how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

You wanna die?


Except for all the evidence that's been presented in hundreds to thousands of research papers.

Yeah, you mean all those papers based on computer models and rushed through pal review? Those papers?

Which ones would those be? Were they written by scientists with names?

Please.....those are pathetic examples of science and when they are exposed to real peer review they get demolished in hours.

You haven't read a single one of them.

No, I've read far too many of the laughable pieces of excrement. It's YOU who havn't read them...or you have no brain...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You need to take a paleo class. Coral EVOLVED when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 20 times higher than the present day.

Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?

When scientists have exposed corals to acidic ocean water (far, far higher than they could ever experience in the real world they have grown thicker shells...surprise surprise.

Did the scientists have names?

Have the corals changed somehow? The last time I checked the critters were the same. Now all of a sudden they can't survive for some dumb ass reason? Can't you read? Do you have no ability to reason? Or are you so fundamentally brainwashed that you have no ability to think?


And here are the cites for you to educate yourself further.

^ a b Kelly, D.C.; Bralower, T.J.; Zachos, J.C. (1998). "Evolutionary consequences of the latest Paleocene thermal maximum for tropical planktonic foraminifera". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 141 (1): 139–161. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(98)00017-0. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ Bralower, T.J. (2002). "Evidence of surface water oligotrophy during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum: Nannofossil assemblage data from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690, Maud Rise, Weddell Sea". Paleoceanography 17 (2): 1023. Bibcode:2002PalOc..17b..13B. doi:10.1029/2001PA000662. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ a b Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. Debora; Halloran, Paul R.; Rickaby, Rosalind E. M.; Hall, Ian R.; Colmenero-Hidalgo, Elena; Gittins, John R.; Green, Darryl R. H.; Tyrrell, Toby; Gibbs, Samantha J.; von Dassow, Peter; Rehm, Eric; Armbrust, E. Virginia; Boessenkool, Karin P. (April 2008). "Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World". Science 320 (5874): 336–40. Bibcode:2008Sci...320..336I. doi:10.1126/science.1154122. PMID 18420926.

Do you expect me to read those papers for you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah, you mean all those papers based on computer models and rushed through pal review? Those papers?

Which ones would those be? Were they written by scientists with names?

Please.....those are pathetic examples of science and when they are exposed to real peer review they get demolished in hours.

You haven't read a single one of them.

No, I've read far too many of the laughable pieces of excrement. It's YOU who havn't read them...or you have no brain...

Name one.

 

[SSDD]

Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?

Coral reefs today don't die in water with a ph of 8 and no amount of our CO2 is ever going to lower the ph of the ocean more than that.

Did the scientists have names?

Of course they do and the routinely find that the models upon which your doomsday cult thrives are dead wrong. For example:

A new paper published in Biogeosciences finds groundwater and porewater are "major sources" of alkalinity to reefs which are not taken into account by computer models of ocean 'acidification'. The authors "suggest that porewater and groundwater fluxes of TA [total alkalinity] should be taken into account in ocean acidification models in order to properly address changing carbonate chemistry within coral reef ecosystems." Note also that studies in the laboratory of the effect of 'acidification' upon various organisms also fail to consider this moderating "major source" of alkalinity.

BG - Abstract - Groundwater and porewater as major sources of alkalinity to a fringing coral reef lagoon (Muri Lagoon, Cook Islands)

A paper published today in Global Change Biology finds that prior papers about the alleged effect of ocean "acidification" on marine organisms are overblown because prior research has failed to consider that organisms can adapt over time to pH changes. According to the authors, "nearly all of this work [on the alleged effects of "acidification"] has focused on the effects of future conditions on modern populations, neglecting the role of adaptation."

Natural variation, and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus - Kelly - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library


Vogt, M., Steinke, M., Turner, S., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Riebesell, U., LeQuere, C. and Liss, P. 2008. Dynamics of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide under different CO2 concentrations during a mesocosm experiment. Biogeosciences 5: 407-419.

What was done
Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on various marine microorganisms and DMS production were studied in nine marine mesocosms maintained within 2-meter-diameter polyethylene bags submerged to a depth of ten meters in a fjord adjacent to the Large-Scale Facilities of the Biological Station of the University of Bergen in Espegrend, Norway. Three of the mesocosms were maintained at ambient levels of CO2 (~375 ppm), three were maintained at levels expected to prevail at the end of the current century (760 ppm or 2x CO2), and three were maintained at levels predicted for the middle of the next century (1150 ppm or 3x CO2), while measurements of numerous ecosystem parameters were made over a period of 24 days.

