a chemist’s view

[Trakar]

a chemist’s view
“A short history of ocean acidification science in the 20th century: a chemist’s view”

Abstract
This review covers the development of ocean acidification science, with an emphasis on the creation of ocean chemical knowledge, through the course of the 20th century. This begins with the creation of the pH scale by Sørensen in 1909 and ends with the 5 widespread knowledge of the impact of the “High CO2 Ocean” by then well underway as the trajectory along the IPCC scenario pathways continues. By mid-century the massive role of the ocean in absorbing fossil fuel CO2 was known to specialists, but not appreciated by the greater scientific community. By the end of the century the trade-offs between the beneficial role of the ocean in absorbing some 90% of all heat 10 created, and the accumulation of some 50% of all fossil fuel CO2 emitted, and the impacts on marine life were becoming clear. This paper documents the evolution of knowledge throughout this period.
(&#8230
Conclusion
…By the end of the 20th century until the seminal first “High CO2 Ocean” meeting in 2004 (Cicerone et al., 2004) a far busier scene had evolved. As the major IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage was proceeding greatly increased awareness of the impacts of what is now known as “Ocean Acidification” was increasing. Objectively the fears over direct ocean CO2 disposal are unwarranted; it would be too expensive, too controversial, and technically challenging to transfer large quantities of CO2 to great depth. But, in any case such efforts would be dwarfed by the approximately 1 million tons of fossil fuel CO2 per hour now being transferred from air to sea; it is very doubtful that even 1% of this quantity (10 000 tons per hour) could be achieved by ships and pipelines. The “greater than 99% problem” – and the associated climate benefit – is the net air to sea flux. Nonetheless urgent discussions surrounding the concept of direct ocean CO2 disposal greatly aided the modern scientific understanding of the impacts of elevated CO2 on the ocean (Shirayama et al., 2004)…

I have always enjoyed these types of reviews of a field of knowledge and understanding from the perspective of other specific concentrations of knowledge and understanding. With this particular field of science, I most often focus on the physics and maths of how solar energy interacts with the atmosphere and surface of our planet. It is interesting to follow the path from a different focus of science. Good read, recommended for all who are curious about this area of science and its growth in many diverse areas over the last century.

 

[SSDD]

And what does he have to say about ocean chemistry when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the multiple thousands of parts per million? Maybe that no life existed in the oceans during those times? You people become more laugable with every post.

 

[Trakar]

And what does he have to say about ocean chemistry when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the multiple thousands of parts per million? Maybe that no life existed in the oceans during those times? You people become more laugable with every post.

There have only been a few periods in the Earth's history when such conditions existed, and not much living in the seas at those times closely resembled current oceanic life. The main loss due to increasing acidity would be among life that depends upon calcium to form shells and bony skeletons. The fact that life is adaptable and that evolution will eventually fill exploitable niches with new forms of life adapted to those conditions is not a good excuse to harm and kill off life that currently exists.

 

[SSDD]

And what does he have to say about ocean chemistry when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the multiple thousands of parts per million? Maybe that no life existed in the oceans during those times? You people become more laugable with every post.

There have only been a few periods in the Earth's history when such conditions existed, and not much living in the seas at those times closely resembled current oceanic life. The main loss due to increasing acidity would be among life that depends upon calcium to form shells and bony skeletons. The fact that life is adaptable and that evolution will eventually fill exploitable niches with new forms of life adapted to those conditions is not a good excuse to harm and kill off life that currently exists.

You are absolutely nuts and are apparently living without a clue as to the climate history of the planet you are living on. As you can see, the present CO2 numbers are very low when compared to history right up to the beginning of the ice age from which the earth is currently emerging.

The fact is, that most moder sea life evolved during times when atmospheric CO2 was above 2000ppm and by historical standards, the earth's atmosphere is positively starved for CO2.

You have identified yourself as truely clueless. Congratulations. To claim that there have only been a few periods when atmosperic CO2 was above 1000ppm and that little life was in the oceans and none of it resembled modern life is without a doubt, one of the stupidest things that has ever been uttered on this board.

