Oceans have acidified more in the last 200 years than they did in the previous 21000

[RollingThunder]

More research has come out highlighting the dangers of global warming's evil twin, ocean acidification. The health of the oceans is at severe risk from pollution and overfishing already so the damage from the accumulating acidification threatens the whole marine ecology which in turn threatens a significant part of mankind's food sources.

Oceans have acidified more in the last 200 years than they did in the previous 21,000 years
Daily Mail
23rd January 2012
(excerpts)

Man-made carbon emissions have acidified the world's oceans far beyond their natural levels, new research suggests. In some regions, acidity levels rose faster in the last two centuries than it did in the previous 21,000 years, a study from the University of Hawaii has shown. Ocean acidity makes it harder for organisms such as molluscs and coral to construct the protective layers they need to survive.'

 

[skookerasbil]

meh..........

nobody cares

 

[Mr. H.]

That's quite acidificationistic.

 

[RollingThunder]

meh..........

nobody cares

To be more exact, nobody at your pathetic level of retardation cares. The intelligent people of the Earth care quite a bit, but you would, of course, know nothing about that, kookster.

 

[konradv]

meh..........

nobody cares

For something no one cares about, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about it! Why would that be? Brother getting paid?

 

[westwall]

Big deal. If every carbon bearing rock on the planet were burned it would lower the pH of the oceans from 8.1 to 8.0. And looky here, even wiki has to admit that acidification in the local areas probably won't be a problem because...wait for it....

"In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]"


So in one sentence they claim that acidified water will certainly kill everything, then in the next sentence they say..."well when we try and simulate the water we find that the little bastards actually become tougher (DAMN THEM!) and we find no evidence of acidified water actually killing anything (DAMN IT ALL TO HECK!)

Which isn't surprising when one considers that the corals that will supposedly die out with the massive acidification actually evolved when the CO2 levels were 20X higher then now.

More of those pesky facts you can't seem to figure out how to deal with.

Poor little silly people.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

 

[IanC]

ocean neutralization (not acidification) is yet another boogey man dreamed up by the CAGW crowd. the differences in pH that they are talking about are tiny and absolutely swamped by the natural variation in pH.

 

[RollingThunder]

Big deal. If every carbon bearing rock on the planet were burned it would lower the pH of the oceans from 8.1 to 8.0.

An even bigger lie than usual for you, walleyed, and complete nonsense too, of course. You are so clueless, it sets people's teeth on edge.

And looky here, even wiki has to admit that acidification in the local areas probably won't be a problem

In your deluded dreams, you pathetic retard.

because...wait for it....

"In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]"

So in one sentence they claim that acidified water will certainly kill everything,

No they don't, you lying dimwit. 'They' talk about "a profound negative effect on corals", and then mention that the effect on a certain type of phytoplankton that form calcium plates, coccolithophores, may be more ambiguous and less well understood at present.

then in the next sentence they say..."well when we try and simulate the water we find that the little bastards actually become tougher (DAMN THEM!) and we find no evidence of acidified water actually killing anything (DAMN IT ALL TO HECK!)

LOLOLOL....total fantasy projection of your own insanity that bears no resemblance to what was actually said. In fact, the scientists have found that ocean acidification is having a profoundly negative influence on many marine life forms that form shells. They specifically mention the negative effect on corals in the piece you quote here but you're too ignorant (and too lazy to check) to know that corals are a different life form from "calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores".

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.


How will ocean acidification affect marine life?
(excerpts)

Corals, calcareous phytoplankton, mussels, snails, sea urchins and other marine organisms use calcium (Ca) and carbonate (CO3) in seawater to construct their calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells or skeletons. As the pH decreases, carbonate becomes less available, which makes it more difficult for organisms to secrete CaCO3 to form their skeletal material. For animals in general, including invertebrates and some fish, CO2 accumulation and lowered pH may result in acidosis, or a build up of carbonic acid in the organism's body fluids. This can lead to lowered immune response, metabolic depression, behavioural depression affecting physical activity and reproduction, and asphyxiation. Since the oceans have never experienced such a rapid acidification, it is not clear if ecosystems have the ability to adapt to these changes (1,2). Effects of ocean acidification on organisms and ecosystems are still poorly understood. Over the last few years, research has intensified significantly to fill the many knowledge gaps.

Corals?

Nearly 500 million people depend on healthy coral reefs for sustenance, coastal protection, renewable resources, and tourism, with an estimated 30 million of the world's poorest people depending entirely on the reefs for food (3).

Coral reefs face two challenges from increasing atmospheric CO2. First, higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are linked to warmer global temperatures, which in turn lead to warmer water temperatures. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change: a 1–2º C change in local temperature above their normal summer maximum can lead to a phenomenon called ‘bleaching’, whereby the corals expel their vital algal symbionts (algae which live in the cells of the coral), leaving the coral tissues translucent. In 1998, a single bleaching event led to the loss of almost 20% of the world’s living coral. Corals can recover from these events but repeated episodes are likely to weaken the coral ecosystem, making them more susceptible to disease and causing a loss of biodiversity. The second challenge faced by corals is the increasing acidity of the water caused by higher CO2 concentrations (4). Lowered calcification rates affect the reef ’s ability to grow its carbonate skeleton, leading to slower growth of the reef and a more fragile structural support, which makes it more vulnerable to erosion. By the middle of this century, the estimated reduction in calcification rates may lead to more reef area erosion than can be rebuilt through new calcification (5).

