164 responses to “3 More New Papers Expose The Folly Of ‘Ocean Acidification’ Claims”

  1. richard

    The Canadian Marine authorities state the Ph of the seas are stable between 7.5-8.5.

    Marine authorities around the world state safety levels for marine life at between 6.5 – 9.5

  2. RAH

    The way I read a pH chart it seems to me the way to say it is that it is less alkaline or basic and thus closer to neutral. How can something be more acidic when it has a pH number higher than neutral? Acidic does not start until you go lower than 7 or neutral.

    Some may think I’m splitting hairs but then again that is part of what science is about isn’t it?

    I’m just always sensitive to the language that is used and the premise presented because people have constantly been misled using such tactics.

    1. Penelope

      RAH, you’re right of course, but the language chosen is just one more proof of a conscious, paid-for hoax.

      Joe Public, as Kenneth said, thinks “more acidic” is scarier than “less alkaline”. Actually, I do believe that alkaline is scarier to the fish, and requires them to defend against it.

      Most human food, including fish, meat, vegetables, grain, etc is acid, as in amino acid.

      1. SebastianH

        RAH, you’re right of course, but the language chosen is just one more proof of a conscious, paid-for hoax.

        And you wonder why you guys are called conspiracy theorists? 😉

        Joe Public, as Kenneth said, thinks “more acidic” is scarier than “less alkaline”.

        Well, there are usually only two directions on such a scale. Accelerating/Decelerating, louder/quieter, warming/cooling, acidification/alkalinisation, etc … would you say that is not cooling, but less warming happens if the temperature drops? Weird.

        Actually, I do believe that alkaline is scarier to the fish, and requires them to defend against it.

        It’s not about fish at all, it’s about the much smaller life at the beginning of the food chain.

        1. AndyG55

          ” it’s about the much smaller life at the beginning of the food chain.”

          Don’t worry seb.. you and your AGW scum will survive.

          You actually NEED CO2.. you just are too brain-hosed to admit it.

          Well, there are usually only two directions on such a scale.

        2. AndyG55

          “you guys are called conspiracy theorists”

          ROFLMAO.

          Again, you are the one bringing up the word.

          I’ve never been called that by anyone except you.

          And from you it is MEANINGLESS.

          Don’t you have enough mirrors at home, seb ???

          Even your own priests have said what the REAL purpose behind the Anti-CO2 AGW-cult agenda is.

    2. richard

      The term acidification of the seas was coined by Caldeira back in 2003 to frighten the witless.

      Behind the scenes this is what he wrote-

      “This is often termed “ocean acidification” because it describes the
      process of decreasing pH. Current projections of ocean acidification
      suggest that
      the pH of surface ocean waters will continue to decline. However, the
      term can also lead to confusion
      when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in
      reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the
      oceans are becoming
      less basic, but not acidic. Such a phenomenon could
      only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions
      reach more than 10,000 Pg C (Caldeira and Wickett,
      2005)

      1. dennisambler

        Spot on, but he still kept on publicly pushing the scary theory. Caldeira featured in a film by the National Resources Defense Council in August 2009, called “Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification”, narrated by Sigourney Weaver. He participated in several Royal Society reports on “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide”

        More background on this here:
        “Acid Seas – Back To Basic”
        http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/acid-seas

    3. Tom

      On the pH scale whenever one pH is 8 or 5->4. in the first case you are right that they are both alkaline but the 8 is “more” acidic than 9 by quite a bit. Remember that pH is a logarithmic scale.

      1. AndyG55

        no, 8 is not “acidic” at all..

        so it can’t be “more acidic”

        Yes, it has a greater concentration of H+ ions, but it is not acidic, any more than caustic soda is acidic.

        to use a sebian analogy..

        if my bank account goes from negative $2000 to negative $1000, do I have more money in the bank ?

  3. Graeme No.3

    The very concept of pH became current in the early 1900’s. The first commercial pH meter was released in 1939.
    Yet these people claim to know the pH of sea water for the last 265 years. How do they know it has declined? By assuming that it has declined and making up a figure (sorry! using a computer model) that confirms their assumption. This is
    Chemically
    Related
    Alarmist
    Propaganda.

    1. SebastianH

      Graeme, how do we know the temperature from 265 years ago? How do we know it from 1000 years ago? How do we know the TSI from before the satellite age?

      Are reconstructions a new concept to you?

      1. Graeme No.3

        Temperatures can be reconstructed by the O18/O16 ratio, well known and fairly accurate science. How do we know the TSI from before the satellite age – we don’t because you and you fellow believers claim that the sun has never varied, so you can claim that the (adjusted) recent figures are something “unprecedented” ( to use a much overworked, indeed abused word). Others use the C14 level or the Be10 level as a measure of solar strength.

        But how do you reconstruct a pH? With a nonexistent pH meter?
        Clear off, SebastianH, you know nothing about Science only Dogma from the Church of Self Deluding believers in a Flat and never varying Earth.

        1. SebastianH

          You should have tried googling “pH reconstruction” as well …

          1. AndyG55

            Only the VERY deluded think they can “reconstruct” ocean pH from before the industrial revolution to 0.1pH accuracy.

            Oh.. its seb..

          2. Graeme No.3

            Since the authors of the original paper didn’t mention diatoms so bloody what? They weren’t in a lake with big pH changes, they just ASSUMED that the pH was affected by the level of CO2 and extrapolated back to some impressive sounding date and manufactured a pH figure. They then used this as conformation of their claim.
            Obviously SebastianH you aren’t a scientist and not very strong on logic either.

          3. Tom

            Reconstruction of molecular concentrations are feasible. Reconstruction of H503 (hydronium ion) or OH ion (pH) is little more than wishful thinking. Exposure to the ice lattice, CO2. CO3, O2, or any other lewis acid or base ( all those salts in sea water) would change the ph in a variety of nonlinear ways. this could not be reliable modeled, though that would stop anyone

      2. AndyG55

        All historic measurements of ocean surface pH seb

        https://s19.postimg.cc/ewnhcf8bn/ocean_PH_all_surface_readings.png

        Purely alkaline and purely staying that way. Maybe a slight trend toward more caustic.? what do you see in that REAL DATA, seb?

        One day you might actually learn enough chemistry to understand the difference between acidic and alkaline.

