A tip – don’t try to re-type the web addresses. Open the site in a new tab in your browser, select the web address, and do a copy and paste. You’ll then avoid these problems in the future. Also for links you can you the href format to embed links in text – Google “HTML basics” for tips on how.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/17/2448553.htm

Got that Neil?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm

Skeptical science is another good site (like this one, realclimate, deltoid, desmogblog etc – see links in the column to the left) which debunks all the recycled denialist myths like the ones which our resident troll, Neil, loves to spout ad nauseam. Go to any of these sites and enter the myths into the search engine.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-on-global-warming.htm

As to the wikipedia article – further research (not Neil’s forte) is needed to track down and calculate the numbers of scientisits worldwide,represented by the named establishments.

If you have actually read your article (sect 5) you will see that the total responses on the question were 1894, half of which from the Oreskes calculation which Professor Singer duplicated & found to be wholly fraudulent. The rest average fairly balanced between alarmists & sceptics.

Since you refuse to withdraw it I must accept your claim to know that 600,000 of the 666,666 scientists in the world are alarmists represents the very highest standard of honesty of which you are capable. Even by the very limited evidence you have produced for it it is wholly untrue.

Barry it would be perfectly reasonable to dismiss everything Gore said on the basis that part of it is entirely dishonest. The legal rule is that when a witness has been shown to have lied once the rest of his testimony cannot be trusted. In any case Gore had lied in almost every piece of “evidence” in his film.

The big point is that the entire global warming community, very many of whom must have known he was lying, have declined to say so. That may be good scary propaganda but it is no science.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

So he was mostly wrong on this point – a few people might have given up the effort and moved to NZ already, but you are right that they’ve not all left yet by any stretch. Yet your rationale, by reducto ad adsurdum, is that this misstatement not only invalidates every other point in AIT, but also tears down the entire edifice of climate science to boot! Excuse me if I think you are clutching at a few very long straws.

I do see now what you are getting at – but most of the citations I give above effective discuss dissolution as well as reduced accretion (especially Fine and Tchernov 2008: Scleractinian Coral Species Survive and Recover from Decalcification; but also Hall-Spencer et al 2008 and Orr et al 2005).

Let me explain. To cite Fine & Tchernov:

Experiments have shown that CO2 doubling results in reduced coral calcification (by 44 to 80%) (3). A concern has been raised that low {Omega}-arag values and increased chemical dissolution might shift the balance from net accumulation at present to net loss under high-CO2 conditions… We therefore examined the ability of scleractinian corals to survive acidic conditions… Thirty coral fragments from five coral colonies of the scleractinian Mediterranean species Oculina patagonica (encrusting) (Fig. 1A) and Madracis pharencis (bulbous) were subjected to pH values of 7.3 to 7.6 and 8.0 to 8.3 (ambient) for 12 months. The corals were maintained in an indoor flow-through system under ambient Mediterranean seawater temperatures (17° to 30°C) and photoperiod (intensity of 250 {upsilon}mol photons m–2 s–1). After 1 month in acidic conditions, morphological changes were seen, initially polyp elongation (Fig. 1B), followed by dissociation of the colony form and complete skeleton dissolution. Surprisingly, the polyps remained attached to the undissolved hard rocky substrate (Fig. 1C).

So they talk about dissolution. But the key point is this. Let’s say ‘acidification’ of the oceans (actually reduced alkalinity, as you would know) does not dissolve the coral skeletons (as would be the case if you dropped a lump of calcium carbonate into a bucket of acid – even vinegar), as Short proposes. Let’s say it simply inhibits accretion of aragonite and calcite by these animals, as the experiments most clearly demonstrate. Then you have a situation where the corals (and other non-phosphatic shelly organisms) are unable to replace lost skeletal tissue, which can be worn down by mechanical weathering, breakage, and other forms of chemical weathering. Living reefs are then worn down over time, until they are little more than rubble. New reefs are unable to form because they cannot (sufficiently) accrete material to grow. Short-lived organisms such as pteropods die off for similar reasons of net replacement – only much quicker than the long-lived corals.

As the quote above says, the effect of simply reducing the calcification rate “might shift the balance from net accumulation at present to net loss under high-CO2 conditions”. This is what the experiments show.

Reefs “worldwide” is not our Great Barrier Reef. The reef industry is the millions of dollars being sunk into local reef research with the a prior assumption that the Reef is “in danger” – see the latest Fed initiative “Reef Rescue” under CFOC funding. “Rescue” ?? I’m not saying that episodic damage doesn’t occur – just that “is there any trend”.

I’m aware of the mesocosm experiment you list – but again calcification rates are not dissolution !!!
Also any of these “live” experiments are by definition complex and multi-factor.

But isn’t the chemistry absolute?

Barry you know my broader views on climate change – if I’m being ornery there’s a reason ! – the ocean acidification issue troubles me greatly. Other chemists have also raised it with me.

This blog is where we should ask the hard questions – even if of our own position.

I take it you’re position is that it is not “vaguely sensible” to ask Perps to produce the evidence he ought to have of the support of 600,000 scientists.

How idiotic. If he is partial towards the warming swindlers then, by definition, he can be trusted not to be partial against them. Hence for him to decide that Gore is lair he clearly is.

Your claim to be able to prove that 600,000 scientists, out of the world total of 666,666 is, of course, in no way less true than the entire warming scam. I await your evidence for it.

I note that Barry is still maintaining, despite the court proof, that Gore never said it. One of the differences between science & religion is that scientists will change their minds as a result of evidence whereas shamans maintain their authority by claiming a monopoly on the truth. Thus they cannot acknowledge error, even in small & barely relevant things like whether their prophet lied, for fear the whole edifice crumbles.

