Ocean Acidification Scam

cid_image002

The evidence is inexorably mounting that the climate alarmists have been taking us all for a ride. It is only be a matter of time before their agenda is exposed as one of the biggest con tricks of all time. Thus they are already scrambling to breathe new life into the CO2 emissions scare. It will become obvious (by the passage of years if nothing else) that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not, after all, cause any significant climate change, thus it will be necessary to blame CO2 (and hence man) for some other catastrophic event. So, prepare yourself for the coming “ocean acidification” scam.

The media have already entered the fray with lying narratives that sound like science fiction scripts, warning about the catastrophe of ‘acid oceans’ and ‘toxic seas’. The BBC have churned out headlines such as ‘Marine life faces ‘acid threat”, ‘Acid oceans ‘need urgent action” and ‘Acidic seas fuel extinction fears’. Newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Times have got in on the act with scary headlines such as ‘Mussels face extinction as oceans turn acidic’, ‘Pollution to devastate shellfish by turning seas acidic’ and ‘Acid seas threaten to make British shellfish extinct’. Just recently, it has got all the more strident: the Sunday Times (March 8, 2009) chimes in under the headline The toxic sea:

Each one of us dumps a tonne of carbon dioxide into the oceans every year, turning them into acidified soups — and threatening to destroy most of what lives in them.

And from the Guardian (March 10, 2009) under the headline Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs:

Human pollution is turning the seas into acid so quickly that the coming decades will recreate conditions not seen on Earth since the time of the dinosaurs…The rapid acidification is caused by the massive amounts of carbon belched out from chimneys and exhausts that dissolve in the ocean…the pH of surface waters, where the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere, has fallen about 0.1 units since the industrial revolution, though it will take longer for the acid to reach deeper water.

Note the continual use of the word acid. Yet there is not the slightest possibility that seawater will turn to acid, or even become mildly acidic, so this is drivel. Note also the claim that pH has changed by 0.1 units over the last 200 years: it was not possible a hundred years ago, never mind 200 years ago, to measure pH to the accuracy necessary to support that assertion, so it’s just posturing. Finally, notice that CO2 is branded ‘human pollution’, though CO2 is an entirely natural and absolutely essential nutrient for plant photosynthesis, without which all life on earth would certainly become extinct very quickly.

As an aside, we should note that if lower alkalinity per se were so unfavourable to shellfish as is claimed then we would have no freshwater shellfish and snails – but we do. The freshwater mussel has lived for thousands of years in waters that are genuinely acidic and with highly variable pH, not only seasonally, but geographically. With spring snowmelt and high rainfall, the pH of rivers and lakes can fall to below pH 5, and experiments have shown that mussels can survive this acidity indefinitely without any deleterious effects to their shells. Note: a pH of 5 has 1,000 times as many ‘acidic’ H+ ions per litre as seawater, and 100 times more than pure water. This is not to say that sea creatures can survive in fresh water – they are adapted to a radically different saline environment – the point at issue is that the idea of a small change in ocean pH due to increased dissolved carbon dioxide having a deleterious effect on marine shells of living organisms is not as obvious as the alarmists make out.

The ‘science’ underlying the anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification scares relies on positive feedback – that is, that the overall effect of a small change is disproportionate to the effect of the change itself – there is an amplification process. Positive feedbacks cause unstable runaway or oscillating systems. The so-called physics of the global warming hypothesis are a perpetuum mobile of the second kind and should be consigned to the dustbin. Likewise, the so-called chemistry underpinning the ‘toxic ocean’ hypothesis suggests an unstable reaction process that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps (the mechanism in the literature is described and rebutted in the following post Toxic Seawater Fraud), whereas the equilibrium processes have massive negative feedbacks. In 1888, the chemist Le Chatelier wrote about a huge waste of resources that was caused by failing to apply sound equilibrium principles in relation to the reduction of iron ore:

Because this incomplete reaction was thought to be due to an insufficiently prolonged contact between carbon monoxide and the iron ore (confusing a problem with equilibrium with that of kinetics), the dimensions of the furnaces have been increased. In England they have been made as high as thirty meters. But the proportion of carbon monoxide escaping has not diminished, thus demonstrating, by an experiment costing several hundred thousand francs, that the reduction of iron oxide by carbon monoxide is a limited reaction. Acquaintance with the laws of equilibrium would have permitted the same conclusion to be reached more rapidly and far more economically.