What was learned
Vogt et al. report that they detected no significant phytoplankton species shifts between treatments, and that "the ecosystem composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction were not significantly affected by CO2 induced effects," citing in support of this statement the work of Riebesell et al. (2007), Riebesell et al. (2008), Egge et al. (2007), Paulino et al. (2007), Larsen et al. (2007), Suffrian et al. (2008) and Carotenuto et al. (2007). In addition, they say that "while DMS stayed elevated in the treatments with elevated CO2, we observed a steep decline in DMS concentration in the treatment with low CO2," i.e., the ambient CO2 treatment.

Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Dinsdale, E.A., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., Pratchett, M.S., Tanner, J.E. and Willis, B.L. 2012. Assembly rules of reef corals are flexible along a steep climatic gradient. Current Biology 22: 736-741.

What was done
To explore this subject in more detail, Hughes et al. applied a "rigorous quantitative approach to examine large-scale spatial variation in the species composition and abundance of corals on mid-shelf reefs along the length of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, a biogeographic region where species richness is high and relatively homogeneous." More specifically, they say they used "a hierarchical, nested sampling design to quantify scale-dependent patterns of coral abundances [for] five regions of the Great Barrier Reef [that they] sampled from north to south, each 250-500 km apart." Altogether, they thus identified and measured a total of 35,428 coral colonies on 33 reefs, categorizing each colony they encountered (including the majority of species that are too rare to analyze individually) into "ecologically relevant groups depending on their physiology, morphology and life history."

What was learned
The seven scientists report that the diverse pool of species they examined along the latitudinal gradient of the Great Barrier Reef "can assemble in markedly different configurations across a wide range of contemporary environments." With respect to temperature, for example, they indicate that "the geographic ranges of 93% of the 416 coral species found on the Great Barrier Reef extend northwards toward the equator (e.g., to Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and/or the Indonesian archipelago)," while "46% are also found in colder conditions further to the south." As for ocean acidification, they state that "globally, ocean surface pH has decreased by 0.1 unit since 1750 due to the uptake of atmospheric CO2, with a smaller 0.06 decline recorded for the tropics," citing Kleypas et al. (2006). In contrast, however, they report that contemporary variation in pH among various reef habitats on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as differences among short-term replicate measurements, span a range of 0.39 unit, from 8.37 to 7.98, citing Gagliano et al. (2010). And they rightfully note that this short-term and habitat-scale variability literally swamps that of latitudinal trends.

Thresher, R.E., Tilbrook, B., Fallon, S., Wilson, N.C. and Adkins, J. 2011. Effects of chronic low carbonate saturation levels on the distribution, growth and skeletal chemistry of deep-sea corals and other seamount megabenthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 442: 87-99.

What was done
"To determine the sensitivity of corals and allied taxa to long-term exposure to very low carbonate concentrations," in the words of Thresher et al., they examined in detail "the depth distribution and life-history characteristics of corals and other shell-forming megabenthos along the slopes of deep-sea seamounts and associated structure in the SW Pacific," where the gradient of water chemistry ranged from super-saturated with respect to aragonite and high-magnesium calcite (HMC) to under-saturated, even with respect to calcite.

What was learned
The five researchers report that they "found little evidence that carbonate under-saturation to at least -30% affected the distribution, skeletal composition, or growth rates of corals and other megabenthos on Tasmanian seamounts." In fact, they found that "both solitary scleractinian corals and colonial gorgonians were abundant at depths well below their respective saturation horizons and appeared healthy," while HMC echinoderms were common to as deep as they sampled (4011 m), in water that was approximately 45% under-saturated. They also report that "for both anthozoan and non-anthozoan taxa, there was no obvious difference in species' maximum observed depths as a function of skeletal mineralogy." In other words, the community "was not obviously shifted towards taxa with either less soluble or no skeletal structure at increasing depth." And in light of these observations, they write that "it is not obvious from our data that carbonate saturation state and skeletal mineralogy have any effect on species' depth distributions to the maximum depth sampled," and they say that they also saw "little evidence of an effect of carbonate under-saturation on growth rates and skeletal features."

