You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2010.

If there is just one scientific article based on bad, non science the article can then lead to a long list of studies based on one wrong fact or study. Generations of scientists can cite that same article for many years to come. This network of infection eerily reminds me of the daunting task of recounting an inflicted AIDS patient with the list of partners they had sexual contact with, only to find each of them had two friends, and they had two friends…and so on. 

With that being said, why do so many infer the cause of each revelation to be associated with global warming? Furthermore, how can the same cause and effect so conveniently be said to be true in the case of lower temperatures?  

The danger of micromanaging as our scientists usually do is that  YOU MISS THE BIG PICTURE! 

Who made these naturally occurring patterns, substances, matter, elements, chemicals or gases bad names? This example shows a definite corruption of the words original meaning, now means negative;

  • climate – the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
  • acidification – the process of lowering ph, to become more acid.
  • C02 – the most elemental life-giving substance on earth.

We do have climate and it does change.

Note for better science communication:

In case you find traces of arsenic (arsenopyrite, definition: mineral) in x,y or z  why not find out the beneficial characteristics instead of playing on words by association with the general public. Arsenic has a negative connotation because we use it as a poison. Arsenic is found naturally occurring, everywhere and even if our acclaimed scientists haven’t bothered to look into the value and purpose does not mean it doesn’t have one within the dynamics of earth’s cycles. Yet you feel free to alarm us with finding its presence somewhere and compel us to take action against it. Yes let’s have government set up an agency, pour billions of money into it for administrative costs, salaries and scientific study to study this mineral called arsenic. Heck, we can even pay that agency to monitor arsenic forever and alert us if it changes.

Here is an article from Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)  as found through this link.                                                                                                                                                                                       Lets follow this article with some layman analysis: 

  

Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

  1. K. R. N. Anthony1,
  2. D. I. Kline,
  3. G. Diaz-Pulido,
  4. S. Dove, and
  5. O. Hoegh-Guldberg

+ Author Affiliations  


  1. Centre for Marine Studies and ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072 Queensland, Australia
  • Edited by David M. Karl, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, and approved September 26, 2008 (received for review May 8, 2008)  

  • Abstract

    Ocean acidification represents a key threat to coral reefs by reducing the calcification rate of framework builders. In addition, acidification is likely to affect the relationship between corals and their symbiotic dinoflagellates and the productivity of this association. However, little is known about how acidification impacts on the physiology of reef builders and how acidification interacts with warming. Here, we report on an 8-week study that compared bleaching, productivity, and calcification responses of crustose coralline algae (CCA) and branching (Acropora) and massive (Porites) coral species in response to acidification and warming. Using a 30-tank experimental system, we manipulated CO2 levels to simulate doubling and three- to fourfold increases [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection categories IV and VI] relative to present-day levels under cool and warm scenarios. Results indicated that high CO2 is a bleaching agent for corals and CCA under high irradiance, acting synergistically with warming to lower thermal bleaching thresholds. We propose that CO2 induces bleaching via its impact on photoprotective mechanisms of the photosystems. Overall, acidification impacted more strongly on bleaching and productivity than on calcification. Interestingly, the intermediate, warm CO2 scenario led to a 30% increase in productivity in Acropora, whereas high CO2 lead to zero productivity in both corals. CCA were most sensitive to acidification, with high CO2 leading to negative productivity and high rates of net dissolution. Our findings suggest that sensitive reef-building species such as CCA may be pushed beyond their thresholds for growth and survival within the next few decades whereas corals will show delayed and mixed responses. Supporting Information 

    Here is an example of the articles that link to it: 

    Articles citing this article

    • S. D. Connell
  • and B. D. Russell The direct effects of increasing CO2 and temperature on non-calcifying organisms: increasing the potential for phase shifts in kelp forestsProc R Soc B 2010 0:rspb.2009.2069v1-rspb20092069

    Abstract 

  • Full Text
  • Full Text (PDF) 

    • W. Kiessling,
  • E. Roniewicz,
  • L. Villier,
  • P. Leonide,
  • and U. StruckAn early Hettangian coral reef in southern France: Implications for the end-Triassic reef crisisPALAIOS 2009 24:657-671Abstract 

  • Full Text
  • Full Text (PDF) 

