• It is 100% provable and traceable to anthropogenic CO2

• The phenomenon isnt complex

• It was only recently understood (just 5 years ago)

• It is vastly underused as a rally cry by advocates of CO2 regulation.

• The speed of the change makes species adaptation difficult, and almost impossible for coral reefs

My limited understanding is thar carbonic acid is caused by rainfall passing through air that contains certain concentrations of carbon dioxide, causing a weak acid called carbonic acid.  The gaseous interface is mainly seaweed and related vegetative growth, that absorbs the gas much in the was a tree does. 

The first pathway, rainfall, lowers ocean pH, making it more acid.  The second prevents CO2 from being naturally absorbed into the water column.  Thus as atmospheric CO2 concentration rise, precipitation can lead to more intense acidification. 

Given the notion that there are "hot spots" and seemingly random, non-linear events, I am unsure if there is a comprehensive study on a global scale of such ocean-carbon cycles, that includes precipitation to the seafloor as well.  I'd be very careful about this unless there were two or three peer-reviewed papers that could agree on the mass balance fluxes. 

I say that because you'll expose yourself to the climate naysayers and deniers who can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that some parts of the ocean are in fact getting healthier - like some saying that parts of the Antarctic are actually getting colder.  Being a skeptic and a thinker, I think we shouldn't leap off the cliff but a very stern warning is definitely in order, since both pathways reate to increases in gaseous CO2 increases.

Unlike global warming, there is NO controversy that anthropogenic CO2 is the major contributor to carbonic acid and the lowering of ocean pH. There is no other forcer even in the same neighborhood. And its chemically traceable.

I dont give a rats ass what the absorption method is. All I want to know is

• where it comes from (humans burning fossil fuels. period. full stop.)

• how fast is it happening (a THOUSAND times faster than when it happened in the geologic past)

• where is it happening first (the poles and cold upwellings)

• when does it become corrosive and dissolve shell based species (its already started in the worst case scenario zones, larger areas as soon as the 2050's)

• how do we adapt to the inevitable changes and species loss

The work of...

Dick Feely, Jim Orr, Viki Fabry, Ken Caldeira, Scripps, NOAA, and the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology kicks denier's asses up and down the street!

F*ck "stern warnings". We're about to regulate CO2, baby. Pole to frickin pole. Sign up or stand aside in peace while we do the work.

I am not a "denier" but a scientist and I believe I said this was a big deal, although poorly understood as how the chemical reactions occur in local spots of the ocean, although we're gaining knowledge all the time.  I guess you just had some negative emotions or something - not very clinical or objective?

Let me give you an example.  We all know about reef decline, and suspect that carbonic acid loading might be one of the causes.  it is not THE cause because other kinds of pollution, such as from disturbing the soils, having urban run-off, doing dredging, and allowing wasterwater to percolate into the coral reefs also have taken a toll.  Then you have an invasive green, slimy algae of some kind I can't remember that forms over the coral structures.  If you have even been to Key West you can see those damaged area for yourself, simply by snorkeling.  So it is several things happening at once.  Which came first?

There again, I am smart enough to know that atmospheric CO2 loading might be a principle cause, no matter how hard it is to tease causality and plausibility from the symptoms [of reef decline] we see.  But that's just one example.  I;m sure you're heard about multi-collinearity and such.

If you say that you are 100% certain that only carbonic acid from CO2 is what is causing problems in the ocean, I would probably dismiss your answer as being journalistic pap, as opposed to a scientist who must test a hypothesis with a certain research design, qualitatively or quanititatively.

So you are aware that if there is a calcium pathway, carbon is essentially extracted from carbonic acid and gaseous CO2 and converted to calcium carbonate - the same stuff that buffers acidity, is used for sea shells, and ends up precipitated as limestone over the millennia.  So when we say we're losing ground on that CaCO3 (calcium cadonate) pathway, that means a lot to me. 

From what I've read there are about half a dozen such carbon pathways that work in the ocean, and to model them would be extremely complex - a challenge I would welcome if some had the bucks.  In the meantime, I would recommend you use that horrendously inaccurate source, Wikipedia, to offer you some of the contractory evidence that in some areas, ocean acificiation can actually increase calcification, such as promoting shelly organisms.  As a scientist I find that very, very interesting, which means we still have more to learn about what limits certain chemical pathways and not others. 

And no, you didn't offend me in the least because I know you're just trying to do the right thing, and meant no malice.

1.) You mentioned the denier crowd and so it only follows that that is who I was speaking of, when I referenced them, no? I was accusing you of sowing unnecessary doubt where there is none. And I was correct. Your statement, "Well I've read some professional papers on ocean acifidicifation, and it's really not understood all that well" is without merit. There may be a 'corner' of specific research that needs clarification, for example, 'why the purple coral is slower to die off than the pteropods, ect.', but the cause and effect is not one of them.

2.) You then moved over into the multiple causes of reef collapse and 'problems in the ocean', something I didn't even address or claim only came solely from OA. What an erroneous claim to say that was my argument. I'm talking about general acidification, dissolving shells, and the culprit being anthropogenic CO2.

3.) Betcha a thousand dollars that any calcifier life-forms that BENEFIT from acidification are in such a minority that they are nothing more than a curiosity. Where is your money?

Emotional? Yes. Stupid? No. I know the context of the date (the month and the year) that you are bringing this crap in here. Its just before the Waxman-Markey vote and then Copehagen. You know that your statement "Well I've read some professional papers on ocean acifidicifation, and it's really not understood all that well." would be read as "there is no proof of causation". And for that you *earned* the emotion. Live with it.

Keep on misrepresenting my statements.