Thursday June 4, 2009, 5:08 am
PLZ HELP US SAVE OUR WORLD'S OCEANS NOW!!!

Before it's too late!

Thank you for your support!!!

Thursday June 4, 2009, 5:26 am
* Related Care2 Article:

"Rivers to Oceans Week" > By: Elena

Our Oceans Are Worth It!!!!!!!!!

Thursday June 4, 2009, 5:28 am
"Thank you for submitting comments to "Ocean Acidification Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0224."
Thank you!

Thursday June 4, 2009, 8:17 am
Hello my friend Rob, this is an excellent news article hon. I am watching a documentary right now on this, isn't that the oddest thing? They just said what your saying here, this is so noted!

I signed & I will do my best to keep our waters clean! Thank you for submitting comments to "Ocean Acidification Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0224."

We all need to pay attention to this and please sign. Thank you all.
Great article sweetie.

Peace all,
FreeSpiritRunning...

Thursday June 4, 2009, 8:42 am
TY, Robert!!!

Thursday June 4, 2009, 10:56 am
Thank you for submitting comments to "Ocean Acidification Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0224."

Noted with many thanks. Very interesting post Dearest Robert:)
Love,
Black Dalia:)

Thursday June 4, 2009, 11:07 am
noted & signed.

Thursday June 4, 2009, 11:52 am
Gladly, and happily signed dear friend Robert!

Thursday June 4, 2009, 11:55 am
Noted and signed, Thanks!

Thursday June 4, 2009, 12:00 pm
signed and forwarded gladly thanks robert

Thursday June 4, 2009, 12:13 pm
Done/thanks Robert

Thursday June 4, 2009, 1:31 pm
The oceans are over-fished and polluted....but not by CO2 which is just as neccesary for all ocean life as it is for all life on Earth.

The oceans are so strongly ALKALINE, and have so much CO2 locked up as calcium carbonate, that any trend toward lowering the PH toward acid is adjusted for quickly.

"The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909."

"corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today. (One might also note in the graph below that there was an ice age during the late Ordovician and early Silurian with CO2 levels 10X higher than current levels, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is essentially nil throughout the Phanerozoic.)"
Another BS story shot to sh*t by facts. See the graph of temperature compared to CO2 through the ages.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/

Thursday June 4, 2009, 2:52 pm
Thank you so much Robert..
This is very important..
Signed & noted..

Thursday June 4, 2009, 3:13 pm
signed and forwarded thank you

Thursday June 4, 2009, 3:31 pm
Thank you for submitting comments to "Ocean Acidification Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0224."

Thursday June 4, 2009, 3:34 pm
Signed and Noted. TY

Thursday June 4, 2009, 5:19 pm
CO2 is causing ratherer high readings and mutations which cause further mutations along the way. Noted and thand thank you for sending this Melinda.

Thursday June 4, 2009, 5:21 pm
CO2 is causing rather high readings and mutations which cause further mutation. along the way. Noted and thank you for sending this, Melinda.

Thursday June 4, 2009, 5:36 pm
Noted and signed previously.

Thursday June 4, 2009, 6:59 pm
Action taken. Thanks Robert.

Thank you for submitting comments to "Ocean Acidification Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0224."

Help spread the word by sending this message to your friends.

Thursday June 4, 2009, 8:52 pm
Action was taken, thank you

Thursday June 4, 2009, 11:09 pm
Action taken - glad to see that few are being taken in by the prapaganda of the denialists (What's Up With That - the silly denialist blog that is not worth anyones time to read...)

Friday June 5, 2009, 2:14 am
Noted & signed. Thanks

Friday June 5, 2009, 5:07 am
Noted, signed, thanks Robert. We signed because we wish to help this Earth of ours.

Friday June 5, 2009, 6:46 am
I signed dearest Robert! Thank you! :)

Friday June 5, 2009, 8:46 am

Noted. This is an important issue. I think that too many people, especially those living inland away from the water, lack appropriate understanding of how critical ocean life is to their own survival.

Friday June 5, 2009, 8:57 am
thank robert signed it

Friday June 5, 2009, 11:37 am
TY Robert, I have also just watched 'Home' a relative documentary. These are so informative. thanks, boots

Friday June 5, 2009, 1:17 pm
Thank You... Signed and Noted!

Friday June 5, 2009, 1:45 pm
Some warmists think all one has to do is call something denialist, and that is a rational scientific argument.

The biggest problem I see here is that most folks didn't take any chemistry and so don't know that on the logarithmic scale measuring acid/alkaline that 7 is neutral and that the tiny change of -.025 PH is a disaster in the making is ludicrous.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#more_acidic

It would not have been possible if people just remembered high school chemistry. What you are seeing is public relations...not science.

