Study shows four out of five British people are unaware of ocean acidification

ocean
Credit: Tiago Fioreze / Wikipedia

A survey of 2,501 members of the public has revealed that just one in five people in Britain are aware of ocean acidification - a consequence of carbon emissions that poses serious risks to sea-life.

Furthermore, just 14% of the sample report that they have even basic knowledge about the subject.

The results of the public , which have been published today, 9 May, in the journal Nature Climate Change, are the first detailed assessment of the public's understanding of .

While public awareness of climate change is now almost universal, the study authors, from Cardiff University, conclude that the same cannot be said for this parallel environmental issue, sometimes dubbed 'the other CO2 problem'.

As more and more CO2 is put into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels, approximately a third of it is absorbed by the oceans. When CO2 dissolves in seawater it forms carbonic acid, making the oceans less alkaline and more acidic. Since the 1980s, the acidity of the oceans has increased by 30% and, if CO2 continues to be emitted at today's rate, it is set to increase by 150% by 2100. This poses a substantial risk to marine organisms and ecosystems.

To reach their conclusions, the Cardiff University researchers surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,501 members of the British public. Although just 20% of respondents had heard of ocean acidification, the term prompted a range of negative associations among respondents, with many making an immediate connection with harm to marine organisms and ecosystems; others made incorrect associations with marine pollution from oils spills and chemical waste.

The researchers also set out to assess whether scientific reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) during 2013 and 2014 might have affected levels of public awareness of ocean acidification. These widely-reported assessments focussed more than ever on the role of the oceans in relation to climate change, but were found not to have raised awareness of ocean acidification among the general public in the study.

Dr Stuart Capstick, the lead author of the study from the University' School of Psychology, said: "Although we didn't expect to find high levels of awareness or understanding of ocean acidification, we were surprised at just how overlooked this topic seems to be. By now, just about everyone has heard of climate change and a majority of people understand our part in it - even if we don't all agree on what should be done - but only a small proportion of our sample said they knew anything much about ocean acidification.

"Scientific studies over the past few years have demonstrated the importance of ocean acidification for marine ecosystems and the people that depend on them, but we have barely scratched the surface in terms of bringing this issue to the attention of the and policy-makers."

The research also examined whether the provision of some basic, technical information about ocean acidification would lead to a change in attitudes among the study participants. The researchers did indeed observe a substantial jump in stated levels of concern in response to this information.

Dr Capstick cautioned however that their findings showed that the connection between ocean acidification and climate change could be a double-edged sword for those seeking to communicate about this issue: "We provided study participants with one of two information types - either linking ocean acidification to climate change, or describing it as a stand-alone issue. When we made a direct connection between the two topics, part of our sample was less responsive to the information, perhaps due to an overriding scepticism among some people regarding climate change itself."

Given the technical nature of ocean acidification, and its complex relationship with , the researchers suggest that a more fruitful approach to engaging people about this important environmental topic could be to present it in terms of a risk to ocean health as well as stressing its importance for food security in parts of the world that are most-dependent on fisheries.


Explore further

The hidden 'evil twin' of climate change

More information: Public Understanding in Great Britain of Ocean Acidification, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3005
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Provided by Cardiff University
Citation: Study shows four out of five British people are unaware of ocean acidification (2016, May 9) retrieved 18 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-05-british-people-unaware-ocean-acidification.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
112 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 09, 2016
Was there ocean acidification during the Jurassic period when CO2 was 3000ppm??
What about lakes is there CO2 acidification of them as well?
How much has the ocean temperature risen in 50 years??

May 09, 2016
Although just 20% of respondents had heard of ocean acidification, the term prompted a range of negative associations among respondents, with many making an immediate connection with harm to marine organisms and ecosystems; others made incorrect associations

LOL.
Nothing but a recruitment drive for new Chicken Littles. The AGW Cult's desperation is showing.


