I suggest that parts of this article are wrong. In my view increased ocean carbon dioxide should increase the calcites available for corals. The article also seems to neglect the vast quantities of magnesium ions available in the oceans (about 5 tonnes per square metre of ocean surface area) and I wonder if the effect of these are taken into account in any ocean carbon dioxide calculations. The ocean calcium is about 1.5 tonnes per ocean surface square metre.

You wrote:
"... As CO2 entering the atmosphere continues to rise, its pressure on the ocean surface grows, causing increasing amounts of the gas to be dissolved by it. In colder waters CO2 is held in suspension while in warmer water at lower latitudes, more of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid .... "
You appear to only have a passing knowledge of CO2 chemistry. Before entering debates of this type you - and your like minded coleagues - should master the phase reactions and the interplay of pressure and temperature on gas solubility. As an earlier post noted there is also the problem of precipitating phases that could remove the CO2 from the system altogether generating corals or just form insoluble carbonates.
Maybe CO2 is a bad thing but no one wins when faulty arguements are used in the debate.

mike..yet another ECONOMIST...who..feels the need to put a tax on carbon..[a tax people will pay to big business][,while other economists speculate on the price of each carbon unit]..in short revealing his expertize,..reveals the real reason for this new tax

but..lets accept he is qualified to speculate on marine/biology that he treats with rather loosly..quote<<The result:..serious damage to the marine environment and adverse effects on the ability of crustacean and other fish to survive>>..i will leave out all affects inherant in his calling crustations..fish..[and his later quote that the crustations will be extinct in 40 years]

and focus more on other aspects,like the affect of lime on ph
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=lime+and+ph&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

as the link reveals lime increases ph..[his article says its decreasing]..or as he..so clearly...lol..puts it<<..continued absorption by ocean water is changing and will further change its natural alkalinity with a pH of 8.2 units....Pure water has pH of 7.0 so strictly speaking, oceans are not becoming more acidic:..they are becoming less alkaline...>..im sure he is saying the oceans are becomming more acidic[..yet not sure if he did say it or not]

anyhow the affect of more acid means..it chews away the shell of the creatures..[as the ocean is a closed loop[the only way the lime/calcium shells can disolve to is into the ocean..[increasing the alcalinity]

the absaurdity of big bu-sin-ness and econo-mists trying to talk science is revealed..as the lie carbon-tax based on co2 allways was...

and still those who claim climate..lol..change..avoid naming the change/this tax will stop..[stop the warming or cooling?]..or stop the people spending on what they chose..so business can collect a new tax then speculate up the price of carbon..to as much as the market will bear

[both cooling and warming..have equally been put up as excuses to get this NEW TAX,..economists/big buisness and govt..see as the cure their lying figures in the money-market mess..needing a new speculative/bubble be created...now we are talking about fish and chips..by battering/up the tax payer

.is there no end to the lies..those needing this new/tax will stoop to...what you couldnt get a scien-tryst to say it?...has your thesis been peer revieuwed?...lol

Now that more and more evidence is coming to light about the furphy of human induced global warming, the alarmists have to come up with another catasrosphy caused by human. I have predicted for some time that ocean acidity will be the next big fright and this article is the first of many to follow. Mind you with no evidence that humans cause it.

This bloke reckons it is the old foggy of carbon emmissions. some bloody fool will next reckon it is all our acidic urine that finally gets into the oceans that causes the massive problem.

Oh well, be a change from global warming.

You need to get out more .. here's an article from New scientist, talking about how starfish THRIVE under higher temperatues and increased acid in their environment.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227104.800-starfish-defy-climate-change-gloom.html

When scientists actually run experiments they find interesting results, instead of just dreaming up possible causes of non problems, and they all want a simple cause, singular, nothing complex .. like CO2, yes that's convenient, let's go with that, and anyway, everyone alredy agrees - how nice, no science here.

Once again, a hysterical doomsayer, who DENIES that we and everything else on this planet, adapts, sometimes things don't and that's all part of the evolutionary cycles that got us to this point.

The reefs in Bikini atoll, have regenerated after Nuclear tests, including an H-Bomb, so I also believe our GBR will survive long after we're all gone.

Stop worrying, it may never happen, and if it does, adapt.

This article "No chips, no fish: ocean acidification", is fundamentally flawed. Devastation already being caused to coral by nutrient pollution from human sewage feeding algae is not even mentioned. I took a photograph of one type of algae I submit is killing coral, see:

http://www.solomontimes.com/news.aspx?nwID=4043

Australian government is recalcitrant toward admitting sewage impact devastation already occurring in the marine environment and unbelievably the Coral Sea and GBR is not even part of the Coral Triangle Initiative.

