New global maps detail human-caused ocean acidification

November 10, 2014
The saturation state of the mineral aragonite, essential to shell-builders, tends to fall as waters become more acidic. The South Pacific Ocean is heavily oversaturated with respect to aragonite (in red) while the polar oceans (in blue) are less saturated, as shown in this February 2005 map. The pink lines represent approximate polar sea ice edges. Credit: Taro Takahashi

A team of scientists has published the most comprehensive picture yet of how acidity levels vary across the world's oceans, providing a benchmark for years to come as enormous amounts of human-caused carbon emissions continue to wind up at sea.

"We have established a global standard for future changes to be measured," said Taro Takahashi, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who published the maps with his colleagues in the August issue of the journal Marine Chemistry. The maps provide a monthly look at how ocean acidity rises and falls by season and geographic location, along with saturation levels of calcium carbonate minerals used by shell-building organisms. The maps use 2005 as a reference year and draw on four decades of measurements by Lamont-Doherty scientists and others.

The oceans have taken up a quarter of the carbon dioxide humans have put in the atmosphere over the last two hundred years. But their help in offsetting global warming has come at a price: the oceans are growing more acidic as they absorb our excess CO2. To what extent ocean acidification may harm marine life and ecosystems is still unclear, but already signs of stress have appeared in corals, mollusks and other shell-builders living in regions with naturally more . Since the industrial era began, average surface seawater pH in temperate oceans has fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 by 0.1 pH unit, equal to a 30 percent increase in acid concentration. (A lower pH indicates more .)

The vast tropical and temperate oceans, where most coral reefs grow, see the least variation, with pH hovering between 8.05 and 8.15 as temperatures fluctuate in winter and summer. Here, the waters are oversaturated with respect to the mineral aragonite—a substance that shell-building organisms need to thrive.

In northern winter, the Bering Sea, dividing Alaska and Siberia, becomes the most acidic region on earth (in purple) as shown in this February 2005 acidity map in pH scale. Temperate oceans are less acidic. The equatorial Pacific is left blank due to its high variability around El Niño and La Niña events. Credit: Taro Takahashi

Ocean pH fluctuates most in the colder waters off Siberia and Alaska, the Pacific Northwest and Antarctica. In spring and summer, massive plankton blooms absorb carbon dioxide in the water, raising pH and causing seawater acidity to fall. In winter, the upwelling of CO2-rich water from the deep ocean causes surface waters to become more acidic. Acidification of the Arctic Ocean in winter causes aragonite levels to fall, slowing the growth of pteropods, planktic snails that feed many predator fish.

The maps reveal that the northern Indian Ocean is at least 10 percent more acidic than the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which could be due to its unique geography. Cut off from the Arctic Ocean, the chemistry of the northern Indian Ocean is influenced by rivers draining the massive Eurasian continent as well as seasonal monsoon rains.

By analyzing long-term data collected off Iceland, Bermuda, the Canary Islands, Hawaii and the Drake Passage, off the southern tip of South America, Takahashi finds that waters as far north as Iceland and as far south as Antarctica are acidifying at the rate of 5 percent per decade. His estimate corresponds to the amount of CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere, and is consistent with several recent estimates, including a 2014 study in the journal Oceanography led by Nicholas Bates, research director at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences.

"This is exactly what we'd expect based on how much CO2 we've been putting in the air," said Rik Wanninkhof, a Miami-based oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who was not involved in the study. "This is an important point for scientists to underscore—these calculations are not magic."

If the current pace of ocean acidification continues, warm-water corals by 2050 could be living in waters 25 percent more acidic than they are today, said Takahashi. While corals can currently tolerate shifts that big, marine biologists wonder if they can sustain growth at lower pH levels year-round. "In the long run it is the average pH that corals see that matters to their ability to grow and build a coral reef," said Chris Langdon, a marine biologist at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the study.

Ocean acidification is already having an impact, especially in places where the seasonal upwelling of deep water has made seawater naturally more acidic. In a recent study by researchers at NOAA, more than half of the pteropods sampled off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California showed badly dissolved shells. Ocean acidification has been linked to fish losing their ability to sniff out predators, and the die-off of baby oysters in hatcheries off Washington and Oregon, where more acidic deep water comes to the surface each spring and summer.