Friday June 5, 2009, 2:45 pm
Some denialists think all they have to do is scream "scam" (over and over and over and over again) and THAT is a rational scientific argument LMAO!!!!!

What we are seeing is PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE - what you are presenting is an UNREVIREWED BOLG LMAO!!! You have no "scientific high ground" so stop prending you do :)

Friday June 5, 2009, 3:15 pm
It appears to me that are planet is attempting to recreate the Ordovician Era once again ----

Any Takers???

Let's Act Now --- Just In Case!!!

Friday June 5, 2009, 3:34 pm
Sorry, but magazine articles aren't "peer reviewed science" and the stuff that has been passing itself off as such turns out to be another case of people who don't know how, using statistics or rather misusing them.

.“RESEARCHERS in Australia say the growth of coral on the country’s iconic Great Barrier Reef has fallen since 1990 to its lowest rate in 400 years”, variations of this message have been repeated around the world with global warming, and the associated acidification of oceans, claimed to be the cause. [1]

That was at the beginning of this year, in January, and the media frenzy was based on a paper by Glenn De’ath, Janice Lough and Katrina Fabricius published in the peer-reviewed journal ‘Science’. [2]

Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has recently had an opportunity to download all the data used to construct the key illustrations that suggested catastrophe.

Mr McIntyre concludes that looking at just yearly averages (above graph) there has been a general trend of increasing coral calcification rates at the Great Barrier Reef since the late 1500s.

In recent years there have been fewer measurements of coral at the Great Barrier Reef and the apparent downward spike in 2004-05 may be an artifact of the data – lack of data. [3]

Mr McIntyre writes:

“To see the impact of unsmoothed data, I did a simple plot of the average calcification by year over the data set. I understand that the coral data spans a considerable length and that various sorts of adjustments might be justified, but it’s never a bad idea to plot an average. Here are two plots, showing a simple average, first from 1572-2005 and then in the 20th century. Based only on the first plot, one could NOT say that even the 2004-2005 results were “unprecedented in at least 400 years” - values in 1852 were lower. So I can confirm that the values before adjustment are unprecedented since at least 1852.

Visually, this graph looks to me like calcification has been increasing over time, with a downspike in 2004-5…”

Mr McIntyre goes on to comment that there is a very high correlation (0.48) between calcification and the number of measurements available in a year. The unsmoothed data gives a very different impression … Unsmoothed, years up to 2003 were not particularly low; it’s only two years - 2004 and 2005 - that have anomalously low values.

Glenn De’ath et. al. commented on ocean acidification in the same paper in ‘Science’ but provide no data. Wei et al have recently published on the pH history of Arlington Reef, which is part of the Great Barrier Reef, and they conclude that there was a ten-year pH minimum centered at about 1935 and a shorter more variable minimum very recently. Apart from these two non-CO2-related exceptions, the majority of the data fall within a band that exhibits no long-term trend in acidification – according to Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso writing for C02 Science. [4,5]
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/coral-calcification-and-ocean-ph-revisited/#more-5339

And the "just in case "argument makes as much sense as wearing galoshes in the desert in case it rains.

Friday June 5, 2009, 3:52 pm
"corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today...."

Gee, how many of those coalrs ARE ALIVE TODAY? Todays coarls are adapted to TODAYS conditions. Ya, some will make it through the next human caused mass extinction - but I guess it is tough cookies for those that can not adapt! Heck, what's the loss of a few million species when we have all those fossil fuel profits to be made - right Judy???

"The oceans are so strongly ALKALINE, and have so much CO2 locked up as calcium carbonate, that any trend toward lowering the PH toward acid is adjusted for quickly...."

Then why are conditions changing?? Guess the FACTS indicate that this process is not keeping up...

"One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909."

That is a completly joke statement - since pH was not a concept until 1909 we can not mesure it before then - what a joke!!! Did anyone know about carbon dioxide 500 million years ago??? I think not, but guess wht, we can determine the concentration back then - this statement makes no sence AT ALL!

The "biggest problem I see" is that Judy seems to assume that no damage will take plae until the pH falls below 7.0 - and that assumption as NO BASIS IN FACT. The reality is that damage is taking place RIGHT NOW and things will only be getting WORSE as we continue to dump BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates.

Friday June 5, 2009, 3:57 pm
"Sorry, but magazine articles aren't "peer reviewed science" and the stuff that has been passing itself off as such turns out to be another case of people who don't know how, using statistics or rather misusing them...."

As she quotes another BLOG LMAO!!!!