        But like proof of CO2 warming.. we expect to be waiting a LONG, LONG time for anything but EMPTY mindless rhetorical AGW regurgitation from you.

        1. SebastianH

          One day you might actually learn enough chemistry to understand the difference between acidic and alkaline.

          One day you might learn to comprehend words …

          But perhaps you do say your tea has become less warm instead of “it cooled down”. Anyway, calling a decrease on the pH scale acidification is perfectly fine.

          Real data: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series

          https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

          1. AndyG55

            roflmao

            Another FAILED seb analogy, showing he has zero competence in chemistry.

            Aloha was just part of the normal cycle of pH swings

            https://s19.postimg.cc/3tmdoeac3/p_Hand_CO2.png

            Were you UNAWARE of that , seb ? (add it to the LONGGGGG list !!)

            And surly you aren’t dumb enough to put any importance in such a short term study when there are KNOWN CYCLES.

            And a link to a low-science NOAA propaganda page intended just for gullible, low-information people like you.

            *SIGH !!!*

          2. AndyG55

            ” calling a decrease on the pH scale acidification is perfectly fine.”

            Iff you are doing it for propaganda purposes.

            Scientifically .. Not so much.

            But you stick with the propaganda, seb

            Science seems to be BEYOND you.

            The correct term when you lower a pH .7 using an acid reaction is neutralisation.

            And there is ZERO evidence except from assumption driven models that the oceans are neutralising. They remain steadfastly around pH 8.1 even with all the rivers , that are often acidic, pouring into them over millions of years.

            No feeble change in a minor trace gas is EVER going to change that pH in any way what so ever.

            Its just ANOTHER hoax from the CO2 HATING AGW-cultists.

          3. SebastianH

            Aloha was just part of the normal cycle of pH swings [links to a picture of Hawaiian pH level reconstruction back to 1700]

            Only the VERY deluded think they can “reconstruct” ocean pH from before the industrial revolution to 0.1pH accuracy.

            Hmm, are you “VERY deluded”?

          4. AndyG55

            “when you lower a pH .7”

            OOPS a “greater than ” sign doesn’t work, does it,

            read it as

            “when you lower a pH greater than 7…using an acid reaction, it is called neutralising ” NOT acidifying.

            chemistry 101, for seb, when he gets that far.

          5. AndyG55

            “are you “VERY deluded”?”

            You are the one that “believes” in a change of 0.1 pH.. ZERO REAL EVIDENCE

            You are the one “believes” CO2 causes warming.. ZERO EVIDENCE

            Basically everything you “believe” about climate has ZERO-EVIDENCE.

            That makes you the DELUSIONAL one.

            Either that or mind-numbingly GULLIBLE.

  4. AndyG55

    The graph of all ocean surface pH readings over time looks like this.

    https://s19.postimg.cc/ewnhcf8bn/ocean_PH_all_surface_readings.png

  5. Penelope

    But…but– colder water holds more CO2, so are they saying it’s colder now than 265 years ago?

    Or do warmists not admit that colder water holds more CO2 & is therefore less alkaline?

    I’m getting confused. Isn’t the sea already saturated w CO2, so that human’s can’t add to it? Water holds a certain fraction of CO2 depending on the temperature, no? I seem to remember something called Benny’s Law.

    Can anyone straighten me out on this? I’m sure the warmists can’t have made such an obvious error, so it must be me.

  6. Bitter&twisted

    Looks like Professor Peter Ridd was right about the nonscience scare stories being produced about the Great Barrier Reef.
    And the green fascists got him sacked.

  7. SebastianH

    According to McElhany, 2017, “there are no studies that directly demonstrate modern day effects of OA [ocean acidification] on marine species.” There still aren’t.

    Really? Google Scholar seems to be full of such studies …
    https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0698
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07051
    and so on

    Without valid scientific explanation or detailing the driving mechanism, prognosticators of CO2-induced climate doom are claiming (via modeling) that the -0.08 change in 265 years will morph into a -0.4 change in the next 82 years!

    Umm, the driving mechanism is really simple physics. More CO2 in the atmosphere causes more CO2 to be absorbed by the oceans even though the oceans are supposed to warm even further (keyword is: differential pressure). These are pretty fundamental laws and yes, we do have measurements.

    And yes, that is a model! Just as when I tell you that the temperature of your glass of Cola will reach about 0°C when you drop ice cubes in it or when I tell you that your car will drive 50 km in the next half hour if you maintain a speed of 100 km/h. These predictive skills are based on a model that is based on the laws of physics. Your aversion to models is weird …

    P.S.: Cookies still not working. Is your DSGVO plugin acting up?

    1. AndyG55

      “the driving mechanism is really simple physics”

      … which is the only sort you are capable of.

      One day you may get to something more intellectual.. or NOT !!

      There is ZERO evidence of enhanced CO2 having any affect on anything except plant growth. The so-called mechanism you are brain-hosed about are a pure fantasy based of mindless assumptions.. NOT PHYSICS

      And yet more juvenile attempts at manically irrelevant analogies.

      One day, you may figure out that your simplistic child-minded analogies show JUST HOW LITTLE you actually comprehend about anything.

      But until then.. your clown act will suffice

    2. AndyG55

      OMG seb

      your links.. did you really want to use them ??

      Did you just pluck them out of la-la-land like you usual citings???

      First one is NATURAL ocean upwelling of cooler more CO2 rich water. Stuff happens.

      Second one is mindless AGW supposition, based on absolutely NOTHING of any sort of real science.

      It uses every misdirection and anti-science nonsense they could come up with.

      About the only thing it does show is that like land life, sea life is adapted to a wide range of conditions.. well… DURRRR !!!

      But that is the AGW meme that you are stuck in, isn’t it, without the intelligence or guts to break out of your AGW -cult stupor !.

  8. tom0mason

    The ridiculous thing is that from indirect measurements (via proxies) it can be shown that all marine life alive today have survived both more acidic/less acidic, higher salinity/lower salinity, and warmer/cooler temperatures than today.
    The caveat is our lack of knowledge of the thousands (tens of thousands) of underwater volcanoes and how they influence affects ocean chemistry, pH, salinity, and temperature today and recently.
    However it is obvious to any rational person’s perspective, that current atmospheric CO2 levels (at 400ppm) are too low to significantly affect the oceans in pH (CO2 levels have shown no effect on ocean temperatures to date).
    Henry’s Law rules, even for seawater.

