AIMS researchers found that fish near a natural CO2 vent were not as scared of predators as their colleagues from more alkaline water: “Ocean Acidification robs reef fish of their fear of predators”.
They compared populations in reefs with normal pH levels with those near the vent. I note this line in the abstract didn’t make it to the press release:
“Contrary to expectations, fish diversity and community structure differed little between CO2 seeps and nearby control reefs.”
So the natural laboratory of the vent has biodiversity and a community, despite the “acid” (which is not acidic of course). Milne Bay, I gather, has pH of 7.7.
The abstract points out that there might be a reason why fish are bolder:
“Our results suggest that recruitment of juvenile fish from outside the seeps, along with fewer predators within the seeps, is currently sufficient to offset any negative effects of high CO2 within the seeps.”
Less predators, anyone?
So these might be well adapted little fish that suit the natural environment around them? Call the press…
If warming were politically correct, then people might say the fish became more confident. : -)
Indeed shouldn’t we worry that fish in higher pH waters might be too anxious? Apparently, that is not the right question to ask.
Here’s fear inducing press release of the Australian Institute of Marine Science:
Ocean Acidification robs reef fish of their fear of predators
Research on the behaviour of coral reef fish at naturally-occurring carbon dioxide seeps in Milne Bay in eastern Papua New Guinea has shown that continuous exposure to increased levels of carbon dioxide dramatically alters the way fish respond to predators.
Or Jo wonders, does continuous exposure to more predators alter the way the fish respond…
This finding from a collaboration among scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), James Cook University, the National Geographic Society and the Georgia Institute of Technology is particularly concerning not just for conservationists but for fisheries around the world and other industries dependent on the survival of fish species.
“We found that living in an acidic environment makes small reef fish become attracted to the smell of their potential predators. Their sense of smell was acutely affected in CO2-rich waters in ways that gravely threaten their survival,” said AIMS scientist, Alistair Cheal.
The team is studying coral reefs next to natural seeps where carbon dioxide bubbles are made by volcanic activity under the seabed. When CO2 from the atmosphere dissolves in water, it causes ocean acidification, slightly lowering the pH of the water and changing its carbonate chemistry. This in turn makes it harder for a range of marine animals to survive, for example, crustaceans find it difficult to form their shells and skeletons.
“What we have now also found in our study of fish behavior in this environment is that the fish become bolder and they venture further away from safe shelter, making them more vulnerable to predators,” added Mr Cheal.
The scientists also found that fish cannot adjust to rising carbon dioxide levels over time, causing concern for their ability to adapt as more CO2 dissolves in the oceans over the next few decades.
Over the past five years AIMS researchers have been studying the area, which is the only known CO2 seep site in coral reef ecosystems in the world. The scientists are, in effect, studying a snapshot of our coral reefs in decades to come if CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise.
More information:
- Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally
- A little bit less alkalinity could be a good thing for plants and fish
- The chemistry of ocean pH and “acidification” (It’s not acid, but rain is.)
REFERENCE
Philip L. Munday, Alistair J. Cheal, Danielle L. Dixson, Jodie L. Rummer, Katharina E. Fabricius. Behavioural impairment in reef fishes caused by ocean acidification at CO2 seeps. Nature Climate Change, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2195
has anyone asked how much additional atmospheric CO2 would be required to change the total ocean pH to 7.7?
120
According to Pieter Tans’ 2009 “An Accounting of the Observed Increase in Oceanic and Atmospheric CO2 and an Outlook for the Future” [Oceanography Vol 22, No 4.] the change in pH from the assumed pre-industrial level equilibrated against 280ppm is given by his equation (10) :
ΔpH = -0.85 * log(X/280),with X being the atmospheric CO2 ppm.
Assuming that equation is anywhere near true, to lower oceans from current rough average of 8.1 down to 7.7 is a -0.4 pH drop, requiring atmospheric CO2 to be raised to over 800ppm.
Judging visually the graph of his emissions modelling results (Fig 4), this would require emitting about 2.25 times his 1500Gt emission curve, or 3375GtC total, which after subtracting cumulative emissions to date of 375GtC is still 80% higher than the estimated total global remaining reserves of hydrocarbon fuel – both conventional and unconventional combined.
We couldn’t do it even if we wanted to.
120
“We found that living in an acidic environment makes small reef fish become attracted to the smell of their potential predators” – sea water? acidic?