Commenting further on their findings, Thresher et al. write that "the observation that the distributions of deep-sea corals are not constrained by carbonate levels below saturation is broadly supported by the literature," noting that "solitary scleractinians have been reported as deep as 6 km (Fautin et al., 2009) and isidid gorgonians as deep as 4 km (Roark et al., 2005)." And they say that their own data also "provide no indication that conditions below saturation per se dictate any overall shifts in community composition."

As for why things were as they observed them to be, the researchers note, as highlighted by Cohen and Holcomb (2009), that one or more cell membranes may envelope the organisms' skeletons, largely isolating the calcification process and its associated chemistry from the bulk seawater, citing the studies of McConnaughey (1989), Adkins et al. (2003) and Cohen and McConnaughey (2003), which phenomenon could presumably protect "the skeleton itself from the threat of low carbonate dissolution." In addition, they note that "calcification is energetically expensive, consuming up to 30% of the coral's available resources, and that normal calcification rates can be sustained in relatively low-carbonate environments under elevated feeding or nutrient regimes," as described in detail by Cohen and Holcomb (2009), stating that the likelihood that "elevated food availability could compensate for the higher costs of calcification in heterotrophic deep-sea species appears plausible."

And it could go on ad nauseum...study after study after study demonstrating that the models that you warmist folks believe in so strongly are simply wrong.

 

[jon_berzerk]

SSDD -

I appreciate that you know more about physics than Stephan Hawking does, but even at the stratospheric heights of your genius is it possible to imagine that the impact of climate change is not some kind of 'Battle of Los Angeles' armageddon, but a very,very gradual increase in temperatures, floods, droughts etc?

Any major loss of human life might not occur for another thousand years - that does not make climate change any more desirable.

If S. Hawking is ignoring what we know happened in the past in order to remain part of the "consensus" then perhaps he isn't as bright as you think he is. Perhaps he is a savant....brilliant in one specific area and a blithering idiot in everything else.

Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die. We are not causing global climate change and there isn't a single shred of observed, measured proof to support those who claim that we are.

high temps low temps

floods or drought

rain or shine

all because of man

--LOL

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?

Coral reefs today don't die in water with a ph of 8 and no amount of our CO2 is ever going to lower the ph of the ocean more than that.

Did the scientists have names?

Of course they do and the routinely find that the models upon which your doomsday cult thrives are dead wrong. For example:



BG - Abstract - Groundwater and porewater as major sources of alkalinity to a fringing coral reef lagoon (Muri Lagoon, Cook Islands)




Natural variation, and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus - Kelly - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library


Vogt, M., Steinke, M., Turner, S., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Riebesell, U., LeQuere, C. and Liss, P. 2008. Dynamics of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide under different CO2 concentrations during a mesocosm experiment. Biogeosciences 5: 407-419.




Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Dinsdale, E.A., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., Pratchett, M.S., Tanner, J.E. and Willis, B.L. 2012. Assembly rules of reef corals are flexible along a steep climatic gradient. Current Biology 22: 736-741.

What was done
To explore this subject in more detail, Hughes et al. applied a "rigorous quantitative approach to examine large-scale spatial variation in the species composition and abundance of corals on mid-shelf reefs along the length of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, a biogeographic region where species richness is high and relatively homogeneous." More specifically, they say they used "a hierarchical, nested sampling design to quantify scale-dependent patterns of coral abundances [for] five regions of the Great Barrier Reef [that they] sampled from north to south, each 250-500 km apart." Altogether, they thus identified and measured a total of 35,428 coral colonies on 33 reefs, categorizing each colony they encountered (including the majority of species that are too rare to analyze individually) into "ecologically relevant groups depending on their physiology, morphology and life history."

What was learned
The seven scientists report that the diverse pool of species they examined along the latitudinal gradient of the Great Barrier Reef "can assemble in markedly different configurations across a wide range of contemporary environments." With respect to temperature, for example, they indicate that "the geographic ranges of 93% of the 416 coral species found on the Great Barrier Reef extend northwards toward the equator (e.g., to Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and/or the Indonesian archipelago)," while "46% are also found in colder conditions further to the south." As for ocean acidification, they state that "globally, ocean surface pH has decreased by 0.1 unit since 1750 due to the uptake of atmospheric CO2, with a smaller 0.06 decline recorded for the tropics," citing Kleypas et al. (2006). In contrast, however, they report that contemporary variation in pH among various reef habitats on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as differences among short-term replicate measurements, span a range of 0.39 unit, from 8.37 to 7.98, citing Gagliano et al. (2010). And they rightfully note that this short-term and habitat-scale variability literally swamps that of latitudinal trends.

