Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

If you were either a scientist or a responsible journalist you would know that it is proper to not make absolute claims. You are being intellectually dishonest to make more of their proper use of terminology than is warranted.

name 3 MMGWC predictions from the last 40 years that have actually happened as predicted and not proven to be well within normal climate variability .

Meanwhile I think I will eat some of those bivalve molluscs
Freshly dug to see if their shells are in any weaker than 20 years ago .

Bet they are the same .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

If you were either a scientist or a responsible journalist you would know that it is proper to not make absolute claims. You are being intellectually dishonest to make more of their proper use of terminology than is warranted.

Isn't that what claiming "creatures cannot adapt fast enough" is?????


Of course it is

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This ain't MIT and I didn't want to be typing all day. Let me state in a more responsible way:most of us appreciate that there has been considerable effort, including multiple sources of data, and several rounds of modelling, testing the models, and refining. They've presented a pretty good case for AGW which fingers the CO2 we've added.


If someone is going to claim that yes there is warming but no, there is another significant source of warming that puts the AGW conclusion in doubt... you bloody well better be able to point to that source and show its contribution.

Nothing personal - it’s more a general response to claims such as the “show me” theme but the science is abundant for anyone who actually wants to look beyond the silly alarmist headlines, particularly if they don’t want to know the truth, is like talking to drywall.

Even when given a reference to a freshman level climate science textbook, another guy complained it isn’t on the internet as though anyone actually wanting to learn can’t get a textbook.

I’m not a teacher. The evidence is everywhere and i have neither the time nor inclination to teach children how to think. If you want to believe climate change is entirely dependent on CO2 or that the oceans are becoming acidic, that’s fine with me but please act more responsibly when it comes time to vote.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Isn't that what claiming "creatures cannot adapt fast enough" is?????

Of course it is:

No. The Wikipedia article documents a number of species which are either on the verge of extinction, or have already gone extinct due to climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinc...global_warming

[Nicholson58]

I suggest you hang out on the WUWT site. There is a lot of discussion by the scientists who are not on government payroll. The 95% consensus is totally bogus. Ask chicken little if you like but the world is not ending and the last fifty years of the failed doom prophesy is just that. There is not one single computer model that isn’t grossly wrong based on facts. That means they are scientifically wrong and must be changed or discarded. The only model close is the Russian one. Temperature measuring sites are notoriously now located in urban hot spots such as airport runways, parking lots and near AC exhausts. Beware the agenda.

Ocean pollution is the real curse with fertility so high that Sargassum blooms in mats many feet thick. We couldn’t troll a line most of last year.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you do realize that all of the studies done to show the effects of the change to the Ph of the ocean were done in controlled circumstances and the researchers invariably used hydrochloric acid to speed the process for the sake of " science " however carbonic acid which is what we are actually talking about has a completely different effect on the calcium bond. So all of the results using muratic acid ( low concentration hydrochloric)
will give Squed and incorrect results .

It's so very easy to give scientific counter-examples to the many incorrect assertions you make without citation. To save further embarrassment to yourself you might consider becoming more familiar with words like "sometimes", "could", "maybe", "probably", etc.

Climate helps trees to wax as corals wane

.... US scientists at work on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef report in the journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta that coral growth rates have fallen 40% since the mid-1970s. Jacob Silverman of the Carnegie Institution and Ken Caldeira and others studied a stretch of reef where measurements were first recorded 30 years ago, and made comparisons. They found that the rates of calcification, important in shell and skeletal growth, were 40% lower in 2008 and 2009 than during the same season in 1975 and 1976. This time, the change could be put down not to warming, but to the change in water chemistry. As frequently reported by the Climate News Network, as atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in the oceans, it changes the pH value of the water, making it gradually more acidic, with sometimes serious consequences for some families of fish and shellfish....

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It's so very easy to give scientific counter-examples to the many incorrect assertions you make without citation. To save further embarrassment to yourself you might consider becoming more familiar with words like "sometimes", "could", "maybe", "probably", etc....

And here's some more studies which either use another type of acidifier than hydrochloric acid, or depend directly on observations and modeling.