    Why do so many so called ‘scientists’, deliberately choose to ignore the simple truth that life and evolution has ensured that currently we have *the best* of the survivors living on the planet now. Also all we know today about the oceans indicates that all recent variations in pH, temperature, and salinity appear to be safely within natural limits.

    In respect of the oceans, just like the atmosphere, there is nothing remotely alarming going on.

    1. SebastianH

      However it is obvious to any rational person’s perspective, that current atmospheric CO2 levels (at 400ppm) are too low to significantly affect the oceans in pH (CO2 levels have shown no effect on ocean temperatures to date).
      Henry’s Law rules, even for seawater.

      The last sentence is the only correct assertion in this quote. At the current CO2 concentration about 5 GtC are getting absorbed by the oceans each year.

      Why do so many so called ‘scientists’, deliberately choose to ignore the simple truth that life and evolution has ensured that currently we have *the best* of the survivors living on the planet now. Also all we know today about the oceans indicates that all recent variations in pH, temperature, and salinity appear to be safely within natural limits.

      The simple truth is, that ocean pH could potentially be changing in a much shorter timespan than what evolution can cope with. If that happens the food chain will get disrupted significantly.

      And yes, I am aware that pH fluctuates on very short timespans too. Your very own body will be totally fine to swim in 15°C water for an hour every day too, but you won’t survive swimming in 15°C water for 12-24 hours. Do you understand the problem?

      1. AndyG55

        “Do you understand the problem?”

        Yep, you lack any understanding of chemistry and biology, and have to resort to analogies to show how little you know.

        that ocean pH could potentially be changing in a much shorter timespan than what evolution can cope with

        roflmao. what a load of hallucinogenic BS. !!

        … evolution is how we got here.

        And where is this FANTASY change in pH you keep coming up with.. No sign of it anywhere… (except in ASSumption driven models.)

        https://s19.postimg.cc/ewnhcf8bn/ocean_PH_all_surface_readings.png

        1. SebastianH

          AndyG55, what caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction?

          And that took place over thousands of years, while the current change will only take hundreds of years if we continue with business as usual.

          1. AndyG55

            “while the current change will only take hundreds of years if we continue with business as usual.”

            What a load of mind-numbed fantasy !!

            Get back to the REAL world seb.

            CO2 is a NECESSITY for ALL life on Earth.

            EVEN YOU !!

            And the pre-industrial levels were pretty much at plant subsistence levels.

            Only a DECREASE in atmospheric CO2 level can do any harm to the planet.. by stopping plant growth.

            Increase is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY BENEFICIAL at any level it is likely to get in the next millennium or more.

            There is ZERO evidence that enhanced CO2 has anything except beneficial effects on the planet’s atmosphere or biosphere.

            Why do you choose to remain so wilfully IGNORANT about LIFE on this planet, seb.

          2. SebastianH

            Rapid glaciation and sea level reduction from an ice age attributed to a decrease in absorbed solar radiation due to an uptick in volcanic activity.

            You should probably read the paper they are referring to and do a quick search for the word “acidification”.

            You probably also know that the continents looked vastly different 250 million years ago and that there are quite a few theories of what has happened back then. But you chose the one most convenient for you (and leaving out the part about acidification … one wonders why).

            But what are your beliefs as to what caused it? CO2 concentration changes?

            Nope, ocean acidification. And yes, the CO2 concentration increased a bit back then: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009254112002938

            What does your belief system say about what caused the CO2 concentration changes during the Permian-Triassic?

            My belief system? What does your belief system say? Science says volcanic erruptions caused a rapid release of CO2 and CH4. CO2 levels reached 1400 to 3000 ppm.

            Sorry Kenneth, you are becoming increasingly weird and anti-science. Only seeing what you like to see and applauding claims from other comment authors that couldn’t be more wrong, but feel right to you.

          3. SebastianH

            Yes, indeed. Look at the paper. An abrupt cooling/ice age event caused the mass extinction.

            Umm, Kenneth … that is their theory. All the other theories about this time period don’t claim that there was an ice age.

            Uh, what caused the acidification according to the paper, SebastianH? Was it CO2 concentration changes or sulphate pollution from the volcanism? (I’ll answer: the latter.)

            “According to the paper”. Why use the paper’s content as an argument against you using this paper’s content because it confirms your bias? Weird.

            And if CO2 concentrations are causing warming, and the mass extinction event was caused by an extensive cooling event that lowered sea levels

            Ehm, why do you think it was caused by extensive cooling? Right, because this particular paper says so 😉

            Haven’t you read a single competing theory of what happened back then?

            So then why was there an abrupt cooling/ice age that lowered sea levels if the CO2 concentration increased?

            Was there? You seem to be confusing facts and theory. Can an ice age explain why this extinction affected organisms with calcium carbonate skeletons more than others? Can an ice age explain why it took millions of years before recovery even started?

            I’ll stick to the other theories. Volcanism and/or large impact, CO2/CH4, ocean acidification, fast rise in temperature and unfriendly conditions for life for a long time. As for sea levels, I don’t know, but there are papers claiming that they increased back then. But who knows, after all Earth looked very different in the times of Pangaea and the Superocean.

      2. tom0mason

        “The simple truth is, that ocean pH could potentially be changing in a much shorter timespan than what evolution can cope with. If that happens the food chain will get disrupted significantly.”

        Yet again more drivel from seb!

        What scientific basis could any rational person ever come up with such hogwash!
        Beyond the usual delusion, a completely mad idea.

        “ocean pH could potentially be changing in a much shorter timespan”

        HAhahaha, LOL!!!! Completely nuts!

        Go on, seb, calculate just by how much the oceans could change in pH if ALL 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 was dissolve in the oceans,(hint it’s a piffling amount), no even sane to consider it will overstress marine life. I’m pretty sure you can not do the calculations (without looking up the answer) but if you can publish it here, and see how silly you are.

        1. SebastianH

          Go on, seb, calculate just by how much the oceans could change in pH if ALL 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 was dissolve in the oceans,(hint it’s a piffling amount),

          Do me the favor of calculating this for us. I want to see your math and “see how silly you are” 😉

          Besides, it’s not possible for the oceans to absorb all the CO2 of the atmosphere because then the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere would be much lower than in the oceans.