Thresher, R.E., Tilbrook, B., Fallon, S., Wilson, N.C. and Adkins, J. 2011. Effects of chronic low carbonate saturation levels on the distribution, growth and skeletal chemistry of deep-sea corals and other seamount megabenthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 442: 87-99.

What was done
"To determine the sensitivity of corals and allied taxa to long-term exposure to very low carbonate concentrations," in the words of Thresher et al., they examined in detail "the depth distribution and life-history characteristics of corals and other shell-forming megabenthos along the slopes of deep-sea seamounts and associated structure in the SW Pacific," where the gradient of water chemistry ranged from super-saturated with respect to aragonite and high-magnesium calcite (HMC) to under-saturated, even with respect to calcite.

What was learned
The five researchers report that they "found little evidence that carbonate under-saturation to at least -30% affected the distribution, skeletal composition, or growth rates of corals and other megabenthos on Tasmanian seamounts." In fact, they found that "both solitary scleractinian corals and colonial gorgonians were abundant at depths well below their respective saturation horizons and appeared healthy," while HMC echinoderms were common to as deep as they sampled (4011 m), in water that was approximately 45% under-saturated. They also report that "for both anthozoan and non-anthozoan taxa, there was no obvious difference in species' maximum observed depths as a function of skeletal mineralogy." In other words, the community "was not obviously shifted towards taxa with either less soluble or no skeletal structure at increasing depth." And in light of these observations, they write that "it is not obvious from our data that carbonate saturation state and skeletal mineralogy have any effect on species' depth distributions to the maximum depth sampled," and they say that they also saw "little evidence of an effect of carbonate under-saturation on growth rates and skeletal features."

Commenting further on their findings, Thresher et al. write that "the observation that the distributions of deep-sea corals are not constrained by carbonate levels below saturation is broadly supported by the literature," noting that "solitary scleractinians have been reported as deep as 6 km (Fautin et al., 2009) and isidid gorgonians as deep as 4 km (Roark et al., 2005)." And they say that their own data also "provide no indication that conditions below saturation per se dictate any overall shifts in community composition."

As for why things were as they observed them to be, the researchers note, as highlighted by Cohen and Holcomb (2009), that one or more cell membranes may envelope the organisms' skeletons, largely isolating the calcification process and its associated chemistry from the bulk seawater, citing the studies of McConnaughey (1989), Adkins et al. (2003) and Cohen and McConnaughey (2003), which phenomenon could presumably protect "the skeleton itself from the threat of low carbonate dissolution." In addition, they note that "calcification is energetically expensive, consuming up to 30% of the coral's available resources, and that normal calcification rates can be sustained in relatively low-carbonate environments under elevated feeding or nutrient regimes," as described in detail by Cohen and Holcomb (2009), stating that the likelihood that "elevated food availability could compensate for the higher costs of calcification in heterotrophic deep-sea species appears plausible."

And it could go on ad nauseum...study after study after study demonstrating that the models that you warmist folks believe in so strongly are simply wrong.

I'm having trouble finding where any of those papers say that the models are "simply wrong".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

SSDD -

I appreciate that you know more about physics than Stephan Hawking does, but even at the stratospheric heights of your genius is it possible to imagine that the impact of climate change is not some kind of 'Battle of Los Angeles' armageddon, but a very,very gradual increase in temperatures, floods, droughts etc?

Any major loss of human life might not occur for another thousand years - that does not make climate change any more desirable.

If S. Hawking is ignoring what we know happened in the past in order to remain part of the "consensus" then perhaps he isn't as bright as you think he is. Perhaps he is a savant....brilliant in one specific area and a blithering idiot in everything else.

Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die. We are not causing global climate change and there isn't a single shred of observed, measured proof to support those who claim that we are.

high temps low temps

floods or drought

rain or shine

all because of man

--LOL

Link?

 

[westwall]

Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?



Did the scientists have names?

Have the corals changed somehow? The last time I checked the critters were the same. Now all of a sudden they can't survive for some dumb ass reason? Can't you read? Do you have no ability to reason? Or are you so fundamentally brainwashed that you have no ability to think?


And here are the cites for you to educate yourself further.

