Plus CO2 is not an acid. So experiments that show the results of putting acid in ocean water are irrelevant.
Coral use CO2 to build, and are constantly shedding and replenishing.
Wikipedia is your friend.
The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago [1]
-------------
From 20,000 years ago until 6,000 years ago, sea level rose steadily. As it rose, the corals could then grow higher on the hills of the coastal plain. By around 13,000 years ago the sea level was only 60 metres (200 ft) lower than the present day, and corals began to grow around the hills of the coastal plain, which were, by then, continental islands. As the sea level rose further still, most of the continental islands were submerged. The corals could then overgrow the hills, to form the present cays and reefs. Sea level here has not risen significantly in the last 6,000 years. The CRC Reef Research Centre estimates the age of the present, living reef structure at 6,000 to 8,000 years old. [2]
-------------
Most people believe that the most significant threat to the status of the Great Barrier Reef and of the planet's other tropical reef ecosystems is climate change, consisting chiefly of global warming and the El Ni?o effect. and turn colourless, revealing their white calcium carbonate skeletons, under the stress of waters that remain too warm for too long. At this stage the coral is still alive, and if the water cools, the coral can regain its zooxanthellae. If the water does not cool within about a month, the coral will die of starvation. Australia experienced its warmest year on record in 2005. Abnormally high sea temperatures during the summer of 2005-2006 have caused massive coral bleaching in the Keppel Island group.
Most scientists studying the issue believe that climate change poses a massive threat to the future of the Great Barrier Reef. A draft report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's preeminent gathering of climate scientists, states that the Great Barrier Reef is at grave risk and will be "functionally extinct" by 2030, warning that coral bleaching will likely become an annual occurrence.
However, a few scientists hold that coral bleaching may in some cases be less of a problem than the mainstream believes. Professor Ridd, from James Cook University in Townsville was quoted in The Australian (a conservative newspaper) as saying; "They are saying bleaching is the end of the world, but when you look into it, that is a highly dubious proposition". Research by scientist Ray Berkelmans "... has documented astonishing levels of recovery on the Keppel outcrops devastated by bleaching in 2006." A related article in The Australian newspaper goes on to explain that; "Those that expel their zooxanthellae have a narrow opening to recolonise with new, temperature-resistant algae before succumbing. In the Keppels in 2006, Berkelmans and his team noticed that the dominant strain of zooxanthellae changed from light and heat-sensitive type C2, to more robust types D and C1. [3]
Bonus a link for you to the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate... [4]
Apparently nothing - if you think the mythology of illiterate Bronze Age sheep herders represents reality.
=====
antarcticice --
>>whoops how old does creationism say the Earth is<<
The "official" moment of creation - calculated by Bishop James Ussher in the 17th century is: Sunday, October 23, 4004 bc. And, if I remember correctly, I think it was 9:00 AM (I've never understood the time-zone question - but my money is on whatever time the pubs open).
There is a bristlecone tree-ring chronology from California that has annual resolution back to 6,700 bc. Whoops.
I like the way you ignore the premise of the story, to somehow disprove evolution in favor of creationism, I guess any scientific credibility you might have claimed went out the window on that point alone.
The real situation from the vary same source quoted for growth rates in this story (on just one individual reef) off Townsville.
Now I wonder what a story from the group claimed as the source in this anti science story might have to say
That source is AIMS (Australian Institute of Marine Science )
It seems they don't share the view held by the writers of your story
http://www.aims.gov.au/latest-news/-/ass...
http://www.aims.gov.au/web/guest/early-w...
Is denial really this pathetic.
Gary F: You left out that the illiterate Bronze Age sheep herders, didn't even invent much of their mythology but borrowed it from other older civilizations and just changed the names, the Noah tale is actually from Mesopotamia, one of the groups that made up that civilization where the Sumerian's who are solidly dated back to 5300AD, whoops how old does creationism say the Earth is.
NOT A THING/ Those reefs have been there forever and I'm from Florida/ Also Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelites reports 11/28/2012. Mike
They say its more acid but the oceans PH is 8.2
7 is neutral . Its more alkaline Warmers cant tell the difference.
http://creation.com/age-great-barrier-reef
" ... The Pandora Reef is a part of the Great Barrier Reef. Researchers drilled into the structural part of this reef to a depth of 10 meters, and recovered complete drill-core records of the growth of the coral colonies that make up the reef. This drill core was analyzed and scientist Peter Isdale of A.I.M.S. reported his findings in the journal Nature.1 When the drill core was placed under ultraviolet light, he observed a remarkable phenomenon―the coral displayed bright bands of yellow-green fluorescence in an irregular pattern-of varying intensities. The frequency and intensities of these fluorescent bands were continuously measured down the whole vertical depth (1.8m) of one coral colony and then recorded in graphical form. This record of the coral’s fluorescent bands was then compared with records of flooding from the nearby Burdekin River, and it showed a near perfect correlation.
This correlation between the deposition of fluorescent material in the coral skeleton and the outflow of the Burdekin River was so pronounced that the fluorescent bands were found to record high river water flows even down to the level of brief events, as was demonstrated by different fluorescent bands showing the February and April floods of the 1958 wet season (Figure 1). It was evident that increased river flow during floods strongly influences the coral growth. It affected not only seasonal but annual rates of growth. The resulting bands produced in the coral are not unlike tree rings, with denser fluorescent bands formed during periods of high freshwater runoff. Indeed, this confirms other studies which have shown that the density of corals varies with the season. The highest densities in the coral skeletons are formed in the summer months, the same months in which rivers like the Burdekin River flood.
On correlating the historically recorded Burdekin River outflow measurements and the fluorescent bands in the drill core of Pandora Reef coral, it was found that 1.8 meters of coral had taken only 118 years to grow! This was also confirmed by crosschecking the corals under X-rays, a method that is proving to give a very good record of coral growth. The average growth rate of these Pandora Reef corals was found to be 15.3 mm per year, a figure which compares well with previously measured growth rates of between 5 mm and 25 mm per year for massive coral colonies elsewhere on the Great Barrier Reef.
This new information immediately suggests a method for finding how old the reefs are which are made up by these banded corals. A reef will only grow as quickly as the corals that form the reef. This banding method would thus appear to give a reasonable guide to not only the age of Pandora Reef, but the age of all such reefs that make up the Great Barrier Reef, Australia’s world-class natural wonder. ... "