Ocean acidification is slowing coral reef growth – study

In the first-ever experiment that manipulated seawater chemistry in a natural coral reef community, they used a set of semi-detached lagoons – reef enclosures naturally cut off from the ocean at low tide – to run a sustained experiment in which they altered the chemistry of the immediate seas.

What they found was that when they returned the lagoon’s pH value − a measure of the acidity of water − to the marine alkalinity levels that had been consistent for most of human history, the corals grew with measurably more vigour.

They report in Nature journal that they were able to match levels of pH to a measure of the net calcification (how much calcium they were accumulating) of the community of corals they were examining....

They then added sodium hydroxide to bring the pH closer to what it would have been two centuries ago, based on estimates of what carbon dioxide levels must have been at the time.....

“Our work provides the first strong evidence from experiments on a natural ecosystem that ocean acidification is already slowing coral reef growth,” says the study’s leader, Rebecca Albright, a marine biologist in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, California....

and in another study reported in the same article...

In a second study, published in Nature Communications....

Their results also indicate the complexity of the problem. Corals build their skeletons with a form of calcium carbonate called aragonite, and the change in ocean chemistry is steadily lowering the aragonite saturation state of the reef waters.

However, these levels are not uniform, and the latest study suggests that the corals upstream – that is, to the north and on the ocean edge – could be making the most of the available calcium, while those further inshore and to the south get less, and are therefore increasingly at risk of eventual dissolution.

“In other words, good coral health in the outer reefs, especially in the northern and southern regions, creates less favourable conditions for the mid-lagoon central reefs,” Dr Mongin reports.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

No. The Wikipedia article documents a number of species which are either on the verge of extinction, or have already gone extinct due to climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinc...global_warming

Tsk tsk. Jacko won't like all this quoting of Wikipedia. And for good reason. Aside from the fact that your link documents little, if nothing, of what you are claiming it to be ascribing, you appear to be confusing climate change with habitat change.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Tsk tsk. Jacko won't like all this quoting of Wikipedia. And for good reason. Aside from the fact that your link documents little, if nothing, of what you are claiming it to be ascribing, you appear to be confusing climate change with habitat change.

One of the major characteristics of climate change is that it can create a change in habitat.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

And here's some more studies which either use another type of acidifier than hydrochloric acid, or depend directly on observations and modeling.

Ocean acidification is slowing coral reef growth – study

and in another study reported in the same article...

Cliff notes. Giving wild coral a repetitive acid bath on multiple low tides was observed to slow down their growth rate.


Research $$$ at work.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

One of the major characteristics of climate change is that it can create a change in habitat.

You should read the horseshoe crab link I gave earlier. Then you'd realise you have the tail wagging the dog.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You should read the horseshoe crab link I gave earlier. Then you'd realise you have the tail wagging the dog.

I saw your horseshoe crab link. All it demonstrates is that mankind has come up with multiple ways to screw up nature. It says nothing to disprove the claim that climate change is very hard on certain organisms.

[Nicholson58]

Here,
Follow this for non government run, non agenda Great Barrier Reef discussion on bleaching.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Barrier+reef+bleaching

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Nothing personal - it’s more a general response to claims such as the “show me” theme but the science is abundant for anyone who actually wants to look beyond the silly alarmist headlines, particularly if they don’t want to know the truth, is like talking to drywall.

Even when given a reference to a freshman level climate science textbook, another guy complained it isn’t on the internet as though anyone actually wanting to learn can’t get a textbook.

I’m not a teacher. The evidence is everywhere and i have neither the time nor inclination to teach children how to think. If you want to believe climate change is entirely dependent on CO2 or that the oceans are becoming acidic, that’s fine with me but please act more responsibly when it comes time to vote.

Hummm.. please give a reference to the abundant science you refer to.

The article you referenced, it would be interesting for you to give a one paragraph explanation of what it is about and why it is relevant to this discussion. Did you actually read it?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Here,
Follow this for non government run, non agenda Great Barrier Reef discussion on bleaching.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Barrier+reef+bleaching

Oh, they have an agenda.