When do you think most modern marine life evolved? 7000 years ago maybe? Here is a clue. Most modern marine life evolved during the late denovian and many of the species look very much indeed like thier ancient ancestors. Note that during the late denovian, the atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 2000ppm but marine life very closely resembling modern marine life thrived during the jurassic and cretaceous with atmospheric CO2 approaching 3000ppm. Your chemist is clearly full of crap as the seas obviously weren't toxic with atmospheric CO2 levels way above 1000ppm.

Here, have a look at the history of the earth. As you can see, for most of the history of the earth atmospheric CO2 concentration has been above 1,000ppm.

Here is one with concentrations labeled in case you find yourself unable to interpolate.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/8715/2013/bgd-10-8715-2013.pdf

Oddly there was no discussion at that time of direct impacts on marine life or on coral reefs. But attention was given to what later became a critical debate – the relative importance of the land biosphere versus oceanic uptake. In a remarkably candid account Lemon (1977) addressed the matter of future CO2 “fertilization” of land vegetation. He noted: “Let me give an extreme example. For some time greenhouse men have been adding CO2 in their closed system to increase yields, say of tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers and carnations. (By yield in this sense I mean marketable product, not necessarily
carbon accumulation.) This distinction is important. The Dutch have found that more CO2 in a glasshouse gives an earlier and bigger crop of fresh lettuce, yet on a dry matter basis (accumulated carbon) there is no difference between a CO2 fertilized crop and a non-fertilized one. The canny Dutchmen are selling more water to the housewife packaged in green leaves. I stress this extreme case to pinpoint the complexity of forecasting what land plants will do with added CO2.”

The effects of added CO2 to the open atmosphere surrounding all forms of terrestrial vegetation were later explored in a large series of FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) experiments, and a null result was indeed found with the pithy headline in Science “Plant productivity benefits of high carbon dioxide busted” in comment on the paper by Long et al. (2006) thus supporting the rather sad prediction made some 30 yr earlier. Similar field experiments on oceanic systems are only now being attempted.

Important, and very relevent paragraph here. Seems to blow that 'added CO2 is good for crops' arguement right out of the water. Real experiments and analysis with real plants, a much better path than the bloviating of the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Old Rocks]

And what does he have to say about ocean chemistry when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the multiple thousands of parts per million? Maybe that no life existed in the oceans during those times? You people become more laugable with every post.

There have only been a few periods in the Earth's history when such conditions existed, and not much living in the seas at those times closely resembled current oceanic life. The main loss due to increasing acidity would be among life that depends upon calcium to form shells and bony skeletons. The fact that life is adaptable and that evolution will eventually fill exploitable niches with new forms of life adapted to those conditions is not a good excuse to harm and kill off life that currently exists.

You are absolutely nuts and are apparently living without a clue as to the climate history of the planet you are living on. As you can see, the present CO2 numbers are very low when compared to history right up to the beginning of the ice age from which the earth is currently emerging.

The fact is, that most moder sea life evolved during times when atmospheric CO2 was above 2000ppm and by historical standards, the earth's atmosphere is positively starved for CO2.

You have identified yourself as truely clueless. Congratulations. To claim that there have only been a few periods when atmosperic CO2 was above 1000ppm and that little life was in the oceans and none of it resembled modern life is without a doubt, one of the stupidest things that has ever been uttered on this board.

When do you think most modern marine life evolved? 7000 years ago maybe? Here is a clue. Most modern marine life evolved during the late denovian and many of the species look very much indeed like thier ancient ancestors. Note that during the late denovian, the atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 2000ppm but marine life very closely resembling modern marine life thrived during the jurassic and cretaceous with atmospheric CO2 approaching 3000ppm. Your chemist is clearly full of crap as the seas obviously weren't toxic with atmospheric CO2 levels way above 1000ppm.

Here, have a look at the history of the earth. As you can see, for most of the history of the earth atmospheric CO2 concentration has been above 1,000ppm.

Here is one with concentrations labeled in case you find yourself unable to interpolate.

Interesting at the geological history of the Earth is, it is not really relevant to dealing with the present climate change. You see, we do not live on scales of millions of years. We live on the scale of, at a max, a century each. And our civilizations live on a scale of 200 to 1000 years. The changes from the GHGs are occuring on a lifetime scale of each of us. That is a scale that the biota of this planet cannot adjust to. It is a scale that our civilizations will be hard pressed to adjust to.