Considerable cost was expended in redesigning furnaces to no benefit, because in the mid-nineteenth century they did not fully understand what became known as Le Chatelier’s principle. Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview: if all life in the universe, and all the complex processes on earth, came about by chance, then everything is a fluke – it’s just a one in a quadrillion chance that it all came right on the night. This gives rise to the mentality that the slightest disturbance will upset this highly improbable chance arrangement, so highly unstable systems and positive feedbacks are to be expected and feared. Anthropogenic catastrophism thus flows naturally from atheism, and belief in anthropogenic catastrophism feeds atheism. However, in a worldview that holds that the universe and all life was purposefully designed then one would expect there to be very strong negative feedbacks and ultra-stable systems, because this is what a good designer would do – design extremely robust systems with extremely robust processes for extremely complex organisms that are to flourish for thousands of years. Of course, this is what we actually find in the cosmos whatever our worldview. But as the religion of atheism gains ground amongst scientists, it not only colours their outlook and what results they expect to find, and what evidence they suppress, it also (as illustrated on the posts of this blog) seems to corrode their understanding of basic scientific principles.

About these ads

16 Responses to “Ocean Acidification Scam”


  1. 1 Jorg April 15, 2009 at 8:15 am

    Thumbs up! I like your article. You’re especially right about the constant “it’s much worse than we thought” – effect, they use to draw attention. It’s like these individuals feed on people’s fear. Most people are not as worried about global warming as they were a couple of years ago, so they felt they had to launch another massive science fiction scenario attack on the masses, “the horror of the acid seas” – coming to a theatre near you – soon, very soon.

  2. 2 Ed Darrell August 15, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    Thumbs down! You’re doing a disservice to rational discussion.

    Errors in Gore’s film? You and the cartoonist should have followed that accusation through to its end. The judge ruled the film was accurate.

    One less hole in the balloon.

    Might it be that those are wishful holes, and not real holes at all?

    ScientistForTruth responds

    What part of the word ‘errors’ don’t you understand? The judge stated

    “I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear… the science is used…to make a political statement and to support a political programme… There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer…”

    He lists out various errors

    “This is distinctly alarmist…There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened…Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit…the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts…it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change…It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that…it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description…the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution…As a result of considerable discussion in Court, which I, and both Counsel, strained to avoid becoming a drafting session, a new Guidance Note has now been produced which the Defendant proposes…drawing specific attention to where Mr Gore may be in error…[schools] should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore’s view may be inaccurate.”

    GUIDELINES for showing “An Inconvenient Truth”
    1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
    2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
    3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

  3. 3 Ed Darrell August 16, 2009 at 12:15 am

    ScientistForTruth says

    Anyone else want to make some comments? Soon my whole ‘recent comments’ will be filled up with Ed Darrell! Again I’m cutting some of the length so as not to weary the readers.

    Ed Darrell says

    The cartoon says “proven falsehoods in ‘Inconvenient Truth.’”

    That’s not what the judge said…it’s inaccurate to say there are “proven falsehoods” in the film. That’s simply wrong, and contrary to what the judge ruled. Not “proven falsehoods,” but ‘disputed evidence.’

    Sure it’s a political film.

    ScientistForTruth responds

    What part of the word ‘errors’ doesn’t this commentator understand? The judge stated

    I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear…There are ERRORS…in the film, to which I shall refer…

    For example, when Al Gore stated in the film

    That is why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand.

    and the judge said that

    There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened

    he wasn’t suggesting this was disputed evidence, i.e. that because there was no evidence that it had happened, then it might actually have happened but immigration officials in New Zealand somehow didn’t notice it, that there are whole populations floating around in New Zealand that no-one has noticed yet, and the natives still running the industries in those islands and answering the telephones and appearing on camera are phantoms. I will be generous enough to all my readers (except perhaps Ed Darrell, who still doesn’t seem to get it) to believe that you know that the citizens of these Pacific nations have not all evacuated to New Zealand. It is not only demonstrably false but actually a proven falsehood.

  4. 4 JER0ME September 5, 2009 at 4:48 am

    What is it with this Darrell guy? You have your own personal stalker, or is he a pet troll, or what?!