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:10 pm
Just look at the graph.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/calcification_ts1.gif
Notice that coral is doing very well in historical terms.

Then look at the difference between the Earth in the Ordovician time period
http://www.scotese.com/newpage1.htm

"Ancient Oceans Separate the Continents

"During the Ordovician ancient oceans separated the barren continents of Laurentia, Baltica, Siberia and Gondwana. The end of the Ordovician was one of the coldest times in Earth history. Ice covered much of the southern region of Gondwana."

Look at the present day map.
htttp://www.scotese.com/modern.htm

Robert what were you talking about?

First of all, the continents have moved around. Most of the land mass was under ice in the Southern Hemisphere. during the Ordovician.

Second, the climate had little to do with how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Temperatures went from warm to cold and CO2 varied between 4000-5000 parts per million during that time.
Present levels are 390 parts per million....very low!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

You got caught throwing a term around without knowing anything about it. .. that's what happens when you believe the Warmist propaganda machine.

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:15 pm
Southern Ocean acidification causing shells to lose weight
Nature Geoscience, March 9, 2009


The shells of tiny amoeba-like creatures called foraminifera that live in the ocean's surface have become thinner relative to shells from the pre-industrial age, according to a report online in Nature Geoscience. The finding proves that increasing carbon uptake in the ocean has a direct effect on the ability of microorganisms to make shells. Globally, foraminifera comprise up to 50% of the carbonate flux to the deep sea ? sinking shells help to transport organic carbon from the surface ocean.

Using sediment traps located in the Southern Ocean, William Howard, Andrew Moy and colleagues collected the shells of one species of foraminifer, Globigerina bulloides, as they fell towards the sea floor. They compared the mass of the shells, which are about the size of a grain of sand, to the mass of older shells collected from the sea floor. The researchers found that modern shell weights were 30 to 35% lower than those that formed prior to the industrial period, which they attribute to the acidification of the Southern Ocean ? a process driven by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

The effect of this weight loss on the survival of the species is not immediately clear, but the study confirms the findings of previous laboratory experiments that suggest increasing carbon dioxide in the oceans could reduce the ability of marine organisms to build their shells.

http://www.natureasia.com/en/highlights/details.php?id=283

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:24 pm
Just look at the graph.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/calcification_ts1.gif
Notice that coral is doing very well in historical terms.

Providing a meaningless graph with no context - sorry, but I am not going to trust YOUR word about what it means...

"First of all, the continents have moved around. Most of the land mass was under ice in the Southern Hemisphere. during the Ordovician...."

And this means what in terms of ocean acidification????

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:28 pm
noted & signed

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:34 pm
You assume that the teeny bit of CO2 we put in the air has the power to make the sea go to neutral.Your first mistake. There is already so much calcium stored as calcium carbonate on the sea floor put there by creatures called cocolithophores. They mop up the extra CO2 faster than you can say "denier"
YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE
.
Chalk one up for coccolithophores Scientists have feared that gradual acidification of the world's oceans would wreak havoc with organisms that build protective outer shells. But a new finding shows at least three species of coccolithophores -- single-celled algae that are major players in the ocean's cycling of carbon -- are responding to ocean acidification by building thicker cell walls and plates of chalk, contrary to what some recent lab experiments have shown.

The difference resulted from conducting experiments that better mimic actual ocean conditions when carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves in seawater, scientists report in the April 18 issue of the journal Science. http://www.physorg.com/news128613620.html

You don't have an honest leg to stand on.

CO2 is historically low and the oceans have plankton which gobble up CO2 as soon as it is available.

WHAT A SCAM!

What a monstrous fraud to perpetrate on well meaning people.

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:40 pm
"Present levels are 390 parts per million....very low!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif"

Again, you provide a MEANINGLESS GRAPH whith no context :)

The actual SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE indicates that current CO2 concentrations are at a 800,000 year HIGH

Palaeoclimate: Windows on the greenhouse

Data laboriously extracted from an Antarctic ice core provide an unprecedented view of temperature, and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane, over the past 800,000 years of Earth's history.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453291a.html

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:44 pm
"You assume that the teeny bit of CO2 we put in the air has the power to make the sea go to neutral.Your first mistake. There is already so much calcium stored as calcium carbonate on the sea floor put there by creatures called cocolithophores. They mop up the extra CO2 faster than you can say "denier" "

Obviously you are WRONG in YOUR conclusion since even YOU said the oceans are getting more acidic (or less basic) - so your contention is FALSE that this ONE ORGANIZM is compensating for the increased CO2 inputs into the ocean. Yes, nature can take care of excess CO2 OVER TIME - but we are currently overwhelming this "mop up" system.