“When CO2 from the atmosphere dissolves in water, it causes ocean acidification, slightly lowering the pH of the water” Does it really? The misleading and scientifically dishonest twisting of the word ‘acidification’ continues! Rainwater has a pH of about 5.3, yet the oceans remain resolutely alkaline! As always, I want to see some bench-top laboratory work on this (it’s not the real world,but it’d do for now).
I want to see a tank full of seawater, sloshing around with the CO2 concentration in the air above adjusted sequentially upwards in 1ppm increments, say up to 450ppm from 350. I want know what pH differences are seen, if any.
180
I automatically remove the title “scientist” from anyone who uses the term “ocean acidification”. This is a politician, an activist, but not a scientist. This person does not understand pH and that means he’s not a scientist (ph is essential to virtually all earth sciences and biology). I did have one comment on my blog that “explained” the term is used because it’s a limitation in the language–there’e no easy way to address the way CO2 reacts with the ocean and changes pH. Sorry, I replied, “less alkaline” works perfectly well and is not dishonest. Even the professors for the climate class I am taking use the term. I wonder if they realize that some of their students are sitting at home going “Stupid, 7.7 or 8.1 or 8.3 is basic, not acid. Why should I believe you know anything about science?” Oh, wait, I don’t. I double check everything.
241
I think that most people already know this but here it is for the less scientific literate (those who were not paying attention in school).
Pure water is both slightly acidic and slightly basic. The concentration of acid in the water (H+ or H30+) is the same as the concentration of the base OH-. This is 10 to the power of -7 or 0.0000001 M.
The pH scale is arbitrarily chosen as the -log of the concentration of H+, so the pH of pure water is 7. Anything below 7 and the solution has a higher concentration of H+ than OH-. Anything greater than 7 has a higher concentration of OH- than H+, so saying that the oceans are becoming acidic is wrong as it implies that the concentration of H+ will become greater than OH- and the charlatans know that this will never happen.
Its not a case of six of one one, half a dozen of the other. It is misleading.
80
In a way, they exhibit tendencies of humans. Educated by pictures of cute cuddly bears, some people lose all fear of them. Until they become lunch. And it has nothing to do with acidification of anything.
Except perhaps the few on LSD.
150
Very cute!
30
Damn it, you beat me to the acid joke.
10
Sounds like the equivalent psychology of “fish ocean heating conspiracy ideation”.
The flatheads have claimed there are pockets of hot water hiding in the biosphere miles down in the ocean.
The flatheads said the prawns had evidence.
Schools of sardines are all in consensus.
Here’s a good opportunity to get the band back together.
Someone phone the University of WA & Lewandowsky.
We’re on a mission to save the planet, after all.
60
Please, not another reunion of aging nutters.
40
This article was reviewed in the newspaper – Australian or Telegraph.
After a few lines I started to gag and stopped reading – it seems that it will never stop – it feels like we are all trapped in a large plastic bubble and while we can see the real world outside, we can never break through to reality.
The news media has recently been full of the usual exhortations; “we don’t have much time left”, ” warming adaptation will cost 10% of GDP by 2020″, “the weather is becoming more unpredictable as CO2 rises.”, “the IPCC warns that — blah blah:. and so on.
When will this Crap stop.
It’s driving me to despair.
How can such insanity be so real and persistent?
KK
240
Do you really want to know the answer? Maybe ignorance, though frustrating, is bliss.
30
A good point Sheri.
Being “aware” in most things in life does cost a lot in learning the details of a problem and then great effort and frustration in trying to make changes where needed.
Being “unaware”, as you suggest, is much much easier and less likely to give you a heart attack.
KK
ps. Ignorance is not frustrating if you are one of the ignorant.
40
As you say Jo, it seems much more likely the fish are responding to a lack of predators than to pH. More “excessively brave” fish survive and breed, passing on their braveness. ‘Twas ever thus, hence the reason for a “spread of personalities” in all creatures, with predators and other environmental factors fine tuning the appropriate balance as each local environment changes over time.
80
I’m just waiting for the headlines “Coral trout Kills and eats Great White” or “CO2 causes Nemo to become a man-eater” or “Barrier Reef now too dangerous for tourists because the rise in CO2 has turned the prawns savage”
30
Turned them savage, eh? just for that, I think I will have shrimp for dinner! Mwuhahaha.