 

[newpolitics]

This is terrible. We are messing our planet, and denying it to ourselves. Is it pathetic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Messing it up big time, and people like Walleyes are cheering for the messing.

 

[Warrior102]

meh..........

nobody cares

To be more exact, nobody at your pathetic level of retardation cares. The intelligent people of the Earth care quite a bit, but you would, of course, know nothing about that, kookster.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k]Lighten Up Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

Messing it up big time, and people like Walleyes are cheering for the messing.

You're so full of crap oldie. You cause more environmental damage in a week then I have in my whole life you fraud. I have cleaned up more environmental damage then all of you frauds will ever clean up together in your entire pathetic lives. You talk a good deal but you don't do shit.

 

[westwall]

Big deal. If every carbon bearing rock on the planet were burned it would lower the pH of the oceans from 8.1 to 8.0.

An even bigger lie than usual for you, walleyed, and complete nonsense too, of course. You are so clueless, it sets people's teeth on edge.

And looky here, even wiki has to admit that acidification in the local areas probably won't be a problem

In your deluded dreams, you pathetic retard.

because...wait for it....

"In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]"

So in one sentence they claim that acidified water will certainly kill everything,

No they don't, you lying dimwit. 'They' talk about "a profound negative effect on corals", and then mention that the effect on a certain type of phytoplankton that form calcium plates, coccolithophores, may be more ambiguous and less well understood at present.

then in the next sentence they say..."well when we try and simulate the water we find that the little bastards actually become tougher (DAMN THEM!) and we find no evidence of acidified water actually killing anything (DAMN IT ALL TO HECK!)

LOLOLOL....total fantasy projection of your own insanity that bears no resemblance to what was actually said. In fact, the scientists have found that ocean acidification is having a profoundly negative influence on many marine life forms that form shells. They specifically mention the negative effect on corals in the piece you quote here but you're too ignorant (and too lazy to check) to know that corals are a different life form from "calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores".

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.


How will ocean acidification affect marine life?
(excerpts)

Corals, calcareous phytoplankton, mussels, snails, sea urchins and other marine organisms use calcium (Ca) and carbonate (CO3) in seawater to construct their calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells or skeletons. As the pH decreases, carbonate becomes less available, which makes it more difficult for organisms to secrete CaCO3 to form their skeletal material. For animals in general, including invertebrates and some fish, CO2 accumulation and lowered pH may result in acidosis, or a build up of carbonic acid in the organism's body fluids. This can lead to lowered immune response, metabolic depression, behavioural depression affecting physical activity and reproduction, and asphyxiation. Since the oceans have never experienced such a rapid acidification, it is not clear if ecosystems have the ability to adapt to these changes (1,2). Effects of ocean acidification on organisms and ecosystems are still poorly understood. Over the last few years, research has intensified significantly to fill the many knowledge gaps.

Corals?

Nearly 500 million people depend on healthy coral reefs for sustenance, coastal protection, renewable resources, and tourism, with an estimated 30 million of the world's poorest people depending entirely on the reefs for food (3).

Coral reefs face two challenges from increasing atmospheric CO2. First, higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are linked to warmer global temperatures, which in turn lead to warmer water temperatures. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change: a 1–2º C change in local temperature above their normal summer maximum can lead to a phenomenon called ‘bleaching’, whereby the corals expel their vital algal symbionts (algae which live in the cells of the coral), leaving the coral tissues translucent. In 1998, a single bleaching event led to the loss of almost 20% of the world’s living coral. Corals can recover from these events but repeated episodes are likely to weaken the coral ecosystem, making them more susceptible to disease and causing a loss of biodiversity. The second challenge faced by corals is the increasing acidity of the water caused by higher CO2 concentrations (4). Lowered calcification rates affect the reef ’s ability to grow its carbonate skeleton, leading to slower growth of the reef and a more fragile structural support, which makes it more vulnerable to erosion. By the middle of this century, the estimated reduction in calcification rates may lead to more reef area erosion than can be rebuilt through new calcification (5).

Question...Did the corrals evolve when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was 20 times higher then it is today?

 

[RollingThunder]

Big deal. If every carbon bearing rock on the planet were burned it would lower the pH of the oceans from 8.1 to 8.0.

An even bigger lie than usual for you, walleyed, and complete nonsense too, of course. You are so clueless, it sets people's teeth on edge.

In your deluded dreams, you pathetic retard.

No they don't, you lying dimwit. 'They' talk about "a profound negative effect on corals", and then mention that the effect on a certain type of phytoplankton that form calcium plates, coccolithophores, may be more ambiguous and less well understood at present.

then in the next sentence they say..."well when we try and simulate the water we find that the little bastards actually become tougher (DAMN THEM!) and we find no evidence of acidified water actually killing anything (DAMN IT ALL TO HECK!)

LOLOLOL....total fantasy projection of your own insanity that bears no resemblance to what was actually said. In fact, the scientists have found that ocean acidification is having a profoundly negative influence on many marine life forms that form shells. They specifically mention the negative effect on corals in the piece you quote here but you're too ignorant (and too lazy to check) to know that corals are a different life form from "calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores".

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.


