The responses to my previous post suggest that this week's climate change myth "the oceans are becoming 30% more acidic" is even flakier than I suspected:
1. View From The Solent points out that the typical pH of ocean water is around 8.5, or anywhere between 7.5 and 8.5, according to e.g. this, so if anything it is mildly alkaline. Worst case, the oceans are becoming less alkaline rather than more acidic. Remember that pure water is completely neutral and has a pH of 7.
2. VFTS and Neil Craig linked this and this, which showed that increased CO2 concentrations do not necessarily harm the ability of creatures to build shells (and might even be helpful).
3. Anti-Citizen-One pointed out that they can't have it both ways. Either the oceans are warming, and will give off CO2 (warm water can hold less CO2); or they are cooling and absorbing more CO2. But I suppose Warmenists will use this to argue that we are all going to die either way.
4. Neil Craig then rounded off by pointing out that acid rain hadn't been a paticular disaster either, adding that "I was astonised to find that since it was about the only eco-scare story which had seemed reasonable."
5. Knirrir gets a blogging bonus point for being the only one who could be bothered to insert a proper hyper-link, namely to this, although I fail to see the relevance.
Thanks for input.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Just to summarise ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's a web page produced by some scientists investigating the possible effects of ocean acidification. On one of the pages they say how much more acidic they think it will get and why that might be a problem.
Surely that is of some relevance?
On a point of pendantry (in-joke), to become 'more acidic' it needs to be acidic in the first place.
But then 'less alkaline' doesn't contain the nasty, scary "acid" word, does it?
btw, what would be the effect if more CO2 were to dissolve in the seas?
It would be beneficial to marine plant life, everything from diatoms upwards, as it would enable more photosynthesis. More food for the fishes.
With more fishes in the sea, that's more food for the seals.
With more seals in the seas, that's more food for the polar bears.
Hurrah! We've saved them!
Given all this "good science" which looks great on paper, how does one explain the melting icecaps and lac of snow in Russia? Seasonal variation?
K, sure, I didn't say "It wasn't relevant" but as I am didn't understand the terminology used, I said that @" [personally] didn't see the relevance".
VFTS, indeedy.
JH, I know nothing about Russian snow on way or another. But there is a difference between 'recovering from an usually cold period' and 'MMGW'.
Post a Comment