May 09, 2016
Although just 20% of respondents had heard of ocean acidification, the term prompted a range of negative associations among respondents, with many making an immediate connection with harm to marine organisms and ecosystems; others made incorrect associations

LOL.
Nothing but a recruitment drive for new Chicken Littles. The AGW Cult's desperation is showing.

hello

May 09, 2016
Although just 20% of respondents had heard of ocean acidification, the term prompted a range of negative associations among respondents, with many making an immediate connection with harm to marine organisms and ecosystems; others made incorrect associations

LOL.
Nothing but a recruitment drive for new Chicken Littles. The AGW Cult's desperation is showing.


Talking about your desperation ? With your mountain of socks it clearly shows :D on the other hand, the rest of we are beyond proud to be telling the truth and wnting to help the earth, and thanks to science, we can all see the results (beside those with 2 braincells that is)

On the other hand, antigoracle and his socks, hands down showing how desperately they want recognition for being baboons, well monkley antigoracle, today is your lucky day ! we have seen your effort and you have deserved your bannanas... well done :D

May 09, 2016
Although just 20% of respondents had heard of ocean acidification, the term prompted a range of negative associations among respondents, with many making an immediate connection with harm to marine organisms and ecosystems; others made incorrect associations
LOL.
Nothing but a recruitment drive for new Chicken Littles. The AGW Cult's desperation is showing.


Talking about your desperation ? With your mountain of socks it clearly shows :D on the other hand, the rest of us are beyond proud to be telling the truth and wanting to help the earth, and thanks to science, we can all see the results (beside those with 2 braincells that is)

On the other hand, antigoracle and his socks, hands down showing how desperately they want recognition for being baboons, well monkley antigoracle, today is your lucky day ! we have seen your effort and you have deserved your bannanas... well done :D

May 09, 2016
Here's a thought, alarmists: instead of spending so much time on the social science behind public awareness of your pet subjects, why not spend time investigating the actual science behind your alarmist claims? You might discover, as most of us have, that there's nothing to be alarmed about. Here's some science:

http://www.pmel.n...and+Data

That's a list of the very small number of NOAA sites (21) that have done ocean pH monitoring for more than a couple years. Have a look at any of them and show us where there's any worrisome acidification of the oceans.

Sure, we understand the theory, but the data don't show anything exciting. What it does show is that pH levels vary seasonally far more than the minuscule average change over several years. What does that mean? If ocean organisms can handle large seasonal changes in pH, they can easily adapt to the much smaller, slow change over years and decades.

May 09, 2016
I think this has something to do with the attitudes and the educational blanks of anti and otto, who live there.

" If ocean organisms can handle large seasonal changes in pH, they can easily adapt to the much smaller, slow change over years and decades."

But they are not adapting, Many are failing to form complete shells.

May 09, 2016
@ glam-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

I see your reasoning and thinking is about the same as it was yesterday, eh?

I think this has something to do with the attitudes and the educational blanks of anti and otto, who live there.
Is that what you think Cher?

If you were as in tune with environmental activism as you would have us believe, you would know that four out of five Americans would give you the blank stare with the "uuh" to go alone with it if you ask them, "What do you think of the ocean acidification?" It is just that this study was done in the UK. If you did the same study in New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas and California it would be just the same.


May 09, 2016
After decades of false apocalyptic eco-disasters is anyone really surprised that most people tune that crap out? Maybe eventually the watermelons will get one right. They say a broken clock (pre-digital) is correct twice a day.

May 10, 2016
Looks like we're striving to match "American exceptionalism".

TB is jealous.

May 10, 2016
Once again, the enemy is ignorance and prejudice. We need better technical education.

May 10, 2016
Here's a thought, alarmists: instead of spending so much time on the social science behind public awareness of your pet subjects, why not spend time investigating the actual science behind your alarmist claims? You mre's nothing to be alarmed about. Here's some science:

http://www.pmel.n...and+Data

That's a list of the very small number of NOAA sites (21) that have done ocean pH monitoring for more than a couple years. Have a look at any of them and show us where there's any worrisome acidification of the oceans.


Got an even better thought, instead of using your askdad sock to blow smoke up your other socks, to babble even more cotton candy on physorg, try a healthy diet, with lots of pea's, instead of chewing gum and slurping slush, it encourages brain growth and educational enthuesiasm, learning about sience is realy exciting and it will help with your confidence by enabling you to provide evidence.