How will ocean acidification affect marine life?
(excerpts)

Corals, calcareous phytoplankton, mussels, snails, sea urchins and other marine organisms use calcium (Ca) and carbonate (CO3) in seawater to construct their calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells or skeletons. As the pH decreases, carbonate becomes less available, which makes it more difficult for organisms to secrete CaCO3 to form their skeletal material. For animals in general, including invertebrates and some fish, CO2 accumulation and lowered pH may result in acidosis, or a build up of carbonic acid in the organism's body fluids. This can lead to lowered immune response, metabolic depression, behavioural depression affecting physical activity and reproduction, and asphyxiation. Since the oceans have never experienced such a rapid acidification, it is not clear if ecosystems have the ability to adapt to these changes (1,2). Effects of ocean acidification on organisms and ecosystems are still poorly understood. Over the last few years, research has intensified significantly to fill the many knowledge gaps.

Corals?

Nearly 500 million people depend on healthy coral reefs for sustenance, coastal protection, renewable resources, and tourism, with an estimated 30 million of the world's poorest people depending entirely on the reefs for food (3).

Coral reefs face two challenges from increasing atmospheric CO2. First, higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are linked to warmer global temperatures, which in turn lead to warmer water temperatures. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change: a 1–2º C change in local temperature above their normal summer maximum can lead to a phenomenon called ‘bleaching’, whereby the corals expel their vital algal symbionts (algae which live in the cells of the coral), leaving the coral tissues translucent. In 1998, a single bleaching event led to the loss of almost 20% of the world’s living coral. Corals can recover from these events but repeated episodes are likely to weaken the coral ecosystem, making them more susceptible to disease and causing a loss of biodiversity. The second challenge faced by corals is the increasing acidity of the water caused by higher CO2 concentrations (4). Lowered calcification rates affect the reef ’s ability to grow its carbonate skeleton, leading to slower growth of the reef and a more fragile structural support, which makes it more vulnerable to erosion. By the middle of this century, the estimated reduction in calcification rates may lead to more reef area erosion than can be rebuilt through new calcification (5).

Question...Did the corrals evolve when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was 20 times higher then it is today?

Answer....No

Your ignorance combined with that aggressive Dunning-Kruger Effect thing you got going is so funny sometimes. Here you are trying to debate topics that you know nothing about - biology, the history of life on Earth and evolution - and, as usual, you are making a fool out of yourself.

Since the time you mention 500 million years ago when CO2 levels were 20 times higher than today, there have been a number of great extinctions and in some of those, coral reef type organisms went completely extinct. In each case, it took millions of years for similar 'coral' organisms to re-evolve and for coral reefs to reappear in the world's oceans. The currently existing marine organisms that we call 'coral' actually "evolved" very slowly over many millions of years to be adapted to current conditions in the oceans and they may not survive the very rapid changes in conditions that mankind is producing by pumping the atmosphere full of a potent greenhouse gas, CO2, which is raising ocean temperatures and increasing acidification.


Earth's five mass extinction events
15 April 2010
(excerpts)

As climate changes, a major question is whether nature can adapt to the changing conditions? The answer lies in the past. Throughout Earth's history, there have been periods where climate changed dramatically. The response was mass extinction events, when many species went extinct followed by a very slow recovery. The history of coral reefs gives us an insight into the nature of these events as reefs are so enduring and the fossil record of corals is relatively well known (Veron 2008). What we find is reefs were particularly impacted in mass extinctions, taking many millions of years to recover. These intervals are known as "reef gaps".

Figure 1: Timeline of mass extinction events. The five named vertical bars indicate mass extinction events. Black rectangles (drawn to scale) represent global reef gaps and brick-pattern shapes show times of prolific reef growth (Veron 2008).

What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt. So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.

 

[bripat9643]

More research has come out highlighting the dangers of global warming's evil twin, ocean acidification. The health of the oceans is at severe risk from pollution and overfishing already so the damage from the accumulating acidification threatens the whole marine ecology which in turn threatens a significant part of mankind's food sources.

Daily Mail
23rd January 2012
(excerpts)

Man-made carbon emissions have acidified the world's oceans far beyond their natural levels, new research suggests. In some regions, acidity levels rose faster in the last two centuries than it did in the previous 21,000 years, a study from the University of Hawaii has shown. Ocean acidity makes it harder for organisms such as molluscs and coral to construct the protective layers they need to survive.'

Your post is just more warmist scaremongering.

Ocean Acidification — a little bit less alkalinity could be a good thing

In Brief: The oceans are not acidic, and will not become acidic in the foreseeable future. Many of the fears and alarming scenarios are based on models. Many scary headlines are based on studies of extreme pH values beyond the range of anything realistic.

Incredibly, hundreds of studies show that for pH changes that we are likely to encounter in the next 100 years, there is arguably a net benefit to underwater life if the oceans became a little less alkaline.