    OT, the 0.1pH change was not measurable 100 years ago – that is a very important point I had not considered.

    It is much the same as the warming that is 0.7C over 100 years and the errors in measurements are probably in the order of 2 or 3C, making any demonstrated increase meaningless. Same with water temps and definitely with sea levels.

    Now we have satellite data on temperature and ice extent, and they complain it is only over the last 30 years and that is not enough to show a trend. Is that because the trend shown is flat, I wonder?

  5. 5 Harbinger September 18, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    When did a pH 8.1 become acidic? Basic school chemistry. Is it warmer now than 150 years ago? You betcha, why would we want to go back to Little Ice Age conditions when for almost 500 years prior to 1850 there was famine and pestilence due to crop failure and severe cold. Was that supposed to be NORMAL?

    In the Alps they were burning some women as witches because they believed they were responsible for the devastating advance of glaciers and local Bishops stood at the glacier face invoking the Almighty to save the villages from destruction.

    Why don’t people do a little research for themselves and they would find when it comes to the weather, (sorry, climate, which is weather over time), there is very little new under the sun.

  6. 6 Clarity of thought January 14, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Scientist for Truth says

    This is fairly typical of the poor quality comments that this blog receives along the lines of “if you don’t think the way I do, you must be a kook”, which is hardly an intelligent argument. These commenters hardly seem to read and understand what is before them, and certainly don’t do much thinking. As soon as they spot something that betrays a different way of thinking then it’s simply “you don’t think the way I do, so you must be a kook”.

    My comments are interlaced in bold.

    “Clarity of thought” says

    I loved the bit about this flowing from atheism, its pure hyperbole and tells us a great deal about the state of the bloggers mind and the amount of creedance and attention we should pay to her arguments.

    Her? Since when did I have a sex change?
    Oh, I see. Just because I point out the source of the worldview (atheism), somehow that discredits the argument does it? Now, any view about God other than atheism is theistic, and most theistic viewpoints will lead to the position of design, and it is rather difficult to conceive of a God worthy of the name who is less able to design than his creation. And certainly no able designer would design a world with positive feedbacks and inherent instabilities. Note that I’m not using the ‘argument from design’ here: I’m simply not saying that we can see design, therefore there is a designer. I’m not running any proof for the existence of God. That’s not my point or purpose at all. What I am saying is that a lack of design, a chance arrangement of things and inherent instability tends to point very strongly in the direction of atheism, and I have yet to meet an atheist who would disagree with that, and I was a fervent atheist once myself.

    What the blogger really means of course is a materialistic viewpoint (which is most certainly not exclusive to atheism). It gives the view that life, the universe and everything came about through the emergent properties of natural physical processes, as opposed to appearing from nothing and from nowhere in a showy magical ejaculation.

    No I don’t. I mean atheism. Many scientists are methodological materialists – I am, for one. When I research a certain phenomenon, or design some apparatus, I do expect it to work according to the laws of physics rather than by magic.

    Of course a materialistic interpretation of the physical and biological processes of this planet leads to conclusions quite the contrary to the pretentions of the blogger – specifically that life came about through a series of gradual processes and small steps that were selected for an against by the environment over great periods of time.

    Hang on – that’s completely illogical. Just because you believe in one materialist hypothesis doesn’t mean we all have to. Your choice of creation myth (evolutionary) is exactly that – your choice. What you should have said is “My materialistic interpretation of the physical and biological processes of this planet leads to conclusions quite the contrary to the pretentions of the blogger.” Your universalizing and arrogant “Of course” at the beginning of the sentence betrays your presuppositions.

    Follwoing this viewpoint to its logical conclusion then it is only possible to conclude that life is most certainly not vulnerable to the slightest changes in its environment, but that it is robust, adaptible, pervasive, and in a constant state of flux.

    Your argument is about ‘life’. What about the environment? Can that have positive feedbacks? Runaway global warming? Inherent instabilities? If not, fine – you don’t believe in the climate change scam either. But if you DO believe in the climate change arguments you had better be aware that they are founded upon positive feedbacks, so are quite different from what you see in life systems.