May 10, 2016
After decades of false apocalyptic eco-disasters is anyone really surprised that most people tune that crap out? Maybe eventually the watermelons will get one right. They say a broken clock (pre-digital) is correct twice a day.


They say a monkey can be taken out of the bush, but not the bush out of the monkey, that is unfolding right here on physorg in it's truest of form via you aka antigoracle/waterprohet,donglish,shooti and the other 27 of your sockpuppets, monkey's at least need to be fed bannanas twice a day... so here ya go have another one... :D

May 10, 2016
@AlbertPierrepointOBE Looks like we're striving to match "American exceptionalism".
Brits have good reason for siege mentality after being raided by the Vikings who took your best women. The channel is a tiny moat against the onslaught. Whereas USA is driven purely with ignorance and American aggression. They copied English mindset which is completely non sequitur on their large land mass protected by two oceans. Somehow the worry became warmongering

May 10, 2016
...spending so much time on the social science ....spend time investigating the actual science
@aksdad
here is the problem: there is a whole sh*tload of "actual science" out there supporting AGW, climate warming and more... so the issue to be discussed is why people like you don't accept the "real" science being validated in the journals

Why would you *choose* to get your information from an opinionated blog rather than the source scientific material? especially with so much of it validated and re-validated over and over (like GR/SR)

This is important as it underlies the functionality & failures in the brain and thought process of humans

So why wouldn't people believe the real science? "trusted authority" fails
there are some scientists who can't actually produce reputable peer reviewed science because they can't get pseudoscience past the peer review, so they BLOG about it

this is like asking a shaman to promote medicine because they once cured hiccups

May 10, 2016
@aksdad cont'd
show us where there's any worrisome acidification of the oceans
from your own link: http://www.pmel.n...Research

http://www.pmel.n...&y=0

http://www.pmel.n...+Mooring

http://www.pmel.n...n+Cruise

studies linked in those as well
but the data don't show anything exciting
perhaps not to you because maybe you're not understanding what is going on... but from what i see, there is concern even using the link you provided

instead of taking your cue from blogs, perhaps you should open and read some of the studies on the site you just linked?

The question now will be: can you accept the validated science in the link you just provided as proof of your own claims? (which aren't supported by the link you gave)

can you answer that honestly?

May 10, 2016
@aksdad last
they can easily adapt to the much smaller, slow change over years and decades
this is called ASSumption
first off: we *do* understand the theory as you note - and that theory is backed by observation in the link you gave... what we know is that the influx of CO2 in the atmosphere being absorbed will increase acidity (with other factors) far more rapidly than you are assuming, which is being validated by the observational data we're finding (see links above)
http://www.pmel.n...hellfish

http://www.pmel.n...expected

in conclusion, the science says there is a problem... this isn't being "alarmist", it is presenting a scientific answer to your post with the link you yourself provided...

now what do you think?
Still feel that us AGW science advocates are wrong?

May 10, 2016
the problem is he still needs to ask his daddy what the answers are but doesn't know how to describe these complicated science words to him

May 10, 2016
Thanks as usual Captain for emphasizing the science. It is tragic - but sadly interesting to see how the denialists rain down on this kind of article - with no concern for the suffering happening in our world. .


Considering how certain the science has been for the last 15 years and how stark its' been for the last five, the question 'why do people reject it?' is an interesting one. Of course people are going to investigate it. Along with anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO campaigners, anti-wind farm nuts and every other pseudoscientific nutball who rejects the science in favour of misinformation. It's interesting.

May 11, 2016
is an interesting one. Of course people are going to investigate it
@leetennant
i find it fascinating in and of itself... to tell the truth
it's like a person who breaks their legs falling from a tree wondering why their legs hurt because they don't believe in gravity (rm? LMFAO)

watching them justify their beliefs is almost like watching a comedic tragedy unfold in real life... it's so sad in one way but really comical and hard to look away

May 11, 2016
3 reasons,greed, corruption and hidden agendas.