10
I always find it incredible that the following two facts are always ignored in articles like this:
1. Volcanic vents producing CO2 always produce sulphuric acid as well, an acid tens of thousands of times more acidic than carbonic acid
2. The water next to a volcanic vent will be super saturated with CO2 and bears not the slightest resemblance to what would happen in the oceans, even with another 25,000 years of man’s CO2 emissions
160
Note this comment from Jo’s quote from the paper
Carbon dioxide bubbles from sea bed volcanic sources.
And therein probably lies the real cause for the supposed differences in fish behaviour and population patterns in this study if thats what it is called.
There is actually a fair bit of science literature on the behaviour of bubbles under pressure in a liquid just like those CO2 bubbles emmitting from that volcanic seep were observed in this case
When bubbles of gas, CO2 in this case, are under pressure some metres down in sea water they often / usually implode depending on depth , gas type in the bubbles and etc .
The internal pressures within the imploding gas bubble from some data I have just looked up, in this case for the sake of the calculations and the mesh sizes used in the calculations, very large bubbles of a metre in diameter, can exceed 45 Atmospheres.
From my gleaning of the some papers out of many, these internal pressures increase with the decreasing diametrical size of the original imploding bubbles.
All of this is of great interest to the submarine detection operators and submariners as a few bubbles of any size generated by a moving submarine [ A la Collins class early in their career, solved after kowtowing to the yanks navy, by putting some fairings around some parts like the abrupt change in profile at the base of the conning tower which was a damn good turbulent flow bubble generator, something any aerodynamists and a lot of glider pilots could have pointed out if they had been prepared to listen. ]
When those bubbles implode and with those intense internal pressure they do so with a damn good set of very peaked, intense sound frequencies as well which can travel some distance through water.
Under liquid imploding bubbles have another interesting quirk which is seen in laboratories but is impossible to see and measure under field ; ie deep ocean conditions and that is Sonoluminescence, the the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound.
I’m not sure if this is seen or even can be seen outside of a laboratory and in Nature but if it can be done I have no doubt that Nature does it somewhere.
So when you look at some of the alternative and possible, even probable explanations for this supposed change of behaviour by small fish and their predators [ Interesting here which makes me very suspicious indeed of this research is just how the lack of predators was ascertained and just how were those fish numbers and fish species ascertained and was the research all carried out at just one specific clock time for of each observing period. And is there any data to indicate if there was a change in fish behaviour and species according to any specific time of the day or night.
This is claimed to be connected to climate science you will recall so be very aware of some very subtle traps for new players. ]
So we have some quite sharp intense bursts of high frequencies but of very low volume of sound when ever one of those no doubt very numerous CO2 bubbles implode which will be most of them in the deeper waters a few metres down.
Plus just maybe some never measured in open ocean but seen regularly under controlled laboratory conditions, very high frequency single bursts of light from imploding bubbles. Nor is there any indication from the research if fish particularly some species are sensitive to these high frequencies bursts of sound and just possibly light bursts as well.
Plus of course some quite substantial, within a few tens of centimetres radius of even a very small imploding bubble, shock waves radiating out from the area of the imploded bubble.
Nor is there any indication that the oceanic algal species, being plants and therefore substantially increased gaseous CO2 being of very considerable benefit to their growth in numbers and prolificacy, is greater in the vicinity of the vents.
If it is then the small fish which of course are near the bottom of the ocean food chain will be in there in spades to get a decent feed on that increased algal production in those normally nutrient deficient tropical waters as are most tropical waters.
This so called research might be on the straight and level but smells awfully fishy to me as it most conveniently supports one of the greatest and most complete fabrications of the global warmers and that is the deliberate promoting of the fear of ocean acidification.
For more on Ocean Acidification and the miniscule effects that even massive amounts of CO2 will have on the Ph of the global oceans and their 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of ocean water then CO2 Science’s Ocean Acidification data base
While on the WZ climate forum ocean acidification came up reggularly as the big scare so I worked out [ and this is from memory ] the amount of dry ice ie frozen CO2. [ There is no liquid CO2 phase under normal atmosphere pressure / temperature conditions ] that would be dropped into the 0.6 cubic kilometres of Sydney Harbours waters that would be the same ration as our daily releases of CO2 and it’s efect on the global ocean water s, providing of course that ALL of the anthropogenic CO2 would go into the oceans. But we know that about mhalf of the anthropogenic CO2 is taken up by the land and possibly nocean biosphere, ie; Life.
