Report Climate change ipcc

[Midlands Ice Age]

2 hours ago, Devonian said:

Huh???

I said no such thing, you're putting words into my mouth. I asked you some questions, care to answer them?

Getting a short memory Dev...….

On ‎04‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 10:02, Devonian said:

You're playing with words.

 

MIA

 

[Devonian]

17 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Getting a short memory Dev...….

MIA

 

I asked you some questions. Care to answer them?

[Midlands Ice Age]

13 hours ago, Devonian said:

I asked you some questions. Care to answer them?

Don't answer meaningless questions Dev... move on. Try more science and no politics for a change..

The chemical scientific term for the process is neutralisation  caused by the buffering of the bicarb ion..

 

MIA 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

44 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Don't answer meaningless questions Dev... move on. Try more science and no politics for a change..

The chemical scientific term for the process is neutralisation  caused by the buffering of the bicarb ion..

MIA 

And yet another gratuitous allusion to others' (it's always others) implied politics... So I guess it takes a hack to know a hack. Maybe folks in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

[jonboy]

34 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

And yet another gratuitous allusion to others' (it's always others) implied politics... So I guess it takes a hack to know a hack. Maybe folks in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

Perhaps if we throw more stones we wouldn't have a greenhouse!!!

[Lauren]

It's getting needlessly snipey in here. I know it's a hot topic but try to keep it civil,  folks.

[Midlands Ice Age]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

And yet another gratuitous allusion to others' (it's always others) implied politics... So I guess it takes a hack to know a hack. Maybe folks in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

According to the IPCC V5 Report we do not have to worry about 'acidifiction' for a few centuries.

Hence questions about acidification are not relevant, even under the worst of the RCP scenarios. 

Click on the image for a clearer display.

MIA

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

28 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

According to the IPCC V5 Report we do not have to worry about 'acidifiction' for a few centuries.

Hence questions about acidification are not relevant, even under the worst of the RCP scenarios. 

Click on the image for a clearer display.

MIA

 

Thanks for that, MIA...

But, given the degree of uncertainty in the IPCC's (and everyone else's) predictions, and marine organisms' acute sensitivity to pH values, I'd have thought that the 'precautionary principle' might be the sensible option?

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

According to the IPCC V5 Report we do not have to worry about 'acidifiction' for a few centuries.

Hence questions about acidification are not relevant, even under the worst of the RCP scenarios. 

Click on the image for a clearer display.

MIA

 

That's not at all what your blurry charts suggest, nor what the IPCC say. Stop making things up

[Rambo]

2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

That's not at all what your blurry charts suggest, nor what the IPCC say. Stop making things up

Just to pick up on this silly comment, the charts aren't blurry at all, they're perfectly clear, so maybe you're looking at the wrong charts? 

[BornFromTheVoid]

7 minutes ago, Rambo said:

Just to pick up on this silly comment, the charts aren't blurry at all, they're perfectly clear, so maybe you're looking at the wrong charts? 

Blurry thumbnails, sorry! Point still stands, the comments made are the opposite of what the IPCC reports have stated.

[tablet]

have a look here , Carles Pelejero  Paper from 2005

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2204

it's pay walled but worth a read

The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a ∼300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over ∼50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.

 " suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems "

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by tablet

[Midlands Ice Age]

On ‎13‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 22:54, Midlands Ice Age said:

BFTV...

 Thanks for a realistic response.

 Do I detect an attempt to call my bluff

You clearly do not know my background.

The data has been extracted from the document you hold most dear  -

The Official IPPC v5 Report.

You can get access here from this link - 

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The section is the Section entitled     

'Evaluation of Climate Models'... It is Chapter 9 (more than 100 pages roughly of the report).

I understood that you and others on here would have read and understood it judging by the comments made on here.

Now as a user and writer of computer models, for a career, I spent 2 or 3 days going through the whole of chapter 9. I also have printed it out which does help to understand it all. 

It takes a long time.

So - I will give you the reference as a link and leave the details for yourself to sort out.

However to give you a clue I will simply include the following quote  which gives a clue to the unknown complexities, but the whole section is riddled with assumptions and unknowns which are eventually  parameterised to produce the desirable results.

----------------------------------------------------------------

9.1.3.1 Parameterizations

Parameterizations are included in all model components to represent processes that cannot be explicitly resolved; they are evaluated both in isolation and in the context of the full model. The purpose of this section is to highlight recent developments in the parameterizations employed in each model component. Some details for individual models are listed in Table 9.1.