Also, you are cherry picking the ONE organism that is doing OK but ignoring the MANY that are not doing OK. As I said above SOME creatures, like the coccolithophores, will do fine, but MANY will not!! (and YOU have heard this argument before yet DON'T LISTEN)...

"WHAT A SCAM! What a monstrous fraud to perpetrate on well meaning people. >>> As I said above repeatedly calling this a "scam" (or a fraud) adds NOTHING to the scientific debate LMAO!!!!

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:52 pm
Saying forminifera are in bad shape because their shells are thin is forked tongue stuff.
The conclusion of this paper is that
"the system under study was surprisingly resilient to abrupt and large pH changes," which is just the opposite of what the world's climate alarmists characteristically predict about CO2-induced "ocean acidification." And that may be why Vogt et al. described the marine ecosystem they studied as "surprisingly resilient" to such change: it may have been a little unexpected."
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N29/B2.php

Marine Ecosystem Response to "Ocean Acidification" Due to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment Reference
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.

Background
The authors write that "ocean acidification is one of the effects of increased anthropogenic CO2," that "oceanic DMS [dimethylsulphide] production is a result of complex interactions within the marine food-web," and that "ocean acidification may affect DMS concentrations and fluxes by altering one or more of the various pathways or impacting some of the species involved," with the reason for concern being the fact that the particulate atmospheric oxidation products of DMS can act as cloud condensation nuclei and lead to the creation of more numerous and more reflective clouds that can cool the planet by reflecting more incoming solar radiation back to space, which would tend to mute the greenhouse effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and keep the planet from getting too warm.

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.

What it means
With respect to their many findings, the eight researchers say their observations suggest that "the system under study was surprisingly resilient to abrupt and large pH changes," which is just the opposite of what the world's climate alarmists characteristically predict about CO2-induced "ocean acidification." And that may be why Vogt et al. described the marine ecosystem they studied as "surprisingly resilient" to such change: it may have been a little unexpected.

References
Carotenuto, Y., Putzeys, S., Simonelli, P., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Suffrian, K., Antia, A. and Nejstgaard, J.C. 2007. Copepod feeding and reproduction in relation to phytoplankton development during the PeECE III mesocosm experiment. Biogeosciences Discussions 4: 3913-3936.

Egge, J., Thingstad, F., Engel, A., Bellerby, R.G.J. and Riebesell, U. 2007. Primary production at elevated nutrient and pCO2 levels. Biogeosciences Discussions 4: 4385-4410.

Larsen, J.B., Larsen, A., Thyrhaug, R., Bratbak, G. and Sandaa R.-A. 2007. Marine viral populations detected during a nutrient induced phytoplankton bloom at elevated pCO2 levels. Biogeosciences Discussions 4: 3961-3985.

Paulino, A.I., Egge, J.K. and Larsen, A. 2007. Effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on small and intermediate sized osmotrophs during a nutrient induced phytoplankton bloom. Biogeosciences Discussions 4: 4173-4195.

Riebesell, U., Bellerby, R.G.J., Grossart, H.-P. and Thingstad, F. 2008. Mesocosm CO2 perturbation studies: from organism to community level. Biogeosciences Discussions 5: 641-659.

Riebesell, U., Schulz, K., Bellerby, R., Botros, M., Fritsche, P., Meyerhofer, M., Neill, C., Nondal, G., Oschlies, A., Wohlers, J. and Zollner, E. 2007. Enhanced biological carbon consumption in a high CO2 ocean. Nature 450: 10.1038/nature06267.

Suffrian, K., Simonelli, P., Nejstgaard, J.C., Putzeys, S., Carotenuto, Y. and Antia, A.N. 2008. Microzooplankton grazing and phytoplankton growth in marine mesocosms with increased CO2 levels. Biogeosciences Discussions 5: 411-433.

Friday June 5, 2009, 4:57 pm
tHE CHANGE IS MEANINGLESS BECAUSE THE MEASUREMENTS
1.HAVE BEEN SO INEXACT
2.AN AVERAGE PH IS MEANINGLESS IN A DYNAMIC SYSTEM WHERE TIME OF DAY, DEPTH OF WATER, TEMPERATURE OF WATER AND THE SEASON ALLINFLUENCE THE READING.

IT IS JUNK SCIENCE AT ITS WORST.

