Great Barrier reef risk of extinction blamed on climate change:

Great Barrier Reef will be 'slaughtered': scientists dismiss Julie Bishop's claim reef not at risk

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... 1r4a6.html

Here is a brief history of coral reef extinctions going back roughly 435 million years ago:

http://www.globalreefproject.com/coral-reef-history.php

The Great Barrier Reef has existed for the past 20 million years. Its formation began approximately 50 millions years ago. According to geologist Ian Plimer, during glacial events it has disappeared and reappeared more than 60 times over the last three million years.

Here are the periods of coral extinctions:

Ordovician–Silurian Extinction Event
Devonian Period
Permian-Triassic Extinction Event
Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods
Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction Event
Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum Event
Mid-Eocene Period


The Great Barrier Reef is currently experiencing a bio decline and there's little doubt there is an extinction event underway, which geologically speaking is not shocking from the perspective of deep geological time.


Is it a fact that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for the GCR's decline in or modern era?

Is it realistic to claim that Man can avoid a coral extinction event that has happened many, many times before without any contributions from our C02 emissions?

Here is a quote from GCR will be slaughtered article:

The increased concentration of CO₂ not only heats the atmosphere, it also results in an increase in the acidity of the world's oceans as carbon gets absorbed by the seas.

Here is what Ian Plimer states about acidity in the ocean:

The oceans have been alkaline throughout the history of time because water chemistry, ocean floor sediments, and new volcanic rocks on the sea floor buffer seawater to stop it becoming acid, even during times of C02 concentrations that were thousands of times the present value. Ocean waters, such as borates, buffer seawater and keep its pH constant. At mid-ocean ridges where volcanic rocks spew out on the ocean floor above large magma chambers, the extensional tectonics allows the ingress of cool alkaline seawater down fractures to depths of about five kilometres in the fresh balsalts

This, from my understanding, is part of a buffering process that allows ocean water to remain at constant pH balance.
The entire process has been occurring for thousands of millions of years during warm and cold times, and of high atmospheric C02, yet the oceans have never been acidified.

And yet climate alarmists would like us to believe we are 1) responsible for modern coral extinctions and 2) we can prevent them from happening, or slow them significantly so Obama's grandchildren can enjoy the Great Barrier Reef.


Will the Great Barrier Reef be completely gone in 30 years? In a thousand years. In five hundred thousand years?
In a million years?

ant wrote:This, from my understanding, is part of a buffering process that allows ocean water to remain at constant pH balance.

A buffer slows the rate pH changes, but does not stop it or keep it balanced. The ocean is acidifying, Plimer is wrong.

ant wrote:Is it a fact that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for the GCR's decline in or modern era?

A fact? Maybe. The science is strong. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-event ... dification

Actually the current pH of the ocean is 8.1 which is alkaline not acid.
Acidification occures when there's a pH drop to 7.0 (estimate). It's at that point where acidity is in place.. or NOT even then. That is not a guarantee because of ocean salt and the aforementioned natural buffering.

Corals have actually thrived in the past off higher CO2 content in the atmosphere. The oceans held more heat and delt with lower pH levels than what we are currently experiencing.

Read about alkalinity here and take note of this in particular:

"Alkalinity or AT measures the ability of a solution to neutralize acids to the equivalence point of carbonate or bicarbonate. The alkalinity is equal to the stoichiometric sum of the bases in solution. In the natural environment carbonate alkalinity tends to make up most of the total alkalinity due to the common occurrence and dissolution of carbonate rocks and presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkalinity


The coral reef has gone through extinction cycles for millions of years. If you look and research the history you can see for yourself that in mini and full ice ages coral reefs became extinct only to reappear millions of years later when particularly when the climate was much warmer. In one epoch the climate was estimated to have had the highest CO2 count on record. And yet corals did not become fully extinct. They suffered (there have been many extinctions and near exinctions before you drove your SUV) but recovered.

I'm sorry, but you are simply looking to confirm your biases here, Interbane.

Question: which model predicts pH will drop to 7?
And has that prediction been tested for verification?

Also, provide evidence that proves in former times of high c02 content the oceans were acid

Thanks

ant wrote:acidification occures when there's a pH drop to 7.0 (estimate). It's at that point where acidity is in place.. or NOT even then. That is not a guarantee because of ocean salt and the aforementioned natural buffering.

If the pH of a body drops from 11.0 to 10.9, that is called acidification, even though it's on the extreme basic end of the scale. The term indicates the direction of change, not which half of the pH scale the matter is at.

Corals have actually thrived in the past off higher CO2 content in the atmosphere. The oceans held more heat and delt with lower pH levels than what we are currently experiencing.

That doesn't mean the current coral reefs can keep up with the rate of change.

The coral reef has gone through extinction cycles for millions of years. If you look and research the history you can see for yourself that in mini and full ice ages coral reefs became extinct only to reappear millions of years later when particularly when the climate was much warmer.

There are many reasons they can and have gone extinct. That doesn't excuse us from doing it to them again.