----------------------------------------------------------------
 

Can I also add that there are about 15 different components in most of the models.

I think you guys have little ideas of the complexities in the writing and building of these attempts at predicting the future.

I spent quite a bit of time going through it all (yes I read the whole lot! - sad isn't it)l.. there are some places which document some of them and others in different other places.

I hope you do not expect me to explain it all in a post on this forum.

I will leave you to interpret it, since that is what you called for.

I am amazed at the amount of trust in the models displayed by the people on here.

Can I also add that I am a believer in models, but I know how even one small error in one part can have really dramatic effect elsewhere.

My summary (and advice) is treat the models (at the moment) with  caution. 

 I am awaiting the new version of the IPPC next version with interest. 

MIA

 

BFTV...

 This is the second time you have accused me of 'making things up', or a similar sort of accusation.

The above is my response to the first.

 

As to the above recent and newest  - can I suggest that you now read the IPCC V5 documents in  full, before you accuse anyone of 'making things up'. I think that you have concentrated too much on the management overview. Again this shows how the management (political view) of Climate Change varies from many of their technical experts. 

 

Try the following links to the appropriate references with the IPCC V5 full document that I have linked to already in my posted reply above.

 

You can find the tables and charts below as described in the subtext to the above charts.

 For further technical details see the
Technical Summary Supplementary Material {Figures 6.28, 12.5, and 12.28–12.31; Figures TS.15, TS.17, and TS.20} From the document,

MIA

 

If you actually read the document in full instead of just parroting what you are being told you want to know, you will find out exactly how much is still not understood.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age

[Paul]

@Midlands Ice Age - there are countless studies which contradict your view that it'll be a 'few centuries' before anyone has to worry about Ocean acidification, including many of the effects being felt already. The very report you're apparently quoting, clearly doesn't match your view. The graphs you're showing only go up to 2100 also, so what conclusion would you expect people to come to when you come out with a statement like that and have apparently nothing to back it up?

We've had this conversation before, you talk about your scientific background often, but then seem to go about science in a backward way by continually hunting to find evidence, no matter how tenuous, which supports your view. That isn't the way science works.

From the IPCC report:

Quote

Earth System Models project a global increase in ocean acidification for all RCP scenarios by the end of the 21st century, with a slow recovery after mid-century under RCP2.6. The decrease in surface ocean pH is in the range of 0.06 to 0.07 (15 to 17% increase in acidity) for RCP2.6, 0.14 to 0.15 (38 to 41%) for RCP4.5, 0.20 to 0.21 (58 to 62%) for RCP6.0 and 0.30 to 0.32 (100 to 109%) for RCP8.5. {2.2.4, Figure 2.1}

Quote

Since the beginning of the industrial era, oceanic uptake of CO2 has resulted in acidification of the ocean; the pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 (high confidence), corresponding to a 26% increase in acidity, measured as hydrogen ion concentration. There is medium confidence that, in parallel to warming, oxygen concentrations have decreased in coastal waters and in the open ocean thermocline in many ocean regions since the 1960s, with a likely expansion of tropical oxygen minimum zones in recent decades. {WGI SPM B.5, TS2.8.5, 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.8.5, Figure 3.20}

Quote

Some impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms have been attributed to human influence, from the thinning of pteropod and foraminiferan shells (medium confidence) to the declining growth rates of corals (low confidence). Oxygen minimum zones are progressively expanding in the tropical Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, due to reduced ventilation and O2 solubility in warmer, more stratified oceans, and are constraining fish habitat (medium confidence).

The above shows the risk assessments in the IPCC report, and for each outcome, by 2081 to 2100 there are shown to be significant effects. How does that fit with your assumption that there will be no problems for centuries?

Quote

A large fraction of terrestrial, freshwater and marine species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Extinction risk is increased relative to pre-industrial and present periods, under all RCP scenarios, as a result of both the magnitude and rate of climate change (high confidence). Extinctions will be driven by several climate-associated drivers (warming, sea-ice loss, variations in precipitation, reduced river flows, ocean acidification and lowered ocean oxygen levels) and the interactions among these drivers and their interaction with simultaneous habitat modification, over-exploitation of stocks, pollution, eutrophication and invasive species (high confidence). {WGII SPM B-2, 4.3–4.4, 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 25.6, 26.4, Box CC-RF, Box CC-MB}