And the number I think was for an equivalent ratio to anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the world’s 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of ocean waters was about 5 kilograms of dry ice , ie frozen carbon dioxide dropped into the 0 .58 cubic kilometres of Sydney Harbour’s waters each day.
It might even be measurable by 2500 AD.
130
Very good but my mate Ocky reckons that the pressure of CO2 inside the bubbles would be so high that the concentration of CO2 in the water would be too high for sudden bursts of energy to be comfortable.
20
for the predator. Hence less predators.
20
Perhaps elevated CO2 levels is why humans in nightclubs get more reckless. If this is the case, if CO2 keeps on rising, we’ll all lives lives of wild hedonistic excess, BBQs and beach parties. We must stop this from happening, before it is too late!
100
Been there— done that — still carrying the scars.
50
In an atmosphere with hugely elevated levels of ethylene hydroxide? (CH3-CH2-OH)
🙂
50
I hope not. See CO2 levels in nuclear submarines. (roughly 1100 – 3000 ppm.)
20
“AIMS researchers found that fish near a natural CO2 vent were not as scared of predators as their colleagues from more alkaline water”
My lordy, spare a thought for the teeming marine life around the hot Hydrothermal vents on the sea floor where the ph is around 2.5.
I bet they are out playing russian roulette, joy riding without seat belts, base jumping, train surfing…..
120
KinkyKeith
April 14, 2014 at 10:03 pm
with you there and it is so easy to mock this stuff but most of the MSM never gives up.
Take this story from Reuters, a few majors covered it last year,
bad reporting
BAD reporting!!!! – “first bulk carrier”
2013 – “LONDON — An ICE STRENGTHENED sea freighter has become the first bulk carrier to traverse the Northwest Passage through Canada’s Arctic waters, heralding a new era of commercial activity in the Arctic.
Travelling with a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker, the 75,000 deadweight-tonne Nordic Orion left Vancouver on Sept. 17 carrying 15,000 metric tons of coal. It is currently off Nuuk, Greenland, where it let a Canadian Arctic adviser off board”
———————–
eventually found this-
Good reporting –
Earlier this month, the ice-strengthened bulk carrier Nordic Orion was loaded with coal at a Vancouver terminal. From there, it headed to Finland via the Northwest Passage, undertaking a voyage that could make it the first commercial bulk carrier to traverse the route since the SS MANHATTAN broke through in 1969.
they should also add
added to the 71 ice breakers being used, 7 are being built and 9 are on the drawing board.
100
Wow sounds like fish are getting stoned and just chilling out. From like that Carbon Dioxide. Good for them. They much had a great time way back in the past when Dinosaurs ruled the world when the mean atmospheric Co2 levels was 1950ppm or 7x pre-industrial levels and globe temperature was just a massive 3 °C above modern levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic
see for yourself. Fish and Corals some how survived that level of Co2 induced Ocean Acidification. If you click on the link have a look at picture of the world on the right. click on the coloured letters above it. Go right to left and look at the past temperature and Co2 levels, and ask yourself how can we be here if a tiny little bit of extra Co2 is going to end the world. How could the world and all life on it survived with a mean Co2 level of 4500-7000 ppm[2](4475 times pre-industrial level)with only a mean 7 °C above modern level temperature from the Cambrian period. Sounds like the fish are not the only one get stoned hey.
50
Sorry was meant to say “From all that Carbon Dioxide.” Also “They must” Just a bit tired. My typo’s sorry everyone.
10
Just saying Fox, I usually don’t regard Wikipedia as a reliable source,as some people fiddle the facts and in some cases downright lie there more than I’m willing to accept.
30
Michael P I like that one “some people fiddle the facts in some cases downright lie.” Sounds a lot like Climate Science doesn’t it hey. Not just Wikipedia but I do get and respect your point of view and understand what your saying. Thanks for your comments mate. Just Wikipedia doesn’t cost the public anywhere near as much money now doesn’t it.
30
I agree, but Wiki may be a good place to start. Perhaps when referencing Wiki, commenters should note that all data needs to be independently verified, but there are some cool graphs and stuff to pique your interest and get you moving on the research. (Wiki has had to shut down editing controversial pages due to constant back and forth reporting of the “facts”.)
30
Had a look at the site. I notice that when the CO2 levels were high so too was the Oxygen levels higher than today. Could it be that combustion was higher in those earlier times leading to high CO2 levels? In any case, the high CO2 levels seemed to coincide with very good times for life and the temp’s did not exceed the present by too much. They were very good times for life.