In fact, the only places where the paleoclimatological record is relevant is where there were very rapid changes, in terms of 1000s to 100,000s of years, in the temperature and carbon content of the atmosphere. And each of those period are represented by extinctions, large and small.

Today, we have in this nation all too many that would make political expediancy more important than dealing with reality. That is going to cost the citizens of this nation dearly.

 

[SSDD]

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/8715/2013/bgd-10-8715-2013.pdf

Oddly there was no discussion at that time of direct impacts on marine life or on coral reefs. But attention was given to what later became a critical debate – the relative importance of the land biosphere versus oceanic uptake. In a remarkably candid account Lemon (1977) addressed the matter of future CO2 “fertilization” of land vegetation. He noted: “Let me give an extreme example. For some time greenhouse men have been adding CO2 in their closed system to increase yields, say of tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers and carnations. (By yield in this sense I mean marketable product, not necessarily
carbon accumulation.) This distinction is important. The Dutch have found that more CO2 in a glasshouse gives an earlier and bigger crop of fresh lettuce, yet on a dry matter basis (accumulated carbon) there is no difference between a CO2 fertilized crop and a non-fertilized one. The canny Dutchmen are selling more water to the housewife packaged in green leaves. I stress this extreme case to pinpoint the complexity of forecasting what land plants will do with added CO2.”

The effects of added CO2 to the open atmosphere surrounding all forms of terrestrial vegetation were later explored in a large series of FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) experiments, and a null result was indeed found with the pithy headline in Science “Plant productivity benefits of high carbon dioxide busted” in comment on the paper by Long et al. (2006) thus supporting the rather sad prediction made some 30 yr earlier. Similar field experiments on oceanic systems are only now being attempted.

Important, and very relevent paragraph here. Seems to blow that 'added CO2 is good for crops' arguement right out of the water. Real experiments and analysis with real plants, a much better path than the bloviating of the fossil fuel industry.

Interesting, isn't it; how every thing you say turns out to be the exact opposite out here in the real world.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded]Seeing is Believing - YouTube[/ame]

CO2 Science

CO2 Science

 

[SSDD]

Interesting at the geological history of the Earth is, it is not really relevant to dealing with the present climate change.

Of course it is since it demonstrates that the horrors you crazies predict didn't happen in the past when CO2 was a far greater presence in the atmosphere than it is today...

It is a scale that our civilizations will be hard pressed to adjust to.

So you say, except again, history proves you wrong. Humanity has flourished under warm periods. It is the cold periods such as we are presently leaving that cause more problems for life on earth.

You need a new hobby. This eternal fretting over the non problem of AGW isn't good for you. It has clearly pushed your mind into the realm of abnormal paranoid psychology....seeing devils under every CO2 molecule when no such devils exist.

 

[flacaltenn]

a chemist’s view
“A short history of ocean acidification science in the 20th century: a chemist’s view”

Abstract
This review covers the development of ocean acidification science, with an emphasis on the creation of ocean chemical knowledge, through the course of the 20th century. This begins with the creation of the pH scale by Sørensen in 1909 and ends with the 5 widespread knowledge of the impact of the “High CO2 Ocean” by then well underway as the trajectory along the IPCC scenario pathways continues. By mid-century the massive role of the ocean in absorbing fossil fuel CO2 was known to specialists, but not appreciated by the greater scientific community. By the end of the century the trade-offs between the beneficial role of the ocean in absorbing some 90% of all heat 10 created, and the accumulation of some 50% of all fossil fuel CO2 emitted, and the impacts on marine life were becoming clear. This paper documents the evolution of knowledge throughout this period.
(…)
Conclusion
…By the end of the 20th century until the seminal first “High CO2 Ocean” meeting in 2004 (Cicerone et al., 2004) a far busier scene had evolved. As the major IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage was proceeding greatly increased awareness of the impacts of what is now known as “Ocean Acidification” was increasing. Objectively the fears over direct ocean CO2 disposal are unwarranted; it would be too expensive, too controversial, and technically challenging to transfer large quantities of CO2 to great depth. But, in any case such efforts would be dwarfed by the approximately 1 million tons of fossil fuel CO2 per hour now being transferred from air to sea; it is very doubtful that even 1% of this quantity (10 000 tons per hour) could be achieved by ships and pipelines. The “greater than 99% problem” – and the associated climate benefit – is the net air to sea flux. Nonetheless urgent discussions surrounding the concept of direct ocean CO2 disposal greatly aided the modern scientific understanding of the impacts of elevated CO2 on the ocean (Shirayama et al., 2004)…

