jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

July 2008
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Ocean Acidification: Photographs from Bob Halstead and a Note from Floor Anthoni

Hi Jennifer,

The shallows near Dobu Island off Papua and New Guinea have active underwater fumaroles pumping out virtually pure CO2. The sea grass is extraordinarily lush and healthy and there is very healthy coral reef a few metres away.

Bob Halstead_Dobu Island_May 2008002 copy.jpg
May 2008 in PNG at Dobu Island in the D’Entrecasteaux Group

Bob Halstead_Dobu Island_coral_May 2008003 copy.jpg
May 2008 in PNG at Dobu Island in the D’Entrecasteaux Group

Both photos show bubbles of CO2 which continually flow. I collected samples of gas years ago for a vulcanologist and he reported back to me that it was “virtually pure CO2″.

Unfortunately the water had poor visibility the day I shot the pictures, but it is often clear.

Bob Halstead
www.halsteaddiving.com

And also…

Dear Jennifer,

I have recently updated my article about ocean acidification by reviewing two recent studies.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm

I thought it may interest you.

Dr J Floor Anthoni
Director Seafriends Marine Conservation and Education Centre
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/

Advertisement

68 Responses to “Ocean Acidification: Photographs from Bob Halstead and a Note from Floor Anthoni”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: Ian Mott


    And don’t you just love the methodology in the experiments Luke dredged up. Transplant the coral, a rapid change of conditions, and we don’t even know if they were to the same depth or with all other water conditions unchanged, and they couldn’t take it.

    So tell us, dopiwan, which climate model is predicting a 24 hour global transition in sea state involving a 4 fold increase in CO2?

    Make the change over even a decade, let alone a century or two and the coral won’t die, the protective film won’t break down, and the skeletal coral won’t disolve. Well, fancy that.

  2. Comment from: Luke


    What ? a bucolic waddler like Mott is actually trying to make a point – after PIG, total grazing pressure, Amazon clearing? Give us a break doofus. If you had read some of the other papers you’d realise there is a bit more in it. And as we know Mottsa can always be relied on to “make shit up”.

    So here we have a lead post showing CO2 fertilisation of sea grass, no measures of pH near the said coral, no information on currents in the area, and a total dismissal of a literature on the subject of the effect of CO2 increase on marine communities. About what you expect from denialist drones. And so it’s totally reasonable to provide a study from another vent situation that shows major effects. It’s about the level you’re at.

    We can always rely on denialists to provide half a story.

    Steve Short is the only one worth listening to – the rest of you denialists are just drongos following along elephant-walk conga line. Cha a cha cha cha – cha … to the beat guys…

  3. Comment from: Travis


    >Can you believe it, “without any provocation” from Travis. Fella, you are a first rate delusional nutter.

    LOL! Mott, you forget this blog is archived (except for the entire thread that was deleted due to your attacks)! Plenty of evidence of where you have started slanging off my relatives. As I keep saying, you seem to have some sort of weirdo fixation with them. It’s all there in black and white.

  4. Comment from: cohenite


    travis; unless your relatives are cyanobacteria can you give it a rest; of course, if you are related to the cyanobacteria, we all owe you a vote of thanks, given that they are responsible for regulating the small increase in atmospheric CO2;

    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003141.html#comments

    Steve Short’s study IMO demonstrates that Miskolczian -ve feedbacks can be biological as well as physical. Given this, and the miniscule proportional amount of anthropogenic CO2 residual in the atmosphere (0.04% of the total annual CO2 emissions from nature and human sources), I don’t think the “penguins, polps and people”, as acidicity alarmist Joellen Russell glibly puts it, have anything to worry about.

  5. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle


    Travis,

    You forgot to remark upon his wife. Establish a reputation for being consistent, you’ve got nothing else left.

  6. Comment from: Travis


    Cohenite, sure, but please be consistent with your frustration (surely you can do this?). You have Mott and now Schiller who chime in, and consistency seems to be what Schiller wants.

    And Schiller, the recent thread http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003200.html#comments
    is still waiting for your information. My reputation here is not in question.

  7. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle


    Travis,

    Your reputation as a foul-mouthed simpleton is secure. You’re simply not consistent in the distribution of your verbal offal.

    Now, come on, mention his wife, too. You know you need to.

  8. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    This shows what I’ve been pointing out to everyone. Environmentalists must be considered to be lying unless it has been absolutely proven that they are telling the truth. And even then it won’t be on the environment that they may utter something that by some law of chance isn’t a lie. .

    They were always lying about this ocean-acidification racket. Clive Hamilton has just confessed to having taken a fraudulent position the whole way through. Fundamanetally this is a pandemic of lying.

  9. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    This shows what I’ve been pointing out to everyone. Environmentalists must be considered to be lying unless it has been absolutely proven that they are telling the truth. And even then it won’t be on the environment that they may utter something that by some law of chance isn’t a lie. .

    They were always lying about this ocean-acidification racket. Clive Hamilton has just confessed to having taken a fraudulent position the whole way through. Fundamentally this is a pandemic of lying.

  10. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Graeme,

    I don’t think the Enviro’s purposively lie at all, it’s rather the case of supporting a deduced theory whose starting point is not based on empirical fact.