00
The extra CO2 around these vents is obviously affecting the fish like PCP to humans.We therefore must get rid of all CO2 before we turn these little tiddlers into flesh eating monsters,which will be more of a threat to mankind than anything the UN can come up with.Could be I’m still getting over watching yesterdays Z grade movie,I think I’ll have a Bex and a good lay down.
30
Sir,Sir, Sir, I have my hand up I have a QUESTION ,if the oceans are warming as you say, they can hold less CO2, why are you telling us that more CO2 is being added to the ocean.
Either the oceans are not warming and more CO2 is added or the oceans are cooling and more CO2 is being absorbed. Last week you told us the oceans are warming, this week they are
taking on CO2. Sir,Sir, I am confused this is either or, or neither nor. My dad tells me that our kitchen bench top is made out of recycled CO2 and so is the chalk I use, how is this possible sir.
Maybe my dad is an idiot, but I think it is more likely that what the teacher tells me is wrong, dad is an engineer with PHD in geology so what would he know about fish. [sarc]
120
If the Australian Institute of Marine Science continues to fund wacky science in sun-drenched locations at our expense, they may need to be vigilant. The CSIRO are about to get major budget cuts. They are also disseminators of discredited CAGW bunkum. (The comparison does come to mind.)
70
Yeah, the quicker they cut off funding (to zero) for these charlatans the better; that includes the charlatans in the CSIRO, the Australian Academy, the Met Office and other alarmist organizations.
50
Er – these waters are saturated ….
I seem to recall that this area was drawn to their attention (about 6 years ago?) because it contradicted the claims they were making. So they’ve been hanging out there all this time and this is the response? Maybe the little fish have become tame, or the researchers have eaten all the rock cod.
These are not the only known seep sites. Plenty of other sites on the ring of fire have coral, CO2 bubbling up from the sea bed, and fumaroles.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/07/ocean-acidification-photographs-from-bob-halstead-and-a-note-from-floor-anthoni/
70
the guy who first used coined the term “acidification of the seas” was Caldeira in his paper in 2003.
IN 2005 –
“…..However, the term can also lead to confusion
when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming
less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
2005)
50
Ocean Acidification robs AIMS of its fear of ridicule.
AIMS robs me of any faith at all in claims about the catastrophic effects of ocean acidification.
Recursive fury robs me of any fear at all of feeling foolish in being a total and committed denier now that it is pretty much proven that more than 97% of CAGW advocates are too far gone to ever be capable of seeing the plain and simple explanation that it is much more likely that the recent warming is mainly natural probably associated with the sun’s activity and resonant/cyclical components of the climate system.
The IPCC robs me of any confidence that the UN will ever amount to much more than a sinecure for the sort of eco nomic/illogical cretins we just voted out of office Federally and in Tasmania recently.
Posting this robs me of any further excuse to stay up any longer. Sleep well “deniers”, reality will stand guard over you.
100
The lateral line, which is a sense organ on the side of the fish is a pressure sensor that feels the approach of a predator or feels another fish in distress and is the first line of defense against predation. The second line of defense are the eyes, which can see about 3X further in the water than human eyes can and finally the sense of smell comes into play when food or predators are rather close. By that point it is probably too late for our little prey fish.
It is quite remarkable what so called scientist will say in the pursuit of grant money.
50
Just when you thought fins couldn’t get any more off-the-scales crappie along comes this load of cobbler. Don’t know about you but I smelt a whiff of ratfish straight away.
They think it’s another point to discus, but anyone sane can see it’s just more carp-ing about jack.
File under red herring.
80
So I guess fresh water fish are completely fearless.
110
Utterly ridiculous to think that elevated CO2 in the atmosphere would lower pH to an extend that an active bubbling seep can only accomplish in the immediate vicinity around the gas before the water re-balances by dilution (with trillion tons of ocean water) and interacting with the ocean floor and exposed rocks (which will always neutralize acids). And still the water in the seep never goes acidic (pH<7 but stays above 7.6)
50
Does that mean that the CO2 level on Antarctica is extremely high, because the penguins does not fear peoble.
80
Svend,
Grant money coming your way.
This financial support for a paper showing that penguins are essentially land based fish.
80
LOL!
That is very good.