I have always enjoyed these types of reviews of a field of knowledge and understanding from the perspective of other specific concentrations of knowledge and understanding. With this particular field of science, I most often focus on the physics and maths of how solar energy interacts with the atmosphere and surface of our planet. It is interesting to follow the path from a different focus of science. Good read, recommended for all who are curious about this area of science and its growth in many diverse areas over the last century.

Little hysteria there eh? I liked the parts about carbon sequestration in the oceans being a "drop in the bucket" (good pun, i crack myself up), but the LOGIC sucks and there is no real analysis in your summary..

Carbon Sequestration would be a small effect, but the stuff that's NOT sequestered currently and being sunk by oceans is?? That assertion totally depends on the efficiency and commitment to sequestration.. Which is NOT a chemistry issue at all -- is it?

The hysteria part is the fact that 1million tons/hour is miniscule compared to the natural exchange rates of land and ocean WITHOUT MAN --- but that measuring stick is completely ignored, to add URGENCY to his "opinions"..

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/8715/2013/bgd-10-8715-2013.pdf

Oddly there was no discussion at that time of direct impacts on marine life or on coral reefs. ...............

Probably because those urgent studies on estuary effects aren't panning out for the hysterical crowd.. Like when NOAA can't kill innocent baby oysters with just the 2100 estimates of OAcidification, so they multiply that by FOUR and the babies seem to love it...

Or because during the day on most shallow reef structures and estuaries, the NATURAL shifts in PH far outweigh the amounts of OA actually being observed as a result of man's emissions.

 

[SSDD]

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/8715/2013/bgd-10-8715-2013.pdf

Oddly there was no discussion at that time of direct impacts on marine life or on coral reefs. ...............

Probably because those urgent studies on estuary effects aren't panning out for the hysterical crowd.. Like when NOAA can't kill innocent baby oysters with just the 2100 estimates of OAcidification, so they multiply that by FOUR and the babies seem to love it...

Or because during the day on most shallow reef structures and estuaries, the NATURAL shifts in PH far outweigh the amounts of OA actually being observed as a result of man's emissions.

The real world rarely, if ever bears out their hysterical fears.

 

[skookerasbil]

Look.....if we want to discuss climate change, cool.....but seriously, the whole CO2 causation piece is formally fossilized at this point. Only the closed society science is still clinging to that crap and do so in desparate fashion I might add. At the most recent climate summit, if you had scientific data that didnt conform to the established CO2 narrative, you got kicked out.....'See ya!!!!.

 

[mamooth]

Interesting, isn't it; how every thing you say turns out to be the exact opposite out here in the real world.

That was funny. I'm talking about how SSDD handwaved away the field data, and told us to look at greenhouse experiments instead. The real world? Only a dirty liberal would look at that.

And only dirty liberals also look at the science of behind ocean acidification. Silly things like CaCO3 compensation. You know, that thing that will keep ocean pH stable even at ten times the present CO2 levels ... provided the increase happens very slowly, over tens of thousands of years. In cases where CO2 did shoot up fast, such as at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, there were mass extinctions of shelled creatures.

Naturally, the denialists here have zero knowledge of such things, as shown by SSDD's "but ocean pH didn't shoot up in the past!" debunked nonsense. If it's not on their cult's talking points list, they don't know it.

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00ks hate when I post this gem up!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Trakar]

a chemist’s view
“A short history of ocean acidification science in the 20th century: a chemist’s view”