    This perhaps gives us a clue as to why the experimental evidence (by way of a short example you could look at Gazeau et al (2007) Impact of elevated CO2 on shellfish calcification, GEOPHYS RES, VOL. 34, L07603 – but this is by no means the only study that confirms this effect) demonstrates that calcification of marine shellfish is affected by a change in ocean chemistry when freshwater shellfish live in environments of considerably lower pH.
    The answer of course is adaptation. Freshwater shellfish have adapted to that environment, have markedly different (recent) evolutionary histories to their marine relatives, and markedly different physiologies as a result.
    The bloggers failure to draw attention to something so obvious demonstrates either scientific illiteracy, or a complete disinterest in an honest discussion of the subject.

    This commenter can’t read. So what does the following sentence say?

    This is not to say that sea creatures can survive in fresh water – they are adapted to a radically different saline environment…

    Of course freshwater and marine shellfish are adapted to different environments, but there is no “of course” that this is due to the process that the commenter espouses, which is just his own opinion.

    Fundamentally the blogger seems to fail to appreciate the difference between science, journalism, and hyperbole.
    She’s quite right that we should take many of the alarmist claims of some journalists and commentators with a very large shovelfull of salt – however the screeching hyperbole of her own article, her utterly laughable attempt to conflate this with atheism, the failure to appreciate or honestly account for the most basic predictions of evolutionary theory, or even the subtlties of the seawater-CO2 equilibrium reaction that are responsible for the observed changes to oceanic pH, simply place her in the same bracket at the alarmists she decries- albeit on the opposite side of the fence.

    Oh, no screeching hyperbole in the above paragraph then? It’s just a rather wordy way of saying “if you don’t think the way I do, you are a kook”. But let’s just take a closer look.

    “the failure to appreciate or honestly account for the most basic predictions of evolutionary theory” – this is a post about ocean acidification. Just because you’ve got a ‘thing’ about evolution doesn’t mean we have to be banging on about it all the time.

    “or even the subtlties of the seawater-CO2 equilibrium reaction that are responsible for the observed changes to oceanic pH”. Commenter can’t read: the post explicitly states:

    Likewise, the so-called chemistry underpinning the ‘toxic ocean’ hypothesis suggests an unstable reaction process that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps (the mechanism in the literature is described and rebutted in the following post Toxic Seawater Fraud)

    Follow the link and there’s plenty there on the equilibrium reaction.

    Meanwhile science continues.

    Yes, and if “Clarity of thought” has anything to do with it, that’s not very promising.

  7. 7 john January 25, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    re. reduced alcalinity of seawater, surely the buffering effects of other ions and that variability is as likely to be relevant as a ‘crude’ pH? You have prompted me to go and find the references – seawater chemistry is at least 150years old.

  8. 8 Smokey February 11, 2010 at 1:01 am

    I don’t know much about atheism, except that it is every bit as much of a belief system as any religion: atheists believe in non-existence just as much as the religious believe in existence. The only honest claim to being non-religious comes from agnostics.

    Regarding pH, it has been all over the map for thousands of years, while CO2 has remained fairly steady: click

    To my simple mind this is solid evidence that other factors influence pH levels, and CO2 has little to do with ocean pH.

    Finally, Ed Darrell trolls certain blogs to the extent that he becomes a site pest. His deconstruction above was very satisfying.

  9. 9 wes george June 20, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Thanks Liz, or whomever. This is one of the most interesting blogs i have stumbled across recently. I especially find the ID evolutionary, complex system far from equilibrium feedback argument fascinating and unique. Unique in the sense that it isn’t pointed out often enough. Even though James Lovelock uses it magnificently to show that Gaia is a robust ancient bitch. The CAGW crowd, much like their economic counterparts have zero understanding of how complexity unfolds in reality. It’s almost as if they model the biosphere as a clockwork gear machine, ala some sort of 18th century Rube Goldberg.

    The Atheist meme, i found particularly intriguing because I have long reckoned that the true driving force behind CAGW, besides the obvious neoMarxist socioeconomic justice BS, was a kind of secular extension of old time Abrahamic tradition. You know, banishment from a Rousseauian garden of Eden, sin, guilt and the promise of an apocalypse to punish us for our capitalist sins.

    Keep up the good work!

  10. 10 The Foxholeatheist November 26, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Did someone say there were not positive feedback systems in living things? Has anyone heard of the lac operon?