May 11, 2016
3 reasons,greed, corruption and hidden agendas.
@Helo
those are three most common reasons, but that's not always all there is

there is also delusion (the fanatical religious fundamentalists are a good example of this)

or trust: this is common in political affected issues like climate change where the simple party line folk cling to the words of their "authority figures" and accept what they're told (this is evident in people who's sole anti-AGW arguments tend to be from biased political sites to someone's "interpretations" of something, not [b]source science material[/b])

there is simple ignorance, which can be corrected with education and source material (as in reputable peer reviewed journals and studies - not blogs, articles or political sites)

then there is the combination of all of the above- like antig and some others

May 11, 2016
not arguing there Captain, i here ya

May 12, 2016
I would love to see replicated data, pure science separated from conclusions, and opining, agenda driven journalists out of science regardless of their tilt.
Then read the scientific literature, at least occasionally, because otherwise you're only listening to opinion- and agenda-driven journalists out of science.

It's about the preponderance of the evidence, and the consilience of the evidence. It's not just one thing; it's everything that all fits together from different disciplines.

May 12, 2016
Only, see, you're not getting it:

The satellite measurements agree with
the ground thermometer measurements agree with
the sea level rising agrees with
the atmospheric CO₂ level rising agrees with
the lake bed core measurements agree with
the ocean temperature measurements agree with
the glacier melting measurements agree with
the increasing sea acidity agrees with
the tree ring measurements agree with
the trapped air in the ice cores agrees with
the melting Arctic agrees with
the...

Never mind, I think I made my point.

May 12, 2016
Da Schneib, Yes! That is exactly my point. People hear the oft quoted near-consensus of scientists for AGW, but rarely, if ever, dig deeper by looking at the data or the original articles.


If only they'd keep doing the same research over and over until it agreed with me. Because if it doesn't, it's clearly bias. Heaven forbid the preponderance of evidence should imply a conclusion I don't like. That's how you know they're "doing science wrong". Everywhere. For 200 years.

May 12, 2016
"There was near consensus the earth was flat until it wasn't."
Oh really? Any evidence for that claim?

May 12, 2016
I don't think people quite understand what a consensus means. They think it's like voting or something. The only thing voting is reality. That's the whole point of science; each scientist pursues their own different way, coming up with different evidence from different areas, and sometimes coming along to verify others' evidence if they think there might be something else to find out from it.

The last people who thought the world was flat were the Greeks. Anybody who knew anything knew about Eratosthenes' measurement in 240 BCE; 1700 years later Christopher Columbus knew about it, but chose to ignore it in favor of a more optimistic scale given by Toscanelli, a fellow Italian. If Columbus had believed Eratosthenes he'd have known that he'd reached someplace other than China.

Just like most denier memes, this one turns out to be false.

It's getting hotter and it's gonna get hotter yet; the sooner we do something about it the sooner it will stop getting hotter. Get over it.

May 12, 2016
Da Schneib, I'm not arguing what studies have been done at all.
Then you're not getting it. When fifteen different lines of evidence all say the same thing it's time to start believing it. That is what "consensus" means. Not votes. Data.

The dramatic swings in conclusions is damaging this field of science.
There aren't and haven't been any "dramatic swings in conclusions." That's another denier meme that turns out to be false.

Many years ago we had an impending ice age from the data available in the 70's
And another false denier meme. That was a minority theory that a bunch of non-scientists made a fuss about. Then a bunch of science fiction writers made a fuss about it too. At the time that bad guess was made, we didn't even really understand the Milanković Cycles, nor were they a majority theory like they are today, mostly because we didn't have the computers to prove it then.

[contd]

May 12, 2016
[contd]
then global warming, then it swung back to cooling, and now back to warming
What are you even talking about? You mean the paid shills who tried to stir up a nontroversy, just like they did with leaded gasoline, just like they did with cigarettes, just like they've done a hundred thousand times to convince people whatever they were selling was good for them? Are you telling me you actually are so naive that you ever listened to these people?

That dramatic swing in extremism is what causes the public to distrust science.
There isn't and wasn't any "dramatic swing in extremism." The only extremism has been denial of science since the 1980s. It's been denial all the way, nothing but denial, and false denier memes, just like they did to try to keep polluting the atmosphere with lead, just like they did to keep pumping cigarettes into people. No difference at all, not a single change from the same old, same old agenda.

