|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 19:03:31 GMT 1
Why wouldn't he? His researchers found that problem and filters were installed to remove it.
Or are you insinuating that the bacteria problem sorted last year with the filters is the same problem reported this year as the result of ocean acidification?
The only thing I find an embarrassment is that you keep making claims and insinuations that you can't support with anything other than your own hearsay.
So for the umpteenth time, do you actually have any evidence that theses scientists are guilty of anything other than good science and helping one of their local industries?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 20:36:17 GMT 1
lazarus wrote: "Why wouldn't he? His researchers found that problem and filters were installed to remove it. Or are you insinuating that the bacteria problem sorted last year with the filters is the same problem reported this year as the result of ocean acidification?The only thing I find an embarrassment is that you keep making claims and insinuations that you can't support with anything other than your own hearsay. So for the umpteenth time, do you actually have any evidence that theses scientists are guilty of anything other than good science and helping one of their local industries?" You really are a [snip] lazarus. abcnews.go.com/GMA/Eco/ocean-acidification-hits-northwest-oyster-farms/story?id=10425738&page=1From your link to prove ocean acidification: "It first started in 2007. We had a situation here when all of a sudden, our larvae started dying," said Wiegardt. "At first we started wondering, what is wrong? Bacterial problems? What are we doing wrong?" Cudd said. Desperate, Wiegardt and Cudd turned to expert oceanographer Burke Hales and his team from Oregon State University to study the new and alarming enigma. They learned that the Pacific waters piped into their hatchery from nearby Netarts Bay were the cause of the dying larvae." "The scientists went to work and learned that something was making the oceans too acidic and preventing the oyster larvae from growing shells" Then came the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLmhMPpN0X8The "money shots" happen at 1:18 and 2:20 Bacteria caused the...again THE problem. No mention of pH or acidification. Then Mr Hales gave this presentation: www.wsg.washington.edu/mas/resources/shellfish_conf_08.html"Strategies and modifications for surviving Vibrio tubiashii in the hatchery Alan Barton, Oregon State University" The very man mentioned in the Whisky Creek Hatchery video doing a presentation on the BACTERIA that caused the larvae mortality.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 20:54:11 GMT 1
So to sum up: The hatchery had a mortality problem in their oyster larvae. The OSU found it was caused by bacteria. The lead scientist from OSU team appears in the media stating the larvae died due to "ocean acidification". The same scientist gives a presentation to an industry body about "Strategies and modifications for surviving Vibrio tubiashii in the hatchery"
And you assert these were two different events lazarus?
Now, what subject would attract the most funding for research within an IPCC contributing university? Bacteria in Oyster larvae or Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 14, 2010 16:04:13 GMT 1
So to sum up: The hatchery had a mortality problem in their oyster larvae. The OSU found it was caused by bacteria. The lead scientist from OSU team appears in the media stating the larvae died due to "ocean acidification". The same scientist gives a presentation to an industry body about "Strategies and modifications for surviving Vibrio tubiashii in the hatchery"
And you assert these were two different events lazarus?
Now, what subject would attract the most funding for research within an IPCC contributing university? Bacteria in Oyster larvae or Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions?
Any comments from the warmists? A media scare story utterly debunked....by amatuers on a message board.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 14, 2010 20:01:36 GMT 1
£azarus, Here's an article about the problem encountered at whisky creek: marineresearch.oregonstate.edu/July%2008%20COMES%20newsletter.pdfI've been searching for any evidence of an acidification problem at the hatchery. No luck so far... care to help? Why would Oregon State University say on ABC news that the Oyster larvae were dying due to acidification? Could you post any "insights"?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 18:49:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 15, 2010 20:30:22 GMT 1
Oh dear oh dear oh dear £azarus
"Scientists seeking to explain what's plaguing these coastal oysters say the link to more corrosive water is strong but anecdotal. It could be just one of several factors."
"At present, we’re at the stage of seeing anecdotal evidence that backs up modeling and lab-based research."
More media scare stories witth the caveats above buried way down the page.
NOT ONE PAPER FROM OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY THAT CLAIMS ACIDIFICATION KILLED THE LARVAE AT WHISKY CREEK
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 21:28:13 GMT 1
Smithy you still have shown NO evidence of corrupt science.
