There is some evidence that seagrasses may do well at higher CO2.  Richard Zimmerman and others have found positive responses to CO2 enrichment in seagrasses, consistent the response of other higher plants.  Here is an article that describes further evidence (provided by Dr Richard K.F. Unsworth).

Research from the Chinese Academy of Sciences published in the Journal of Integrative Plant Biology (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2010.00991.x/pdf ) has found that the abundant Indo-Pacific seagrass species Thalassia hemprichii may actually prosper under conditions of Ocean Acidification. There has been much debate as to whether seagrass under conditions of ocean acidification will be released from present day carbon limitation, however until now most evidence for this has come from the study of the temperate seagrass Zostera marina.

The research by Zhi Jian Jiang et al. finds Thalassia hemprichii to have higher photosynthetic productivity and a lower saturating irradiance under conditions of elevated aqueous CO₂ (and reduced pH). Although the conditions studied are mostly those expected in the next few centuries, the analysis does include one treatment at a pH of 7.75 that represents a potential condition in 2100.

Having a lower saturating irradiance is critically important, as the majority of seagrass loss over the last century has been the result of poor water quality reducing light availability (see Waycott et al 2009 –http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12377.abstract). If seagrasses under high CO₂ can be more productive under lower light conditions, this indicates the potential for at least one tropical seagrass to be one of the ‘winners’ in a future ocean environment. Although these are credible findings, how such elevated productivity interacts with elevated temperature and more extreme weather events remains poorly understood. Understanding the potential viability of different species to future environments is important for setting realistic long-term conservation objectives for marine ecosystems.

Picture: Thalassia hemprichii in Guam (From Guamreeflife.com)

One of the issues we have been profiling here at climateshifts is the growing gulf between what the science of climate change is telling us, and what the public and politicians understand.  Putting aside the criminal activities associated with the spin doctors of special interest, delivering and gaining impact on the basis of this expert knowledge is becoming more and more urgent.  Here is a recent survey undertaken by Yale University which exposes these problems within the American population.

PC magazine, Oct 18 2010, by  Leslie Horn

Americans don’t understand climate change, a Yale study has shown. Of the 63 percent of U.S. adults that believe that global warming is happening, only one in 10 say they are “very well informed” on the issue.

Yale’s Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change report takes a look at what people know about global warming and climate change, including its impacts, causes, and possible solutions. Funded by the National Science Foundation, it surveyed a demographic mix of 2,030 American adults.

It “found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of risks,” the report said.

Half of Americans recognize that global warming is a result of human actions. Fifty-seven percent understand that the greenhouse effect describes gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere, and 45 percent know that carbon dioxide traps heat from the surface of the Earth. Just a quarter know about coral bleaching and ocean acidification, the study revealed.

Not many Americans would make the grade if tested on climate change. Just 8 percent know enough to score an A or a B, 40 percent would make a C or D, and 52 percent would fail.

That said, most Americans see that car emissions and the burning of fossil fuels are part of the issue. Seventy-five percent of people surveyed said they would like to know more about it, and 68 percent would like to see climate change education in schools.

I was looking at the transcript of a recent late line interview conducted by Margot O’Neill and was flabbergasted by Bob Carter’s lack of understanding of the IPCC.  Apart from being confused about the IPCC  process, Bob seems to imply that Australia’s most qualified scientists should not be involved in assessing the science and impacts of climate change.  Here is the section of the interview that stunned me.  You can see the complete interview here.

MARGOT O’NEILL: But while welcoming the reforms, climate sceptic Professor Bob Carter believes the IPCC should be abolished.

BOB CARTER, JAMES COOK UNI.: There’s no earthly need for Australia to be going to the United Nations to ask for policy advice on environmental matters.

We have our own scientists and we should consult with them, and CSIRO is clearly one of the cases in point, and CSIRO should certainly be consulted.

However, they’ve been associated closely with the IPCC. They have 40 of their staff advise the IPCC. So, what’s really important is that the policy advice to the Government is contested. It needs due diligence done on it and an independent audit, in a sense.