[contd]

May 12, 2016
[contd]
For a horrific example, the anti-vaccine crowd grew out of some bad science foisted on the public. Had the bad science not been there, how many fewer people would be withholding their children from vaccines against nearly extinct diseases?
What's that got to do with AGW? You have a corrupt doctor doing illegal experiments on autistic children, and then when they didn't work out faking the data. There is no such situation in geophysics. Now you're making up your own custom false denier memes.

If presented conservatively (not as in political, but rather making sequential data guided judgments without hockey stick plots), there would be far fewer people against the scientists.
No, if nothing the scientists found out conflicted with some rich person's agenda, there would be far fewer people against the scientists. The scientists are just doing science; the conclusions they come to aren't paid for.

[contd]

May 12, 2016
[contd]
People made science political and it's not.
Yes, people with money who didn't like the conclusions of science and decided to fight them the only way they could: by paying people to lie.

Science is science.
Well, that's pretty good there, Captain Obvious.

Theories to be proven until made law or sufficiently approximated within a set scope.
Wrong. Scientific theories are never proven.

The only thing you got right in that entire post was when you said, "Science is science." The rest is a farrago of denier falsehoods, myths, and other non-scientific material you're trying to present as if it actually means something. It does not. It's the same old same old political horsepucky that's been used since the 1980s to try to put down the reality the rich people can't face.

May 12, 2016
Oh and just to stomp the "people believed the world was flat" meme flatter than a pancake, Toscanelli knew the world was round too; he just had the wrong number for how big it is.

Columbus knew the world was round; so did everybody who knew anything. Columbus didn't prove the world was round; he proved that if you're lucky it doesn't matter if you're right.

May 12, 2016
"...rather prominent greek philosopher..."
Care to name him?
I was thinking of https://en.wikipe...osthenes when I posted.

May 12, 2016
I think I'd personally have more tolerance of this viewpoint, Da Schneib, if these people showed any evidence they'd read the underpinning science.

Of course, if they had read the underpinning science, they'd know the consilience of evidence supports the fact that climate is happening, it's man-made and it's likely to be catastrophic unless we make significant reductions in our emissions.

And if they were such masters of the scientific method as they pretend to be, they'd know that "consensus" is as much a part of science as scepticism is. Unless they think NASA spends its time going "well, we could try to launch a rocket into space but 'science isn't consensus' so we could never be sure we know how. Better keep re-running experiments to show Newtonian physics still applies. Can never be certain the next one won't fail!"

And I'm not typing this on a computer because the Enigma machine was just a drawing with 'Science Isn't Consensus' scribbled on it in crayon.

May 13, 2016
LOL. Consensus is a part of science. How about blatant lying?
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE

May 13, 2016
For fictional bilion of years oceans not became acidic regardless of geologic activity which predict famous shamans of modern antiscience and now for about 50 years become acidic.
Strange things happen in this world. From strange more strange.

May 13, 2016
Consensus and science have nothing common. Consensus is the absence of critical thought and is base for the politicaly correctess or in simple words hypocrisy (double standarts - lawlessness). A critical thought is the basis of the real science.

May 13, 2016
"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
― Michael Crichton

May 13, 2016
And so yes - a consensus emerges - because lots of masters students are chomping at the bit to redo your experiment - and prove you are wrong. If they can - they get a prize. If they can't - your results stand.
Yeah, that's pretty much the name of that tune. And a bunch of post-docs looking for a new way to move research forward so they can get some funding and publish some papers. If you just publish papers that say the same things as everyone else nobody cares and you don't get published. The whole point is to do something nobody's done before and write it up. That's how you do science.

May 13, 2016
Yup, . . . and you had better be ready to back it up.

Just ask Pons and Fleischman.

May 13, 2016
But they are not adapting, Many are failing to form complete shells.

Says gkam, but doesn't cite any references. Why? Because it's not true. The only studies showing organisms having trouble forming shells are ones where the specimens are transferred rapidly from their natural environment to a test tank with water at a pH level far lower than they would ever experience in their lifetime. See any problems with that protocol?