By 2100, ocean acidification could cost the global economy $3 trillion a year in lost revenue from fishing, tourism and intangible ecosystem services, according to a recent United Nations report. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, has reached similar findings and recommended that President Obama create a research and monitoring program dedicated to .

Explore further: How corals can actually benefit from climate change effects

Related Stories

How corals can actually benefit from climate change effects

November 5, 2014

Researchers from Northeastern University's Marine Science Center and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have found that moderate ocean acidification and warming can actually enhance the growth rate of one reef-building ...

Recommended for you

Scientists examine bacterium found 1,000 feet underground

December 8, 2016

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

50 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2014
Two idiots have already given this important article one star.
JoeBlue
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2014
No evidence to support the title of it being human caused acidification. This is not science, it's allegory.
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2014
No evidence to support the title of it being human caused acidification. This is not science, it's allegory.


"The oceans have taken up a quarter of the carbon dioxide humans have put in the atmosphere over the last two hundred years. But their help in offsetting global warming has come at a price: the oceans are growing more acidic as they absorb our excess CO2."

@joeblue

Need to work on your reading comprehension.

al_hopfer
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 10, 2014
Global wheat production will be larger than previously expected amid an improving outlook for supplies from the European Union and Ukraine, the International Grains Council said.

Wheat output worldwide will rise to a record 717 million metric tons in the 2014-15 season, higher than last month's forecast of 713 million tons and 0.6 percent bigger than the previous year, the London-based IGC said in an e-mailed report today. The agency also raised its forecast for global corn production to 974 million tons, 0.1 percent more than the August estimate while still below last season's record harvest of 983 million tons.

"Wheat output is already seen at its highest ever level, while prospects for exceptional yields in the U.S. and EU help to boost the global maize forecast to within 1 percent of last season's biggest-ever crop," the IGC wrote. "Expectations for large grains, rice and oilseeds supplies continued to weigh on global export prices."
Vietvet
4 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2014
@al hopfer

You've yet to make an intelligent comment and now you're reverting to pasting something totally off topic.

JoeBlue
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2014
^^ Says the guy that has wasted at least 5 minutes on this article with two posts that were both Ad-Homs.

No evidence to support the title of it being human caused acidification. This is not science, it's allegory.


"The oceans have taken up a quarter of the carbon dioxide humans have put in the atmosphere over the last two hundred years. But their help in offsetting global warming has come at a price: the oceans are growing more acidic as they absorb our excess CO2."

@joeblue

Need to work on your reading comprehension.



You need to work on providing proof of such claims, just like these so-called "scientists".
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2014
"You need to to work on providing proof of such claims, just like these so called "scientists"

@Joeblue
If the following link is to difficult for you to understand I'll try to find one intended for children.

http://www.pmel.n...ation%3F
JoeBlue
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
"You need to to work on providing proof of such claims, just like these so called "scientists"

@Joeblue
If the following link is to difficult for you to understand I'll try to find one intended for children.

http://www.pmel.n...ation%3F


This is my point exactly, because you can't prove the link exists, you presume to attack anyone that questions it. You've made 3 total posts in this thread and not one drop of proof. You link an article that tells me how it would work if they could prove it was happening though. Just because something could happen, doesn't mean that it is.

I know the data, I know the science. I can even do the math, but what I can't do is ignore that none of you have actually provided evidence that any of this is caused by humans.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2014
@Joeblue

You know the data?

Then what is the cause of ocean acidification?
JoeBlue
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
@Joeblue

You know the data?

Then what is the cause of ocean acidification?


You're the one claiming the knowledge here. Prove to us that it's humans.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 10, 2014
@Joeblue

You know the data?

Then what is the cause of ocean acidification?


You're the one claiming the knowledge here. Prove to us that it's humans.


http://en.wikiped...fication
gkam
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 10, 2014
Joe sez: "I know the data, I know the science."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, you "knew" electrical power was generated on a schedule based on trends, and not demand.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Joe, and you have as little as anybody here.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2014
Joe sez: "I know the data, I know the science."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, you "knew" electrical power was generated on a schedule based on trends, and not demand.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Joe, and you have as little as anybody here.


The problem with Joe is he thinks he knows more than he actually does.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2014
Joe sez: "I know the data, I know the science."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, you "knew" electrical power was generated on a schedule based on trends, and not demand.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Joe, and you have as little as anybody here.