    And just because something happens rapidly or a reaction goes to completion does not make it unstable.

    Everyone is an agnostic. But everyone must choose to be an atheistic or theistic agnostic. Simple logic here. By definition the supernatural is unknowable. Therefore everyone uses whatever logic abilities their DNA grants them, and comes to an agnostic opinion on the supernatural, hense theism and atheism.

    Furthermore, Science makes no claims on the supernatural. Science observes the material universe, devises a hypothesis and tries to prove it false. If no one can prove it false, it becomes a theory.

    ScientistForTruth replies:

    I think you are playing with semantics. An archetypal reaction that rapidly goes to completion is an explosion. That sort of reaction is hardly a stable state. Much slower reactions (e.g. polymerization of an epoxy over hours) are also passing through an unstable phase. Such processes are not easily reversible and are not equilibria. The fact that they reach a stable state in the end is entirely irrelevant.

    Not everyone is an agnostic. You seem to be playing semantics again, concocting your own definition. An agnostic claims that he does not know whether there is a God, or he claims that one cannot know whether there is a God. Theists certainly do not fall into that category. Your supposed logic is entirely false. Theology deals with knowledge claims no less than does science. Both are valid forms of knowledge. You say ‘by definition the supernatural is unknowable’, but you haven’t shown us where that definition comes from. Whose definition is that? Your own? I do not agree with that definition, and you will find most people will not agree either, so what is the point of confecting a different definition of the word ‘supernatural’? Perhaps you mean that it is not knowable in the materialistic, reductionist sense, i.e. you cannot know that which is beyond the material by using mere material means. But that is self-limiting. If you affirm that there is nothing that can be known beyond the material realm then that’s a presupposition that you haven’t proved: as an axiom you can start where you like, but don’t expect rational people who think more logically than you to agree to such an axiom – such a restrictive axiom leads to a very restricted system.

    I generally agree with your final paragraph, provided you are talking about natural science. And many theists are methodological materialists, but not philosophical materialists – a huge difference. A methodological materialist uses material means to find out about the material world, but this says nothing about whether he believes in other sources of knowledge beyond the material that may or may not be accessible to natural science or other ways of discovering knowledge. A philosophical materialist denies that there is anything beyond the material world, so no knowledge beyond the material world is possible. The former is a rational scientific approach; the latter is a religious claim – atheism – which should not be intruded into science.

  11. 11 Brian H February 16, 2011 at 8:23 am

    The whole “atheism/divine design” issue is a silly distraction.

    Design is not required to “derive” a stable system jam-packed with negative feedback governors/controls/balances. It is, in fact, the only kind of system that can persist. Any system with even one plausible positive feedback system, without any boundary or brake, would long since have gone over the edge and broken down. One might speculate that both Venus and Mars experienced “runaways” that killed off any potential biospheres, possibly because the “brakes” on positive feedbacks were inadequate.

    On Earth, H2O is more than adequate to constrain the environment’s balance points. It is notable that there are two stable states overall: 22°C global average temp, and 12°C. We are in a minor fluctuation upwards within an instance of the latter at the moment.

  12. 12 MadScientist June 22, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    It is pretty simple to measure the pH level 200 years ago. Note that the measurement doesn’t have to be done 200 years ago, it can be done today on water from 200 years ago. Finding such water is slightly harder but it can be found in ice (it keeps the pH level until unfrozen). Using this technique, we can establish the carbon levels from the millions of years ago which was much higher than what it is now.

    ScientistForTruth responds

    We’re talking about the pH of the oceans. Where are these storehouses of frozen seawater with exactly the same chemical composition as the ocean was 200 years ago? I checked on an encyclopaedia of water, and this stated:

    As sea water freezes, salt is excluded, because salt has a different crystalline structure…pockets of brine form within the ice…The brine then slowly leaches out of the bottom of the forming ice and drips into the ocean below. Thus sea ice, when melted, is considerably fresher than the original sea water from which it formed.

    So, since ice made from seawater doesn’t have the same chemical composition as seawater then its pH will not be the same as the seawater it was made from.

    So where are you going to find frozen seawater with the same composition from 200 years ago? What process contained it as liquid and froze it so fast that no salts could leach out, and no remelting has since taken place whereby the water can evaporate and/or other components dissolve in?