Alarming fears about unrealistic ocean pH’s

“Some ocean pH’s studied were so extreme they are only seen on Star Trek”

Studies of how marine life copes with less alkaline conditions include many experiments with water at pH values in a range beyond anything that is likely on planet Earth — they go beyond the bounds of what’s possible. There are estimates that the pH of the ocean has shifted about 0.1 pH unit in the last 200 years, yet some studies consider the effects of water that is shifted by 2 or even 4 entire pH units. Four pH units means 10,000 fold change in the concentration of hydrogen ions). That’s a shift so large, it’s not going to occur in the next few thousand years, even under the worst of the worst case scenarios by the most sadistic models. Indeed, it’s virtually impossible for CO2 levels to rise high enough to effect that kind of change, even if we burned every last fossil, every tree, plant microbe, and vaporized life on earth. (Yet still someone thought it was worth studying what would happen if, hypothetically, that happened. Hmm.)

1103 studies on acidification say there’s no need to panic

CO2 science has an extraordinary data base of 1103 studies of the effects of “acidification” on marine life. They reason that any change beyond 0.5 pH units is “far far beyond the realms of reality” even if you are concerned about coral reefs in the year 2300 (see Tans 2009). Even the IPCC’s highest end “scenario A2″ estimate predicts a peak change in the range of 0.6 units by 2300.

Many of the headlines forecasting “Death to Reefs” come from studies of ocean water at extreme pH’s that will never occur globally, and that are beyond even what the IPCC is forecasting. Some headlines come from studies of hydrothermal vents where CO2 bubbles up from the ocean floor. Not surprisingly they find changes to marine life near the vents, but then, the pH of these areas ranges right down to 2.8. They are an extreme environment, nothing like what we might expect to convert the worlds oceans too.

Marine life, quite happy about a bit more CO2?

Studies of growth, calcification, metabolism, fertility and survival show that, actually, if things were a little less alkaline, on average, marine life would benefit. There will be winners and losers, but on the whole, using those five measures of health, the reefs are more likely to have more life on and around them, than they are to shrink.
Studies of acidification of marine life in oceans calcification, growth, survival,

Figure 12. Percent change in the five measured life characteristics (calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival) vs. decline of seawater pH from its present (control treatment) value to ending values extending up to the beginning pH value of "the warped world of the IPCC" for all individual data points falling within this pH decline range.
How can this be?

First, marine life evolved under conditions were most of the time the world was warmer and had more CO2 in the atmosphere than it does today. Second, like life above the water, life-below-water is based on carbon, and putting more carbon into the water is not necessarily a bad thing. That said, the dots in the graph above represent study results, and the ones below zero tell us there will be some losers, even though there will be more winners (above zer0). Thirdly, watch out for some of the more devastating headlines which also come from studies where researchers changed the pH by tossing hydrochloric acid into the tank. Chlorine, as they say, is not the same as the gas nature breathes — CO2. (The strange thing about the studies with hydrochloric acid, is that it doesn’t seem to be bad as we might have expected– nonetheless, it seems like a dubious practice to use in studying the health of corals.)

The Ocean Acidification Database is housed at CO2 science.

The graph above is just one of many on their results and conclusions page.
The bottom line:

Yes, we should watch and monitor the oceans careful. No, there is no chance the Great Barrier Reef will be gone in the next 100 years: 1103 studies show that if the worlds oceans were slightly less basic then marine life as a whole will be slightly more likely to grow, survive, and be fertile.

That doesn’t mean we should torch coal seams for the fun of it, but it does mean we can afford to hold off on the oceanic panic for a century or so while we figure out how to make solar and wind power work ( in the event that we might need them, and in the event that they might “work”).

 

[westwall]

An even bigger lie than usual for you, walleyed, and complete nonsense too, of course. You are so clueless, it sets people's teeth on edge.

In your deluded dreams, you pathetic retard.

No they don't, you lying dimwit. 'They' talk about "a profound negative effect on corals", and then mention that the effect on a certain type of phytoplankton that form calcium plates, coccolithophores, may be more ambiguous and less well understood at present.





LOLOLOL....total fantasy projection of your own insanity that bears no resemblance to what was actually said. In fact, the scientists have found that ocean acidification is having a profoundly negative influence on many marine life forms that form shells. They specifically mention the negative effect on corals in the piece you quote here but you're too ignorant (and too lazy to check) to know that corals are a different life form from "calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores".

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.


How will ocean acidification affect marine life?
(excerpts)

Corals, calcareous phytoplankton, mussels, snails, sea urchins and other marine organisms use calcium (Ca) and carbonate (CO3) in seawater to construct their calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells or skeletons. As the pH decreases, carbonate becomes less available, which makes it more difficult for organisms to secrete CaCO3 to form their skeletal material. For animals in general, including invertebrates and some fish, CO2 accumulation and lowered pH may result in acidosis, or a build up of carbonic acid in the organism's body fluids. This can lead to lowered immune response, metabolic depression, behavioural depression affecting physical activity and reproduction, and asphyxiation. Since the oceans have never experienced such a rapid acidification, it is not clear if ecosystems have the ability to adapt to these changes (1,2). Effects of ocean acidification on organisms and ecosystems are still poorly understood. Over the last few years, research has intensified significantly to fill the many knowledge gaps.

Corals?

Nearly 500 million people depend on healthy coral reefs for sustenance, coastal protection, renewable resources, and tourism, with an estimated 30 million of the world's poorest people depending entirely on the reefs for food (3).