Quote

Marine ecosystems, especially coral reefs and polar ecosystems, are at risk from ocean acidification (medium to high confidence). Ocean acidification has impacts on the physiology, behaviour and population dynamics of organisms. The impacts on individual species and the number of species affected in species groups increase from RCP4.5 to RCP8.5. Highly calcified molluscs, echinoderms and reef-building corals are more sensitive than crustaceans (high confidence) and fishes (low confidence) (Figure 2.6b). Ocean acidification acts together with other global changes (e.g., warming, progressively lower oxygen levels) and with local changes (e.g., pollution, eutrophication) (high confidence), leading to interactive, complex and amplified impacts for species and ecosystems (Figure 2.5b). {WGII SPM B-2, Figure SPM.6B, 5.4, 6.3.2, 6.3.5, 22.3, 25.6, 28.3, 30.5, Figure 6-10, Box CC-CR, Box CC-OA, Box TS.7}

And I could go on, and on, and on. Countless parts of the report, images, paragraphs, graphs which all contradict your view.. But somehow, you're ignoring all that, having apparently read the entire report and have decided to jump to an entirely different conclusion, hmmm.

For those who haven't read them, the reports are here http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, tablet said:

have a look here , Carles Pelejero  Paper from 2005

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2204

it's pay walled but worth a read

The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a ∼300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over ∼50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.

 

 

You accept the oceans are becoming more acidic then? Or are you simply cherry picking the bits of a paper you like?

Edited November 6, 2018 by Devonian

[Midlands Ice Age]

6 hours ago, Paul said:

@Midlands Ice Age - there are countless studies which contradict your view that it'll be a 'few centuries' before anyone has to worry about Ocean acidification, including many of the effects being felt already. The very report you're apparently quoting, clearly doesn't match your view. The graphs you're showing only go up to 2100 also, so what conclusion would you expect people to come to when you come out with a statement like that and have apparently nothing to back it up?

We've had this conversation before, you talk about your scientific background often, but then seem to go about science in a backward way by continually hunting to find evidence, no matter how tenuous, which supports your view. That isn't the way science works.

From the IPCC report:

The above shows the risk assessments in the IPCC report, and for each outcome, by 2081 to 2100 there are shown to be significant effects. How does that fit with your assumption that there will be no problems for centuries?

And I could go on, and on, and on. Countless parts of the report, images, paragraphs, graphs which all contradict your view.. But somehow, you're ignoring all that, having apparently read the entire report and have decided to jump to an entirely different conclusion, hmmm.

For those who haven't read them, the reports are here http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

Paul...

I think our  two posts have crossed over. 

Can I reply without being banned?

I believe that you have misread my position.

My responses above were to do with the term 'acidification'. Nowhere have I mentioned impact - which your post discusses.

I have not stated and do not believe that there will not be a change of pH.  It clearly will reduce as a result of having more CO2. 

I have never stated that there will be no impacts caused by a change in pH.

My remarks were made from the technical assessments in exactly the same report that you have produced above, but in the technical assessment section. I think that they are probably from the same data.

and for mine  (see above - to save bandwidth).

My argument is that -

1) The term that should be used is neutralisation via buffering and not acidification.

2) The term acidification is only applied when the pH gets down to 7. Note your post/graph/table  above never gets near it.

The graphs I present are from exactly  the same data (I believe) that you describe, but show the effect in terms of time-scale not in terms of possible impact. The graphs you produce are more shocking to viewers, particularly those who have a alarmist mentality.

3)  In terms of impact (as your reports show), the RCP 2.6 scenario never reaches a PH below 8.05. before it starts to rise again. Referred to in your quotes, and from my graph in about 50 years.

4) In terms of impact,  RCP 8.5 has more disastrous impacts as it is calculated to reach pH 7.81 when the CO2 levels reach just under 900 ppm.

5) CO2 levels in the mid range IPCC CO2  levels vary between these 2 levels.

None of them actually get into an acid pH state.

That is what I was discussing, and because of it I have been called various names..

I respect technical scientists,  and not political appointees.  

MIA

I will leave the matter at that.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age

[Paul]

8 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Paul...

<snip>

I believe that you have misread my position.

My responses above were to do with the term 'acidification'. Nowhere have I mentioned impact - which your post discusses.

<snip>

I respect technical scientists,  and not political appointees.  

MIA

I will leave the matter at that.

I see, so your 'no problem for centuries' comment was actually just petty arguing over semantics, worded to play to your audience and bait others. Nice.

