The Multiple Impacts of "Ocean Acidification" on a Tropical Coral

[CrusaderFrank]

Experimental exposure to lowered and elevated levels of pCO2 confirms a significant enforcement of the sponges’ bioerosion capacity with increasing pCO2 under more acidic conditions.

You can "expect" whatever the fuck you want; the lab work fails your expectations

This IS lab work you freakin' idiot.

Back in Ignore with you.

Did you read the OP? It Failed your theory

 

[Abraham3]

Experimental exposure to lowered and elevated levels of pCO2 confirms a significant enforcement of the sponges’ bioerosion capacity with increasing pCO2 under more acidic conditions.

You can "expect" whatever the fuck you want; the lab work fails your expectations

This IS lab work you freakin' idiot.

Back in Ignore with you.

Did you read the OP? It Failed your theory

Did you read the TWENTY-SEVEN study links I provided and the multiple studies Old Rocks quoted all saying acidification IS a problem? It's sort of like listening to the 97%.

It's sort of like viewing the world objectively, rationally and by means of valid logic. Y'know? Hmmm... I guess not.

 

[daveman]

We could burn every carbon bearing rock on this planet and the ocean's pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0.

Looking back it's been almost comedic to watch the denier camp swing from argument to argument as each fails to stop the momentum of reality. As we all know and we all know we all know, there are a number of things that cannot be determined without models AND models work with real world measurements and the laws of nature as determined in the labs of the world. The likely future of the world's oceans under varying emissions scenarios is something that requires models.

As to your claim that all the earth's carbon would only lower the ocean's pH a tenth of a point: have you some lab data with which to back up that claim?

The models suck.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ggerated-warming-and-finds-no-statistica.html

 

[Abraham3]

That article did not spend a single word on ocean acidification.

 

[daveman]

That article did not spend a single word on ocean acidification.

Lame.

The models suck. And since the AGW house of cards is built on the models, the whole hypothesis is crap.

 

[Abraham3]

That article did not spend a single word on ocean acidification.

Lame.

The models suck. And since the AGW house of cards is built on the models, the whole hypothesis is crap.

You're freaking incredible. You put up a link to a study (via another thread) that you imply addresses (and REFUTES) the idea of ocean acidification. It doesn't. It doesn't contain a single word regarding ocean acidification. Meanwhile, literally dozens of links have been provided that DO contend and support ocean acidification and detail the harm it IS and WILL cause to the world's marine species.

And you call ME lame?

Allow me to change my assessment. You're not incredible. You're pathetic.

 

[daveman]

That article did not spend a single word on ocean acidification.

Lame.

The models suck. And since the AGW house of cards is built on the models, the whole hypothesis is crap.

You're freaking incredible. You put up a link to a study (via another thread) that you imply addresses (and REFUTES) the idea of ocean acidification. It doesn't. It doesn't contain a single word regarding ocean acidification. Meanwhile, literally dozens of links have been provided that DO contend and support ocean acidification and detail the harm it IS and WILL cause to the world's marine species.

And you call ME lame?

Allow me to change my assessment. You're not incredible. You're pathetic.

Look, it's not my fault you can't follow a conversation. The study in the OP refutes the idea that ocean acidification can harm all species of coral. You mentioned the Holy Grail, the models, so I posted a link showing the models are crap.

And you call ME pathetic?

 

[Old Rocks]

Daveboy is another idiot fruitloop like Frankie boy. When getting his butt kicked, as usual, he changes the subject.

 

[Sallow]

That's why the AGWCult avoids the Lab like Dracula meeting the morning Sun

Yes all the Ocean dead spots are actually a "benefit" of CO2 emissions.

After all, who needs those pesky phytoplankton..

 

[daveman]

Daveboy is another idiot fruitloop like Frankie boy. When getting his butt kicked, as usual, he changes the subject.

Might want to tell that to Abraham3. HE brought up the models. Which suck.

Do you acknowledge Abraham3 is an idiot fruitloop who's getting his butt kicked?

Doubtful. AGW cultists can't acknowledge reality.

 

[daveman]

That's why the AGWCult avoids the Lab like Dracula meeting the morning Sun

Yes all the Ocean dead spots are actually a "benefit" of CO2 emissions.

After all, who needs those pesky phytoplankton..

Really, now. It's not like environmentalists actually care about the environment...or else they wouldn't be insisting on ethanol mandates.

Ethanol responsible for this year's expected record dead zone, researcher says | NOLA.com

 

[rdean]

Republicans and Conservative scientist are probably the most well known in the world by name. Look at Behe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...-internet-gop-conservative-science-sites.html

 

[daveman]

Republicans and Conservative scientist are probably the most well known in the world by name. Look at Behe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...-internet-gop-conservative-science-sites.html

Stop spamming.