Coral reefs face two challenges from increasing atmospheric CO2. First, higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are linked to warmer global temperatures, which in turn lead to warmer water temperatures. Corals are very sensitive to temperature change: a 1–2º C change in local temperature above their normal summer maximum can lead to a phenomenon called ‘bleaching’, whereby the corals expel their vital algal symbionts (algae which live in the cells of the coral), leaving the coral tissues translucent. In 1998, a single bleaching event led to the loss of almost 20% of the world’s living coral. Corals can recover from these events but repeated episodes are likely to weaken the coral ecosystem, making them more susceptible to disease and causing a loss of biodiversity. The second challenge faced by corals is the increasing acidity of the water caused by higher CO2 concentrations (4). Lowered calcification rates affect the reef ’s ability to grow its carbonate skeleton, leading to slower growth of the reef and a more fragile structural support, which makes it more vulnerable to erosion. By the middle of this century, the estimated reduction in calcification rates may lead to more reef area erosion than can be rebuilt through new calcification (5).

Question...Did the corrals evolve when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was 20 times higher then it is today?

Answer....No

Your ignorance combined with that aggressive Dunning-Kruger Effect thing you got going is so funny sometimes. Here you are trying to debate topics that you know nothing about - biology, the history of life on Earth and evolution - and, as usual, you are making a fool out of yourself.

Since the time you mention 500 million years ago when CO2 levels were 20 times higher than today, there have been a number of great extinctions and in some of those, coral reef type organisms went completely extinct. In each case, it took millions of years for similar 'coral' organisms to re-evolve and for coral reefs to reappear in the world's oceans. The currently existing marine organisms that we call 'coral' actually "evolved" very slowly over many millions of years to be adapted to current conditions in the oceans and they may not survive the very rapid changes in conditions that mankind is producing by pumping the atmosphere full of a potent greenhouse gas, CO2, which is raising ocean temperatures and increasing acidification.


Earth's five mass extinction events
15 April 2010
(excerpts)

As climate changes, a major question is whether nature can adapt to the changing conditions? The answer lies in the past. Throughout Earth's history, there have been periods where climate changed dramatically. The response was mass extinction events, when many species went extinct followed by a very slow recovery. The history of coral reefs gives us an insight into the nature of these events as reefs are so enduring and the fossil record of corals is relatively well known (Veron 2008). What we find is reefs were particularly impacted in mass extinctions, taking many millions of years to recover. These intervals are known as "reef gaps".

Figure 1: Timeline of mass extinction events. The five named vertical bars indicate mass extinction events. Black rectangles (drawn to scale) represent global reef gaps and brick-pattern shapes show times of prolific reef growth (Veron 2008).

What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt. So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.

Poor delusional liar dingbat blunder, the answer is actually yes they did. Not too mention the fact that Scripps Institutge has recently released a paper that describe ocean acidification as natural and a non existent problem.

I found this interesting though, Bikini Atoll, remember that place? They detonated a big bomb there a few decades ago and you know what...the corrals there are rebounding quite well, this after experiencing a flash temperature of 55,000 degrees and a pressure wave that would flatten buildings for miles around. Turns out those corrals you're so worried about are way tougher then you're whiny sniveling little self.

Fifty years after the atomic blast that devastated the Bikini Atoll, vast expanses of corals in the area seem to be flourishing once again, much to the surprise of scientists.

American government scientists detonated a hydrogen bomb on the tiny island (a part of the Marshall Islands in the western Pacific) on March 1, 1954. Many of the natives were moved to Kili Island and today are compensated by the United States government.

Code-named Castle Bravo, the nuclear bomb was the most powerful ever exploded at the time, at 15 megatons, making it 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II. The massive explosion vaporized everything on three islands, raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees and left a crater that was 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) wide and 240 feet (73 meters) deep.


Bikini Atoll Corals Recovering from Atomic Blast | LiveScience

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says ocean gonna turn acidy an' burn a hole clean through to China - is called the China Syndrome...

Study: Ocean Acidity Exceeds Natural Norms
January 25, 2012 - Rapidly rising CO2 emissions change ocean chemistry

New research suggests an overload of carbon dioxide in the oceans is posing a serious threat to marine life, food security and tourism. While most CO2 emissions from automobiles, buildings and factories go into the atmosphere, one-third ends up in the oceans, changing ocean chemistry and making seawater more acid. A study in Nature Climate Change tracks ocean acidity over 21,000 years of climate history. Tobias Friedrich, co-author and post-doctoral fellow at the University of Hawaii International Pacific Research Center says the record shows natural increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over time and differences from region to region. “This, of course, also had an effect on acidity levels in the ocean, and then (we) compared this naturally occurring increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations with man-man emissions over the last two-hundred years.”

The scientists used computer models with data from ice and ocean sediment cores to simulate ocean conditions, back to the ice age and forward to the end of the 21st century. When Earth started to warm 17,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, atmospheric CO2 began to rise. Over the next 6,000 years, it grew from 190 parts per million to 280 parts per million. Marine systems had time to adjust.

Axel Timmerman is a professor of oceanography at the University of Hawaii International Pacific Research Center and co-author of the study. He says the past 200 years paint a much different picture. “Starting with the pre-industrial revolution, anthropogenic emissions increased so much that the oceans suddenly started to take up huge amounts of carbon.” CO2 concentration in the atmosphere now stands at 392 parts per million. Timmerman says the study, which also includes 30 years of observational data, finds dangerously high levels of ocean acidification in certain regions. “Such as the coral triangle, the western tropic of the Pacific and the Caribbean exceed the naturally occurring levels by factors of up to thirty in a few spots.”