The devastation is extraordinary and the now rapidly worsening situation is being gagged by major media at editorial level. The gagging is causing delay to solutions, delay allowing and causing more damage that in turn is compounding damage.

Marine feeding animals and already poverty stricken island people are being deprived of essential nutrition and natural food supply.

The situation and especially the gagging is a disgrace to this nation.

That bloody coral -- it just WON'T die off, no matter how the environmentalists keep willing it to...

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/heat-resistant-corals-ignore-climate-change-threats

Gee another alarmist "the world is ending" piece, they certainly are popular now.

Unfortunately for the climate change deniers, the ones who don't want it to change and want the CO2 or whatever adjusted so it stays the same, are not going to be able to bully or "consensise" (bully the planet democratically) the planet into doing what they want, fortunately. You might be able to baffle and bully politicians, children and others, but the planet,I think not.

Being a climate change believer, and part of the cheersquad for change, I think you are all in for a bad time trying to get the climate to stop changing. Isn't that what essentially you are trying to do - so you want to tweak this and reduce that, even though you really don't know for sure.

Is change that so incredibly scary to you, if the oceans rise, we'll adapt, if the temperature goes up, what so Melbourne is like Port Moresby .. nice!

I expect the world's fish and reefs will adapt, if they can recover from Atomic Bomb testing (Bikini and Mururoa atolls), and that's the best we've got, then I don't think any additional CO2 is going to worry them. In fact recent information is they will thrive with more CO2.

Me, I'm all for adapting and I look forward to all the yummy new seafood that adapts to the constantly changing world. Oooh, lobster with 6 claws!

The URL given by Jon J involves CO2 and the photos show mostly soft coral with what appears to be dead hard coral low in one photo. Nowhere is nutrient pollution mentioned at that site on this date.

I am not talking about extinction of coral. This is about decent indigenous Pacific and Caribbean island and even Australian coastal people who can no longer catch or afford fresh healthy food from the sea or shops.

Coral being killed by algae is a symptom of poor water quality that is killing seagrass and the marine food web that even feeds humans. It is difficult to picture a dying ocean almost empty of available food.

Imagine increased cost of other food if there is a major shortfall in supply of fish, especially at a time when the human population and demand is increasing. Look around and think about the price of fish and decent meat already.

Antibiotic fed aquaculture product is cheap sometimes but is it tasty and healthy? Maybe become a vegetarian and wipe out more forest for arable land if you can find enough water.

Sure, lets just adapt to famine and airborne disease from malnourished immune systems in animals and humans. It's already happening in my opinion. The CO2 business is a distraction.

Land and food shortages are known to cause war.

Odo

Thank you for your link on starfish and what is the point you make when the scientist in your link advised:

“The sea star seems to survive because its calcium is nodular, so unlike species with continuous shells or skeletons it can compensate for a lack of carbonate by growing more fleshy tissue instead. The team therefore warn against assuming that global warming will have the same impact across groups of similar species?

John J

The authors of the link you provided were very selective when providing the article’s abstract to readers. I’m sure you would agree?:

‘During particularly warm years, bleaching has accounted for the deaths of large numbers of corals. In the Caribbean in 2005, a heat surge caused more than 50 percent of corals to bleach, and many still have not recovered, according to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, an international collaboration of government officials, policymakers and marine scientists, including Palumbi,” (the author of your link.)

"These findings show that, given enough time, many corals can match hotter environments by hosting heat-resistant symbionts," he explained. "While hopeful, the work also suggests that modern environments are changing so rapidly that corals may not be able to keep up. It comes down to a calculation of the rates of environmental change versus the rates of adaptation," said Palumbi.

Survival of the fittest or mere cherry picking on your part?

JF Aust – I read you on nutrient pollution. One of the alarming impacts is the increase in ocean dead zones – an unprecedented total of 200. However, the grim reapers are not concerned over that. They wish only to keep the debate going on global warming and the uncertainty of a CO2 correlation. Meanwhile, they pillage, plunder and pollute the planet while not flinching from an opportunity to scheme and plot no matter how sordid.

So let them eat cake…....errr…....fish, because they like to tell us the scientific evidence is flawed!

http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/index.html

We can only avoid disasters in marine-ecosystems by reducing CO2, SHME-OH-TWO!

Hey!