The problem with Joe is he thinks he knows more than he actually does.


Or has the capacity to do probably.
That's why I ignore him/her.
Sigh
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2014
You're the one claiming the knowledge here. Prove to us that it's humans.

The point of the article is that there is more than a correlation, that the measured acidification "corresponds to the amount of CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere".

If that doesn't meet your standard of proof, and you still demand proof, the only further thing we can do to explore the causal relationship is intervene. The relevant intervention is a reduction in CO2 emissions, steep enough and for long enough that the predicted change in ocean pH is measurable. Thank you for joining us, and everyone please welcome JoeBlue on the day he called for CO2 emission reductions.
RWT
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2014
"The point of the article is that there is more than a correlation, that the measured acidification "corresponds to the amount of CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere".

More than a correlation? There is no correlation. Changes in ocean pH are completely speculative and based on ignorance. There is no historical data of overall ocean pH and if you knew anything about collecting data or oceanography then you'd understand. So how can there be correlation of data that don't even exist?

The oceans are buffered from changes in pH with an endless supply of salts to buffer them. The surface waters will NEVER become acidic. Furthermore, acids are solutions with more positive hydrogen ions than negative hydroxide ions in solution. They have very different properties than bases. The oceans are not becoming acidic or acidifying, ocean water is alkaline. Something cannot become more of something of which it is not.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 11, 2014
I guess RWT needs some Hydrion Papers.

There is no question of the lowering pH of the oceans.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2014
@RWT

"The oceans are not becoming acidic or acidifying, ocean water is alkaline. Something cannot become more of something of which it is not."

The oceans are becoming LESS alkaline. Acidification IS the correct term.
Sigh
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2014
More than a correlation? There is no correlation. Changes in ocean pH are completely speculative and based on ignorance. There is no historical data of overall ocean pH

Do enlighten me how you know that the references to past acidification c. 55 million years ago are nonsense. Or do you conveniently exclude those data because they are prehistoric?

The oceans are buffered from changes in pH with an endless supply of salts to buffer them.

In a finite volume, no supplies of anything are ever endless, unless you agree with Einstein on human stupidity. And buffers only reduce pH changes, they don't prevent them.

The oceans are not becoming acidic or acidifying, ocean water is alkaline. Something cannot become more of something of which it is not.

I can take a strongly alkaline pH 14 solution and acidify it to a still strongly alkaline pH 13 solution. Acidification refers to the direction of change, not the endpoint. Your redefinition is a red herring.
JoeBlue
2 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2014
I guess RWT needs some Hydrion Papers.

There is no question of the lowering pH of the oceans.


No question, except he just posed one that you can't answer. Just like the truth about your identity.
Sigh
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2014
In case you still have a problem with understanding the relevant language, let me give you a simpler example: if a balloon is sinking, that doesn't mean it is going beneath the surface of a body of water, only that it is losing altitude. A weather balloon going from 20 000 m to 10 000 m, never touching a water surface, is still sinking.

I suggest you create a buffered solution and titrate it. If you find the pH doesn't change, regardless of how much acid you add, do publish.

Ocean acidification doesn't allow taking refuge in the "it's so complex that the models are worthless" claim because it's pretty simple chemistry. So then comes "but it's still alkaline", as a distraction from the measurable pH change. Or the "endless buffer" claim, which is empirically wrong, because there is measurable pH change. And unless the buffer really is in infinite supply, not just metaphorically endless, but really, no change in pH at all would be very surprising as far as theory goes.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
"No question, except he just posed one that you can't answer. Just like the truth about your identity."

RWT, in comments like "The oceans are not becoming acidic or acidifying, ocean water is alkaline" indicated that he didn't understand basic chemistry, let alone ocean acidification. For those interested in learning just what science knows, there was a great series on it at skeptical science. Here's a link to the 1st summary (the link to the 2nd summary is in the 1st summary): http://www.skepti..._19.html . If the science at skeptical science is too much, here's a FAQ from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute: http://darchive.m...quence=1 (but still ~25 pages long).
JoeBlue
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2014
@Joeblue

You know the data?

Then what is the cause of ocean acidification?