Abstract
This review covers the development of ocean acidification science, with an emphasis on the creation of ocean chemical knowledge, through the course of the 20th century. This begins with the creation of the pH scale by Sørensen in 1909 and ends with the 5 widespread knowledge of the impact of the “High CO2 Ocean” by then well underway as the trajectory along the IPCC scenario pathways continues. By mid-century the massive role of the ocean in absorbing fossil fuel CO2 was known to specialists, but not appreciated by the greater scientific community. By the end of the century the trade-offs between the beneficial role of the ocean in absorbing some 90% of all heat 10 created, and the accumulation of some 50% of all fossil fuel CO2 emitted, and the impacts on marine life were becoming clear. This paper documents the evolution of knowledge throughout this period.
(…)
Conclusion
…By the end of the 20th century until the seminal first “High CO2 Ocean” meeting in 2004 (Cicerone et al., 2004) a far busier scene had evolved. As the major IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage was proceeding greatly increased awareness of the impacts of what is now known as “Ocean Acidification” was increasing. Objectively the fears over direct ocean CO2 disposal are unwarranted; it would be too expensive, too controversial, and technically challenging to transfer large quantities of CO2 to great depth. But, in any case such efforts would be dwarfed by the approximately 1 million tons of fossil fuel CO2 per hour now being transferred from air to sea; it is very doubtful that even 1% of this quantity (10 000 tons per hour) could be achieved by ships and pipelines. The “greater than 99% problem” – and the associated climate benefit – is the net air to sea flux. Nonetheless urgent discussions surrounding the concept of direct ocean CO2 disposal greatly aided the modern scientific understanding of the impacts of elevated CO2 on the ocean (Shirayama et al., 2004)…

I have always enjoyed these types of reviews of a field of knowledge and understanding from the perspective of other specific concentrations of knowledge and understanding. With this particular field of science, I most often focus on the physics and maths of how solar energy interacts with the atmosphere and surface of our planet. It is interesting to follow the path from a different focus of science. Good read, recommended for all who are curious about this area of science and its growth in many diverse areas over the last century.

Little hysteria there eh? I liked the parts about carbon sequestration in the oceans being a "drop in the bucket" (good pun, i crack myself up), but the LOGIC sucks and there is no real analysis in your summary..

Carbon Sequestration would be a small effect, but the stuff that's NOT sequestered currently and being sunk by oceans is?? That assertion totally depends on the efficiency and commitment to sequestration.. Which is NOT a chemistry issue at all -- is it?

The hysteria part is the fact that 1million tons/hour is miniscule compared to the natural exchange rates of land and ocean WITHOUT MAN --- but that measuring stick is completely ignored, to add URGENCY to his "opinions"..

Your rant appears to be lacking veracity, support and relevance to this thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

a chemist’s view
“A short history of ocean acidification science in the 20th century: a chemist’s view”
I have always enjoyed these types of reviews of a field of knowledge and understanding from the perspective of other specific concentrations of knowledge and understanding. With this particular field of science, I most often focus on the physics and maths of how solar energy interacts with the atmosphere and surface of our planet. It is interesting to follow the path from a different focus of science. Good read, recommended for all who are curious about this area of science and its growth in many diverse areas over the last century.

Little hysteria there eh? I liked the parts about carbon sequestration in the oceans being a "drop in the bucket" (good pun, i crack myself up), but the LOGIC sucks and there is no real analysis in your summary..

Carbon Sequestration would be a small effect, but the stuff that's NOT sequestered currently and being sunk by oceans is?? That assertion totally depends on the efficiency and commitment to sequestration.. Which is NOT a chemistry issue at all -- is it?

The hysteria part is the fact that 1million tons/hour is miniscule compared to the natural exchange rates of land and ocean WITHOUT MAN --- but that measuring stick is completely ignored, to add URGENCY to his "opinions"..

Your rant appears to be lacking veracity, support and relevance to this thread.

You've pulled this tactic recently on me in a couple threads. I responded DIRECTLY the OP. Perhaps you think there's a difference between PURPOSELY sequestering carbon in the ocean or waiting til most of it ends up there. Planning to sink the CO2 to great depth is a boatload better than waiting to see where the absorption limit of the ocean is -- don't ya think? Else that 1mil ton/hour STOPS going into the ocean -- dont it?

Are you not aware of the ratio of man-caused CO2 to the "natural volumes" exchanged at land and sea.. If this is what you want back-up on -- I'm SURPRISED -- but willing to help you out.. Thought you were all Pro-Active and stuff this week all into fixing things.

At this point -- it's not my veracity in question but your unwillness to discuss and possibly your ability to read critically and select material that you WANT to defend..

 

[SSDD]

Interesting, isn't it; how every thing you say turns out to be the exact opposite out here in the real world.