    No one observed anthropogenic global warming, it was a postulate advanced on the misunderstanding of what “absorption” means in terms of radiative gases. They actually believe that CO2 absorbs heat, like a sponge absorbs water. Having mutually agreed on this understanding to be a self-evident fact, the rest falls into place in a logical manner – the whole AGW theory is cantilevered on the original assumption that doubling atmospheric CO2 causes a temperature rise.

    And now that temperatures are not rising, but CO2 is still increasing, the next ploy is to invoke ocean acidification.

    Deductive science is really technically sophisticated religion. All deductive paradigms start with a non-empirically derived assumption, whether it is climate sensitivity or God, and when everyone agrees on it, contraditing it is nigh well on impossible.

    If it were truly a science, the contradictory facts should prompt changes in the theorey. That his does not occur simply confirms that AGW is a technically sophisticated religion.

  11. Comment from: SP


    What a con those two photos are.
    Do you seriously believe that sea grass emits bubbles of O2 that appear to be at least 1-2 cm in diameter!!
    I find the spacing of bubbles in the first photo a bit suspicious.. I mean its not exactly random is it.
    And everyone knows that coral just blows out O2.
    Christ.

    And how do we know it is O2?
    The diver could have disturbed anoxic sediment… or his buddy just swam by (given the spacing in 1).

    C’mon people.

  12. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle


    SP,

    You have sharp eyes! If you look closely, you can see an Exxon executive emitting flatus. Yes, right there, in the lower corner.

    Which means, of course, a significant component is methane as well. And likely even octane!

    The price of paranoia is eternal vigilance, maintain the fort!

  13. Comment from: Tom Davidson


    The AGW crowd seems to be overlooking a fundamental principle of chemistry in their effort to convince us that CO2 is destroying the reef systems through acidification: Le Chatelier’s Principle. Adding CO2 to a CO2/carbonate equilibrium will drive the reaction towards the formation of MORE carbonates, not less.

  14. Comment from: Dee Norris


    @SP

    Reading comprehension is important here.

    “…active underwater fumaroles pumping out virtually pure CO2…”

    If you don’t understand “fumaroles”, then the rest of the following debate would escape your understanding as well.

    Cheers from America.

  15. Comment from: Derek


    I’m surprised that the AGW crowd is reaching back into the “Ocean acidification” grab bag again. They must be getting desparate. Ocean study has been putting the screws to AGW for years now. With an 100% Greenhouse gas “atmosphere” (water), continuously flowing sources of CO2, delicate ecosystems, and volcanic activity that produces sulfur, methane and the like, the ocean is the ultimate Worst Case AGW model. Yet when we look at a microscale environment like this one, that roughly fits the “worst” conceiveable scenarios according to the AGW crowd, we see a healthy abundant ecosystem. Where are the extreme temperatures predicted by the computer models? Where are the suffering gasping fish? What is with the healthy coral and seaweed? One picture erases a thousand words. Most of which are lies.

    Of course this is nothing new to oceanographers. They’ve been a thorn in the AGW side for years now with their data and facts and all. The “Ocean Levels Rising” scenario attributed to AGW, that really only amounts to a ~1cm a year, has in large part been attributed to a net positive gain of ocean floor as a result of underwater volcanic activity (do you think it might affect ocean temperature too?). Hard as they try to sell us on the melting icecaps nonsense. Sound science beats pictures of hungry polar bears any day. Imagine that, Nobel Prize winning scientists that can’t figure out that your glass of water WON’T overflow if the ice in it melts, but WILL overflow if the bottom of the glass is raised.

    Thank god for geologists and oceanographers. And their underwater cameras. Get your fiddles ready. This Rome is starting burn…

  16. Comment from: DDA_man


    Fraudulent CO2 science, scientific CO2 fraud
    Doing experiments in the ocean that truly reflect the real-world situation is difficult if not impossible. So scientists take shortcuts, essentially in two ways:

    1. they add hydrochloric acid (HCl, because salt water has a lot of chloride ions already). This shifts the pH baseline in the Bjerrum plot above to the left, producing more CO2 in a more acidic environment. It is a scientific fraud because it also produces less of the CO3 ion instead of more, resulting in abnormal dissolution of shell.
    2. they bubble CO2 through the water, thereby essentially increasing the left-hand side of the equilibrium equation. Although this reflects the real-world more than trickling acids through the water, it is still a scientific fraud because the water is not given time to form more of the CO3 ion.

    In all experiments the enriched water is flowed through the experiment, never giving enough time for an equilibrium with the calcium-rich environment which increases CO3. In other words, the experiment does not allow the water to buffer the enriched water. Neither method reflects the real-world situation, and this is scientific fraud.

  17. Comment from: Rob


    This is not a scientific discussion but an endless religious one … No one can argue (on scientific grounds) with “believers”.

    Rob (Geologist)

  18. Comment from: Thomas Moore


    Not that I expect Jen to actually pick this up, but almost 3 years after your post, here’s the science behind the myth of Dobu Bay. Unsurprisingly, the coral reef isn’t “very healthy”: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110529184043.htm

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All