What you have said amounts to libel.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 15, 2010 22:39:54 GMT 1
The scientist concerned said in the ABC press release and the scare stories you linked to above that the problem was due to acidification. Again... THERE ARE NO PAPERS IN THE OSU ARCHIVE THAT SUBSTANTIATE THIS. NONE. I'll have more time tomorrow to get to the bottom of this scandal.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 11:44:10 GMT 1
It appears that Whiskey Creek Hatchery formed a partnership with The Nature Conservancy - an environmental pressure group_ in 2004. www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/oregon/files/whisky_creek_news.pdfIn the article, tagged on at the end, is the assertion that they had struggled with mortality due to bacteria and latterly pH problems "in the last year". The article is dated November 11th 2008. This is very strange given that pH was only suspected in 2009 at the earliest.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 12:03:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 18:38:02 GMT 1
I'll have more time tomorrow to get to the bottom of this scandal. I'm not holding my breath!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 22, 2011 12:00:25 GMT 1
Whiskey Creek and the propaganda surrounding it raises its head again.Specially for Mr Smith! Have a read of this! Oyster crisis: Yale 360 eco-activist author Elizabeth Grossman wrong again about ocean acidificationwattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/oyster-crisis-yale-360-wwf-eco-activist-elizabeth-grossman-wrong-again-about-ocean-acidification/This section in particular - ....there’s a real problem, but the issue that’s bogus is the claimed cause: “…acidic seawater, caused by the ocean absorbing excessive amounts of CO2 from the air…” Um, no. From the same 2009 report, www.pcsga.org/pub/science/Emergency_Seed_Proposal_Indesign-1.pdf bolding mine: Identified water quality/hatchery problems:Shellfish hatcheries have historically used coarsely filtered but otherwise untreated seawater for larval culture with few problems, and larval shellfish have thrived in water in the Pacific Ocean and coastal estuaries. Upwelling of deep, cold, nutrient-rich water from the continental shelf off the coast of Oregon and Washington is typical during summer months in this region and drives high primary productivity. Since 2003, however, higher than normal upwelling increased the extent and intensity of intrusions of deep acidic, hypoxic water off the Oregon and Washington coasts, and contributed to the formation of persistent dead zones. These events have resulted in fundamental changes in the character of our coastal bays, which contribute to high larval mortality throughout the entire year. These fundamental changes in seawater quality influence a host of complex chemical interactions, many of which are not fully understood. However, recent research has identified at least four potential stressors that adversely affect shellfish larvae: • Larval and juvenile shellfish are highly sensitive to acidic (low pH) seawater because their shells are formed from calcium carbonate, and dissolves when pH is low. • Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8 – 10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone. When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25 – 28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the seawater becomes super-saturated. Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions.
• A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment. Vt infections are lethal to shellfish larvae and juveniles. High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks. • There is potential for further stress to oyster seed given the difference between water conditions in the hatcheries where larvae are produced, and quality of water found in the remote settings where larvae set onto cultch (“mother shell”) are planted in the natural environment for grow-out. So, in summary the causes are: 1. Deep water upwelling, bringing colder more CO2 saturated water to the surface is the root cause. Colder water holds more CO2, it is basic chemistry. That deep benthic ocean water doesn’t interact with the atmosphere, but it is brought to the surface by changes in ocean current patterns such as ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which have nothing to do with the small (20 Parts Per Million) global increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last decade. 2. Heating of the water to make it suitable for tank aquaculture. They get the soda pop bottle on a warm day effect. The oyster larvae don’t like that. No surprise there. 3. A periodic pathogenic bacterium Vibrio tubiashii which seems to follow ocean patterns. What happened in 1998? Oh yeah, the biggest El Niño in modern times. 4. Stress with relocation into a different water environment. Anybody who has ever bought tropical fish, especially salt water fish, knows this problem. It seems “…acidic seawater, caused by the ocean absorbing excessive amounts of CO2 from the air…” isn’t in this report at all!
