evidence in favour of computer-modelled projections?

When Wallace plotted a chart of his own, incorporating all the available data, covering the period from 1910 to the present, his results were surprising: there has been no reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last -century.

 

[Clint r]

Why say 100 years? Who is going to be here to check it?

Ummm... Your great great great grand kids?

 

[GLG]

When Wallace plotted a chart of his own, incorporating all the available data, covering the period from 1910 to the present, his results were surprising: there has been no reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last -century.

OBD.... Perhaps you could share with us this data that Mike Wallace has uncovered and surprise us with it. It can be downloaded here. Don't forget your credit card .......

Our reviews of the 2 million NOAA WOD records of pelagic ocean pH data and time series analyses have been visited at this site tens of thousands of times over the past two years. We are implementing improvements to our service and unfortunately must now charge a small fee for access to this data and the associated analyses. $9.95
http://www.abeqas.com/store/products/global-ocean-ph-stochastic-posts/#

Doesn't it always boil down to two main arguments against manmade climate change.
1 - All the scientists and their scientific institutions are incompetent and are therefor wrong.
or
2 - They are not incompetent but are part of a global conspiracy to destroy democracy and capitalism.

OBD the article you are referencing seem to be picking option 1.

Could it be that the scientists know something that Mike Wallace does not. Perhaps a reasonable person would want to find out what these scientist know. Or perhaps Mike Wallace is just trying to make a buck on folks that wish manmade climate change is not real and have a need to prove it.