40
I always thought the penguin acted more like a fish than a bird. Who’d a guessed it? 😉
30
what the F**k is going on in this world where precious research dollars are spent on fish fear in Papua when research scientists in the Daintree are finding a cure for cancerous tumors and are struggling for funding!
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/possible-cancer-cure-found-in-blushwood-shrub/story-e6freoof-1225826874057
110
[…] blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on climate change making fish […]
00
The CAGW stories are reading more like National Enquirer headlines every day.
– Stone fish high on acid.
– CO2 makes fish 10 inches high and hook proof.
– Nemo stops looking starts REEFing.
I could go on…..
50
With few exceptions (like the JOhn Edwards story), the “National Enquirer” type of papers do not really tell news, just conspiracy theories, gossip, and innuendo. Yet they are the only profitable sections of the News industry left. And they are doing quite well. I guess the alarmists see that and are trying to copy it.
10
It must be true. I saw a reckless fish just yesterday. It was riding it’s bicycle out in the middle of traffic as if it had not a care in the world. That CO2 must be powerful stuff. 😉
50
I hadn’t had more than a few drinks. Honest! 😉
30
G’day Roy,its not the drinks fault,read the pack on your medication,’not to be taken with alcohol’.I do hope they were not blackfish,you could be in trouble with obuma.
10
What? You expect me to read all that stuff? When something comes with patient instructions covering both sides of two 8.5 X 11 inch sheets of paper, nearly all in fine print, how does anyone expect I’m going to read it all? I’m lucky if I can even see it. 😉
00
As for Obuma, he definitely looks better after few drinks, with or without his fish by his side.
00
Actually, I expect you to check the FDA site for a listing of side-effects, complaints, etc, before swallowing anything from a doctor! The advantage is you can enlarge the text on the screen and make the screen brighter or darker as needed. So much more convenient than a clumsy magnigying glass! 🙂
00
Sheri,
Surprisingly the place to go is your pharmacist. I was floored recently when mine told me doctors call him all the time asking what’s the right drug for this, that or the other condition or what are the side effects and interactions.
It would seem that the pharmacist should be writing the prescriptions instead of the MD.
However, I’ve been taking the same stuff for years without trouble. How many times must I read the patient instructions? I suggest that once is enough. 🙂
00
Yes, the pharmacist is a good choice. I just have trust issues. 🙂 I did find that doctors tend to go by what the drug reps tell them and don’t research. I’ve also called the drug companies themselves when needing answers. One of my meds went off the market and I had to find a replacement–which my doctor was fine with, since I do more research than he does!
I do call the pharmacists if I have questions about a possible side effect not listed and once when I had a serious reaction to a drug. Pharmacists are very well trained. (I was surprised to hear a pharmacist say they would not use “drug x” even though the doctor recommended it. Maybe they should write the prescriptions!)
10
I use to pay the Pharmacist no mind. But after I got older and found out that I needed some medications all the time (like Omeprezole – the wonder drug!), I found I confide in them (a woman and a man) more than I do my doctor!
I also have a neighbor who went to college, initially to get an engineering degree. He switched to Pharmacy, and that meant he had to go 8 years instead of 4 (plus).
I have a lot of respect for them.
00
I have to say that I’ve been lucky. I take several things to combat my problems and the side effects are benign, mostly dry mouth.
I have tried to research drug interactions and side effects on the Internet but the first problem is to find a site you can rely on. Once I got advice about the several best sites, guess what? Conflicting information.
I had one urgent care doctor tell me she would never prescribe a drug I’ve taken for years to control back pain. To hear her tell it it was the next best thing to rat poison. Yet I know of not a single bad thing it does to me except contribute to dry mouth.
So you pay your money and you take your chance just like anything else. The most important thing to me is to find and now with new Obamacare rules coming into play, keep the doctors who can actually manage my problems. I have Medicare which leaves me with an advantage at the moment. But Medicare will soon come under the same regulation as everything in Obamacare. The end of good medicine in America is at hand. It’s already falling on its ass and most still don’t recognize the problem. But they will.
Yes, I’m a cynic about the whole damned mess. Doctors will soon be working for the government whether they want to or not. And people always do what their real boss wants. When they worked for me (fee for service) I knew they had the right incentive. When they work for someone else I know they have the wrong incentive. And from what I know about Obamacare’s implementation so far, that incentive will be to avoid getting on the wrong side of the government, not getting me the best treatment for my problem.