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 22, 2011 17:00:43 GMT 1
Very interesting indeed. Although, as someone who has decades of experience running shellfish storage ponds, I would say the problem with the hatchery is primarily its location. An almost land-locked, shallow lagoon with multiple watercourses running into it from increasingly developed catchment areas. I wonder how many septic tanks empty into this small area - thousands? I wouldn't consider siting a shellfish storage pond at such a location - let alone a hatchery.
They complained that their problem was worst with Northwesterly wind. Of course it was - the wind would hold all the surface water (and shit) and mix it up nicely around their intake pipe at the Southeasterly end of the lagoon.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 8, 2012 17:16:28 GMT 1
From Jo Nova's blog joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/#more-19763Scripps blockbuster: Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturallyThere goes another scare campaign. Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed. It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day. Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis. At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico’s easternmost state, on the Yucatán Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs. Each day the pH bottomed at about 10am, and peaked shortly after sunset. These extreme sites tell us that some marine life can cope with larger, faster swings than the apocalyptic predictions suggest, though of course, no one is suggesting that the entire global ocean would be happy with similar extreme swings. Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hoffman writes that “Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.” This paper is such a game changer, they talk about rewriting the null hypothesis: “This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions”” Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal: Taking Fears Of Acid Oceans With A Grain of Salt 07 January 2012 Coral reefs around the world are suffering badly from overfishing and various forms of pollution. Yet many experts argue that the greatest threat to them is the acidification of the oceans from the dissolving of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The effect of acidification, according to J.E.N. Veron, an Australian coral scientist, will be "nothing less than catastrophic.... What were once thriving coral gardens that supported the greatest biodiversity of the marine realm will become red-black bacterial slime, and they will stay that way."
This is a common view. The Natural Resources Defense Council has called ocean acidification "the scariest environmental problem you've never heard of." Sigourney Weaver, who narrated a film about the issue, said that "the scientists are freaked out." The head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calls it global warming's "equally evil twin."
But do the scientific data support such alarm? Last month scientists at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other authors published a study showing how much the pH level (measuring alkalinity versus acidity) varies naturally between parts of the ocean and at different times of the day, month and year.
"On both a monthly and annual scale, even the most stable open ocean sites see pH changes many times larger than the annual rate of acidification," say the authors of the study, adding that because good instruments to measure ocean pH have only recently been deployed, "this variation has been under-appreciated." Over coral reefs, the pH decline between dusk and dawn is almost half as much as the decrease in average pH expected over the next 100 years. The noise is greater than the signal.
Another recent study, by scientists from the U.K., Hawaii and Massachusetts, concluded that "marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions," and that "in many freshwater lakes, pH changes that are orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the 22nd-century oceans can occur over periods of hours."
This adds to other hints that the ocean-acidification problem may have been exaggerated. For a start, the ocean is alkaline and in no danger of becoming acid (despite headlines like that from Reuters in 2009: "Climate Change Turning Seas Acid"). If the average pH of the ocean drops to 7.8 from 8.1 by 2100 as predicted, it will still be well above seven, the neutral point where alkalinity becomes acidity.
The central concern is that lower pH will make it harder for corals, clams and other “calcifier” creatures to make calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. Yet this concern also may be overstated. Off Papua New Guinea and the Italian island of Ischia, where natural carbon-dioxide bubbles from volcanic vents make the sea less alkaline, and off the Yucatan, where underwater springs make seawater actually acidic, studies have shown that at least some kinds of calcifiers still thrive—at least as far down as pH 7.8.
In a recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, corals and mollusks were transplanted to lower pH sites, where they proved “able to calcify and grow at even faster than normal rates when exposed to the high [carbon-dioxide] levels projected for the next 300 years.” In any case, freshwater mussels thrive in Scottish rivers, where the pH is as low as five.
Human beings have indeed placed marine ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and pollution. By comparison, a very slow reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans, well within the range of natural variation, is a modest threat, and it certainly does not merit apocalyptic headlines. Jo Nova concludes We also know that adding CO2 in a sense is feeding the calcifying organisms (like it feeds life above the water too). Co2 dissolves as bicarbonate, which marine uses to make skeletons and shells from. So yes, a lower pH dissolves shells, but the extra CO2 increases shell formation.... more..... joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/#more-19763
|
|