 

[flacaltenn]

PLOS ONE: Ocean Acidification Accelerates Reef Bioerosion

Abstract

In the recent discussion how biotic systems may react to ocean acidification caused by the rapid rise in carbon dioxide partial pressure (pCO2) in the marine realm, substantial research is devoted to calcifiers such as stony corals. The antagonistic process – biologically induced carbonate dissolution via bioerosion – has largely been neglected. Unlike skeletal growth, we expect bioerosion by chemical means to be facilitated in a high-CO2 world. This study focuses on one of the most detrimental bioeroders, the sponge Cliona orientalis, which attacks and kills live corals on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Experimental exposure to lowered and elevated levels of pCO2 confirms a significant enforcement of the sponges’ bioerosion capacity with increasing pCO2 under more acidic conditions. Considering the substantial contribution of sponges to carbonate bioerosion, this finding implies that tropical reef ecosystems are facing the combined effects of weakened coral calcification and accelerated bioerosion, resulting in critical pressure on the dynamic balance between biogenic carbonate build-up and degradation.

Zzzzzzz Zzzzzzz snnnorf........ Super sponges on co2..... snzzzzzzzzzzzz

You claim that the AGW "alarmists" don't use sufficient hard science for a critical reviewer such as yourself. Yet, when presented with some, this is your reaction. Very impressive.

Zzxxstt -- Uh -- you talking to me??

The whole "study" confirms NOTHING about CO2 DIRECT impact on biomes.. The impact is limited to the MIGHTY SPONGE PREDATOR -- which MIGHT gain some culinary preparation advantage due to HIGH levels of CO2.. Kill the sponges -- the coral remains unharmed.

And that is the point of the OP article. Everytime attempts are made in the lab to paint a picture of destruction from ocean CO2 on a specie --- they fail miserably..

When this OA issue was FIRST whined about.. I paid attention. Thought it could be the strongest AGW argument for abatement. Then I studied the NATURAL VARIATIONS in PH in these ecosystems. Shellfish that thrive in brackish coastal waters undergo daily, weekly, monthly PH changes of +/-0.3 or more.. Coral reefs can see PH changes during the day of +/-0.2 in PH..

I found MANY PAPERS ADMITTING --- that the NATURAL variations in PH for these biospheres were no well known.. No kidding.

Do the studies. Produce the data. THEN PANIC for crying out loud..

Please go read the 1st page of a thread I posted LAST YEAR --

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5592008-post1.html

And let me know if you think 600ppm is gonna harm the shellfish industry -- MORE than they've harmed themselves..

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1982.html

Abstract

Abstract•
References•
Author information•
Supplementary information

Anthropogenic CO2 emitted to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, causing a progressive increase in ocean inorganic carbon concentrations and resulting in decreased water pH and calcium carbonate saturation. This phenomenon, called ocean acidification, is in addition to the warming effects of CO2 emissions. Ocean acidification has been reported to affect ocean biota, but the severity of this threat to ocean ecosystems (and humans depending on these ecosystems) is poorly understood. Here we evaluate the scale of this threat in the context of widely used representative concentration pathways (RCPs) by analysing the sensitivities of five animal taxa (corals, echinoderms, molluscs, crustaceans and fishes) to a wide range of CO2 concentrations. Corals, echinoderms and molluscs are more sensitive to RCP8.5 (936 ppm in 2100) than are crustaceans. Larval fishes may be even more sensitive than the lower invertebrates, but taxon sensitivity on evolutionary timescales remains obscure. The variety of responses within and between taxa, together with observations in mesocosms and palaeo-analogues, suggest that ocean acidification is a driver for substantial change in ocean ecosystems this century, potentially leading to long-term shifts in species composition.

This is suppose to ALARM ME?? That statement in RED above is all you need to know at the moment.. And it IS where the state of the science currently resides..

What is the daily and seasonal PH change in shallow water reefs NATURALLY?
Why did NOAA find that CO2 concentrations BELOW today's readings did as much damage to oysters as DRACONIAN 1000 and 2000ppm attempts to kill their babies ???

 

[rdean]

Republicans and Conservative scientist are probably the most well known in the world by name. Look at Behe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...-internet-gop-conservative-science-sites.html

Stop spamming.

That's what you say when you couldn't find any either.

 

[daveman]

Republicans and Conservative scientist are probably the most well known in the world by name. Look at Behe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...-internet-gop-conservative-science-sites.html

Stop spamming.

That's what you say when you couldn't find any either.

No, what I said was this Sowell quote:

You ignored it then, you'll ignore it now.

 

[rdean]

Science aside, Republicans think you can pour as much filth into the ocean and into the atmosphere as you want, but "God" will keep it clean.

Others think that "man" can't destroy God's creation. Two words: "Nuclear Bomb".

 

[daveman]

Science aside, Republicans think you can pour as much filth into the ocean and into the atmosphere as you want, but "God" will keep it clean.

Others think that "man" can't destroy God's creation. Two words: "Nuclear Bomb".

When you can think for yourself, then -- and ONLY then -- can you dictate what others think.