^ a b Kelly, D.C.; Bralower, T.J.; Zachos, J.C. (1998). "Evolutionary consequences of the latest Paleocene thermal maximum for tropical planktonic foraminifera". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 141 (1): 139–161. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(98)00017-0. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ Bralower, T.J. (2002). "Evidence of surface water oligotrophy during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum: Nannofossil assemblage data from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690, Maud Rise, Weddell Sea". Paleoceanography 17 (2): 1023. Bibcode:2002PalOc..17b..13B. doi:10.1029/2001PA000662. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ a b Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. Debora; Halloran, Paul R.; Rickaby, Rosalind E. M.; Hall, Ian R.; Colmenero-Hidalgo, Elena; Gittins, John R.; Green, Darryl R. H.; Tyrrell, Toby; Gibbs, Samantha J.; von Dassow, Peter; Rehm, Eric; Armbrust, E. Virginia; Boessenkool, Karin P. (April 2008). "Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World". Science 320 (5874): 336–40. Bibcode:2008Sci...320..336I. doi:10.1126/science.1154122. PMID 18420926.

Do you expect me to read those papers for you?

I allready read them nimrod. If you're who you claim to be you have access. Go get them and read them.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Have the corals changed somehow? The last time I checked the critters were the same. Now all of a sudden they can't survive for some dumb ass reason? Can't you read? Do you have no ability to reason? Or are you so fundamentally brainwashed that you have no ability to think?


And here are the cites for you to educate yourself further.

^ a b Kelly, D.C.; Bralower, T.J.; Zachos, J.C. (1998). "Evolutionary consequences of the latest Paleocene thermal maximum for tropical planktonic foraminifera". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 141 (1): 139–161. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(98)00017-0. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ Bralower, T.J. (2002). "Evidence of surface water oligotrophy during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum: Nannofossil assemblage data from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690, Maud Rise, Weddell Sea". Paleoceanography 17 (2): 1023. Bibcode:2002PalOc..17b..13B. doi:10.1029/2001PA000662. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ a b Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. Debora; Halloran, Paul R.; Rickaby, Rosalind E. M.; Hall, Ian R.; Colmenero-Hidalgo, Elena; Gittins, John R.; Green, Darryl R. H.; Tyrrell, Toby; Gibbs, Samantha J.; von Dassow, Peter; Rehm, Eric; Armbrust, E. Virginia; Boessenkool, Karin P. (April 2008). "Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World". Science 320 (5874): 336–40. Bibcode:2008Sci...320..336I. doi:10.1126/science.1154122. PMID 18420926.

Do you expect me to read those papers for you?

I allready read them nimrod. If you're who you claim to be you have access. Go get them and read them.

You've got way too much free time on your hands - so you read them and tell me about them.

 

[westwall]

Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?

Coral reefs today don't die in water with a ph of 8 and no amount of our CO2 is ever going to lower the ph of the ocean more than that.




Of course they do and the routinely find that the models upon which your doomsday cult thrives are dead wrong. For example:



BG - Abstract - Groundwater and porewater as major sources of alkalinity to a fringing coral reef lagoon (Muri Lagoon, Cook Islands)




Natural variation, and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus - Kelly - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library


Vogt, M., Steinke, M., Turner, S., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Riebesell, U., LeQuere, C. and Liss, P. 2008. Dynamics of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide under different CO2 concentrations during a mesocosm experiment. Biogeosciences 5: 407-419.




Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Dinsdale, E.A., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., Pratchett, M.S., Tanner, J.E. and Willis, B.L. 2012. Assembly rules of reef corals are flexible along a steep climatic gradient. Current Biology 22: 736-741.




Thresher, R.E., Tilbrook, B., Fallon, S., Wilson, N.C. and Adkins, J. 2011. Effects of chronic low carbonate saturation levels on the distribution, growth and skeletal chemistry of deep-sea corals and other seamount megabenthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 442: 87-99.

What was done
"To determine the sensitivity of corals and allied taxa to long-term exposure to very low carbonate concentrations," in the words of Thresher et al., they examined in detail "the depth distribution and life-history characteristics of corals and other shell-forming megabenthos along the slopes of deep-sea seamounts and associated structure in the SW Pacific," where the gradient of water chemistry ranged from super-saturated with respect to aragonite and high-magnesium calcite (HMC) to under-saturated, even with respect to calcite.