          Here is a simple online tool to calculate pH from DIC, alkalinity, and temperature: http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/carbonate/

          I am sure you know how many uMol of carbon would dissolve in the oceans if all the carbon in the atmosphere could dissolve.

          1. AndyG55

            So funny,

            seb evades, squirms, oozes away around showing his ineptitude….

            Its almost he KNOWS that atmospheric CO2 has NO MEASUREABLE EFFECT on ocean pH and just playing his usual mindless troll games.

            Funny sea water in that app, seb

            No Cl, no Na, no sulphates, no Mg, no CA, no LIFE…

            Must be theoretical sea water.

          2. tom0mason

            YOU CAN’T DO IT!

            And yet you have the temerity to pontificate that all this is basic science.
            SCIENCE THAT YOU CAN’T DO!

            [snip]
            No one should pay you any notice on scientific matters as you are an empty void. YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE IT so stop prtending you know the answer. YOU KNOW NOTHING — A SCIENTIFIC BLANK!

            DISINFORMER AND PROPAGANDIST FABRICATOR IS ALL YOU ARE!

            [snip]
            [snip][snip]

          3. SebastianH

            tomOmason, by you ranting reply I must assume you are the one who doesn’t know how to calculate it.

            Please refrain from just mirroring accuses back. You are the disinformer and have always been. And I don’t need to write in all caps to make that clear … you are doing a fine job of demonstrating that yourself.

          4. AndyG55

            “Please refrain from just mirroring accuses back. You are the disinformer and have always been”

            From you, that is HILARIOUS.

            You are immediately using a mirror to AVOID producing anything.. its high deceit and quite disgusting behaviour.

            Your pathetic “victim” act isn’t going to fool anyone here except yourself, after your continued twisting , turning and outright deceit over a long period of time.

            You are a chronic ignoramus, incapable of supporting anything you say with anything resembling real science.

            NOTHING but an attention-seeker who uses lies and denial of your own words as a sort of crutch of your manic ineptitude.

          5. SebastianH

            to AVOID producing anything.

            Have you or tomOmason ever produced anything here? When asked about details you always evade. I did the work in the beginning and realized it is futile with you guys. You just shut down and escape into insulting replies.

            I am not here to do your homework. Just as you claim to be skeptics of established climate science, I am skeptic about your claims and you need to prove them and show that you understood how stuff works.

            Your pathetic “victim” act

            It surely isn’t you guys who are the victims of the great climate science and renewables conspiracy … right? 😉

          6. AndyG55

            The EMPTY yapping seb

            You produce NOTHING to counter, when you have tried to you have been shot down because all you have is fantasy unsupported by anything except fallacy.

            Asked hundreds of time to support the very basis of your cult-like “belief”

            AND YOU CANNOT DO IT.

            All you have EVER put forward has been erroneous ANTI-SCIENCE AGW propaganda BS..

            Stop your childish wimpering victimhood.

            NOBODY CARES about your opinions or feelings.!!

          7. AndyG55

            “and you need to prove them and show that you understood how stuff works.”

            You have shown that the REALITY of how things work is totally and absolutely BEYOND your limited understanding of ……… everything !!

            Your twisted ideas of reality come from a warped anti-science fantasy land.

            As for proof… You are EMPTY !!

        2. tom0mason

          @SebastianH 28. May 2018 at 1:30 PM
          No seb I was not ranting, I was laughing at you!

          All your empty pontification and nothing, you attempt to distract away from my basic question (just as I knew you would), because you can not do science. The calculation (with appropriate approximations) are way beyond you.

          You have proven yourself to be scientifically empty, everyone here sees how vacuous your response to my challenge has been.
          AndyG55 has said it, and now I’ve shown it you are a self appointed disinformer in science. A perverter of education.

          P.S.
          I put those [snip] and CAPITAL LETTERS to arouse your natural pomposity and it worked.
          You’re nothing but a vacuous vestibule of overbearing hubris.

          1. SebastianH

            The calculation (with appropriate approximations) are way beyond you.

            Ok fine, let’s assume they are beyond me. Please demonstrate that they aren’t beyond you. Can you do the math? Prove it! I am calling your bluff …

            and now I’ve shown it

            Frankly, the only thing you are showing is how weak your arguments are.

            You’re nothing but a vacuous vestibule of overbearing hubris.

            Great … welcome back to Kindergarten tomOmason. I don’t know why I put up with this childish behaviour of yours.

          2. AndyG55

            Seb shows yet again, that he has absolutely ZERO scientific basis for anything he says.

            He CANNOT back up his lies and disinformation with anything except more lies and disinformation, with added squirming and wimpering

            A truly EMPTY mind, has seb, apart from the oozing green slime left by the AGW brain-hosing.

      3. Tom

        Henry’s law DOES NOT hold in toto for seawater! Henry’s only works when there are NO secondary chemical reactions which your very argument of Carbonic as well as other reactions will not give you a mass balance ( at least not the way you want). What the Keq of carbonic acid in seawater. I assure you Le Chatelier’s is driving more than Henry.

    2. AndyG55

      Nearly every river flowing into the oceans over many millions of years has been on the acidic side of neutral (some have been measured as low as pH 5.5)

      And yet the oceans remain steadfastly around ph 8.1 or there abouts.

      It takes particularly fevered or green-sludge-hosed mind to IMAGINE that a tiny change in an atmospheric trace gas will in any way affect the ocean alkalinity.

      The whole idea is just moronically farcical.

      But “believers” will always just “believe” because their gullibility and nil-education leaves them no choice.

  9. tom0mason

    Henry’s Law rules, even in seawater.

    1. John Brown
      1. Penelope

        John Brown, thanks for your input. I didn’t realize that Henry’s Law doesn’t fully apply to a CO2/seawater solution, since the CO2 reacts to form hydrated carbon dioxide and carbonic acid. Below, Mark Pawelek demonstrates that the carbonic acid is minute– .00015%.

        I don’t know about the hydrated carbon dioxide. Would be interesting to know.

        1. AndyG55

          And think of all those little sea plants.

          ALL using and giving off CO2, dependent on all sorts of things.

          And the ocean currents, upwelling of more CO2 rich waters.

          Anyone who thinks Henry’s law is anything but a small part of the balance, just isn’t paying attention.. Is UNAWARE. !!

