More Scientific Illiteracy On Display… Reuters


Ocean Acidification Threatens Arctic Ecosystem, Study Shows

Just some excerpts…….

Acidification, blamed on the transformation of rising levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the air into carbonic acid in the sea, makes it harder for shellfish and crabs to grow their shells, and might also impair fish reproduction, it said.

Will the sciency people ever come to understand what the shells are made of?  And, more than that, it has already been demonstrated that this absurd idea is wrong.  As far as the fishys go, recent studies indicate that they would be adaptable to lower pH levels.  It’s that whole adaptation thingy which has allowed the many species to survive all these eons. 


Cold water absorbs carbon dioxide more readily than warm water, making the Arctic especially vulnerable.

Uhhmm…… this is…. the water which is currently in the Arctic won’t stay there.  The waters in the ocean do a tricky thing.  IT MOVES!!! 


Yes, I know it’s shocking, but, even if the ocean waters in the Arctic became less base, the water isn’t going to stay there.  Thus, it doesn’t make the Arctic more susceptible than anything else.

The report said the average acidity of surface ocean waters worldwide was now about 30 percent higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

I don’t even know how to respond to this bit of ignorance.  I’m at a loss.  pH is a decimal logarithm.  30%?  I have no idea how they came to such a ratio, but, it isn’t accurate by any measure.  And, acidity is defined as a lower pH not higher!!  The ocean isn’t acidic so it can’t have higher acidity.  Further, there is no comprehensive pH measurement of the oceans, today.  They have no idea what the average pH levels are much less what they were in pre-industrial times.  This is simply hyperbole based upon supposition.  Lastly……

“Arctic marine waters are experiencing widespread and rapid ocean acidification,” said the report by 60 experts for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, commissioned by the eight nations with Arctic territories.

So we have 60 experts who know nothing about what they are supposedly experts in.  Nice.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to More Scientific Illiteracy On Display… Reuters

  1. DirkH says:

    30% loss of ions; corresponds to a pH change of 0.1, circa. They won’t say that average pH dropped by 0.1; that doesn’t sound frightening enough.

  2. grumpydenier says:

    James, James, for Heaven’s sake. Learn to swim with the tide.

  3. DirkH says:

    This alarmist site claims that until 2100 the pH might actually drop to 7.8.

    So it will never actually get acidic.

    And they show an aragonite shell that is allegedly dissolved in 45 days under “conditions simulating the saturation of sea water acidification”, whatever they did there. Not a life Aragonite, of course. And we know that sometimes researchers use HCl or other acids to get to the right pH; (and kill their test life forms). So I don’t know what they did there.

    • DirkH says:

      Blech, Aragonite is a mineral, their test shell is a Limacina helicina antarctica. Sorry.

    • kim2ooo says:

      sometimes researchers use HCl or other acids to get to the right pH;


      • DirkH says:

        Really, no kidding. You see a paper that pontificates about how all the fishies didn’t really like the acidification and it is barely or not at all mentioned that they thought it wouldn’t matter HOW they get to their pH.

        Which leads to the eternal question, are they that stupid or are they evil.

  4. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    The ocean isnโ€™t acidic so it canโ€™t have higher acidity.

  5. PhilJourdan says:

    And to think – there has never been a time in the history of the world where the co2 content of the oceans was at or higher than it is now. Not when the earth was a snowball, not when the earth was in an ice age 12-20k years ago.

    Nope! Never.

    “The Stupid! It Burns!”

  6. tckev says:

    Sack the 60 so called experts now!
    This report bares no resemblance to what happens in nature. Oceans are very large buffer solutions of mixed mineral salts, that can change its alkalinity only slowly. Carbonic acid is a very, very weak acid – sparkling water anyone – and thus can not acidify the oceans to any great degree.โ€Ž

    The oceans of the world have absorbed almost half of the CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels.[5] The extra dissolved carbon dioxide has caused the ocean’s average surface pH to shift by about 0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels.

    Adding more CO2 to sea water will shift the the carbonates and the bicarbonates salt balance of the oceans.
    The people doing this research are perpetrating fraud by allowing this to be represented as anything other than a laboratory exercise, with little to no truth for the natural environment.

  7. HankH says:

    They’re running out of scare tactics. The globe isn’t warming. Storms aren’t getting worse, snow isn’t going away, moreless

    • HankH says:

      Argh! I don’t know how I hit the “Post Comment” button. Anyway, moreless and lessmore isn’t happening much to their fears, so they’ve got to conjure up another something or other that isn’t happening to feel like they’ve got some purpose. That, and to shake a few more coins out of those grants.

  8. grumpydenier says:

    If you have the time and the inclination, take a look at this comment on J. Curry’s site.

  9. ThePhDScientist says:

    Haha I love this article. Such certainty! Suyts knows better than 60 scientists. He cites one study and cherry picks some data here: “And, more than that, it has already been demonstrated that this absurd idea is wrong.” Umm no actually it doesn’t it says some species may do well while others want, but of course he just takes the part he wants.