    • C. Brownlee
  • pH regulation in symbiotic anemones and corals: A delicate balancing actProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009 106:16541-16542Full Text Full Text (PDF) 

    • A. A. Venn,
  • E. Tambutte,
  • S. Lotto,
  • D. Zoccola,
  • D. Allemand,
  • and S. TambutteFrom the Cover: Imaging intracellular pH in a reef coral and symbiotic anemoneProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009 106:16574-16579Abstract 

  • Full Text
  • Full Text (PDF) 

    • P. L. Munday,
  • J. M. Donelson,
  • D. L. Dixson,
  • and G. G. K. EndoEffects of ocean acidification on the early life history of a tropical marine fishProc R Soc B 2009 276:3275-3283Abstract 

  • Full Text
  • Full Text (PDF) 

    • M. Byrne,
  • M. Ho,
  • P. Selvakumaraswamy,
  • H. D. Nguyen,
  • S. A. Dworjanyn,
  • and A. R. DavisTemperature, but not pH, compromises sea urchin fertilization and early development under near-future climate change scenariosProc R Soc B 2009 276:1883-1888Abstract 

  • Full Text
  • Full Text (PDF) 

    This is my conclusion after performing an in-depth study and analysis of this science: 

    So! We were told yesterday that the oceans were heating up, now we have new studies of massive coral bleaching and dying due to a record cold ocean? One would usually assume an opposite reaction to opposite conditions. The warmer ocean causes coral bleaching and so does a cooler ocean. Perhaps it’s just a normal event after all. Who knows if the ocean acidification would happen whether or not humans were here?

    Does your study prove that you have successfully reconstructed an accurate model with all the pertinent components of a fully functioning and interactive ecosystem we call the ocean? Have you pinpointed all supporting information involved with the life cycle of CAA, Acropora and Porites? Maybe your study model needed arsenic to gain accurate results in that 30 gallon tank.

     That C02, is there anything it can’t do…or anything it can’t be blamed for?

    Here’s a science paper from Cornell University claiming 40% of fan corals have died due to a fungal infection probably brought on by anthropogenic factors and warmer oceans; “Originally, we were interested in the natural disease-resistance properties of corals, such as the anti-bacterial and anti-fungal chemicals they produce, because some of those compounds may be useful in human medicine. That disease resistance normally keeps a coral alive for hundreds of years, despite living in an ocean full of potential pathogens.”

    National Center for Environmental Research says “Global climate change may contribute to coral bleaching because thermal stratification causes both increased temperature and increased penetration of UV light associated with photobleaching. Both of these stressors are believed to contribute significantly to coral bleaching.”

    The Nature Conservancy  claims; “Sustained cold water temperatures in South Florida and the Florida Keys triggered severe coral bleaching and even coral death…”

    This is Motes Marine Biology’s take on coral bleaching as an natural event; “Coral bleaching, which is the corals’ loss of their symbiotic algae called zooxanthellae, is a natural event that occurs to some extent every year in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary(FKNMS). While records show that coral bleaching events have been occurring for many years in the Florida Keys, indications are that the frequency and severity has steadily increased since the 1980’s. Large-scale mass coral bleaching events are driven by unusually warm sea temperatures.”

    Who do we believe, none of them? How much inference is injected into each study, 20%, 50%? Given the religious fervor of the environmental movement, is there a conflict of interest to align your study for the purpose of funding? These scientists received more than $21 million in public funding, yet used deception to ensure that real world data did not interfere with the selling of global warming. Are humans really responsible for every event that happens in Nature? The very foundation of the climate change movement with all the conservation efforts are crumbling. The IPCC is being flooded with criticism, this is what happens when the science is based on a “Climbing Magazine” article. If science was the be all end all why does new science degrade old science philosophies? An example of this proves that even the theory of evolution is at risk with this study “Something rotten in the state of palaeontology“.

    Yesterday we were at risk because global warming was heating up the earth causing us to lose our wetlands and subject us to an even more terrible event of desertification. Today methane gas is becoming more of a problem and actually, the wetlands are a major cause. This article directly retrieved from the UN (United Nations) with a nice little picture of a rice paddy in Taiwan…I mean of course, a villanous picture of a rice paddy in Taiwan.

    Advertisements