You must consider many lines of scientific advice. You can’t just take a monopoly advice from one body, be that body the IPCC or CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology.

MARGOT O’NEILL: The next IPCC report on the state of climate change is due in three years.

Err um … who should we be getting to look at this report?  The guy at the supermarket?  My local veterinarian?  Geologists who have nothing published in the peer-reviewed literature?  Who, Bob, who?

Journal Sentinel, Oct. 9, 2010 4:10 p.m.

Recently, 26 highly respected scientists submitted a document to Congress that responded to the testimony of Christopher Monckton before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) is a member of the committee. The report reaffirmed that humans are causing substantial changes to the Earth’s climate.

Why would these scientists take the time to submit a lengthy report in response to a single congressional witness? The answer is that by inviting Monckton to testify, Sensenbrenner – making the invitation on behalf of the minority party on the committee – made a mockery of the time-honored tradition of inviting expert testimony to inform legislative decisions. Monckton is not distinguished by his scientific credentials (he has none), nor by the many peer-reviewed articles he has written on the subject (he has written none). Nevertheless, he was invited to testify to Congress as an “expert.”

Monckton’s testimony was in sharp disagreement with many major scientific organizations and the vast majority (more than 95%) of climate scientists. What does Monckton know that climate scientists don’t? The answer is not much. In fact, the report outlined nine key errors of Monckton’s testimony in stark detail. From start to finish, Monckton’s misunderstanding of even basic scientific principles was evident.

Witnesses should not be invited based on ideology; invitations should be based on the quality of their scientific work. Monckton’s appearance in the halls of Congress is an embarrassment to our Congress and our nation.

Unfortunately, Sensenbrenner and a number of his colleagues have a history of ignoring scientists with relevant backgrounds in favor of easily debunked pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. On Dec. 4, 2009, for example, Sensenbrenner stated that scientists “found a trick to hide the decline in temperature data.”

Later, Sensenbrenner read the text from the supposed “offending” e-mail. The text did not indicate that scientists hid a “decline in temperature data” as Sensenbrenner suggested. In fact, the e-mail was written in 1999, on the heels of the warmest temperatures on record. The author of the e-mail was referring to a well-known problem that had been described more than a year earlier – that certain tree-ring records do not provide reliable information about temperatures in recent decades.

The e-mail was discussing the fact that recent temperatures were rising faster than those tree rings suggested.

There is a larger point that goes to the heart of what it means to have a truly honest discussion of the science. By focusing on, and misrepresenting, a single phrase cherry-picked from one of thousands of stolen e-mails, Sensenbrenner conveniently avoided acknowledging the subsequent body of work by the scientific community over the past decade, including a thorough review of climate research that allow temperatures to be known many centuries back in time.

That review, conducted by a board of the National Academy of Sciences, completely vindicated the work alluded to in the aforementioned 10-year-old e-mail. It establishes that the rise in global temperatures over the past century is unprecedented for at least the past thousand years and likely far longer. Such findings are just one small part of a much larger and compelling body of evidence that humans are causing the climate to change in ways that are dangerous to future generations.

The issue of climate change has become so politicized that no substantial action has been possible. Meanwhile, the Earth is rushing toward a point of no return.

We believe that people on both sides of the political spectrum need to act quickly, and together, in order to take effective action. Conservatives must realize that denial of scientific results that do not conform to ideological or political positions should not be a litmus test for their representatives. They also need to realize that the science behind climate change is well-established among the real scientists. Continued denial of climate science likely will become a political liability in the near future.

Liberals must recognize that many of their conservative counterparts have deep-seated, and in many cases, well-reasoned fears about regulation-based solutions. They also must realize that not all conservatives are anti-science and anti-environment. The discussion we need to have is, “What is the best way to move forward?”

Ray Weymann is from Carnegie Observatory and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. John Abraham is from University of St. Thomas. Barry Bickmore is from Brigham Young University. Michael Mann is from Penn State University. Winslow Briggs is from Carnegie Institute for Science and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.