You're the one claiming the knowledge here. Prove to us that it's humans.


http://en.wikiped...fication


A fucking wiki article is your proof that it's being caused by humans? It doesn't even have documentation linked on it to prove it.

You must think I'm stupid or something.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2014
Joey's silly remark about identities was for me. I sent him to an official USAF site which had my name and photo on it:

http://www.edward...-043.pdf

But he still thinks I am not whatever he thinks I said I was.

Yeah, . . that's what it's down to, . joe denying reality, . . and now, history.
JoeBlue
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2014
"No question, except he just posed one that you can't answer. Just like the truth about your identity."

RWT, in comments like "The oceans are not becoming acidic or acidifying, ocean water is alkaline" indicated that he didn't understand basic chemistry, let alone ocean acidification. For those interested in learning just what science knows, there was a great series on it at skeptical science. Here's a link to the 1st summary (the link to the 2nd summary is in the 1st summary): http://www.skepti..._19.html (but still ~25 pages long).


Except my post said no such thing... It brought up this articles lack of proof that ocean acidification is being caused by humans.
JoeBlue
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2014
Joey's silly remark about identities was for me. I sent him to an official USAF site which had my name and photo on it:

http://www.edward...-043.pdf

But he still thinks I am not whatever he thinks I said I was.

Yeah, . . that's what it's down to, . joe denying reality.


You said you were ONE of those people on that link. Quit lying and tell us who you are, otherwise nothing you say has any credibility.

You have nothing but personal attacks, and you want to tell us that you were in the military?
gkam
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2014
Do people really deny ocean acidification? Do they really use silly semantics such a "decrease in alkalinity, not acidification", . . . which is the same thing?

This is easy to check. Yet some folk deny it. I'd like to know on what grounds, . . that scientists are like businessmen and cannot be trusted? Folk who cannot be trusted think we are all like that.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2014




You must think I'm stupid or something.


http://www.genese...berg.pdf
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2014
Happy Vet's day, Vietvet.

It took something like 15-20 years before somebody said "Welcome home" to me. It was from my daughter who learned about the war in school. I was unprepared.

zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
"Except my post said no such thing... It brought up this articles lack of proof that ocean acidification is being caused by humans."

Didn't read the links, did you? Of course not. You indicated that you don't even read the articles that you comment on (http://phys.org/n...nes.html ), why should you read the links anybody posts?
JoeBlue
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2014
^^^ Have any proof yet?

Do people really deny ocean acidification? Do they really use silly semantics such a "decrease in alkalinity, not acidification", . . . which is the same thing?

This is easy to check. Yet some folk deny it. I'd like to know on what grounds, . . that scientists are like businessmen and cannot be trusted? Folk who cannot be trusted think we are all like that.


So easy to check that you have no once provided proof of anything.

You can't even come out and give us your name to give your credibility.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2014
Once again, I guess some folk need Hydrion Papers.

There is no question of the lowering pH of the oceans.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2014
No evidence to support the title of it being human caused acidification
@joeblow
not in the article, but if you follow the link at the bottom ( http://phys.org/n...l#inlRlv ) it links a study which helps you understand where the "antrhopogenic" part comes from: http://rspb.royal...20141856
they even mimicked the conditions
We conducted controlled laboratory experiments to investigate the impacts of CO2-induced ocean acidification (pCO2 = 324, 477, 604, 2553 µatm) and warming (25, 28, 32°C) on the calcification rate of the zooxanthellate scleractinian coral Siderastrea siderea
and if you would just pay attention to Runrig and others posting the SCIENCE behind AGW, you might actually learn something

try reading and do less speculation, because you are not doing very well at it... especially given your inability to support your own conclusions
it makes you look really, really stupid
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
because you can't prove the link exists, you presume to attack anyone that questions it
@joeblow
have you not been reading the studies i have linked in the past months?
not only have i given the link but showed the studies that linked us to CO2 to the effects in the atmosphere, etc
you have been here since 2010, so there is NO excuse for you to not have seen the studies by now... you are simply ignoring the empirical evidence like any other idiot denier who is angry at the possible threat to their lifestyle instead of being concerned about the possible threat to the life of your descendants
I know the data, I know the science. I can even do the math
Then why are you IGNORING IT?
or are you specifically picking on Vietvet because he has not linked a certain study?
tell us all what you are REALLY up to, because i KNOW i have linked the studies which prove that you are:
1- lying about knowing the science/data
2- trying to bully Vietvet
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
There is no correlation. Changes in ocean pH are completely speculative and based on ignorance
@RWTwit
and you have the studies proving this?
There is no historical data of overall ocean pH
no one is doing anything about it, like this? http://www.epa.go...ity.html
http://www.azimut...fication
http://www.azimut...fication
http://www.epa.go...dity.pdf
looks like at least 3 US projects: the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series Study, the Hawaii Ocean Time-Series, and the European Station for Time-Series in the Ocean (Canary Islands)