10
Sheri,
The job is to find the doctor who doesn’t simply follow what the drug rep says. I know you know that but it’s preamble to saying I’ve found it very useful to challenge your doctor by asking lots of questions until you’re sure you understand why he’s recommending what he says you should do and why. If there’s no willingness to answer question or the answers don’t add up and make sense, find another doctor. It was a particularly useful exercise with my cardiologist because I learned several things about salt and cholesterol that he would never have told me had I not pinned him down with persistent questions until he gave me the underlying information. We still have a good relationship by the way. And he’s a very good cardiologist, head of cardiology at the local hospital, in fact — a world class institution too and I wonder what Obamacare will do to it.
10
The challenge is to find a doctor who doesn’t simply follow what the drug rep says AND will still keep you as a patient when he asks why you have him as a doctor and you answer “Because I don’t have a prescription pad”!! Actually, my doctors are pretty tolerant of my “unconventional” responses to medical professionals, even when I checked out of the hospital AMA and other such things. Most of my doctors will answer questions, though my dermatologist was having trouble understanding why I went to the ER for a reaction to a drug, when he was already treating me. I explained that I needed more information than he was giving me–this was something I had never dealt with and there was little information on the problem out there. After that, there was a more free exchange of information. Part of my difficulty is really bad reactions to drugs, unusual dosing requirements (I have to split doses, etc) and unusual medical conditions. So it’s complicated. I suppose I am comfortable with the doctor going by drug reps because I know I won’t. If he’s okay in most other areas (got to get him off that “you need an insulin pump” train he’s hopped on…..) I stick with him. He’s been my doctor off and on for 30 years, so it seems to work. I hate changing doctors–one just retired this year and it’s such a pain. So far, Obamacare has not greatly affected medicine here. I’m sure that’s coming.
00
Roy that fish was just ignorant of the CARBON CYCLE but it sounds reckless, I mean just one FLOUNDER and it could be a FLATHEAD, oh and watch out for fish drinking it could be a GROPER.
30
Roy..
Was this bicycle riding fish wearing a helmet ?
10
Yonni,
It was riding a carbon cycle. 😉
10
Griss,
Didn’t notice.
00
Funny thing. When you look into in the fine print of IPCC WGII latest report, the science there contradicts this acidification scare.
WGII AR5 Report, Chapter 6 covers Ocean Systems. There we find some objective and blunt statements:
“Few field observations conducted in the last decade demonstrate biotic responses attributable to anthropogenic ocean acidification” pg 4
“Due to contradictory observations there is currently uncertainty about the future trends of major upwelling systems and how their drivers (enhanced productivity, acidification, and hypoxia) will shape ecosystem characteristics (low confidence).” Pg 5
“Both acclimatization and adaptation will shift sensitivity thresholds but the capacity and limits of species to acclimatize or adapt remain largely unknown” Pg 23
“Production, growth, and recruitment of most but not all non-calcifying
seaweeds also increased at CO2 levels from 700 to 900 µatm Pg 25
“Contributions of anthropogenic ocean acidification to climate-induced alterations in the field have rarely been established and are limited to observations in individual species” Pg. 27
“To date, very few ecosystem-level changes in the field have been attributed to anthropogenic or local ocean acidification.” Pg 39
I am finding much more credible the Senate Testimony of John T. Everett, in which he said:
“There is no reliable observational evidence of negative trends that can be traced definitively to lowered pH of the water. . . Papers that herald findings that show negative impacts need to be dismissed if they used acids rather than CO2 to reduce alkalinity, if they simulated CO2 values beyond triple those of today, while not reporting results at concentrations of half, present, double and triple, or as pointed out in several studies, they did not investigate adaptations over many generations.”
“In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling and pH (ocean pH about 8.1) changes are a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling (pH about 7.59-7.8) appears or a storm brings acidic rainwater (pH about 4-6) into an estuary.”
90
It’s always fun to look at the fine print on any of this. What is reported is rarely what the actual science said. Let’s face it, the actual science is boring and you can’t sell fear and urgency with boring. 🙂
40
Fine quotes, Ron. Kudos.
20
DANGER Will Robinson, DANGER…
10
Don’t worry the IPCC WG III is just as bad. Here is an article by Robert Wilson re bio-energy production
http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/why-the-ipcc-is-wrong-about-bio-energy/
10
Well that’s it then, all of humanity must stop using fossil fuels as non-predatory fish will all die out.