That was funny. I'm talking about how SSDD handwaved away the field data, and told us to look at greenhouse experiments instead. The real world? Only a dirty liberal would look at that.

And only dirty liberals also look at the science of behind ocean acidification. Silly things like CaCO3 compensation. You know, that thing that will keep ocean pH stable even at ten times the present CO2 levels ... provided the increase happens very slowly, over tens of thousands of years. In cases where CO2 did shoot up fast, such as at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, there were mass extinctions of shelled creatures.

Naturally, the denialists here have zero knowledge of such things, as shown by SSDD's "but ocean pH didn't shoot up in the past!" debunked nonsense. If it's not on their cult's talking points list, they don't know it.

Here is a real world experiment for you so that if you are inclined, you can prove to yourself that the ocean acidification hysteria is just that...hysteria manufactured to divert from the fact that the warming hysteria isn't panning out.

Principia Scientific Intl | Carbon Dioxide Makes Alkaline Water - Experiment

As the man says, acidification due to CO2 is something that happens in labs, with distilled water, but not out in nature where untold other factors are at work.

 

[Old Rocks]

How long has "principia scientific" existed? *

The paper was written for Principia Scientific International (PSI) which tries to pass itself off as a scientific organisation. It isn’t. It’s a UK based publicity business owned by shareholders.
http://principia-scientific.org/pso/

The PSI’s Principles of Association statement declare that it is a profit making business, it’s main commercial interest being the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”.
http://principia-scientific.org/pso/abou…

The book was written by oil industry funded Dr Timothy Ball, who also happens to be the Chair of PSI.
SourceWatch
Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) | DeSmogBlog

PSI was founded by the science and law teacher John O’Sullivan, who is acting as a paid consultant to Dr Ball in defending him against lawsuits brought against him by Dr Michael Mann and Dr Andrew Weaver.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O'Su…
http://principia-scientific.org/pso/abou… (see Founding Members)

As for the paper by Joseph E. Postma that you refer to. Guess who published it? No prizes for guessing that it was Principia Scientific International. Was it published as scientific research? No, it was published for profit.
http://principia-scientific.org/pso/comp…

As for the actual paper itself, you’ve probably figured by now that it’s a load of rubbish. And you’d be right.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting, isn't it; how every thing you say turns out to be the exact opposite out here in the real world.

That was funny. I'm talking about how SSDD handwaved away the field data, and told us to look at greenhouse experiments instead. The real world? Only a dirty liberal would look at that.

And only dirty liberals also look at the science of behind ocean acidification. Silly things like CaCO3 compensation. You know, that thing that will keep ocean pH stable even at ten times the present CO2 levels ... provided the increase happens very slowly, over tens of thousands of years. In cases where CO2 did shoot up fast, such as at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, there were mass extinctions of shelled creatures.

Naturally, the denialists here have zero knowledge of such things, as shown by SSDD's "but ocean pH didn't shoot up in the past!" debunked nonsense. If it's not on their cult's talking points list, they don't know it.

Here is a real world experiment for you so that if you are inclined, you can prove to yourself that the ocean acidification hysteria is just that...hysteria manufactured to divert from the fact that the warming hysteria isn't panning out.

Principia Scientific Intl | Carbon Dioxide Makes Alkaline Water - Experiment

As the man says, acidification due to CO2 is something that happens in labs, with distilled water, but not out in nature where untold other factors are at work.

Basically a load of shit that has nothing to do with the present change of pH observed in the oceans.

Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO 2 Problem: Scientific American

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2005/9634.pdf

Ocean Acidification : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

OzCoasts Coastal indicators: Ocean acidification

And a real experiment that actually shows the effect of CO2, rather than that bullshit peice you posted;

7A: Carbon Dioxide and Ocean pH: What's the Connection?

 

[SSDD]

How long has "principia scientific" existed? *

The experiment is what it is and demonstrates what it demonstrates. You can do it yourself for mere pennies and see what you see.

As for the actual paper itself, you’ve probably figured by now that it’s a load of rubbish. And you’d be right.

As for the paper...I did the experiment myself and got the same results. Real world observation vs flawed computer model output. The contrast is undeniable.

If a circumstantial ad hominem is the best you can do, why even bother?