      2. AndyG55

        An interesting study done during some ocean passages.

        four different cruises, measuring both the atmospheric CO2 levels and at the same time, the amount of CO2 in the surface seawater.

        Results shown here

        https://s19.postimg.cc/9t6x0ausz/sst-vs-co2.jpg

        1. Many parts of the ocean are 50 ppmv lower than the CO2 concentration of the overlying air, and many other parts of the ocean have 50 ppmv or more of CO2 than the CO2 in the air above.

        2. the change is not only the size but even in the sign of the lowess curve connecting temperature and CO2 Compared to the CO2 level in the air, below about 17°C the seawater CO2 decreases with increasing temperature, at a rate of about -2 ppmv per °C.

        3. Above about 17°C, however, the seawater CO2 content relative to the air increases fairly rapidly with temperature, at about +4 ppmv per °C.

        To put it another way another way, when the water is cool, it contains less CO2 than the overlying air … but when the water is warm, it has more CO2 than the overlying air.

        There is obviously something quite interesting going on.

        Now.. who still thinks that Henry’s law is the major driving force of CO2 ocean/air interchange.

        Also consider the fact that SST tend to set the temperature of the air directly above the surface, so a temperature differential generally does not exist.

      3. tom0mason

        John Brown 27. May 2018

        Quite correct however —
        “Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly. The rate constants are 0.039 s−1 for the forward reaction (CO2 + H2O → H2CO3) and 23 s−1 for the reverse reaction (H2CO3 → CO2 + H2O).”

        From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid#Chemical_equilibrium
        And that passage starts with “When carbon dioxide dissolves in water it exists in chemical equilibrium with carbonic acid:[4]”
        Where [4] is the reference — Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310. ISBN 0-08-037941-9.

        And as far as I’m aware with pure water at normal atmospheric pressures and at room temperature, CO2 is quite readily soluble in water where over 99% exists as the dissolved gas, and less than 1% as carbonic acid (H2CO3).

        In other words the CO2 is dissolved in water and then the (slow) reaction takes place for a very small proportion of the gas, now what approximately determines how much CO2 is dissolved in water, and how it dissociates from it?

        1. John Brown

          Thanks for your follow up. Normally do not like Wiki, but will have a read and put the filter on to avoid being burned by potential anti science propaganda.

        2. John Brown

          The Henry number for CO2 as gaseous phase in water is very little if compared to O2 and N2.

          This still leaves the CO2 to enter into the watery phase. And as quoted in various citations of Henrys law, it does not apply to gases that react with the water to form an acid for example.

          Your example is valid for pure water but from the change of the pH for rain it seems the CO2 does dissolves into the water and only very little will stay in gaseous form. Interesting is the time it takes to form the acid.

          Henrys law is part of the explanation how CO2 gets into the water, but when it comes to judging how much CO2 is in the water, it is far less trustworthy due to the dissolution.

          One main difference to the shown reactions with pure water is:
          sea water is a buffered solution which will impact on the forming of carbonic acid. But it will not impact on the ability to hold come gaseous CO2. If that makes sense!

    2. Tom

      Sorry tom not for chemically reactive molecules such as CO2. Henry’s is for ideal (nonreactive) gasses. O2 and N2 follows henry’s but CO2 is a more complex gas law. ( retired physical chemist)

      1. tom0mason

        Tom 1
        CO2 is a more complex gas law. Agreed, however (as far as I understand it) the overall effect of the reaction is only to alter the speed of the flow of the CO2 in and out of solution, and not greatly impact the volume.

  10. tom0mason

    What cAGW advocate propagandize as skeptics’ ‘aversion to models’ is as always nonsense.

    All to often in climate research models are use inappropriately, and what is criticized is —

    1/ The use of models as a replacement for actual observation and measurements.

    2/ The use of models stuffed to bursting with inappropriate and unreliable assumptions.

    3/ The ‘belief’ that incremental variations in modeled ensemble runs will give reliable and realistic results when the natural process being modeled it not fully understood.

    4/ The use of models as representative of a complete natural process when no one knows how the process works, and no verification on the modeled results is done.

    Models when used appropriately are extremely useful, however the IPCC inspired predictive climate models are just non-scientific junk propaganda tools and a perfect display of ‘state of the art’ fantasy virtual-reality modeling.
    No amount of ‘tweaking’ will improve these climate models as their very operating assumption (that CO2 causes warming) and many other built-in presumption are just guesswork and not based on observations or measurements.

    1. Penelope

      tomomason, scientific models are like computerized voting in America: It might be accurate, but blind faith about what takes place in a black box is unwarranted.

      Thanks for deconstructing climate modelling based on its typical errors. The empirical is hardly represented at all, is it?

      1. tom0mason

        Maybe I had too much carbonated mineral water and the acid is rotting my mind, it is after all such a powerful acid (not).

        And the unscientific individuals of the world push that very high levels of dissolved CO2 is dangerous — those unfortunate anti-science types believes it forms such a powerful acid — they are wrong!
        To which I say to them (the cAGW fabricators) stop drinking carbonated mineral water and go back to the real thing, which because the CO2 is so strong, phosphoric acid is added — as that make so much sense, eh seb? (Not that you could possibly understand basic chemistry).

        1. tom0mason

          See the alarming page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid to see how very powerful CO2 in pure water is.

          Note well the line “Carbonic acid, which is a weak acid, forms two kinds of salts: the carbonates and the bicarbonates. In geology, carbonic acid causes limestone to dissolve, producing calcium bicarbonate, which leads to many limestone features such as stalactites and stalagmites.”

          and
          In nature —
          “Addition of base to an excess of carbonic acid gives bicarbonate (hydrogen carbonate). With excess base, carbonic acid reacts to give carbonate salts.” That is happening continuously in the rivers and oceans.

          1. tom0mason

            Also see the ever helpful https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html for more on information Solubility of Gases in Water.

          2. SebastianH

            Yep, the ever helpful websites that put on a very helpful note:

            Note that for gases in combination with other gases – like oxygen in air – the partial pressure of the gas must be used. Example – in air with normal composition oxygen counts for approximate 20% of the total pressure.

            If you thought that CO2 graph there is only dependend on temperature, you thought wrong.