What was learned
The five researchers report that they "found little evidence that carbonate under-saturation to at least -30% affected the distribution, skeletal composition, or growth rates of corals and other megabenthos on Tasmanian seamounts." In fact, they found that "both solitary scleractinian corals and colonial gorgonians were abundant at depths well below their respective saturation horizons and appeared healthy," while HMC echinoderms were common to as deep as they sampled (4011 m), in water that was approximately 45% under-saturated. They also report that "for both anthozoan and non-anthozoan taxa, there was no obvious difference in species' maximum observed depths as a function of skeletal mineralogy." In other words, the community "was not obviously shifted towards taxa with either less soluble or no skeletal structure at increasing depth." And in light of these observations, they write that "it is not obvious from our data that carbonate saturation state and skeletal mineralogy have any effect on species' depth distributions to the maximum depth sampled," and they say that they also saw "little evidence of an effect of carbonate under-saturation on growth rates and skeletal features."

Commenting further on their findings, Thresher et al. write that "the observation that the distributions of deep-sea corals are not constrained by carbonate levels below saturation is broadly supported by the literature," noting that "solitary scleractinians have been reported as deep as 6 km (Fautin et al., 2009) and isidid gorgonians as deep as 4 km (Roark et al., 2005)." And they say that their own data also "provide no indication that conditions below saturation per se dictate any overall shifts in community composition."

As for why things were as they observed them to be, the researchers note, as highlighted by Cohen and Holcomb (2009), that one or more cell membranes may envelope the organisms' skeletons, largely isolating the calcification process and its associated chemistry from the bulk seawater, citing the studies of McConnaughey (1989), Adkins et al. (2003) and Cohen and McConnaughey (2003), which phenomenon could presumably protect "the skeleton itself from the threat of low carbonate dissolution." In addition, they note that "calcification is energetically expensive, consuming up to 30% of the coral's available resources, and that normal calcification rates can be sustained in relatively low-carbonate environments under elevated feeding or nutrient regimes," as described in detail by Cohen and Holcomb (2009), stating that the likelihood that "elevated food availability could compensate for the higher costs of calcification in heterotrophic deep-sea species appears plausible."

And it could go on ad nauseum...study after study after study demonstrating that the models that you warmist folks believe in so strongly are simply wrong.

I'm having trouble finding where any of those papers say that the models are "simply wrong".

Ahhhhh, it is finally clear to me.......you need fear no zombie attack...they only eat brains....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Coral reefs today don't die in water with a ph of 8 and no amount of our CO2 is ever going to lower the ph of the ocean more than that.




Of course they do and the routinely find that the models upon which your doomsday cult thrives are dead wrong. For example:



BG - Abstract - Groundwater and porewater as major sources of alkalinity to a fringing coral reef lagoon (Muri Lagoon, Cook Islands)




Natural variation, and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus - Kelly - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library


Vogt, M., Steinke, M., Turner, S., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Riebesell, U., LeQuere, C. and Liss, P. 2008. Dynamics of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide under different CO2 concentrations during a mesocosm experiment. Biogeosciences 5: 407-419.




Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Dinsdale, E.A., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., Pratchett, M.S., Tanner, J.E. and Willis, B.L. 2012. Assembly rules of reef corals are flexible along a steep climatic gradient. Current Biology 22: 736-741.




Thresher, R.E., Tilbrook, B., Fallon, S., Wilson, N.C. and Adkins, J. 2011. Effects of chronic low carbonate saturation levels on the distribution, growth and skeletal chemistry of deep-sea corals and other seamount megabenthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 442: 87-99.




And it could go on ad nauseum...study after study after study demonstrating that the models that you warmist folks believe in so strongly are simply wrong.

I'm having trouble finding where any of those papers say that the models are "simply wrong".

Ahhhhh, it is finally clear to me.......you need fear no zombie attack...they only eat brains....

You're not making any sense now.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Coral reefs today don't die in water with a ph of 8 and no amount of our CO2 is ever going to lower the ph of the ocean more than that.

Really? So the Great Barrier Reef is NOT dying?

It amazes me that you have the gall to post material on the Great Barrier Reef - and somehow forget to mention coral bleaching and the staggering loss of biodiversity.


Half the Great Barrier Reef's coral has disappeared in the past 27 years and less than a quarter could be left within a decade unless action is taken, a landmark study has found.