Barry has shown which following he is involved in.

Ed: Neil, stop trolling. You’re hereby on moderation. All you need to do is post something that is even vaguely sensible. You’re not doing that right now. Simple enough suggestion. I suggest you follow it and you might get something out of this blog.

And there are certainly experimental work on more than just pteropods – it includes scleractinians.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;315/5820/1811
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8p25514t153p723/

The latter paper is particularly interesting in that its very recent (Sept 2008) and based on an elegant mesocosm setup, so I’ll cite the abstract (see also references this paper cites):

Ocean acidification and calcifying reef organisms: a mesocosm investigation

Abstract A long-term (10 months) controlled experiment was conducted to test the impact of increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) on common calcifying coral reef organisms. The experiment was conducted in replicate continuous flow coral reef mesocosms flushed with unfiltered sea water from Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Mesocosms were located in full sunlight and experienced diurnal and seasonal fluctuations in temperature and sea water chemistry characteristic of the adjacent reef flat. Treatment mesocosms were manipulated to simulate an increase in pCO2 to levels expected in this century [midday pCO2 levels exceeding control mesocosms by 365 ± 130 μatm (mean ± sd)]. Acidification had a profound impact on the development and growth of crustose coralline algae (CCA) populations. During the experiment, CCA developed 25% cover in the control mesocosms and only 4% in the acidified mesocosms, representing an 86% relative reduction. Free-living associations of CCA known as rhodoliths living in the control mesocosms grew at a rate of 0.6 g buoyant weight year−1 while those in the acidified experimental treatment decreased in weight at a rate of 0.9 g buoyant weight year−1, representing a 250% difference. CCA play an important role in the growth and stabilization of carbonate reefs, so future changes of this magnitude could greatly impact coral reefs throughout the world. Coral calcification decreased between 15% and 20% under acidified conditions. Linear extension decreased by 14% under acidified conditions in one experiment. Larvae of the coral Pocillopora damicornis were able to recruit under the acidified conditions. In addition, there was no significant difference in production of gametes by the coral Montipora capitata after 6 months of exposure to the treatments.

How else do you explain the observed decalcification rates under increased pCO2? Do you (or Short) dispute the authors conclusions? Is Short claiming (implicitly) that all of the above authors have a ‘total lack of geochemistry’ [or indeed a lack of discerning intelligence]?

Regarding some other details of your comment, I’m not sure to whom Short’s quoted comments were directed or what the reply was. I also don’t know what you might mean or imply by a “reef research industry”. But anyway, the trajectory of coral reefs worldwide is well documented, e.g.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5635/955 (this review includes Australia)
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11458.abstract
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060054&ct=1

If you wish to debate the detail of the geochemistry or bleaching evidence, I suggest you would more productively do so with Ove or Simon, or at a blog specifically dedicated to the issue of ocean acidification, run by the European Project on Ocean Acidification. Here is a sample link, highlighting a 2006 paper on this issue:

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/significant-long-term-increase-of-fossil-fuel-co2-uptake-from-reduced-marine-calcification/

Also pteropods are quite fragile so not a good example.

Calcification rate is not dissolution. Different chemistry. Indeed Short said …”
Unfortunately, due to your total lack of knowledge of geochemistry and a logical and discerning intelligence, you seem incapable of understanding the DISTINCT chemical difference between the saturation state of a mineral and its potential dissolution (decalcification) OR its formation rates (calcification) i.e. the distinction between the THERMODYNAMIC and KINETIC constraints which apply.

Saturation state (as measured by Saturation Index; SI) is a thermodynamic CONSTRAINT i.e. if SI>0.00 decalcification is thermodynamically FOBIDDEN. This is precisely why the AGO were telling a definite lie. However, if SI>0.00 mineral formation (calcification) is thermodynamically allowed. That SI says NOTHING about whether it will then happen a a slow or fast rate.

You are utterly confusing the equilibrium thermodynamic condition that ALLOWS calcification (or not) with the kinetic condition(s) that CONTROLS calcification RATE.

The latter is affected, as I pointed out, by a large number of chemical/environmental variable and indeed by the health of the organism forming the biogenic calcium carbonate – which may be affected by metabolic (and hence subject to environmental stress) factors quite unrelated to the DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) status of the seawater.” ………..

So I’m really looking for an explanation on the chemothermodynamic considerations.

And the case around the undersea vent is extreme and atypical. Floor Anthoni is scathing
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

And for balance here’s CO2 oozing from a fumarole and coral in great condition.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003220.html

The gbrmpa overview is standard stuff – all part of the reef research industry – but again doesn’t give any indication of long-term effects on the reef. Indeed Janice Lough who did the 4x pre-European work has a 2007 paper showing long term PDO and ENSO effects going back at least 400 years. So this on/off environment has been dumping sediment out of the Burdekin and Fitzroy for a long time. And previous El Ninos would have also bleached the reef and it’s still there. I suggest there is no bleaching trend. Merely episodic events. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/coral/west_pacific/great_barrier/queensland-riverflow2007.txt

Where is the evidence that there is any trend in coral damage and that all we’re seeing is episodic outbreaks of bleaching, cyclone damage and COTS.

So I’m really stunned that we don’t have better scientific material on all of this. The case seems very loose.

BTW I’m told that we have corals colonising Moreton Bay ! As the nearby marine environment warms. Lough J. M. (2008), Shifting climate zones for Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L14708, doi:10.1029/2008GL034634.