tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post998735849853411878..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: A Fishy Failure at WUWT - not so spectacularSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9672187361276197052014-04-16T21:19:16.763+10:002014-04-16T21:19:16.763+10:00As you say, the obvious question. Watts almost get...As you say, the obvious question. Watts almost gets there with "lack of predators conditioning prey behaviour" then swerves violently to avoid it. Whether this is touched on in the full paper I don't know, but would like to :)<br /><br />The paper is about "behavioural impairment", after all. As I understand it, most of the fish humans eat are from predator species so impairment of predators is potentially significant.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55775355161461864432014-04-16T18:41:43.554+10:002014-04-16T18:41:43.554+10:00The obvious next question, which clearly neither A...The obvious next question, which clearly neither Anthony nor anyone at WUWT thought to ask, is, "if the behaviour of the fish changes towards their predators, does the behaviour of the predators also change in more acidic seawater?" John Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610757244403601917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58902081497285002842014-04-16T09:00:44.139+10:002014-04-16T09:00:44.139+10:00I too concur with Anonymous, and Marco preempted m...I too concur with Anonymous, and Marco preempted my own addition to the conversation.<br /><br />And I'm sure that reading this would scramble the brain of Rabbet Run's 'Richard'...Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21497096104322591522014-04-16T07:01:09.891+10:002014-04-16T07:01:09.891+10:00haha did he really write "How would the fishe...haha did he really write "How would the fishes ..."?infernonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86552410445903939052014-04-16T05:45:57.917+10:002014-04-16T05:45:57.917+10:00Actually, experts are not bound by the ignorance o...Actually, experts are not bound by the ignorance of non experts. If there is a substance with a higher activity of H+ than a reference has, and it has historically been called acidic, then calling acidic is not an error. As in: acidosis in blood has a pH above 7.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88259938898531081492014-04-16T03:54:14.758+10:002014-04-16T03:54:14.758+10:00I agree with anonymous. "naturally more acidi...I agree with anonymous. "naturally more acidic" would have been correct.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65767645104192042042014-04-16T03:33:34.063+10:002014-04-16T03:33:34.063+10:00Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with being accur...Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with being accurate. Ocean acidification is an accurate term because the phenomenon described is an ocean becoming more acidic even if it was alkaline to begin and end with. But saying they conducted research where the ocean was "naturally acidic" is just an error. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41071514307668079282014-04-16T03:12:40.964+10:002014-04-16T03:12:40.964+10:00Silly anonymous. Chemists use less or more acidic...Silly anonymous. Chemists use less or more acidic as a comparative term. Just like if today is -20F and tomorrow is -10F, we'll say "tomorrow will be warmer than today".<br /><br />Of all the stupid trolling anti-science comments common in the denialsphere, this is one of the most common, and demonstrates deep ignorance of both science and the english language.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30424434280954551672014-04-16T03:09:32.989+10:002014-04-16T03:09:32.989+10:00Thanks, fixed.Thanks, fixed.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57200783597543387492014-04-16T02:58:52.477+10:002014-04-16T02:58:52.477+10:00"These are small fish, the largest being less..."These are small fish, the largest being less than an inch long. The scientists selected three reef sites where ocean water is naturally acidic from CO2 seeps and three control sites close by, where the ocean is less acidic."<br /><br />None of the sites in the paper included ocean water that was "acidic." I think you mean "less alkaline."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8443439111325383062014-04-15T23:23:03.058+10:002014-04-15T23:23:03.058+10:00Has anybody ever added up the number of scientific...Has anybody ever added up the number of scientific disciplines where Anthony thinks he knows better than the people who actually have a clue?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23416443700844692582014-04-15T19:16:14.978+10:002014-04-15T19:16:14.978+10:00It becomes increasingly clear that Watts has had n...It becomes increasingly clear that Watts has had no scientific training and doesn't think like a scientist. The experiment sounds like a classic little experiment with a not wholly expected result that gives us something interesting. If Watts had been a bit more alert, he might have pointed out the fact that the fish seemed able to adapt to higher CO2 levels but because his default setting is to deride scientists in general, his blinkers ensure he failed.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.com