Friday June 5, 2009, 5:09 pm
"tHE CHANGE IS MEANINGLESS BECAUSE THE MEASUREMENTS
1.HAVE BEEN SO INEXACT
2.AN AVERAGE PH IS MEANINGLESS IN A DYNAMIC SYSTEM WHERE TIME OF DAY, DEPTH OF WATER, TEMPERATURE OF WATER AND THE SEASON ALLINFLUENCE THE READING.

IT IS JUNK SCIENCE AT ITS WORST."

Please provide a reference from the scientific literature (NOT A BLOG) that backs up YOUR conclusions - YOUR conclusions are MEANINGLESS LMAO!!!!

Friday June 5, 2009, 5:12 pm
"Saying forminifera are in bad shape because their shells are thin is forked tongue stuff. "

That is not what the SCIENTISTS that authored the paper concluded - your "expert opinion" is meaningless LMAO!!!

the system under study was surprisingly resilient to abrupt and large pH changes," which is just the opposite of what the world's climate alarmists characteristically predict about CO2-induced "ocean acidification." And that may be why Vogt et al. described the marine ecosystem they studied as "surprisingly resilient" to such change: it may have been a little unexpected."
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N29/B2.php

CO2 Science is a DENIALIST BLOG - their conclusion is NOT PEER REVIEWED - gee, you just don't get that concept do you???


"What it means
With respect to their many findings, the eight researchers say their observations suggest that "the system under study was surprisingly resilient to abrupt and large pH changes," which is just the opposite of what the world's climate alarmists characteristically predict about CO2-induced "ocean acidification." And that may be why Vogt et al. described the marine ecosystem they studied as "surprisingly resilient" to such change: it may have been a little unexpected. ..."

What it means is that THESE PARTICULAR ORGANISMS did OK - that DOES NOT INVALIDATE thie findings that MANY others are NOT DOING OK!!! Again trying to make broud generalizations using ONE SPECIFIC experiment on TWO ORGANISMS! Yes, some will do fine - MOST will not...

Friday June 5, 2009, 5:25 pm
Here is another PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE on the subject:

Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints on geological dilemmas

Abstract The five mass extinction events that the earth has so far experienced have impacted coral reefs as much or more than any other major ecosystem. Each has left the Earth without living reefs for at least four million years, intervals so great that they are commonly referred to as ‘reef gaps’ (geological intervals where there are no remnants of what might have been living reefs). The causes attributed to each mass extinction are reviewed and summarised. When these causes and the reef gaps that follow them are examined in the light of the biology of extant corals and their Pleistocene history, most can be discarded. Causes are divided into (1) those which are independent of the carbon cycle: direct physical destruction from bolides, ‘nuclear winters’ induced by dust clouds, sea-level changes, loss of area during sea-level regressions, loss of biodiversity, low and high temperatures, salinity, diseases and toxins and extraterrestrial events and (2) those linked to the carbon cycle: acid rain, hydrogen sulphide, oxygen and anoxia, methane, carbon dioxide, changes in ocean chemistry and pH. By process of elimination, primary causes of mass extinctions are linked in various ways to the carbon cycle in general and ocean chemistry in particular with clear association with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The prospect of ocean acidification is potentially the most serious of all predicted outcomes of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increase. This study concludes that acidification has the potential to trigger a sixth mass extinction event and to do so independently of anthropogenic extinctions that are currently taking place.

(full article here)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/085g2151l3nlt871/

Sunday June 7, 2009, 4:18 am
"Second, the climate had little to do with how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Temperatures went from warm to cold and CO2 varied between 4000-5000 parts per million during that time."

Those figures are ridiculous. Not a single, oxygen-breathing, lung carrying mammal could survive at those concerntrations. In fact, none did, because there weren't any in the Ocdovician Period - they hadn't evolved yet. There was life on the sea, but not much on land. On land the first plants were appearing, and possibly a few arthropods (insects). The evolution of land plants is what pulled CO2 OUT of the atmosphere and enabled life on land to evolve. During most of the Ordovician Period, it was warm, sea levels were high, and continents experienced flooding, for example North America was almost entirely submerged at times. There was a short ice age at the end of the period.

Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere has a cooling effect.

If CO2 has no effect on climate, why is there no life or water on Venus, which has an atmosphere of 96.5% CO2 and extremely hot temperatures?

"As seawater absorbs CO2, the proportion of hydrogen ions falls: Average oceanic pH has dropped by 0.1 since pre-industrial times, and will likely fall by another 0.3 to 0.4 units within the next century. These fractional numbers may sound insignificant, but they represent an unprecedented change in both degree and pace in the last 650,000 years, and marine life may be ill-equipped to cope."

Tuesday June 9, 2009, 10:00 am
Thank you. 68.154.15.95, thanks Robert, gladly signed!