  13. 13 Jack June 29, 2011 at 3:52 am

    The oceans function as our planet’s life support system. They moderate our climate and, as noted, filter pollution. They supply us with a rich diversity of food, minerals, and medicines. We also turn to them as a source of comfort, relaxation, recreation, and inspiration.
    [snip] For decades now, our oceans have absorbed nearly one-third of this excess carbon dioxide, conceivably staving off a far greater “land” crisis than we are currently facing. With a daily intake of twenty-two million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and a yearly projection of two billion tons, our waters can no longer keep up with the demands we are making.
    Our oceans are teeming with organisms that depend on protective shells or external skeletons to survive. Plankton, mollusks, and crustaceans are a few well-known examples. When oceans absorb co2 carbonic acid is formed. This is the same acid that gives soft drinks their fizz, a fizz that, in this case, dissolves the shells, leaving these organisms vulnerable. Because so many of these organisms serve as the basis of the marine food web, which in turn supports life on land, this breakdown has sweeping effects. In other words, when phytoplankton are in jeopardy, all life—on land or at sea—shares their fate. [snip]

    ScientistForTruth responds

    Rude remarks or ad hominems are snipped.

    This is typical of a narrative served up by those who can’t be bothered (or are unable) to read and engage with the points made in the post, or to check the facts, and so they will merely parrot what they are told. Simply repeating the narrative doesn’t make it true, though it might have its political uses.

    The comparison with soft drinks is absurd. Most are designed to be acidic, having citric acid, malic acid, lactic acid or phosphoric acid added to them, yielding a pH of as low as 3.0, and the concentration of carbon dioxide is orders of magnitude higher than in the ocean. For example, to make carbonated water in a soda fountain one needs a CO2 pressure of several atmospheres. Obviously the current atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 at 400 ppm concentration (0.04% of the atmosphere) is a lot less than that. Just a bit. Moreover, sea water and the underwater carbonate deposits form a hugely buffered system which allows for the dissolution of vast amounts of CO2 with very little change in pH. The oceans would never, ever become more acidic than pure water (pH = 7.0) even if we burned all the fossil fuel reserves on the planet.

    “This is the same acid that gives soft drinks their fizz, a fizz that, in this case, dissolves the shells, leaving these organisms vulnerable.”

    Is the ocean fizzing, then, like a soft drink, since it is supposedly this ‘fizz that, in this case, dissolves the shells’? Sure, if the ocean was fizzing like a soft drink then that would be a catastrophe, but it’s not, and it never will do so the comparison is absurd.

    As this post and related ones have shown, the process for forming shells depends on the conversion of bicarbonate (rather than carbonate). One has to consider biochemistry and biological pumps in living organisms, not lifeless inorganic chemistry on lifeless materials. As CO2 dissolves, bicarbonate concentration increases making it easier for living organisms to form shells, even though a tiny drop in pH will cause slightly faster dissolution of shell, which is only of importance in relation to the decay of dead organisms, because it is only dead organisms that don’t have a shell building mechanism.

  14. 14 Brian Hall June 30, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Jack;
    “As CO2 dissolves, bicarbonate concentration increases making it easier for living organisms to form shells, even though a tiny drop in pH will cause slightly faster dissolution of shell, which is only of importance in relation to the decay of dead organisms, because it is only dead organisms that don’t have a shell building mechanism.”
    Thank you for that precise summary and conclusion. While all of your preceding information is crucial to establishing it, it nevertheless almost stands on its own. With (or without) your permission I shall be quoting it as necessary every time I see the phrase “ocean acidification”.
    >:)

  15. 15 Freda Fields March 2, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Ocean Acidification is yet another Globalist Scam.Anyone with a brain knows that.

    Ask Ed Darrell how many Carbon Credits he has or intends to buy this year.
    Anyone who buys these is an obvious Scammer.
    ‘Always follow the Money’

  16. 16 Ed Darrell March 4, 2012 at 1:31 am

    It’s not a scam to the corals who can’t survive in slightly more acid oceans. It’s not a scam based on basic chemistry.

    [snip]

    ScientistForTruth replies

    Interesting use of the pronoun ‘who’, which refers to persons. Corals are persons who can be scammed now, apparently.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: