Ant, I cannot find the research which found a positive effect on breeding,

As you have seen from the link you supplied, the assertion that acidification will have an adverse effect is speculative, which does not mean that the fraud backers will not promote it as they have the baseless AGW .scam. In fact the frauds at Skeptical Science, are doing it right now.

The fraud promoters’ problem is that people enjoy drinking carbonic acid all the time with far higher acidity than the ocean

As to the “acid rain” myth raised by the deranged Rachel Carson:
“e NAPAP (National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project) study published in 1989 – which took ten years and cost $500 million, the most comprehensive federal study ever undertaken — proved that acid rain was a minor nuisance and that passing expensive regulation would do little to address the supposed problem”.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/14489/truth-about-acid-rain-msm-wants-bury-climaquiddick/henry-payne

Carson’s book, “Silent Spring” was full of such imbecilic rubbish that it was a founding document of the green movement, the movement which remains inflicted on us up to the present day.
The book had such an effect that despite the report on acid rain, and a comprehensive report showing that DDT is safe, it was politically unwise to refrain from legislation aimed at acid rain, which was passed, and the banning of DDT, which went ahead, despite there being no rational basis for it, just a book by a mad woman..
So there is a precedent for the AGW fraud. Group madness is a fact of life.

Spindoctor, your paper created by Klaus Kaiser has not been peer reviewed and it seems to me that you have not read your own reference. It was a dispute about the longevity of carbon dioxide and the amount of carbon dioxide created by anthropogenic means. The Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences suggested that it takes millennia for carbon dioxide to break down , it being something Klaus Kaiser disputed. In my response back I gave two clues that a perceptive reader would have noted that I had actually read your paper and not run off a million miles as you suggested.
Kaiser talks about the RC paper of 2010, the reference I gave was published this year; though I realize his paper was made available this year.
Klaus Kaiser used as a reference http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth which stated that the measured amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a shade under 400ppm. If you check Klaus Kaisers’s paper you will see that at the bottom of his paper he gave the noaa reference. If you read his paper he talks about the longevity of CO2 something I thought you had understood.
About 30-40% of carbon dioxide is taken up by ocean and forms a carbonic acid. That is not something Kaiser has taken into account. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, I’ll leave it to you to find out what they are. Incidentally, the oceans have been picking up 93.4 percent of warming.
We are about to go into an El Nino cycle meaning we can expect warmer temperatures. There is generally a three to four year cycle between El Nino and La Nina, three years have elapsed since the last El Nino.
Spindoc, if you cannot understand what you use as a reference, and where it sits in the scheme of things don’t use it.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf http://www.skepticalscience.com/modelling-the-apocalypse.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/dodgy_diagrams_1_residence_time.htm

JBowyer, I used the example of the Black Forest as action was taken through ensuring that sulphur and nitrogen oxide are now treated on the basis of a refinement of technology. Queenstown in Tasmania is an example of a town where sulphur oxide made a huge mess.
And you are right there is still some low ph rain in particular areas. In the 1960s it was beginning to be realized that the Black Forest was being damaged by acid rain. It had been a anthropogenic problem sorted out without fuss.

Leo Lane, acidification of oceans is something that is happening it has an impact on coral and shelled organisms. It means that part of the food chain is disrupted. There are coral reefs that have been hit by acidification there is nothing academic or computer modeled in relation to that.

ant,

“In summary The Royal Society’s claim that it would take millennia for CO2 from human activity to dissipate from the atmosphere is clearly untenable. However, it would also appear inconceivable to think that the RS would not have done a few of such simple order-of-magnitude calculations, as shown above, to confirm the veracity of their claims. Therefore, even though it took months to prepare the revision to their previous document on that subject, it appears the Royal Society’s math is still wrong.”

“Klaus Kaiser PhD, retired, author of CONVENIENT MYTHS (www.convenientmyths.com); Research Scientist with a major government research institute; Peer Reviewer for several journals; Chief Editor of one. For any scientist, at least a rudimentary understanding of the principles of other scientific disciplines is necessary when undertaking research in any field”.

Spindoc
If Klaus Kaiser is right then that’s great; however, there have been experiments completed that would dispute what he has suggested. It would be great if he was right as when mitigation happens then positive changes will happen quickly. The point is that the level of CO2 is increasing as measured at Hawaii and Cape Grim whether it lasts a day, a month, or whatever; if it is increasing it is an academic point. However, the literature generally goes against what Klaus Kaiser has stated. I identified a deficit in that he did not take account of the CO2 being taken up by oceans.
I noticed that you have quoted part of his cv; the scientists who believe climate change is real, certainly have impressive cvs as well, your quote is a non- sequitur.
My interest particularly has been in what has been happening in the Arctic area; where record temperatures have been happening, there has been a melting of glaciers and the Arctic ice sheet over several decades. There are no arguments in relation to that, no computer modeling; it’s what is actually happening. The ice sheet is thin and easily broken up by storms. Ice reflects the sun’s rays, the dark water takes in warmth from the sun; that is seen to be a problem. Already much methane is being discharged, methane and methane hydrate are a particular worry. Deniers can scoff, but that does not make any difference to what is happening, nothing to do with computer modelling

Hi ant,

What can I say, "come in spinner".