"Alkalinity or AT measures the ability of a solution to neutralize acids to the equivalence point of carbonate or bicarbonate. The alkalinity is equal to the stoichiometric sum of the bases in solution. In the natural environment carbonate alkalinity tends to make up most of the total alkalinity due to the common occurrence and dissolution of carbonate rocks and presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

I understand the science behind TA. I test it weekly at my work, and add sodium bicarbonate to keep alkalinity at 100 so pH levels don't spike downward whenever a drop of acid is added. It doesn't prevent pH from dropping. It merely buffers the drop.

I'm sorry, but you are simply looking to confirm your biases here, Interbane.

Look in the mirror ant.

It doesnt mean the portion of C02 is strictly responsible for coral reef demise either. Atmospheric C02 content thousands of times its current reading did not cause corals to become extinct either.
The rate of change is worrisome. I can agree with that. But "we" are not turning ocean water into acid. If thats what youre saying then you are intentionally being deceptive if you are indeed an expert in ocean alkalinity.

Is there any evidence that the ocean ever became acidic?
7.3 would be akin to hot spring acid right?
Wouldnt there be a break in the fossil record to evidence an ocean of acidity?

The study of ocean acidification is a very young area of research. Ive been doing some reading on it.
Plate shifts, volcanic rock, salts, and other sediment contribute to pH balance.

HoHow many gallons of ocean water is there and how much tons of sediment and rock ?
Is it all not enough to offset acidification or slow it substantially until "we" develope more realistic solutions?
Has the 17 year pause also paused ocean acidification? The pause is still a big mystery.

I think it may be premature to sound an alarm and at the same time shut out science that does not agree with the model forecasts . Thats not what science is about. It doesnt mean some things can not begin to change while we continue to work this out.

ant wrote:But "we" are not turning ocean water into acid.

So you disagree with the science? Prove your position, don't just state it.

Your biggest mistake in all this is that thinking the frailty of predictions means all knowledge concerning climate is frail. But there are two types of information here. Think of the perfect storm movie, with the boat off the coast of Maine. Meteorologists were unable to predict that storm, at least far enough in the future to make a difference. At the same time, they can look at the past and present, and know how it happened and why.

Contingent systems resist prediction, but they can be examined in retrospect. We can know how things are and how they've come to pass without being able to predict the future, and that is a feature of contingent systems that can't be avoided. So pointing to weak models and saying that because they're weak, we don't know how things are, is simply false.

We are causing the oceans to become more acidic. But our models of how things will change going forward aren't as certain.

ant wrote:The pause is still a big mystery.

Only if you plug your ears whenever it's explained to you.

We alone are not affecting pH balance.
pH balance has historically varied. Yes, I would agree we've contributed to the pH decline and have perhaps accelerated it. There's simply more variables that consider that contribute to ocean acidification.

Youve not ansewerdd my questions about past acidification:
Was the ocean ever acidified and if so how does tbe fossil record evidence it?
Wouldnt there be significant gaps in the fossil record to prove that it has?

I suspect (again im no expert here, you are) that the history of fishing in and near the GCR has drastically accelerated the reefs risk of extinction because it has only been recently disovered that fishing has harmful effects on corral balance:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 180954760/

This had been going on for god knows how long before the breaks were applied. Thats unregulated practice has caused substantial harm no doubt. That might be the biggest factor and not warmer waters, as corals have managed significantly higher C02 levels in the past. Im not saying they didnt suffer loss. What Im saying is that theyve negotiated varying climates in the past. Ice ages have caused more complete extinction s than high ocean acidity. I very well could be wrong but I think I recall reading that.

I have to say again that I am for protecting our environment as best we can. But I am sceptical of all this finger pointing and claims that studies are the same as evidence that has been observed and tested for empirical verification. There is a middle ground here some where. To find it starts with putting an end to political ideogies.

ant wrote:I have to say again that I am for protecting our environment as best we can. But I am sceptical of all this finger pointing and claims that studies are the same as evidence that has been observed and tested for empirical verification. There is a middle ground here some where. To find it starts with putting an end to political ideogies.

You're nowhere near the middle ground. If Robert is toward one end of the spectrum, then you are toward the other.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:I have to say again that I am for protecting our environment as best we can. But I am sceptical of all this finger pointing and claims that studies are the same as evidence that has been observed and tested for empirical verification. There is a middle ground here some where. To find it starts with putting an end to political ideogies.

You're nowhere near the middle ground. If Robert is toward one end of the spectrum, then you are toward the other.

You dont know what the hell youre talking about and you are too little in stature to be judging me like that.
I dont give a shit what you think is there between the lines.

You want to continue to participate in this discussion or are you going to remain being the arrogant biasdd know it all that you are in most all our discussions?

If you dont know an answer to a question just say you dont know. I wont think any less of you than I do already, thanks mainly to you.

ant wrote:You dont know what the hell youre talking about

Why would you even deny it? You're obviously cognitively captured by all the denialist papers and articles. That puts you on the far end of the spectrum. Not at the absolute end, since you make some admissions. But you're nowhere near the middle.