Timmerman says this is happening at an accelerated pace. “The rate of change is about two orders of magnitude faster than what occurred during the last glacial period about 20 to 15,000 years ago.” While ocean acidification could have been detected much earlier, scientists only began to monitor it a few decades ago. As seawater becomes more acid, carbonate - the mineral many sehllfish and corals use to form their shells and skeletons - is reduced. Coupled with pollution and warming temperatures, it is a serious threat to ocean life. Axel Timmerman says his study gives decision-makers another tool for assessing that threat and evaluating the steps they can take to mitigate it.

Source

 

[RollingThunder]

Question...Did the corrals evolve when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was 20 times higher then it is today?

Answer....No

Your ignorance combined with that aggressive Dunning-Kruger Effect thing you got going is so funny sometimes. Here you are trying to debate topics that you know nothing about - biology, the history of life on Earth and evolution - and, as usual, you are making a fool out of yourself.

Since the time you mention 500 million years ago when CO2 levels were 20 times higher than today, there have been a number of great extinctions and in some of those, coral reef type organisms went completely extinct. In each case, it took millions of years for similar 'coral' organisms to re-evolve and for coral reefs to reappear in the world's oceans. The currently existing marine organisms that we call 'coral' actually "evolved" very slowly over many millions of years to be adapted to current conditions in the oceans and they may not survive the very rapid changes in conditions that mankind is producing by pumping the atmosphere full of a potent greenhouse gas, CO2, which is raising ocean temperatures and increasing acidification.


Earth's five mass extinction events
15 April 2010
(excerpts)

As climate changes, a major question is whether nature can adapt to the changing conditions? The answer lies in the past. Throughout Earth's history, there have been periods where climate changed dramatically. The response was mass extinction events, when many species went extinct followed by a very slow recovery. The history of coral reefs gives us an insight into the nature of these events as reefs are so enduring and the fossil record of corals is relatively well known (Veron 2008). What we find is reefs were particularly impacted in mass extinctions, taking many millions of years to recover. These intervals are known as "reef gaps".

Figure 1: Timeline of mass extinction events. The five named vertical bars indicate mass extinction events. Black rectangles (drawn to scale) represent global reef gaps and brick-pattern shapes show times of prolific reef growth (Veron 2008).

What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt. So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.

Poor delusional liar dingbat blunder, the answer is actually yes they did.

Too bad you're just too retarded to understand this even when it is explained to you, walleyedretard.

The coral type organisms that evolved in the world as it was a half a billion years ago went extinct. Do you even know what that means?

The current organisms that create coral reefs evolved to fill an empty ecological niche and they have no direct genetic connection with those very ancient coral reef building organizms, other than the genetic similarity that all life on Earth shares. The modern corals are not descended from those ancient 'corals'. Modern corals are evolved and adapted to current conditions and they are indeed severely threatened by these changes that mankind is creating on the Earth, warming oceans and increasing acidification.

Not too mention the fact that Scripps Institutge has recently released a paper that describe ocean acidification as natural and a non existent problem.

That's what your denier cult blogs tell you but it isn't what the scientists at the Scripps Institute actually said at all. Their research indicated that pH levels show more localized variation than expected and they felt that this should be more thoroughly researched so that refuge areas less susceptible to acidification damage might be identified.

From the abstract:
Our data provide a first step toward crystallizing the biophysical link between environmental history of pH exposure and physiological resilience of marine organisms to fluctuations in seawater CO2. Knowledge of this spatial and temporal variation in seawater chemistry allows us to improve the design of OA experiments: we can test organisms with a priori expectations of their tolerance guardrails, based on their natural range of exposure. Such hypothesis-testing will provide a deeper understanding of the effects of OA. Both intuitively simple to understand and powerfully informative, these and similar comparative time series can help guide management efforts to identify areas of marine habitat that can serve as refugia to acidification as well as areas that are particularly vulnerable to future ocean change.

I found this interesting though, Bikini Atoll, remember that place? They detonated a big bomb there a few decades ago and you know what...the corrals there are rebounding quite well, this after experiencing a flash temperature of 55,000 degrees and a pressure wave that would flatten buildings for miles around. Turns out those corrals you're so worried about are way tougher then(sic) you're(sic) whiny sniveling little self.

Fifty years after the atomic blast that devastated the Bikini Atoll, vast expanses of corals in the area seem to be flourishing once again, much to the surprise of scientists.

American government scientists detonated a hydrogen bomb on the tiny island (a part of the Marshall Islands in the western Pacific) on March 1, 1954. Many of the natives were moved to Kili Island and today are compensated by the United States government.

Code-named Castle Bravo, the nuclear bomb was the most powerful ever exploded at the time, at 15 megatons, making it 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II. The massive explosion vaporized everything on three islands, raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees and left a crater that was 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) wide and 240 feet (73 meters) deep.

If ever anyone wanted any proof of your retardation, this bit here would suffice.

World wide extinction events mean that all of the coral died off and it took literally millions of years for a replacement organism to evolve to fill that ecological niche. Whereas one bomb blast may destroy the local life in the area of the blast but after a very little time the surrounding and surviving life forms in the vast ocean re-colonize the area and fill in the hole the bomb blasted in the local ecology. But you 'think', in your own peculiar retarded and misspelled way, that that coral recovery means that: "those corrals you're so worried about are way tougher then(sic) you're(sic) whiny sniveling little self." LOLOL...you are such a complete flaming retard, walleyed, it's pathetic....