The tests don't consider the shock of being transferred into an unnatural environment. And for the tests where the specimens were allowed to acclimate before being transferred into a test tank with much lower pH, it doesn't reflect what's actually happening in the oceans.

In the real world, sea creatures manage seasonal pH fluctuations that are far greater than the tiny decreasing trend (measured in only a handful of locations). It would take numerous generations for the levels to reach the ones used in tests; plenty of time to adapt.

May 13, 2016
Why would you *choose* to get your information from an opinionated blog rather than the source scientific material?

Huh. I didn't realize the NOAA website was an opinionated blog.

the influx of CO2 in the atmosphere being absorbed will increase acidity (with other factors) far more rapidly

That's the theory, but the data shows no such thing. Once again, the link to observations:

http://www.pmel.n...and+Data

Yes, I looked through the graphs from all 21 stations. There is no visible long-term negative pH trend. Have a look for yourself. Once again, the theory is that the oceans are becoming acidic from the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but the measured reality is that whatever they're absorbing is having essentially no effect (so far) on ocean pH levels.

Station Papa has one of the longest graphs, almost 6 years.

http://www.pmel.n...ory/Papa

No trend. Same with Gulf of Maine and La Push.

May 13, 2016
In trying to refute my points, Captain Stumpy cherry-picked a graph and inadvertently demonstrated what I said. His link:

http://www.pmel.n...+Mooring

The very short graph shows the seasonal fluctuations of CO2 concentration in the water and the pH of the water; fluctuations much greater than the tiny negative pH trend over many years. A negative trend, by the way, that is only found in a few places, like these:

http://ocean.si.e...on-graph
https://www3.epa....ity.html

There is not enough data to indicate a "global" negative trend of seawater pH. Of the 21 PMEL sites, only a couple showed a minor negative trend. The rest showed nothing. Physics and chemistry suggest that the oceans will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere and it will affect pH levels, but so far observations show a very small trend, certainly not drastic enough to kill calcium-dependent organisms en masse.

May 13, 2016
the influx of CO2 in the atmosphere being absorbed will increase acidity...which is being validated by the observational data

Actually, no it's not being validated by observations. The link was:
http://www.pmel.n...hellfish

I found Richard Feely's paper on Puget Sound shellfish here:

http://myweb.facs...2010.pdf

Feely says:

Since there are no high-quality, long-term, carbon times-series measurements in Puget Sound, it is not possible to directly determine the increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the region


His conclusion?

The patterns of low pH and aragonite saturation states observed in the Puget Sound estuary complex are largely the result of natural mixing, circulation, and biological processes at the present time. Ocean acidification currently plays a smaller but important role in further lowering the natural pH levels


Is that enough science for you?


May 14, 2016
Bwah ha ha - the denier goracle is now quoting the infamous - novel writer - who is the poster boy for anti-science denierism. Thanks goracle. http://thinkprogr...er-dies/
Quoting a science fiction writer on science is pitiful.

Science fiction writers MAKE STUFF UP. They get paid to do so. This is duh.

May 14, 2016
Was there ocean acidification during the Jurassic period when CO2 was 3000ppm??
What about lakes is there CO2 acidification of them as well?
How much has the ocean temperature risen in 50 years??


May 14, 2016
blah blah blah People funded to find climate change that report results in the negative will lose their funding, just as people funded to find evidence against would lose theirs if they publish results in the positive. Sustained funding is the crux of academic tenure and survival in government labs and agencies. blah blah lah
This is a one of the most self-serving, conspiracist, rhetorical pieces of bull crap I have seen in, well, since the last one. People are not funded to FIND climate change moron, they are funded to STUDY climate and they FOUND climate change. Maybe you should get off your high horse and actually READ the science you are so quick to thoughtlessly disparage.

That someone who knows so little of how the funding of science actually works (or science in general, frankly) would make such inane comments on a science site is of unending wonder to me.

May 14, 2016
The tests don't consider the shock of being transferred into an unnatural environment. And for the tests where the specimens were allowed to acclimate before being transferred into a test tank with much lower pH, it doesn't reflect what's actually happening in the oceans.

