Interviewed on The Reef Tank

Tim I notice that you talk about acidification.Most of the public would assume that this means the ocean is getting more acidic when of course it is simply getting less basic Ph 8.3.It has a long way to go before it becomes neutral.

Off topic, and I don't know how recent it is but Moncton has some interesting associates [over here](http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/rep_shimkus_says_we_…).

Kent, you should study some chemistry and learn about pH before making asinine comments.

Tim I notice that you talk about acidification.Most of the public would assume that this means the ocean is getting more acidic when of course it is simply getting less basic Ph 8.3.It has a long way to go before it becomes neutral.

Sort like "we're having some summer cooling temps" lead people to believe summer temps are getting even colder than freezing, right? That "cooling" is an absolute reference, rather than a relative one?

Good grief.

When temps unexpectably drop from 100F to 90F, we say "temps cooled to 90F".

Apply same logic to ocean Ph.

Off topic, and I don't know how recent it is but Moncton has some interesting associates over here

I'm not finding "404 not found" all that interesting.

Is this something like the Da Vinci code, except it disprove most of modern science?

dhogaza: The correct link.

"Kent, you should study some chemistry and learn about pH before making asinine comments."

Ian, do you know how much the ocean pH has changed due to ACO2?
Please enlighten us.

Tim I notice that you talk about acidification.Most of the public would assume that this means the ocean is getting more acidic when of course it is simply getting less basic Ph 8.3.It has a long way to go before it becomes neutral.

Kent, as Ian forrester notes, your chemistry is abyssmal.

pH is the negative log of H+ ion concentration. Even in a solution of pH 14 (or greater) there are still H+ ions present, albeit at very low concentrations, and at much lower concentrations than the OH - ions.

Where any solution's pH decreases, even if the original and final pHs are both above the 'neutral' pH 7, the concentration of H+ ions is, nevertheless, increasing.

Acidification is, at its simplest, the process where H+ ion concentration increases. Thus, going from a more alkaline to a less alkaline pH is 'acidification', irrespective of where the point of 'neutrality' is. This is happening with the oceans of the world, and any basically competent chemist (or indeed, informed lay person) recognises the process as acidification.

To borrow Ian's adjective, your comment opens a new field in asinine denialism: to wit, that the oceans are not acidifying.

They are most certainly acidifying, and you are an ignoramus to say otherwise.

oops, you hit one button to soon and the droolers foam at the mouth.I was not talking about acidification but the fact that most people would see it as becoming more acidic. I recognized that Tim's use of the word acidification was correct.

That is why I worded what I wrote the way I did. The problem the droolers have is they just don't understand English,or logic.
You focus on how to be offended and you attempt to offend but instead you show how little imagination you have.

Kent, wrong is wrong, admit it.

I was not talking about acidification but the fact that most people would see it [sic] as becoming more acidic.

That's the point - the oceans of the world are becoming 'more acidic'.

I am not attempting to offend, but you yourself show how little scientific understanding you have.

A bit off-topic, but Anthony Watts screws up yet again.

The latest ball that Watts and is fellow travelers have picked up and run with is a letter published in PRL entitled, ""Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion" (link here: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf)

For a good chuckle, read through the above paper and compare it with Watts' take on it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-respo…

Yeah, I read that. Unbelievable. How many times has Watts triumphantly posted about a paper that claims something 180 degrees opposed to Watts' interpretation?

A couple people in that thread understood the paper and pointed out the gaff, but the chorus isn't listening ...

"That's the point - the oceans of the world are becoming 'more acidic'.

"I am not attempting to offend, but you yourself show how little scientific understanding you have."

Do you think that being so alarmed at unmeasurable increases in human caused "ocean acidification" which has happened so many times "naturally" in the past and to so much greater extent, may also be rather unscientific as well as slightly unhinged?

'Do you think that being so alarmed at unmeasurable increases in human caused "ocean acidification" which has happened so many times "naturally" in the past and to so much greater extent, may also be rather unscientific as well as slightly unhinged?'

Wow, that's all I can say about this great comment.

So then, if ocean acidification is unmeasurable, how do you know that it happened in the past to a 'much greater extent'. You make no sense.

The UK Royal Society did a fairly detailed study into the effects of ocean acidification (which for Kent's benefit means that the ocean is become _more_ acidic rather then becoming an acid).

http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

In it, they state:

Calculations
based on measurements of the surface oceans and our
knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake
of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface
seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the
concentration of hydrogen ions.
<\blockquote>

The process of ocean acidification is inherently measurable, and the report compares current trends in ocean acidity to natural and regional variations, as well as the current levels to those inferred in the past from proxy evidence.

The gist is: The oceans are becoming more acidic, the mechanism this occurs by is quite well understood and humanity is the cause.

jonno,
What don't you understand about "unmeasureable increase" and can you then understand that it would be less acidification than this?

http://www.physorg.com/news68305951.html

I only visited briefly, but I see no indication that spangled drongos reference says anything against mainstream science in regard to ocean acidification.

So, perhaps, spangled drongo will tell us what he believes this shows that refutes the obvious science?

Ball in your court, s.d. Be specific, please.

ChrisC,
"The process of ocean acidification is inherently measurable,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Yes, they "measured " it to three decimal places in 1751 even though pH was not invented till 1909.
To use jonno's description, Wow!
pH in the oceans is supposed to have a natural variation of around +/- 0.3 units and it has dropped [an inherently measurable] 0.075 in 250 years?

If I were Tim I'd find another raison d'etre.

>Off topic, and I don't know how recent it is but Moncton has some interesting associates over here.

Who is the person to the left of Monckton in the video?

It looks like he is trying to hide a laugh.

And then when the picture is removed at the end, a woman behind it looks like she is trying to stop laughing.

> So then, if ocean acidification is unmeasurable, how do you know that it happened in the past to a 'much greater extent'. You make no sense.

You see, spangled drongo knows because... because... because... because AL GORE IS FAT!

Lesser spangled drongo why don't you get your mate SnM to do an audit on Orr et al "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying .." instead of your lazy arsed "I don't believe they could measure the PH levels of the ocean in 1751". This paper has 68 references in 2008 to date on Google Scholar, so this would be a big prize for you denialist fools.

I now feel my approach to trolls is sheer botany/stamp collection. Just note the Lines of the Day and ignore the horrid but somewhat false personalities that overlay the conveyance of the message.

Greasemonkey + killfile = fire + wheel + sliced bread

(ranking inventions).