          3. tom0mason

            As usual seb ‘believes’ he knows what other people think. Only [snip] do that, and seb has proven himself to be a very pompous one.
            Seb appears unable to navigate a website but that is what I expected of one with such little curiosity or intelligence, for seb it appears there is only the edicts of the IPCC anti-science mantra to live by.

            I’ll make it plain, I have offered a start for the fearful of science like seb, so read on, investigate further (there are plenty of links there), or stay an [snip] lost in the science that is well beyond your understanding, for ever deluded!

            How does the solubility of air vary with temperature and pressure? What is a Prandtl number?
            Unlike Kenneth I do not spoonfeed anyone with THE answer, as that teaches you nothing (and also in all science, unlike religion, is mostly an incomplete catalog of approximations and not utter certainty) — you have to make up your own mind. If you are curious and intelligent enough (and like seb many aren’t) you will find out, however many people are like seb, and can not self educate as they are neither intelligent nor curious enough, preferring to just recite the IPCC’s inspired religion and it’s deformed version of reality.

            Seb likes analogies so here’s one —
            “You can take a mule called Sebastian to water but you can’t make him drink.”

  11. Bitter&twisted

    DNFTT

  12. Kurt in Switzerland

    Isn’t there an e-mail between some of the climate anointed expressing frustration because of the failure to discover the missing human acidification footprint, and the *travesty* which has ensued as a result?

  13. Mark Pawelek

    Let us consider a few ‘basic’ facts:

    1) When CO2 dissolves in water it can form carbonic acid, H2CO3. But that only happens for 0.3%, or so, of the CO2. The remaining CO2 stays as it is. Only a small fraction of dissolving CO2, 0.3%, is called an “acid”: CO2 + H2O H2CO3

    2) Carbonic acid: H2CO3, can ionize to form acidic hydrogen ions (written as H3O+ (hydrated hydrogen ions). This happens to only a small propoportion of the carbonic acid (about 0.5%): H2O + H2CO3 H2O+ + HCO3-

    3) 0.3% × 0.5% = 0.003 × 0.005 = 0.000015, 15ppm, or 0.0015%. Only 15ppm of dissolving CO2 has an “acidic” influence.

    4) Here are some measures of dissolved mineral content of oceans: https://web.stanford.edu/group/Urchin/mineral.html

    5) Ocean pH is dominated by dissolved bicarbonate and carbonate, both of which are basic. Carbonate being very basic. The ratio of bicarb to carb is about 9:1

    6) The Henderson–Hasselbalch equation explains how to calculate pH of a buffered system, such as the oceans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate_buffer_system#Henderson%E2%80%93Hasselbalch_equation

    7) Armed with what I just told you, everyone here should be able to calculate the effect on ocean pH of burning 500 Gt of fossil fuel since the beginning of the industrial era. You’ll find the effect negligible (a change of less than pH 0.001). Well outside the error bounds of measuring ocean pH.

    8) NOAA claim that climate change has altered ocean pH making it “30% more acidic”. This is nonsense, and impossible.

    1. Mark Pawelek

      Apologies for the broken equations. I think they should be:

      CO2 + H2O ⇋ H2CO3

      H2O + H2CO3 ⇋ H2O+ + HCO3-

    2. John Brown

      Mark,

      solubility and dissociation of CO2 in water are two different processes.
      Solubility of CO2 in water is much less than that of O2 or N2.

      http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L23/web-L23.pdf

      Your first statement is off, while I fully agree that humans will not be able to burn enough coal to change the oceans surface waters.

      Mind everyone the deep see water is already acidic past the carbon compensation depth. http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/OceanSolutes18IIIa.pdf

      1. tom0mason

        “Solubility of CO2 in water is much less than that of O2 or N2.”

        I rather over-egging the pudding, solubility of CO2 is not radically different from O2 or N2.

        See http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L23/web-L23.pdf

    3. SebastianH

      3) 0.3% × 0.5% = 0.003 × 0.005 = 0.000015, 15ppm, or 0.0015%. Only 15ppm of dissolving CO2 has an “acidic” influence.

      Hmm, you probably confused a few percentages here. 0.3% is on the low end of the amount of CO2 that ends up as H2CO3 (very cold water?), but the other products don’t come out of this pool, they exist in addition to H2CO3.

      So no, 15 ppm is just plain wrong.

      7) Armed with what I just told you, everyone here should be able to calculate the effect on ocean pH of burning 500 Gt of fossil fuel since the beginning of the industrial era. You’ll find the effect negligible (a change of less than pH 0.001). Well outside the error bounds of measuring ocean pH.

      That is not “interesting” as Kenneth proclaimed, it’s wrong.

      8) NOAA claim that climate change has altered ocean pH making it “30% more acidic”. This is nonsense, and impossible.

      The mentioned pH change of 0.1 on the scale is a 30% change.

      1. AndyG55

        “The mentioned pH change of 0.1 on the scale is a 30% change.”

        And requires a further 1800% (or thereabouts) to become neutral

        Also totally un-measurable over that time period. we can’t even measure the whole ocean pH to 1 dp even now.. and the mentioned change is a TINY fraction of the actual range of variability.

        It is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

        seb… perfecting the art of the faceplant !!

        1. SebastianH

          Also totally un-measurable over that time period. we can’t even measure the whole ocean pH to 1 dp even now..

          See, that is what Trenberth meant by not being able to measure the warming (completely). We have to interpolate and estimate since we can’t have sensors for pH (or temperature) on every square millimeter of the planet.

          And requires a further 1800% (or thereabouts) to become neutral

          Why would it need to become neutral? It’s not like ocean acidification means that the oceans (at the surface) are actually becoming an acid. Just like greenhouse theory doesn’t mean that there is a glas roof somewhere in the atmosphere. You guys are taking this too literal while at the same time freely interpreting science to fit your belief system. Weird …

          1. AndyG55

            So you admit that the words used are NOTHING to do with REAL SCIENCE..

            Yes, seb.. we already KNEW that.

            .. just like the rest of the AGW meme.

            ZERO match to REALITY !! FANTASY-SCIENCE.

            Do you really think something can “acidify”, from being alkaline without going through pH7.

            Your ignorance is becoming legendary !

            Your every comment is becoming a TRAVESTY !

            Take another faceplant, seb.

            Its your natural position in this world.

          2. AndyG55

            “We have to interpolate and estimate since we can’t have sensors for pH (or temperature) “

            ROFLMAO.