If you do respect technical scientists, here are a few scientific studies about ocean acidification for you.

https://www.ocean-sci.net/13/411/2017/os-13-411-2017-discussion.html
Adverse Effect of Ocean Acidification on Marine Organisms
Effects of Ocean Acidification on Temperate Coastal Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries in the Northeast Pacific
Effects of ocean acidification and hydrodynamic conditions on carbon metabolism and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) fluxes in seagrass populations

Much like before, I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture with this small selection.
The definition of acidifiation from the Cambridge dictionary:

Quote

 

acidification
noun [ U ] UK/əˌsɪd.ɪ.fɪˈkeɪ.ʃən/ US  /əˌsɪd.ɪ.fɪˈkeɪ.ʃən/ specialized

the process of becoming an acid or the act of making something become an acid:

the problem of ocean acidification
Several factors can lead to acidification of soils.

 

Based on the fact that oceans are currently in the process of becoming an acid, even if it does take 'centuries' to get there, the word acidification is correct, which probably explains why countless scientists and scientific studies use it.

So, maybe it's time to move on and discuss the actual science, and the findings of that science, not just trying to find a way to fit it all to your preordained narrative?

[Methuselah]

9 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Paul...

That is what I was discussing, and because of it I have been called various names..

I respect technical scientists,  and not political appointees.  

MIA

You've been 'called names'? It looks to me as if you are the one guilty of name-calling, MIA: any technical scientists who happen not to share your world view are labelled 'political appointees'...

[Paul]

Maybe it's now time to move on from the name-calling and accusations of name-calling etc Pete, as we'll end up back on the merry go round otherwise. 

Science and debate around the science only from here on in please.  

[Methuselah]

Just now, Paul said:

Maybe it's now time to move on from the name-calling and accusations of name-calling etc Pete, as we'll end up back on the merry go round otherwise. 

Science and debate around the science only from here on in please.  

No probs, Paul...

[Midlands Ice Age]

2 hours ago, Paul said:

I see, so your 'no problem for centuries' comment was actually just petty arguing over semantics, worded to play to your audience and bait others. Nice.

If you do respect technical scientists, here are a few scientific studies about ocehttp://www.thetropicaltank.co.uk/ph.htm an acidification for you.

https://www.ocean-sci.net/13/411/2017/os-13-411-2017-discussion.html
Adverse Effect of Ocean Acidification on Marine Organisms
Effects of Ocean Acidification on Temperate Coastal Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries in the Northeast Pacific
Effects of ocean acidification and hydrodynamic conditions on carbon metabolism and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) fluxes in seagrass populations

 

Thanks Paul for the links I will read through them.

I admit that I am not an expert in marine ecosystems and I would be quite interested in finding out more about it as I keep a lot of different types of fish (about 60 in total, at the moment)  for  getting on for about 35 years now (3 pond system and 2 indoor tanks)..

The best I have is a tropical a marine fish tank, in which I have to keep the pH within reasonably strict bounds. 

I have had it as high as 8.2 and as low as  7.7 (after a holiday), but neither the fish nor the coral did  seem to be adversely affected.

I am personally more concerned about the plastic (and other) contaminations in our waters as things like Nitrogen (conversion to Ammonia are killer, pH rises).

According to documentation, it is not considered to be 'acid' until it reaches a pH of 7.0. My freshwater tank has been down to a pH of 7.2., and some are still alive 20 years later, although I have had to transfer them to my outdoor pools because  of their size.!

The following link is relevant for any fish keepers.

www.thetropicaltank.co.uk/ph.htm

 MIA

 

[Derecho]

18 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Thanks Paul for the links I will read through them.

I admit that I am not an expert in marine ecosystems and I would be quite interested in finding out more about it as I keep a lot of different types of fish (about 60 in total, at the moment)  for  getting on for about 35 years now (3 pond system and 2 indoor tanks)..

The best I have is a tropical a marine fish tank, in which I have to keep the pH within reasonably strict bounds. 

I have had it as high as 8.2 and as low as  7.7 (after a holiday), but neither the fish nor the coral did  seem to be adversely affected.

I am personally more concerned about the plastic (and other) contaminations in our waters as things like Nitrogen (conversion to Ammonia are killer, pH rises).

According to documentation, it is not considered to be 'acid' until it reaches a pH of 7.0. My freshwater tank has been down to a pH of 7.2., and some are still alive 20 years later, although I have had to transfer them to my outdoor pools because  of their size.!