A long-term investigation of the reef by scientists at Townsville's Australian Institute of Marine Science found coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and coral bleaching.

"The recent frequency and intensity of mass coral bleaching are of major concern, and are directly attributable to rising atmospheric greenhouse gases," wrote the authors, whose study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...catastrophe-20121002-26vzq.html#ixzz2TEvJE01w


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...catastrophe-20121002-26vzq.html#ixzz2TEuSH8h9




The info on coral bleaching I posted earlier tells us that the leading causes are:

- chemistry changes in water (in particular acidification)
-increased (most commonly), or reduced water temperatures

Coral bleaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it could go on ad nauseum...study after study after study demonstrating that the models that you warmist folks believe in so strongly are simply wrong.

None of them suggest that at all, obviously.

It is very strange for me that someone who claims to have a genius level of scientific knowledge assumes that if factor X causes coral to die, then factor Y cannot.

I totally agree with the material that you present which suggests that bore water or agri-run off are also factors. These factors were also mentioned in the material cited above.

Your reports suggest there are natural variations in pH, and that some species will adapt - how does this rule out climate change?

It doesn't - it merely suggests other factors to consider, both of which are rather obvious, and which most science in the past will certainly have considered.

By all means present material on coral reefs which prove that climate change is not a factor in their destruction.

You won't find any.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

Coral reefs today don't die in water with a ph of 8 and no amount of our CO2 is ever going to lower the ph of the ocean more than that.

Really? So the Great Barrier Reef is NOT dying?

It amazes me that you have the gall to post material on the Great Barrier Reef - and somehow forget to mention coral bleaching and the staggering loss of biodiversity.


Half the Great Barrier Reef's coral has disappeared in the past 27 years and less than a quarter could be left within a decade unless action is taken, a landmark study has found.

A long-term investigation of the reef by scientists at Townsville's Australian Institute of Marine Science found coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and coral bleaching.

"The recent frequency and intensity of mass coral bleaching are of major concern, and are directly attributable to rising atmospheric greenhouse gases," wrote the authors, whose study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read more: Great reef catastrophe


Read more: Great reef catastrophe




The info on coral bleaching I posted earlier tells us that the leading causes are:

- chemistry changes in water (in particular acidification)
-increased (most commonly), or reduced water temperatures

Coral bleaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it could go on ad nauseum...study after study after study demonstrating that the models that you warmist folks believe in so strongly are simply wrong.

None of them suggest that at all, obviously.

It is very strange for me that someone who claims to have a genius level of scientific knowledge assumes that if factor X causes coral to die, then factor Y cannot.

I totally agree with the material that you present which suggests that bore water or agri-run off are also factors. These factors were also mentioned in the material cited above.

Your reports suggest there are natural variations in pH, and that some species will adapt - how does this rule out climate change?

It doesn't - it merely suggests other factors to consider, both of which are rather obvious, and which most science in the past will certainly have considered.

By all means present material on coral reefs which prove that climate change is not a factor in their destruction.

You won't find any.

Maybe not.....

While the news reports present the appearance of scientific precision and certainty, examination of the study itself reveals a number of doubtful assumptions, undisclosed conditions and instances where strong conflicting evidence is unmentioned. Examples of this include:
•The margin of error in visual surveys of coral cover is high and unassessed; yet, they are presented to hundredths of a precent without any qualifying explanation, as if they are precisely accurate. Coral cover is highly variable between reefs and over different areas or at different years on the same reef. Visual estimates of the percentage of coral cover can differ significantly, depending on where, when and by whom the observations were made. Also, many of the observers doing the surveys upon which this study is based were inexperienced students primed by learned expectations of threats to the reef.

•The reef is vast and in any given year surveys sample only a small portion. The reported sudden decline in coral cover in the last couple of years is almost certain to have been exaggerated by surveys made to assess the damage from severe cyclones crossing the reef in 2009 and 2011, with few or no surveys in unaffected areas in those years.

•The study states, “Cyclone intensities are increasing with warming ocean temperatures….”

This statement is unsubstantiated and contrary to available evidence. The most definitive recent studies find no increase in tropical cyclone frequency or intensity. On the GBR severe cyclone activity for the past century has also been well below the level for the preceding century. The study also states:




Quadrant Online - Reef Alarmists Jump The Shark

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

It's good to see blogs from crop circle enthusiasts are now considered better sources than international scientific studies!