i didn't bother to look at anyone else

whereas i might agree with your use of the word "acid" vs "alkaline"
most of the world tends to ignore the scientific implications and uses the word "acid" interchangeably with "base" or "alkaline"... and call alkaline etching "acid etched" as well
just FYI
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2014
No question, except he just posed one that you can't answer. Just like the truth about your identity
@joeblow
1- drop the identity bit unless you feel like posting your SSN, home address, phone numbers and home e-mail address yourself
people need SOME privacy
2- the "question" is answered with a 3 second search of the internet with nothing but science pages
this is called an "idiot search"
i don't recommend using google because google tailors your results based upon past searches and considering what you have been posting here, that is definitely NOT science, and we don't need porn links or pseudoscience (already too much of that here already)
you can also use Google Scholar to search the same things and get 43,100 results in .010 seconds: http://scholar.go...as_sdtp=

but you already said you knew the science/data...
why are you arguing against AGW?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
If the science at skeptical science is too much, here's a FAQ from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute: http://darchive.m...quence=1 (but still ~25 pages long).
@zz5555
thanks for that link!
I really appreciate it... it is very readable and i think my grandkids would better understand it.
THANKS AGAIN!
A fucking wiki article is your proof that it's being caused by humans?
@joeblow
did you FACT CHECK every single reference in that wili article to insure that the studies do NOT represent anything important? or are you simply being biased, stupid and looking for a reason to bully Vietvet or others?
they have meds for your agression at the VA, and they are looking for people like you. i suggest you try seeking mental health assistance
You must think I'm stupid or something.
actually, considering the FACT that you have ignored reams of evidence... then YES, i know that i do
a lot of others likely do as well
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
It doesn't even have documentation linked on it to prove it
@joeblow
sigh
you mean like: http://www.nature...65a.html
which is reference 2, used in the first sentence... and you are sure you checked every study linked and referenced on that page?
this one ( http://www.scienc...5682/362 ) actually even spells out anthropogenic (wow, right?) and is used as a reference too... and i have posted it here before
or maybe you should look up this one: C. L. Sabine et al., in The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate, And The Natural World. SCOPE 62, C. B. Field, M. R. Raupach Eds. (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2004), pp. 17–46.

no wait... you said it doesn't have the documentation to prove it... so that means every reader on Wiki hallucinated the above references? what?
You must think I'm stupid or something
is that a rhetorical question?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014




You must think I'm stupid or something.


http://www.genese...berg.pdf
@Vietvet
good call... actually spells out for idiot boy in the section "Warming and Acidifying Seas"
i noticed some of the same references as on the Wiki page too

Happy VET's day to you
(and all the other Vet's out there)

You can't even come out and give us your name to give your credibility.
@joebloop
and neither have you
in fact... you have given NOTHING but anti-AGW denial and no science supporting your position at all

not one bit

tell you what... start posting science supporting your conjecture or be ready to be called out a TROLL because you are offering nothing but hostility and stupidity

your belief means jack squat to science
either prove it with science or STFU
you haven't even proved you are a real vet... or are you a vet like rygg, who can't tell a captains mast from non-judicial punishment?

science or STFU
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

Happy Vet's day to you too.

@Joeblowhard is frustrating because like zz555 pointed out he doesn't read the links. Doesn't matter if he did, his mind set is anti-science.

I'm listening to the live feed from ESA as I write this, got to go to see the visuals.

http://new.livest...tlanding
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2014
JoeBlue showing immense ignorance of Science claimed
No evidence to support the title of it being human caused acidification.
Yes, you are proving you can't use google or any other search engine intelligently then you rant on there's no proof, u lazy blurt.

