Posted 24 December 2014
Firstly, below is a short, pithy, but scientifically accurate explanation by the term "acidification" can never be applied to Earth's oceans. Global warming alarmists are misleading the gullible by describing even the slightest decrease in alkalinity (the natural state of oceans) as "acidificatiion". Unsurprising, we suppose, when they have sucked the world into believing that "climate change" means "man-made global warming",
Download pdf file [here ](oceans alkaline.pdf)
Then, follows an example of how a US scientist misled President Obama into acceptance of the "acidification" scam.
Download 2nd pdf file [here ]("acidification" - marita noon.pdf)
The oceans are permanently slightly alkaline.
The usual scale is called pH which is base 10 logarithmic.
Pure water has equal amounts of dissociated acid and alkali H+ and OH- [strictly it's H3O+] as a very small proportion of the water H2O, 1/10,000,000 of it to be precise.
neutral pH is 7 totally alkaline (eg sodium hydroxide solution) is 14. totally acid (eg hydrochloric acid solution) is 1.
As its logarithmic if it changes, say from 8 to 9 this means 9 is ten times more alkaline than 8 etc.
Oceans are around 8 +or- ~0.3 on this scale.
But they are permanently buffered thus:
CaCO3 (limestone/coral/shells etc) is insoluble in water but reacts with carbonic acid (H2O + CO2) to make Ca(HCO3)2 called calcium bicarbonate. This is SOLUBLE in water and is alkaline which compensates for any extra acidity caused by extra dissolved CO2.
[You may remember the lab test for CO2 gas using lime water Ca(OH)2. The CO2 gas is bubbled though the solution and at first a white precipitate appears - CaCO3 - but if you continue this precipitate disappears as the additional CO2 reacts with the CaCO3 as above and the solid disappears]
Further, the oceans are permanently saturated with CO2 anyway. The deep ocean trenches contain pools of liquid CO2 unable to dissolve in the water!
As Prof Ian Plimer so well expressed it:
"The oceans can only become acidic if the earth runs out of rocks."
U.S. EXAMPLE THAT MISLED ITS PRESIDENT
By Marita Noon
“Ocean acidification” (OA) is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The claim of OA is a critical scientific foundation to the full spectrum of climate change assertions.
Dr. Richard A. Feely is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). His four-page report: Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy, offered on the NOAA website, contains a chart titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” which shows a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered something that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.”
Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.
The Feely chart began in 1850, which caught Wallace’s attention since similar charts all began in 1988. Needing the historic pH data for a project, he went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.
Wallace sent Bard an email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months.
Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th century.” Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.” Sabine concludes the email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.
In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm: “…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.” “…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I'm hoping to find).”
Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”
In his last email exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the email string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.”
Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.
Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the glass electrode pH meter data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying.
Regarding the chart in question, Wallace concluded: “They replaced that (historical) part of their curve through the execution of an epic data omission—which was apparently the only way that ocean scientists have been able to assert that the oceans are acidifying.”
These taxpayer-funded scientists are leaders of the OA narrative. They participate in well-funded OA research programs and sit on advisory councils. “It all seems authentic and quite legitimate.” Yet their work is based on, as Wallace calls it, “a new history of ocean pH.” One that “is significantly different from the history suggested by actual measurements and other sources of peer review literature.”
Wallace authored a petition that he encourages my readers to sign.
Wallace concludes: “Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”