            So you now also ADMIT that most of the data is fabricated, NOT REAL.

            FACEPLANT.. seb !!

            So hard to keep your BS stories straight, isn’t it. !!

          3. SebastianH

            I’ll admit that you seem to have nothing to do with science.

            Do you really think something can “acidify”, from being alkaline without going through pH7.

            Yes, because the pH scale is just that, a scale for the activity of hydrogen ions. There is no zero point at 7, it is a continuous scale. Therefore it’s perfectly fine to call a change from pH 10 to pH 9 acidification. Why? Because the activity of the hydrogen ions moved into that direction.

            So hard to keep your BS stories straight, isn’t it. !!

            That’s usually only a problem for those who invent stuff to confirm their bias. Making it consistent is difficult, as can be seen by your comments every day. You even have to resort to going all caps and minor insults to convince yourself that you are the one who tells the truth.

            There should be studies about pseudoscientific “skeptics” and the way they behave in blogs/forums. I am sure 80+% is just an angry mob … why are you so angry, AndyG55?

          4. AndyG55

            “Therefore it’s perfectly fine to call a change from pH 10 to pH 9 “

            Only if you want to use it for propaganda, NOT SCIENCE

            Science uses the word neutralisation.

            Seb doesn’t use SCIENCE words,

            he uses PROPAGANDA words,

            because that is all he knows.

            And seriously, still using the pathetic “I’m a victim, holier than thou” card as part of your insipid , slimy troll-routine ???

            How pathetically laughable you have become.

          5. AndyG55

            “That’s usually only a problem for those who invent stuff to confirm their bias.”

            Which is EXACTLY what you spend your time doing.

            You live in some sort of weird ANTI-SCIENCE fantasy land , where measurements and real science are trumped by manic brain-hosed, hallucinogenic-type fantasies.

            As such, you just keep faceplanting post after post after post as your fairy-tales unravel.

            Its now happening so often that you don’t even have the brain capacity left to realise you are doing it.

            Its HILARIOUS to watch.

            Please keep going. 🙂

            You are a great advertisement of all that is WRONG and GULLIBLE in the AGW cult of climate non-science.

  14. M E

    A New interest for Sebastian perhaps.
    Dear Sebastian it might be a good idea to broaden your interests or you may just. maybe, sound narrow and prejudiced!

    http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.co.nz/2007/01/si-tacuisses-philosophus-mansisses.html

    Stultus quoque, si tacuerit, sapiens reputabitur,

    I would be interested in the blog articles in reference to past climates but interesting discussion is lost inevitably in your attacks.
    Maybe they are paid attacks.. they look like it.. but anyway they have lost credibility by repetition and are giving you a bad reputation on the internet.

  15. Penelope

    Our seawater at the current temperature & atmospheric pressure must already be saturated with CO2– and therefore be impervious to external CO2, even if manmade.

    The evidence: A slightly increased temperature causes seawater to give up some CO2. If it were still lacking in CO2 saturation it could not do so.

    Therefore only a decrease in temperature or increase in pressure will cause available CO2 to enter into seawater. The mere existence, or increased concentration, of external CO2 cannot alter the relation of solvent and solute.

    Note to Seb: Additions to CO2 don’t increase atmospheric pressure, only the percent of it which is supplied by CO2. Atm pressure is regulated largely by gravity and atmospheric mass.

    1. AndyG55

      Penelope.

      The pressure seb is trying to explain is the diffusion pressure.

      Its to do with gases always trying equilibrate their “partial” pressures between different substances.

      The ability to hold certain concentrations of any gas varies between oceans and the atmosphere. Temperature, concentration, atmospheric pressure, partial pressures of other gases, surface upwelling all play a part, and it needs accurate measurements to decide which way gases are going, in or out of the surface of the water.

      Add to that the general expansion of the biosphere, including the VAST marine biosphere, with its hunger for usable CO2, and the whole thing becomes rather complicated

      Anyone who uses just the partial pressure of CO2, or just temperature etc to decide which way gases are flowing, is very much yapping up the wrong tree.

  16. Penelope

    Seb, note that according to Henry’s Law, each gas within a mixture dissolves in liquid as if it alone occupied the entire volume of the original mixture. i.e., NOT according to its concentration in the mixture.

    Applying this principle: the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere doesn’t determine the amount dissolved in seawater.

    1. SebastianH

      Seb, note that according to Henry’s Law, each gas within a mixture dissolves in liquid as if it alone occupied the entire volume of the original mixture. i.e., NOT according to its concentration in the mixture.

      When the concentration of one gas in a mixture doubles, the volume increases accordingly. The total volume of the gas mixture increases too, but since we are talking about a trace gas one can safely say that partial pressure of CO2 is more or less directly proportional to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

      Applying this principle: the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere doesn’t determine the amount dissolved in seawater.

      Of course it does. It’s not the only variable – I’d never thought I write this, but read AndyG55’s reply above … he is not wrong.

      1. AndyG55

        “the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere doesn’t determine the amount dissolved in seawater.”

        It is one SMALL factor.

        It certainly DOES NOT determine the interchange of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean

        Penelope is TOTALLY CORRECT in her statement.

        seb is just being an attention-seeking trollette.

        1. SebastianH

          It certainly DOES NOT determine the interchange of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean

          Yes it does. Please support your claim by actual science.

          1. AndyG55

            ROFLMAO.

            So seb thinks that atmospheric CO2 concentration directly determines the ocean CO2 content..

            Oh dearie me.. that is just arrant NONSENSE.

            They can vary by +/- 50ppm at least !!

            https://s19.postimg.cc/9t6x0ausz/sst-vs-co2.jpg

      2. Penelope

        Seb says : “When the concentration of one gas in a mixture doubles, the volume increases accordingly.”

        Seb, No warmist has yet tried to hoax us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the volume of our atmosphere. This would be detectable as an increase in atmospheric pressure.

        Since I notice that we above allow Wiki as an authority:

        “The partial pressure of a gas is a measure of thermodynamic activity of the gas’s molecules. Gases dissolve, diffuse, and react according to their partial pressures, and not according to their concentrations in gas mixtures or liquids.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_pressure

        1. SebastianH

          Seb, No warmist has yet tried to hoax us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the volume of our atmosphere. This would be detectable as an increase in atmospheric pressure.