From high school physics, this should give you a clue
http://en.wikiped...ignature

Coal & Oil have different isotopic ratios of Carbon, that ratio is present in increasingly higher quantities in atmosphere AND in oceans.

CO2 dissolves in oceans & re the disassociation constant with H2O, lowering pH.

Is that enough to prompt you to man up & find details yourself ?

JoeBlue proves great trouble thinking, searching & getting educated
This is not science, it's allegory.
No. Science = "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge".

Get a grip, articles here are NOT an education course.

Next time show some effort, education & discipline, no wonder people are annoyed with you.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

Happy Vet's day to you too.

@Joeblowhard is frustrating because like zz555 pointed out he doesn't read the links. Doesn't matter if he did, his mind set is anti-science.

I'm listening to the live feed from ESA as I write this, got to go to see the visuals.

http://new.livest...tlanding

@Vietvet

THANKS for that link!
that is GREAT

yeah... joeblowjob is not scientifically literate, and i am not believing his previous boast about knowing the science, doing the math, etc...
if he was even partially literate he would be able to read the links left already... and since he has been here since 2010 and STILL denies AGW, he has his head stuck up his rear-end

enjoying that other link you left too! (sciencemag) hard to read when listening though
LOL

THANKS AGAIN
Sigh
5 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2014
RWT, in comments like "The oceans are not becoming acidic or acidifying, ocean water is alkaline" indicated that he didn't understand basic chemistry, let alone ocean acidification.

From JoeBlue: "Except my post said no such thing..."

And that might be the reason why zz5555 attributed that comment to RWT, and not to you. Just a guess, but seems plausible. What do you think?
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2014
Why are these deniers still throwing their tantrum, beating the floor and screaming "It's not true!"?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2014
The increasing desperation of the AGW Cult is revealed with every new preposterous lie.
http://junkscienc...ebunked/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
The increasing desperation of the AGW Cult is revealed with every new preposterous lie.
http://junkscienc...ebunked/
@antiG
your link is not a study
your link does not use the scientific method and cherry picks for distraction as well as obfuscation

feel free to offer equivalent* evidence refuting the following:
* equivalent evidence would be reputable journal publications of studies with peer review so that we can weed out the pseudoscience like your above link
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
or refute any of these papers: http://scholar.go...as_sdtp=

plus there are articles above that you cannot even refute... but those are not studies, so i will not link them AGAIN

equivalent evidence
NOT PSEUDOSCIENCE / CONSPIRACY
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
The increasing desperation of the AGW Cult is revealed with every new preposterous lie.
http://junkscienc...ebunked/

I followed that link, and wanted more information than someone's interpretation of the paper. Following the next link led me at least a source quoting the abstract:
Because the water pH in Lake Biwa is determined by phosphorus and alkali cation inputs, the record of water pH should indicate the changes in precipitation and temperature in central Japan. Comparison with a pollen assemblage in a Lake Biwa core suggests that lake water pH was determined by summer temperature in the low-eccentricity period before 55 ka, while it was determined by summer precipitation in the high-eccentricity period after 55 ka

So it's a lake, the pH of water in that lake depends on what is washed into it, which depends on rainfall or temperature, depending on time period. How does that relate to ocean pH as a function of atmospheric CO2?
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2014
So it's a lake, the pH of water in that lake depends on what is washed into it, which depends on rainfall or temperature, depending on time period. How does that relate to ocean pH as a function of atmospheric CO2?


It's 100% Junk pseudo science manufactured to fit a preconceived conclusion.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2014
It's 100% Junk pseudo science manufactured to fit a preconceived conclusion.

If you want an informed comment, you need to be a bit clearer. What do you consider junk science? antigoracle's claim of "preposterous lies", the argument presented on the site he linked that the pH of lake water depending on what is washed into the lake conflicts with claims of ocean acidification, that the author of the article seems to have reposted this from another source without thinking about whether that source's interpretation of the article stands up, the article that antigoracle thought supported his claim of lies, or my argument that the article is not relevant to ocean acidification? If you throw around allegations as strong as yours, you really should make clear where you aim.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2014
Sigh, your answers are intelligent and kind, actually, considering your foil. But you are wasting your time trying to change the mind of somebody with science when his opinion is determined by political prejudice.

You are having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.