 

[skookerasbil]

Answer....No

Your ignorance combined with that aggressive Dunning-Kruger Effect thing you got going is so funny sometimes. Here you are trying to debate topics that you know nothing about - biology, the history of life on Earth and evolution - and, as usual, you are making a fool out of yourself.

Since the time you mention 500 million years ago when CO2 levels were 20 times higher than today, there have been a number of great extinctions and in some of those, coral reef type organisms went completely extinct. In each case, it took millions of years for similar 'coral' organisms to re-evolve and for coral reefs to reappear in the world's oceans. The currently existing marine organisms that we call 'coral' actually "evolved" very slowly over many millions of years to be adapted to current conditions in the oceans and they may not survive the very rapid changes in conditions that mankind is producing by pumping the atmosphere full of a potent greenhouse gas, CO2, which is raising ocean temperatures and increasing acidification.


Earth's five mass extinction events
15 April 2010
(excerpts)

As climate changes, a major question is whether nature can adapt to the changing conditions? The answer lies in the past. Throughout Earth's history, there have been periods where climate changed dramatically. The response was mass extinction events, when many species went extinct followed by a very slow recovery. The history of coral reefs gives us an insight into the nature of these events as reefs are so enduring and the fossil record of corals is relatively well known (Veron 2008). What we find is reefs were particularly impacted in mass extinctions, taking many millions of years to recover. These intervals are known as "reef gaps".

Figure 1: Timeline of mass extinction events. The five named vertical bars indicate mass extinction events. Black rectangles (drawn to scale) represent global reef gaps and brick-pattern shapes show times of prolific reef growth (Veron 2008).

What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt. So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.

Poor delusional liar dingbat blunder, the answer is actually yes they did.

Too bad you're just too retarded to understand this even when it is explained to you, walleyedretard.

The coral type organisms that evolved in the world as it was a half a billion years ago went extinct. Do you even know what that means?

The current organisms that create coral reefs evolved to fill an empty ecological niche and they have no direct genetic connection with those very ancient coral reef building organizms, other than the genetic similarity that all life on Earth shares. The modern corals are not descended from those ancient 'corals'. Modern corals are evolved and adapted to current conditions and they are indeed severely threatened by these changes that mankind is creating on the Earth, warming oceans and increasing acidification.

Not too mention the fact that Scripps Institutge has recently released a paper that describe ocean acidification as natural and a non existent problem.

That's what your denier cult blogs tell you but it isn't what the scientists at the Scripps Institute actually said at all. Their research indicated that pH levels show more localized variation than expected and they felt that this should be more thoroughly researched so that refuge areas less susceptible to acidification damage might be identified.

From the abstract:
Our data provide a first step toward crystallizing the biophysical link between environmental history of pH exposure and physiological resilience of marine organisms to fluctuations in seawater CO2. Knowledge of this spatial and temporal variation in seawater chemistry allows us to improve the design of OA experiments: we can test organisms with a priori expectations of their tolerance guardrails, based on their natural range of exposure. Such hypothesis-testing will provide a deeper understanding of the effects of OA. Both intuitively simple to understand and powerfully informative, these and similar comparative time series can help guide management efforts to identify areas of marine habitat that can serve as refugia to acidification as well as areas that are particularly vulnerable to future ocean change.

I found this interesting though, Bikini Atoll, remember that place? They detonated a big bomb there a few decades ago and you know what...the corrals there are rebounding quite well, this after experiencing a flash temperature of 55,000 degrees and a pressure wave that would flatten buildings for miles around. Turns out those corrals you're so worried about are way tougher then(sic) you're(sic) whiny sniveling little self.

Fifty years after the atomic blast that devastated the Bikini Atoll, vast expanses of corals in the area seem to be flourishing once again, much to the surprise of scientists.

American government scientists detonated a hydrogen bomb on the tiny island (a part of the Marshall Islands in the western Pacific) on March 1, 1954. Many of the natives were moved to Kili Island and today are compensated by the United States government.

Code-named Castle Bravo, the nuclear bomb was the most powerful ever exploded at the time, at 15 megatons, making it 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II. The massive explosion vaporized everything on three islands, raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees and left a crater that was 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) wide and 240 feet (73 meters) deep.

If ever anyone wanted any proof of your retardation, this bit here would suffice.

World wide extinction events mean that all of the coral died off and it took literally millions of years for a replacement organism to evolve to fill that ecological niche. Whereas one bomb blast may destroy the local life in the area of the blast but after a very little time the surrounding and surviving life forms in the vast ocean re-colonize the area and fill in the hole the bomb blasted in the local ecology. But you 'think', in your own peculiar retarded and misspelled way, that that coral recovery means that: "those corrals you're so worried about are way tougher then(sic) you're(sic) whiny sniveling little self." LOLOL...you are such a complete flaming retard, walleyed, it's pathetic....

Three months s0n!!!! Still not a single link showing us how the science "consensus" is mattering!!!

