[John Mason]

I still believe you are missing the point, Dave - the RATE of change is the all-important factor. There is evidence for occasional geologically rapid atmosphere/sea chemistry changes in the fossil record - the Siberian Traps being a classic - where the whole system appears to have gone out of balance worldwide.The anthro GHG change is going at breakneck speed.

If I may offer an analogy. Climbers attempting peaks like Everest make sure that they spend a week or more on a slow approach march to Base Camp at about 17,500 feet ASL. This allows their systems to become acclimatised. However, there has been more than one occasion where e.g. journalists have helicoptered straight in and the sudden change to rarefied air has led to them becoming seriously ill with oedema - cerebral and/or pulmonary. A rapid change in environmental properties is, I suggest, liable to risk similar deteriorations.

Cheers - John

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

I am not missing the point at all, the actual point is that you keep dancing around the claim that the current global acidification is not due to CO2. Further more there does not appear to be an indication that even with atmospheric CO2 values up to 10 times greater then the current levels that it lead to oceanic acidification. At best marine species diversifided or relocated to take advantage of the different resource.

The point you are missing is because of blaten attemps to "Sound the Alarm", the Environmentalists Community has shot itself in the arse and risks the credibility of all scientists. If they were less zealot and a little slower on the trigger it certainly would help. (Keeping in mind I am one and only not quite as young as I once was.)

Miss-directed passion only fans the flames, it does little to redirect our society. Better to change then burn..., as the Druid fathers mermered at the onslaught of Christian Hordes..... :-) . The problem is this not a philosphical choice; but, a survival choice and the maintenance of the Western living standard and freedom, or put another way Western Society. Of course there are alternatives...

Cheers!
Dave

[John Mason]

I've just emailed someone who should know more answers - he's been working on the topic for his research career for a long time, so he should likely know more on the topic than any of us. Will post a bit more if I get a response - I was asking for up-to-date papers covering the CO2/acidification/rate of change in prehistory themes.

Cheers - John

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

Thanks, for getting more insight, I am not trying to pin you down; but, am trying to get the data straight in my mind. Trying to juggle so many varibles and with up to 1/3rd being half truths or misrepresentations, only fills my head with the tedium of cleaning house while trying to develop the next generation of rocket fuel... :-)

Cheers!
Dave

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

A new paper out of Southampton,

Davies, A., Kemp, A. E. S. & Pälike, H. Tropical ocean-atmosphere controls on inter-annual climate variability in the Cretaceous Arctic. Geophysical Research Letters 38, L03706, (011). doi:10.1029/2010GL046151

Davies, A., Kemp, A. E. S. & Pyke, J. Late Cretaceous seasonal ocean variability from the Arctic. Nature 460, 254-258 (2009). doi:10.1038/nature08141

Seems AGW maybe unlikely to influence ENSO/AO/NAO significantly. Looks like the record suggests that CO2 is not so much the influence then simply to influence a change in Atmospheric and/or Oceanic circulation. I suspect that there is much more to come as the research data increases over the next few years.

Cheers!
Dave

Possible Abstract: http://www.nature.co...ature08141.html