It's worth noting that:

At 214 reef sites surveyed, the coral cover halved from 28 to 13.8 per cent between 1985 and 2012.

Two-thirds of the loss occurred since 1998. Only three of the 214 reef sites exhibited no impact.

Read more: Great reef catastrophe

While I am sure scientists would have preferred to cover more sites, 214 sites is considerable. The report is very clear about what damage is caused by cyclones and what by bleaching or starfish, so the blog seems to be off-base with that claim.

 

[gslack]

Westwall -

It's good to see blogs from crop circle enthusiasts are now considered better sources than international scientific studies!

It's worth noting that:

At 214 reef sites surveyed, the coral cover halved from 28 to 13.8 per cent between 1985 and 2012.

Two-thirds of the loss occurred since 1998. Only three of the 214 reef sites exhibited no impact.

Read more: Great reef catastrophe

While I am sure scientists would have preferred to cover more sites, 214 sites is considerable. The report is very clear about what damage is caused by cyclones and what by bleaching or starfish, so the blog seems to be off-base with that claim.

Why not point out what the article said the causes were?

From your link...

Now of that which part is directly attributed to current Global Warming theory claims.. Seriously point out which part is caused by the current man-made conditions...

The Crown of thorns starfish was a natural problem, the article stated as much. The bleaching is caused by the death of the coral which can be from anything really, and the rest was caused by tropical storms, and those are a natural occurrence.. They claim this though...

"Global warming models project increases in water temperatures will lead to more intense cyclones."

Can they prove that? No and what's more that claim has already been thoroughly denied by all but the most extreme of alarmists.. So they take a hypothetical worst case scenario offered up by alarmist nonsense, and give the impression that "in the future" is now and that we are causing increased tropical storms... LOL

Seriously, you need to learn to be a bit more discerning on what you decide to post as truth..

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Why not point out what the article said the causes were?

I did, in post #92.

coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and coral bleaching.

"Global warming models project increases in water temperatures will lead to more intense cyclones."

Can they prove that?

Yes, they can. Latest research released by the IIPC concludes that cyclones will not necessarily be more frequent - but will be more intense. This research has been posted on this board earlier, I believe.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Why not point out what the article said the causes were?

I did, in post #92.

coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and coral bleaching.

"Global warming models project increases in water temperatures will lead to more intense cyclones."

Can they prove that?

Yes, they can. Latest research released by the IIPC concludes that cyclones will not necessarily be more frequent - but will be more intense. This research has been posted on this board earlier, I believe.

No you didn't you made a claim it was due to CO2 levels, the article said precisely what it was. It was just as their graphic showed now stop twisting their claims...

Now the IPCC made a hypothesis based on their computer models projections. And given their history of inaccuracies and exaggeration of findings, we will wait for actual proof..

Do you know the difference between proving something and just thinking or believing it?

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

This is purely and simply a question of literacy. In my opinion, you do not have the reading skills a discussion forum requires, and I'm going to give you a single example.

I posted in post #92:

coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and coral bleaching.

You claim:

No you didn't you made a claim it was due to CO2 levels,

Given this seems to happen on every thread you post on, I can only assume that you simply cannot read.

You are back on ignore more.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

This is purely and simply a question of literacy. In my opinion, you do not have the reading skills a discussion forum requires, and I'm going to give you a single example.

I posted:

coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and coral bleaching.

You claim:

No you didn't you made a claim it was due to CO2 levels,

Given this seems to happen on every thread you post on, I can only assume that you simply cannot read.

You are back on ignore more.

DUDE!!!! Your entire post was for the most part singling out CO2 levels.. You say one line and then you spend the rest of the post as if it was CO2 levels...

What's worse is you are lying about that line being in post #92...It was in your last post to me where you cited it. AND IT CAME FROM MY POST...

You sir are a liar.... Anyone can see your post #92 and can read it. YOU did not make that claim in that post...

You went on and on about coral bleaching junior, which you claimed was due to CO2 levels...

QUIT LYING!!!

 

[IanC]

I think it is funny that so many so-called scientists declare imminent danger and high risk of extinction for sea creatures that regularly see changes in pH that are an order of magnitude larger than the miniscule neutralization of ocean pH caused by the last 50 years of fossil fuel burning. even an upwelling of cooler water has more of an impact than manmade CO2.

and let's not forget the peer reviewed paper that blamed the obesity epidemic on increased levels of CO2.