/sarcoff
Another bunch of numpties getting paid to do confirmatory studies. I wait for this junk to be debunked by real scientists.
21
There is only one answer –
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-the-end-is-near-46.png
10
The claim that these are the only CO2 vents on coral reefs is untrue. There are a number of others elsewhere in PNG, Solomon Islands and Indonesia.
Reef fishes live in complex environments and are very adaptable in their behaviour. In aquaria they quickly learn there are no predators and freely swim about with no regard to keeping close to the shelter of coral. The area where the CO2 vents in PNG are being studied is on a fringing reef in a protected bay just off a shore populated by villagers. These reefs are heavily fished and few large predatory fish are left. The CO2 has also stimulated a lush growth of marine grasses which are the nursery habitat for numerous juvenile fishes. The abundance of small fishes and their apparent fearlessness is a consequence of few predators and a particularly rich nursery ground, not because the fish have been drugged by CO2.
This kind of claim says more about the lack of reef experience and preconceived notions of the researchers than it does about any effect of CO2 on these reefs.
61
the Babbage blog at The Economist with some very English humour on the subject:
13April: The Economist Blog: Babbage: Rebels without a cause?
A study published online today for Nature Climate Change, led by Philip Munday from James Cook University in Australia, suggests that elevated levels of carbon dioxide in seawater affect the behaviour of young damselfish and cardinalfish in a manner that may ultimately, in natural ecosystems, harm larger marine communities. Juveniles living in more acidic environments appeared oblivious to the dangers therein, acting more rashly than fish from less acidic areas as a result…
The rash behaviour of fish accustomed to higher acidity did not stop there, however. After being placed individually within another tank that contained a small coral colony for shelter, the scaly participants were left for two hours (so they could get used to their new surroundings). Their activity, and the distance they travelled from the coral, were then observed for five minutes after which the fish were “chased” back home with the help of a pencil. Scary stuff…
The implications of the study are more troubling than even pencils acting aggressively.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/04/ocean-acidification
20
the inevitable ABC Breakfast coverage, which i can’t be bothered listening to:
AUDIO: 15 April: ABC Breakfast: Corals hit but fish surviving in more acid ocean
As expected, the corals are not thriving – but remarkably, apart from some ‘risky’ behaviour, the fish seem to be coping well.
Guest:
Dr Jodie Rummer SuperScience Research Fellow, Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville. Co-author of the study, ‘Behavioural impairment in reef fishes caused by ocean acidification at CO2 seeps’, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/corals-hit-but-fish-surviving-in-more-acid-ocean/5390288
20
Published in the Fin Review?
10
Don’t you need CO2 to make Calcium carbonate anyhow?
10
Yes, and strangely an increase in CO2 results in an increase in coral growth.
Also, an increase in temperature (if there was any evidence that CO2 caused this) would result in the area suitable for corals to grow.
But an increase in temperature would lower CO2 solubility in water.
20
Hi Graeme,
The extra CO2 also aids with producing increased bone structure in sea life.
Big CO2 – Big Fish-bones.
CO2 produces “robust” fish.
KK
10
We are doomed!
Higher CO2 = bigger coral reefs = less sea room for bigger fish, therefore they will try colonising the land again. We will have the smell of raw prawn everywhere…hang on. What has that got to do with the Lewny one?
20
🙂
00
Not related to CO2, but I’ve often wondered how that smell originally got into the fish.
KK
00
The King or some other Cnut?
10
Now I have a great excuse whenever I feel like getting shirty: “It’s due to anthropogenic CO2…. it just makes me wanna bust out!”.
10
“Er, Yes Officer, I ‘ad to ‘it ‘im, ‘caus ‘e waz e-mittin’ all this anfropogneknic carbon an-nat. Yer know wot I mean?”
20
I love argument by scoff. Convinces me.
01
What nobody seems to have picked up is that the Authors report a range of pH’s but nowhere, even where the sea water is super-saturated with CO2, does the pH show the sea water becoming acid.
If sea water doesn’t become acidified even with CO2 being forced into it under pressure, then what possibility has a small increase in the atmospheric level got of affecting the pH?
10
I have a large fishtank in my livingroom and sometimes my fish spawn . The offsprings are not afraid of predators at all. They often just move an inch or two when predators try to atack them. And often they just continue their eating habits even when the predators are still around!
They live with predators and adapts acordingly.
00