 

[westwall]

Answer....No

Your ignorance combined with that aggressive Dunning-Kruger Effect thing you got going is so funny sometimes. Here you are trying to debate topics that you know nothing about - biology, the history of life on Earth and evolution - and, as usual, you are making a fool out of yourself.

Since the time you mention 500 million years ago when CO2 levels were 20 times higher than today, there have been a number of great extinctions and in some of those, coral reef type organisms went completely extinct. In each case, it took millions of years for similar 'coral' organisms to re-evolve and for coral reefs to reappear in the world's oceans. The currently existing marine organisms that we call 'coral' actually "evolved" very slowly over many millions of years to be adapted to current conditions in the oceans and they may not survive the very rapid changes in conditions that mankind is producing by pumping the atmosphere full of a potent greenhouse gas, CO2, which is raising ocean temperatures and increasing acidification.


Earth's five mass extinction events
15 April 2010
(excerpts)

As climate changes, a major question is whether nature can adapt to the changing conditions? The answer lies in the past. Throughout Earth's history, there have been periods where climate changed dramatically. The response was mass extinction events, when many species went extinct followed by a very slow recovery. The history of coral reefs gives us an insight into the nature of these events as reefs are so enduring and the fossil record of corals is relatively well known (Veron 2008). What we find is reefs were particularly impacted in mass extinctions, taking many millions of years to recover. These intervals are known as "reef gaps".

Figure 1: Timeline of mass extinction events. The five named vertical bars indicate mass extinction events. Black rectangles (drawn to scale) represent global reef gaps and brick-pattern shapes show times of prolific reef growth (Veron 2008).

What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt. So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.

Poor delusional liar dingbat blunder, the answer is actually yes they did.

Too bad you're just too retarded to understand this even when it is explained to you, walleyedretard.

The coral type organisms that evolved in the world as it was a half a billion years ago went extinct. Do you even know what that means?

The current organisms that create coral reefs evolved to fill an empty ecological niche and they have no direct genetic connection with those very ancient coral reef building organizms, other than the genetic similarity that all life on Earth shares. The modern corals are not descended from those ancient 'corals'. Modern corals are evolved and adapted to current conditions and they are indeed severely threatened by these changes that mankind is creating on the Earth, warming oceans and increasing acidification.

Not too mention the fact that Scripps Institutge has recently released a paper that describe ocean acidification as natural and a non existent problem.

That's what your denier cult blogs tell you but it isn't what the scientists at the Scripps Institute actually said at all. Their research indicated that pH levels show more localized variation than expected and they felt that this should be more thoroughly researched so that refuge areas less susceptible to acidification damage might be identified.

From the abstract:
Our data provide a first step toward crystallizing the biophysical link between environmental history of pH exposure and physiological resilience of marine organisms to fluctuations in seawater CO2. Knowledge of this spatial and temporal variation in seawater chemistry allows us to improve the design of OA experiments: we can test organisms with a priori expectations of their tolerance guardrails, based on their natural range of exposure. Such hypothesis-testing will provide a deeper understanding of the effects of OA. Both intuitively simple to understand and powerfully informative, these and similar comparative time series can help guide management efforts to identify areas of marine habitat that can serve as refugia to acidification as well as areas that are particularly vulnerable to future ocean change.

I found this interesting though, Bikini Atoll, remember that place? They detonated a big bomb there a few decades ago and you know what...the corrals there are rebounding quite well, this after experiencing a flash temperature of 55,000 degrees and a pressure wave that would flatten buildings for miles around. Turns out those corrals you're so worried about are way tougher then(sic) you're(sic) whiny sniveling little self.

Fifty years after the atomic blast that devastated the Bikini Atoll, vast expanses of corals in the area seem to be flourishing once again, much to the surprise of scientists.

American government scientists detonated a hydrogen bomb on the tiny island (a part of the Marshall Islands in the western Pacific) on March 1, 1954. Many of the natives were moved to Kili Island and today are compensated by the United States government.

Code-named Castle Bravo, the nuclear bomb was the most powerful ever exploded at the time, at 15 megatons, making it 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II. The massive explosion vaporized everything on three islands, raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees and left a crater that was 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) wide and 240 feet (73 meters) deep.

If ever anyone wanted any proof of your retardation, this bit here would suffice.

World wide extinction events mean that all of the coral died off and it took literally millions of years for a replacement organism to evolve to fill that ecological niche. Whereas one bomb blast may destroy the local life in the area of the blast but after a very little time the surrounding and surviving life forms in the vast ocean re-colonize the area and fill in the hole the bomb blasted in the local ecology. But you 'think', in your own peculiar retarded and misspelled way, that that coral recovery means that: "those corrals you're so worried about are way tougher then(sic) you're(sic) whiny sniveling little self." LOLOL...you are such a complete flaming retard, walleyed, it's pathetic....

They went extginct? Really? Actually poor dingbat delusional silly person, the fossil corals from the Cambrian exist but are quite rare (as are MOST fossils from that era, fossil creation is actually quite rare, you'd know that were you educated), they begin to turn up with regularity around the Ordovician through the Silurian period and the dominant type of coral at that time was the Rugose variety.

You are correct that the Rugose variety went extinct at the PT boundary but the Scleractinian variety (which evolved at the same time as the Rugose) was able to fill the niche quite nicely. You really need to learn how to crack a book boyo, wiki isn't detailed enough for the type of knowledge you need to carry on a useful discussion.