SCIENTISTS have just tracked down previously undiscovered colonies of Antarctic emperor penguins after spotting trails of their droppings on satellite pictures.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25579270-5005962,00.html

This is the latest in a string of Scientific TRAVESTIES to slip through the cracks of institutionalised SCIENCE efforts like CO2-warming.

The Question staring Real Scientists in the face here is: "If a hundred-odd-thousand penguins show satellite 'poo trails WHAT THE 'poo trail HEC' shows up for 6.7billion humans?

What effect does this have on ocean evaporation breakpoints and what toxic effect does human poo&nurdle trails have on the crucial top 10micron ocean surface (SIMC) layer wher the majority of marine ecosystems spend at least a part of their life cycle?

And to get down to tin-tacks what happens to all the diurnal heat that the poisoned marine ecosystems no longer need (being dead)?

Does it go to the Nth pole and melt ice that couldn't be melted up to now?

HMMM?

Institutionalised science & forum essayists don't care. They are in a rave of doxic ardency over greenhouse gases on a planet, which if it was a greenhouse spins at 1000 miles per hour. I am constantly in wonder of the effect of the internal air dynamics of a garden greenhouse if it were subjected to coriolois forces equivalent to that of planet Earth!

This type of incident where scientists unzip their fly, losing sight of the big picture, in a rave of doxic ardency, first came to my attention in the late 1990's.

Medical Scientists were using nanoparticulate carriers (Vectors) coated with drugs to increase tissue specificity in a range of treatments including for cancer.

Success Papers with positive conclusions were running thick and fast, and still are.

But wait, what about man made nanoparticulate pollutants coated with lead or mercury or other tissue specific toxins?

OOOPS!

To this day, EPA's all over the world only seriously measure & report particulates down to the 10 micron level! They've effectively been walking around with their flys unzipped ever since.

CO2 be Damned!

Protaganist .. did you not read what I said, here it is again "here's an article from New scientist, talking about how starfish THRIVE under higher temperatues and increased acid in their environment." You have selected, nit or cherry picked one sentence in the article where it talks about other species, I didn't - my point was that Starfish thrive.

So now that it has been pointed out that some species survive higher acidity and temperature, and you only need one example to prove a theory wrong do you not. Then regardless of anything else, the OLO article is therefore proved to be false and be baseless.

I'm not going to provide "a point" for every sentence in a reference, there is no need, you're clutching at straws, admit it?

The article is a doomsday "everything is going to die" piece, I have provided evidence that is not the case.

So your response is, well some things will still die, yes - so what?

You complain about cherry pickers but are a consistent cherry picker, are you trying to corner the market?

Avagoodweegend!

“So now that it has been pointed out that some species survive higher acidity and temperature, and you only need one example to prove a theory wrong do you not.”

And which theory are you referring to Odo? Are you under the impression that the information you provide on acidity is a revelation? Only the ill-informed would be so presumptuous for during past extinctions, on which palaeontologists have hypothesised for decades, particularly on causal factors – namely volcanism coupled with emissions of CO2 and SO2, certain resilient species do survive higher acidic environments - including some burrowing vertebrates.

Perhaps you should perform a most basic research prior to putting your posts in the public arena? Furthermore, Mike Pope was referring to pteropod thecosomata. He made no reference to the predatory pisaster ochraceus which may be only one of many species to survive a changing climate of which Pope would be well aware. Perhaps in your wisdom you may advise if humans can eat pisaster ochraceus? Not that it matters much if the marine food source these starfish depend on for survival, are threatened or become extinct.

“The article is a doomsday "everything is going to die" piece, I have provided evidence that is not the case.”

*You* provided "evidence" Professor Odo? “Everything is going to die?” Who wrote that or where was the allusion or are your posts a deliberate package of deception and hyperbolic hubris, disposed to scurrilous misinformation?

“Then regardless of anything else, the OLO article is therefore proved to be false and be baseless.”

"Proved to be false?" Oh dear. Who was it who said: “You cannot give some people more information than they’re ready to receive?” So Odo, just keep faking it until you make it mate!

as a geologist, I'm aware that the fossil record shows that hard corals have been on the planet for tens of millions of years. Yet, during that time, there have been spikes in the atmosphere's CO2 levels to 1300 ppm or more. I'm therefore skeptical that the current reduction in ocean alkalinity caused by more CO2 being dissolved in marine waters is going to have the devastating impact that some people are claiming.

Oh my, Protaganist, one spleen vented.

I'd respond and explain, but what would be the point?

More abuse and ranting, no thanks.