    Oh and here’s a nice little denier play on words to try and make the scientists sound foolish! And, acidity is defined as a lower pH not higher!! HAHAHAHA Oh the guy with barely a bachelors degree is just so smart! Except, scientifically it’s perfectly acceptable to say something is more acidic or less acidic. Here’s how it works if the water is more acidic now that means it has a lower pH than when it was less acidic (had a high pH)! Do you get it?!?!?

    Pathetic denier science.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      *Umm no actually it doesnโ€™t it. It says some species may do well while others will not, but of course he just takes the part he wants*

    • suyts says:

      The notion that our seas will turn acidic is an absurdity. The CO2 doesn’t do anything other than create a buffer. I provided one link, do you believe I should provide an entire bibliography for each post? If you want to learn I provide a starting point. You’ll have to find the answers yourself. I don’t think for people here. It is expected that they think for themselves.

      Ph, you can go back through the archives here and find several more related references and studies.

      But, other than snipping, you’re welcome to address the central theme of the post.

      I’ve shown where shellfish can grow shells with more carbon in the ocean, I’ve shown where fish can thrive with more carbon in the ocean. I even posted a pretty picture that shows the various currents to demonstrate the absurdity of what the authors were saying.

      Go ahead, give it a whirl, Ph, shows us your mastery of science, and refute such an evil untrained, unknowledgeable, science denier. Should be easy for such a brilliant sciency guy such as yourself.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        And the pH increased acidity comment that was in bold lettering. Somehow mean to confuse your naive and gullible readers that these brilliant “scientists” don’t even understand a concept as simple as ph!

        You’re a sham!

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          You’re right you provided one link, where you cherry picked one piece of data to support your ideology and left out the other data in the same link that didn’t support your ideology.


        • suyts says:

          LOL, reading comprehension probs again? Or are we confused about the numbers one or two?

          But, this simply demonstrates your anti-science behavior. Tell me, where should the onus of proof lay. You’re asking me to disprove something that hasn’t been shown. It’s difficult demonstrate how, why, and where these people went wrong when they offered no credible evidence to support their assertions.

          I’m presenting a sham because you uncritically accept what stated without offering proof. But, when I present more evidence than they did, you think I’m wrong. Typical. Tell me, is that uncritical acceptance part of your rigorous and really sciency training?

        • PhilJourdan says:

          You provided no links to support your ignorant rantings – so I guess you are admitting, Suyts wins – 1-0.

        • suyts says:

          Confused and gullible readers?……. Ph, you’re full of absurdities tonight. You well know there are plenty of highly educated scientists who frequent this blog. All much more well versed in the nuances of climate science than you.

          A base is acidifying!!!! OMG!!!! It’s that very verbiage which lends to the confusion of the public which is why I chose to be more precise than the typical alarmist who tries to leave the impression that our seas are turning to giant vats of acid. You would be doing a good job of trying to add to that confusion, except for the fact that the readers here are already familiar with such tactics.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Wait where in the article did it say giant VATS of acid? Is that translated from the denialist dictionary?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Actually I haven’t seen well educated scientists. So far the only one who claims to have a PhD is Scott and he’s currently trying to convince me of young earth creationism! LOL ๐Ÿ˜€

          So yeah I’d love to meet some of your denialist brothers who’ve actually done real laboratory research….

        • suyts says:

          Do you smoke stuff before commenting here? As I recall there has been another PhD who has introduced themselves to you. There’s also a marine biologist type who frequents this blog, another chemist, a statistician, an electrical engineer, (they pretty knowledgeable about energy systems), it seems to me we have a geologist who pops by from time to time, and a plethora of others known and unknown to me.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          “Actually I havenโ€™t seen well educated scientists. ” – which is especially true every time you look in the mirror.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          What you’ve done is perfected the art of cherry picking facts, making shit up, and twisting data to support your ideology. This is not science. It never was, never will be, and quite frankly why no one takes it seriously – aside from your small, but loyal followers.

        • suyts says:

          Sure Ph, in your delusional world. All you have to do is demonstrate these things you say I do.

          As far as my small blog, you’ve no idea how climate skepticism works. This is just one cog in a huge wheel that’s crushing alarmism. We all do our part. ๐Ÿ™‚

        • PhilJourdan says:

          #1 – He has not cherry picked anything, nor have you provided any evidence he has.
          #2 – He has not made anything up nor have you provided any evidence he has.
          #3 – You lie constantly.

          But then none of those are surprising. You still think your opinion matters. It does not even apparently matter to you.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I don’t remember this other PhD? Did he/she also believe the earth is 6000 years old?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Hahaha keep dreaming little man. And google megalomania while you’re at it. The best you can claim is you’ve got the Republicans on your side and you’re a dying party. In any serious academic or media circles you’re laughed at as internet freaks and pests who need to be swatted away from the real scientists.