          Penelope, I should probably have written “the share of the volume”.

          Suppose you have a gas mixture with 50% gas #1 and 50% gas #2 and you are adding gas #2 to the mixture. Let’s say the mixture occupied 1 m^3 before and you add another 1 m^3 of gas #2. Then you have a gas mixture with a volume of 2 m^3 and gas #1 is 25% of that and gas #2 75%. Understood?

          But we are talking about CO2 here which makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere and the O2 part already was in the atmosphere before. Adding more of it hardly changes to total volume/mass of the atmosphere and thus you can safely say that increasing the concentration of CO2 is more or less the same as increasing the partial pressure of CO2 (percentage-wise).

          1. AndyG55

            YAWN

            No indication of ANY pH change rom ALL measurements since 1900

            https://s19.postimg.cc/ewnhcf8bn/ocean_PH_all_surface_readings.png

            You continued IGNORANCE of the immense buffering against any possible pH change is bordering on the idiotic.. no, actually, well passed the idiotic..

            You have NOTHING, seb

            just empty mindless NIL-SCIENCE yapping.

          2. SebastianH

            AndyG55, you still don’t seem to get it. There is a supposed pH change of -0.08 that has been calculated from the amount of CO2 that is estimated to have been absorbed by the oceans between 1765 and 1994. This -0.08 figure is on top of every other change and variability.

            The same is true for the effect CO2 has in the atmosphere. If CO2 would cause +1°C warming in a certain timespan, but it actually cooled 2°C then the temperatures are still 1°C warmer than they would be without the CO2 effect.

            Is that so hard to understand? Instead you go on and rant something about pH not changing from 1900 on … talk something about buffering against pH change and yet post something about wildly different pH values around the globe at the same time. You are deeply conflicted and a pretty angry guy. I feel a bit sorry for you that you can’t help yourself to improve the hell out of this state …

          3. AndyG55

            “There is a supposed pH change “

            ROFLMAO.

            seb faceplants yet again !!

            What is so hard for you to understand that you have ZERO-EVIDENCE of an CO2 causing warming, anywhere, anytime, and ZERO EVIDENECE of CO2 causing pH change ???

            You really do live in a FICTICIOUS make-believe anti-science la-la-land seb.

            “Instead you go on and rant something about pH not changing from 1900 on … talk something about buffering against pH change “

            Yep, FACTS will always confuse you, seb.

            Sorry that you choose to remain CLUELESS about chemistry and buffering,

            Sorry that you choose to remain in fantasy land about changing pH, when ZERO trend is evident.

            Sorry that you choose to remain wilfully IGNORANT, seb

            .. but its not really a choice, is it seb.

            .. its your ONLY option.

          4. AndyG55

            “The same is true for the effect CO2 has in the atmosphere. If CO2 would cause +1°C warming in a certain timespan, but it actually cooled 2°C then the temperatures are still 1°C warmer than they would be without the CO2 effect.”

            And yet another meaningless load of seb anti-everything GIBBERISH !!

            Fantasy piled high on AGW BS. !

            “If CO2 would cause +1°C warming in a certain timespan”

            again with the unproven suppository !

            The FARCE is strong with this seb.

  17. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #317
  18. AndyG55

    Near Hawaii, the surface pH is above 8.05, and in Alaska the surface pH is below 7.7 … and despite that, the marine environment in Alaska is much, much richer in life than the Hawaiian marine environment.

    We often eat things like lemon juice, which has a pH of around two, which is neutral minus five pH units … whereas the most alkaline foods that we can tolerate have a pH of around eight, which is only one pH unit above neutral.

    Fish often have a slimy kind of mucus that covers their entire bodies … to keep scales from slowly dissolving in the slightly alkaline ocean.

    Some ecosystems such as coral reefs experience a daily range in pH that exceeds the modelled decrease in pH over the next century. And they thrive.

    And some clueless clowns are worried about a mythical drop of 0.1 in pH value.

    BIZZARE, and totally divorced from REALITY..

    .. just like the whole of the AGW non-science.

    1. SebastianH

      While not being exactly the same, you can survive swimming in 15°C water for at least an hour. You can repeat this every day, no problem. But you will die, when you have to swim in 15° water for more than 24 hours.

      Yeah, it’s an analogy. Totally irrelevant and stuff.

      Read up what science says about ocean acidification and don’t expect a comment author, who points out that you are wrong, to explain it all to you. Do your homework yourself. Thank you.

      1. AndyG55

        And another MINDLESS IRRELEVENT analogy…

        The first resort of a know-nothing seb.

        Read up on what SCIENCE and CHEMISTRY say about pH, seb.

        NOT what the AGW propagandists say.

        I have done my homework..

        .. but apparently, have NEVER even attended a science class.

  19. tom0mason

    But AngyG55,

    < sarc-on >

    modern coral have only become the predominant coral masses in our oceans in the last 20 million years or so, just how do you think such newly evolved creatures can possibly adapt to the changing climate? Surely they must just die out? And that will be all our fault, we didn’t look after them, I feel so guilty!

    < sarc-off >
    😉
    😀

  20. Yonason

    Ocean “acidification,” hahahahaha

    “It is a myth that acidic waters necessarily kill aquatic life. Rain water is slightly acidic and many fresh water lagoons, swamps and reed beds are also acidic. Nevertheless, aquatic life flourishes in these wetlands.”
    https://carbon-sense.com/2012/05/13/acid-ocean-bogeyman/

    “Ocean Acidification is little more than a money-making scam for grant-troughing scientists who couldn’t find anything more productive to do with their semi-worthless environmental science degrees.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/09/delingpole-how-i-totally-crushed-the-ocean-acidification-alarmist-loons/

    Here’s an objective review of “Ocean Acidification” research, what is wrong with it and why we need to be skeptical of hysterical activists.
    “In this introduction, I present a brief overview of the history of research on OA, call for a heightened level of organized (academic) scepticism to be applied to the body of work on OA, and briefly present the 44 contributions that appear in this theme issue. ”
    https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/529/2459146

  21. Case Smit

    I’m amazed that the existence of thousands of undersea volcanoes tends to be ignored. I’ve actually observed CO2 fumaroles. Surely volcanic activity would have a very significant effect on the temperature and the pH of the oceans.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close