The following link is relevant for any fish keepers.

www.thetropicaltank.co.uk/ph.htm

 MIA

 

The best I have is a tropical a marine fish tank

Not exactly a replica of the real ocean system is it?

I have had it as high as 8.2 and as low as  7.7 (after a holiday), but neither the fish nor the coral did  seem to be adversely affected.

Haven't you heard of a Bjerrum plot? Here is an one below:



The three main compounds here are Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Carbonate Ions (CO23) and bicarbonate ions (HCO3). The ratios of these are highly important because small changes can have a dramatic effect on our ocean ecosystem. Ph has dropped by 0.1 since the industrial revolution and is expected to drop by another 0.3 to 0.5 Ph units by 2100 depending on which emissions scenario we take.

 it is believed that the resulting decrease in pH will have negative consequences, primarily for oceanic calcifying organisms. These span the food chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and molluscs.

Some marine species can deal with the drop in pH but for others the impact is profound. When exposed in experiments to pH reduced by 0.2 to 0.4, larvae of a temperate brittlestar, a relative of the common sea star, fewer than 0.1 percent survived more than eight days. There is also a suggestion that a decline in the coccolithophores may have secondary effects on climate, contributing to global warming by decreasing the Earth's albedo via their effects on oceanic cloud cover. All marine ecosystems on Earth will be exposed to changes in acidification and several other ocean biogeochemical changes.

Aside from the slowing and/or reversing of calcification, organisms may suffer other adverse effects, either indirectly through negative impacts on food resources, or directly as reproductive or physiological effects. For example, the elevated oceanic levels of CO2 may produce CO2-induced acidification of body fluids, known as hypercapnia. Also, increasing ocean acidity is believed to have a range of direct consequences. For example, increasing acidity has been observed to: reduce metabolic rates in jumbo squid and depress the immune responses of blue mussels.

Another possible effect would be an increase in red tide events, which could contribute to the accumulation of toxins (domoic acid, brevetoxin, saxitoxin) in small organisms such as anchovies and shellfish, in turn increasing occurrences of amnesic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning and paralytic shellfish poisoning.

When oceans become more acidic, there are less bicarbonate ions formed and CO2 is dissolved less effectively, leading to possible exchange in the atmosphere. Although changes in pH of 0.1 are small, the potential impacts on the composition of the ocean are enormous.

 

According to documentation, it is not considered to be 'acid' until it reaches a pH of 7.0

Sigh... ocean acidification is referred to its name because the oceans are becoming more acidic, lets leave it at that.

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

6 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

The best I have is a tropical a marine fish tank

Not exactly a replica of the real ocean system is it?

I have had it as high as 8.2 and as low as  7.7 (after a holiday), but neither the fish nor the coral did  seem to be adversely affected.

Haven't you heard of a Bjerrum plot? Here is an one below:



The three main compounds here are Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Carbonate Ions (CO23) and bicarbonate ions (HCO3). The ratios of these are highly important because small changes can have a dramatic effect on our ocean ecosystem. Ph has dropped by 0.1 since the industrial revolution and is expected to drop by another 0.3 to 0.5 Ph units by 2100 depending on which emissions scenario we take.

 it is believed that the resulting decrease in pH will have negative consequences, primarily for oceanic calcifying organisms. These span the food chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and molluscs.

Some marine species can deal with the drop in pH but for others the impact is profound. When exposed in experiments to pH reduced by 0.2 to 0.4, larvae of a temperate brittlestar, a relative of the common sea star, fewer than 0.1 percent survived more than eight days. There is also a suggestion that a decline in the coccolithophores may have secondary effects on climate, contributing to global warming by decreasing the Earth's albedo via their effects on oceanic cloud cover. All marine ecosystems on Earth will be exposed to changes in acidification and several other ocean biogeochemical changes.

Aside from the slowing and/or reversing of calcification, organisms may suffer other adverse effects, either indirectly through negative impacts on food resources, or directly as reproductive or physiological effects. For example, the elevated oceanic levels of CO2 may produce CO2-induced acidification of body fluids, known as hypercapnia. Also, increasing ocean acidity is believed to have a range of direct consequences. For example, increasing acidity has been observed to: reduce metabolic rates in jumbo squid and depress the immune responses of blue mussels.

Another possible effect would be an increase in red tide events, which could contribute to the accumulation of toxins (domoic acid, brevetoxin, saxitoxin) in small organisms such as anchovies and shellfish, in turn increasing occurrences of amnesic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning and paralytic shellfish poisoning.