        • suyts says:

          Oh my!!!! LMAO!!! I should google megalomania? Just as soon as you Google projection! These internet freaks, we’ve just caused huge admissions from the lunatics that the climate sensitivity to CO2 wasn’t near what they had stated earlier. Our skepticism has prevented job crushing legislation, and we have for several years now. These internet freaks were important to getting Canada to withdraw from Kyoto. These internet freaks have caused numerous corrections in the science. And single handily kept the entire public from swallowing the climate bs. So, you go ahead and laugh. We’re winning, we’re changing the conversation, and we’re keeping the world a better place. You’re welcome. As I said, we’re just a small cog in a huge wheel.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          He does not need to google it – he just has to observe you.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Nice try popeye. Now you are accusing him of your stupidity! next you will be trying to insult him by comparing his intelligence to yours.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Actually, I am sure Suyts knows better than hundreds if not thousands of scientists. If you are any indication. However, science has 2 terms for a reason. Base and Acid are different things. So a base is not an acid.

      If you ever get an education, you would realize that.

      pathetic that you have to lie about posts.

  10. ThePhDScientist says:

    I found this, which does a fantastic summary for most of these blog posts:

    So how did suyts do?
    Other than using a technique that he believes wont give a valid answer, and displaying little knowledge of some very basic scientific methods, and being totally ignorant of the concept of data sets having a different zero base line for anomalies the boy did rather well! It remains to be seen if he has the honesty and maturity to correct his rather obvious mistakes and perhaps even apologise for misleading his very gullible readers, but based on his example so far and this latest nonsense it doesn’t bode well so I’m not going to be holding my breath – however time will tell.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      PhDS. A couple comments if I may. First pH varies by latitude and depth quite significantly. This means species adapted for lower pH can colonise niches of species adapted for higher pH, and vice versa. As pH generally rises as you go towards the equator you won’t have a problem with species loss, since Arctic species just moves south etc. Second in times long ago (if you are not a creationist, which I suspect you aren’t) the pCO2 concentration of the atmosphere was much higher than it is now. Yet coral reefs (etc) were quite well adapted, as evidenced by the limestone we dig up and turn into cement (while so churlishly releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere again – maybe it just that species of coral wanting to go back to nicer high pCO2 times using us as unknowing proxies).

      Thirdly most oceanic species produce vast numbers of developmentally primitive offspring, which then grow to maturity, or at least a tiny number do. This means there is an enormous propensity for these species to rapidly adapt as it takes only a few of the progeny to have the right mix of genes to thrive in a new niche for those progeny to take over that niche. Few studies which look at the effect of high pCO2 take this into account because it is so time consuming. Doesn’t fit into the requirements of a PhD timescale. Yet it manifestly will happen according to the principles of natural selection.

      In other words this study is crap, and you as a bioscientist should know better than to spout off like you did. Stick to defensible science.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Actually I accurately spouted off the cherry picked facts and play on words that are so typical of denialist science.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Actually, you have yet to state a single fact. Your posts consist of 3 things only

          #1 – Infantile insults
          #2 – ignorant opinions
          #3 – Juvenile ad hominems.

          You made an accusation of cherry picking, but never offered a single shred of evidence to back it up. LIke all your other claims, there is no “there there”. With good reason. Each village only has one idiot, and no one else is as stupid as you.

    • suyts says:

      I’m fascinated about how you believe that may apply to me. Please explain.

  11. Me says:

    You need to change that pic you have up there James, it should read” The Stupid! It Flames! As was admitted by a pHDouche that is currently here! ๐Ÿ˜†

  12. ThePhDScientist says:

    So we have 60 experts who know nothing about what they are supposedly experts in.

    I don’t think this blog has 60 people? And while many would like to consider themselves experts, blogger-in-chief no exception, I don’t think their credentials would justify the title…?? ๐Ÿ˜‰
    But you’re right – you do no nothing except ideology.

    • Me says:

      Don’t stick that douche up thar where yer head is, then I have to refer to as an Enema! ๐Ÿ˜†

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:


      “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” โ€” Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

      And Einstein who was right about that was wrong about ‘God does not play dice’ and ‘spooky action at a distance’. If the data does not fit the hypothesis there is no hiding facts in the long run.

      I speak as a scientist myself. A PhD chemist who knows a thing or two about pH. And modelling. Do you know about chemical activity? Meissner modelling? That pCO2 rises lead to bicarbonate activity increases? This is a fourth reason why its crap. Do you know about diffusion layers?

      I think the bicarbonate ion activity is only a minor issue though. The three major issues I raised you chose not to address. Why not?

    • PhilJourdan says:

      It actually has more than 60. But then no one is claiming a “Majority” to prove anything except you. Still denying the world is round and plate techtonics, eh popeye?

  13. grumpydenier says:

    Apparently, your PhDSceance mate didn’t get the message from Kevin. I hope he calls him pretty soon. They might close the door marked Exit before he can join the scampering masses.

    It’s a travesty, apparently.

    These increases are certainly less than the warming rates of the 1980s and first half of the 1990s of about 0.15 to 0.20 C (.27 and .36 F respectively) and per decade. The earlier period may have provided an unrealistic view of the global warming signal, says Kevin Trenberth, climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Co.

    More on the ‘pause’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s