In the real world, sea creatures manage seasonal pH fluctuations that are far greater than the tiny decreasing trend (measured in only a handful of locations). It would take numerous generations for the levels to reach the ones used in tests; plenty of time to adapt.

I wonder what oyster fams on the West coast think of this bit of denier logic?

Oh, wait: http://www.vancou...ory.html
http://thetyee.ca...id-Test/

Yep, just a another fail by should-ask-his-dad

May 14, 2016

That's the theory, but the data shows no such thing. Once again, the link to observations:

http://www.pmel.n...and+Data
No trend. Same with Gulf of Maine and La Push.


Hey, should-ask-his-dad, do you know how to read? I ask because, in the very site you link to, is this graph: http://www.pmel.n...e+Series

It immediately puts lie to your insinuation that somehow the NOAA is not seeing the same degree of acidification as every other group that studies oceans is.

I think we are actually dealing with vontuba here guys. He would also quote random sites without reading them, and then link to them stating they said something completely different from what they actually say.

May 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 14, 2016
So your saying the ocean never acidified in the past?
The nutter fringe are incredible in their inability to see when they are bigger examples than we ever could be of what they criticize, in this thread, "consensus".

We collect data for decades, submit it to peer review, have differing opinions that get pounded out, and gradually a consensus based on our best experimental efforts emerge and the consensus nature of it makes it instantly suspect. More than suspect, grounds for rejection.

Meanwhile, they slouch down in some dark corner with their circle jerk mates and they all agree on a raft of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, revisionist history, etc. 50 nutty theories and they all think it's pretty much accurate. They have a consensus, after all!

They're like watching a toddler with a toolbox. Lots of things to fix! Except they use the wrong tool for the (imagined) job every time.


May 14, 2016
Geology time argument *sigh*

People who don't smoke can still get cancer and people got cancer before we started smoking. Ergo smoking can't cause cancer. Phew. That's a relief.

May 15, 2016
Geology time argument *sigh*

People who don't smoke can still get cancer and people got cancer before we started smoking. Ergo smoking can't cause cancer. Phew. That's a relief.


Uh huh. How about--
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE

For a moment there, I was starting to believe you were growing a brain and making up your own lies, but so glad to see you are back to repeating the ones fed to you.
Phew. That's a relief.

May 15, 2016
Goricle is in the pathetic 75%.

It is probably the failure of education that ruined his chances for a decent life.

May 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 18, 2016
I wonder what oyster fams on the West coast think of this bit of denier logic?

See the links Maggnus provides above for the news articles.

Journalists from local papers--with their own biases and typically not prone to digging deep enough to disprove them--can say whatever they want even if the data, the science, and the studies say something else entirely.

Perhaps you didn't read the oft-referenced Feely, et al. study of acidification in Puget Sound. FYI, the Salish Sea and Qualicum Beach are part of the same estuary. Here's the conclusion:

The patterns of low pH and aragonite saturation states observed in the Puget Sound estuary complex are largely the result of natural mixing, circulation, and biological processes at the present time. Ocean acidification currently plays a smaller but important role in further lowering the natural pH levels

Here's the link:

http://myweb.facs...2010.pdf

May 18, 2016
Hey, should-ask-his-dad, do you know how to read? I ask because, in the very site you link to, is this graph:

It immediately puts lie to your insinuation that somehow the NOAA is not seeing the same degree of acidification as every other group that studies oceans is.

Did you go through all the pH graphs of all the sites being monitored? I did and what I said is accurate. Many of the people working for NOAA conclude that CO2 is lowering seawater pH levels, but they either don't look at their own measured data or they cherry-pick. They are to be commended for collecting data, but so far the measurements from the handful of sites show essentially no long-term declining trend.

The point is, once again, that we all understand from physics that CO2 absorption should lower the pH of the oceans, but the measured, real-world response appears to be pretty insignificant so far.

Maggnus, please re-post your link. It doesn't work.

May 18, 2016
Not only that but the other processes he's referring to in that paper (and bear in mind too he's only looking at one small geographical area) also have an anthropogenic component. So his argument that "It's natural" is completely untenable and unsupported by the single source he keeps quoting.

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