When oceans become more acidic, there are less bicarbonate ions formed and CO2 is dissolved less effectively, leading to possible exchange in the atmosphere. Although changes in pH of 0.1 are small, the potential impacts on the composition of the ocean are enormous.

 

According to documentation, it is not considered to be 'acid' until it reaches a pH of 7.0

Sigh… ocean acidification is referred to its name because the oceans are becoming more acidic, lets leave it at that.

 

QS...

I have stopped scoring points at Paul's request.

But I stated in the sentence before your quote about my tropical tank that I was not an expert on marine biology... so was your first comment necessary, or point scoring?

Most fish are reasonably 'immune' to normal changes in pH.    Take eels or perhaps salmon as  examples.  They actually make use of it for their spawning?

Fish are capable of adaption, probably as a result of having had rapid changes in pH in previous eras of climate change.

GRR...… ocean acidification is referred to its name because the oceans are becoming more acidic, lets leave it at that.

Its a pity climate change cannot use conventional science... But I guess that 'neutralisation'  is not really sexy enough, for your desires!

MIA

 

[Methuselah]

I guess that like most of these ecological situations, it'll be the specialists (or niche species) and not the generalists that'll feel the adverse effects of acidification first. They are, after all, the species that are the least resilient to any sudden change in their respective environments?

[BornFromTheVoid]

7 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Most fish are reasonably 'immune' to normal changes in pH.    Take eels or perhaps salmon as  examples.  They actually make use of it for their spawning?

There's more to the ocean than fish and even they are not completely immune. From the IPCC:

Shell thinning in planktonic foraminifera and in Southern Ocean pteropoda has been attributed fully or in part to acidification trends (medium to high confidence). Coastward shifts in upwelling CO2-rich waters of the Northeast Pacific cause larval oyster fatalities in aquacultures (high confidence) or shifts from mussels to fleshy algae and barnacles (medium confidence), providing an early perspective on future effects of ocean acidification. This supports insight from volcanic CO2 seeps as natural analogs that macrophytes (seaweeds and seagrasses) will outcompete calcifying organisms. During the next decades ecosystems, including cold- and warm-water coral communities, are at increasing risk of being negatively affected by ocean acidification, especially as ocean acidification will be combined with rising temperature extremes (medium to high confidence, respectively).

Interactions of temperature, ocean acidification, and hypoxia narrow thermal ranges and enhance sensitivity to temperature extremes in organisms such as corals, coralline algae, mollusks, crustaceans, and fishes (high confidence). In primary producers, light and individual nutrients can also interact with temperature and acidification. Combined warming and ocean acidification reduce calcification in warm-water corals (high confidence). Ocean acidification will alter availability of trace metals (low confidence)

 

7 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Fish are capable of adaption, probably as a result of having had rapid changes in pH in previous eras of climate change.

According to the IPCC, current changes are very likely at least 10 times faster than any in the last 65 million years, and probably the last 300 million years too:

The current rate and magnitude of ocean acidification are at least 10 times faster than any event within the last 65 Ma (high confidence; Ridgwell and Schmidt, 2010) or even 300 Ma of Earth history (medium confidence; Hönisch et al., 2012). The slower events in geological history provide robust evidence (high agreement) for environmentally mediated changes in biogeographic ranges of fauna and flora, their compositional changes, extinctions, and, to much lesser degree, emergences(very high confidence).No past climate change event perfectly parallels future projections of anthropogenic climate change, which is unprecedented in evolutionary history. Existing similarities indicate, however, that future challenges (Sections 6.1.1, 6.3.1-8) may be outside the adaptive capacity of many organisms living in today’s oceans (low to medium confidence).

8 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Its a pity climate change cannot use conventional science... But I guess that 'neutralisation'  is not really sexy enough, for your desires!

The only people using the term "neutralisation" for ocean acidification are yourself, and the readers of WUWT and other contrarian blogs, where this whole semantic argument has been pushed (surprise, surprise) thanks to a blog post from a student. Chemists and other scientists don't use that term. Look up any paper on the topic and you're likely to find scientists from a whole range of disciplines, all happily using the term "acidification".
Another example. Do a google scholar search for "ocean acidification" and you get over 43,000 results.
Try "ocean neutralisation" and you get 3 results. The first is an error, as there's a full stop between the 2 words, while the other 2 (for some reason) link to Judith Curry's blog (surprise surprise, yet again!). 

I think it's rather clear that it is not a term used in any field of science and you really need to give up on it!