Measuring climate change

New study marks first attempt to identify similarities and differences of ocean acidification on both US coast, while noting vulnerable hot spots

University of DelawareShare Print E-Mail

IMAGE
IMAGE: Scientists gather around a Conductivity, Temperature, Depth (CTD) rosette, a machine used during the West Coast Ocean Acidification Cruise, to collect samples that measure concentrations of oxygen, pH, and carbon,… view more  Credit: Photo courtesy of NOAA and Meghan Shea

One of the earth’s biggest allies in the fight against global warming is the world’s oceans. Since the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has caused carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas, to be released into the atmosphere. Approximately 25% of that carbon dioxide is taken each year from the atmosphere by the world’s oceans — without which, the earth’s atmosphere would have a higher greenhouse gas concentration and temperature.

While pulling the anthropogenic, or man-made, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is good for the earth’s system, it leads to problems for the world’s oceans as dissolved carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid and leads to ocean acidification, changing the chemistry of the world’s oceans and impacting some of the life forms within it. In particular, the organisms that use calcium to build their carbonate skeletons — such as corals or mollusks — will have a harder time under acidified conditions.

To help determine the causes of ocean acidification on both coasts of North America, University of Delaware professor Wei-Jun Cai teamed with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists, as well as professors and professionals from numerous research institutes, to conduct an in-depth study that looks at carbon dioxide uptake and ocean acidification in the coastal oceans of North America.

While ocean acidification in North America has been studied in smaller, specific areas before, this is the first time that researchers have compared data from the east coast, west coast and Gulf of Mexico locations.

Through this work, researchers were able to identify the similarities and differences of ocean acidification on both coasts, as well as point out hot spots that will be particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification in the future. The results of that research were recently published in Nature Communications.

North American coasts

Cai said that in order to adequately research ocean acidification, the work cannot be done by just a few people from one region or even one country. This study involved researchers in the United States, Mexico and Canada.

“In North America, as well as globally, we’re trying to get as many countries involved as possible,” said Cai, the Mary A.S. Lighthipe Professor in the School of Marine Science and Policy in UD’s College of Earth, Ocean and Environment.

For this particular project, the goal was to synthesize their findings to show how ocean acidification works in general for coastal oceans in North America and how those interact with the more localized physical and biological processes.

“Ocean acidification is everywhere, but this paper basically shows that, depending on the location, it can manifest very differently,” said Cai.

Sampling the same latitudinal locations on the east and west coasts, as well as the Gulf of Mexico, over the course of several research cruises, allowed the researchers to see different patterns for the east coast and the west coast of North America.

The near equilibrium of ocean waters with the atmospheric carbon dioxide controls the large pattern of ocean acidification on the east coast and Gulf of Mexico while on the west coast, the ocean acidification is enhanced by an additional process known as upwelling.

In the ocean waters of the east coast, the northbound Gulf Stream Current system brings warm, high-salinity waters from the tropics while the southbound Labrador Current brings cold, low-salinity waters from the Arctic and subarctic regions.

Northern waters on the east coast are particularly sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide uptake, as the colder ocean temperature allows the ocean to take more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Rising carbon dioxide levels upset the balance of carbonate ions in seawater, making it difficult for some organisms, which have shells composed of the mineral calcium carbonate, to form their shells. Many of the organisms that are affected are critical for ecosystem health.

“The northeast and western coastal communities are very aware of this potential harm that ocean acidification could bring to their region because the marine organisms become more vulnerable sooner in the northern waters,” said Cai.

In the east coast’s warmer southern waters, the researchers observed lower levels of dissolved inorganic carbon and a higher mineral saturation state, meaning that acidity is lower here when compared to the northern waters.

On the west coast, a section of the ocean is influenced by the California Current System (CCS), which extends from the United States and Canadian border to Baja California. The CCS is characterized by strong, cold currents, and wind-driven upwelling events.

Upwelling brings colder, nutrient-rich subsurface waters to the ocean’s surface to replace surface water that has been pushed away by winds. “The water from the subsurface has low pH and high carbon dioxide, which causes stress to the biological system,” said co-author Richard Feely of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL). “So the combination of the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the upwelling of CO2-rich low-pH water from below leads to enhanced acidification in this region.” This study was the first time that the two coasts were compared side by side to explain their larger features.

“We tried to give the community, particularly the shellfish community or the stakeholders that care about the large-scale ocean acidification, the sense that both the northern waters and at these upwelling centers are most vulnerable to atmospheric CO2 increases,” said Cai.

Areas of concern include the CCS and northern-latitude coastal regions, such as the Gulf of Maine in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Alaska in the Pacific, as they are particularly sensitive and vulnerable to anthropogenic carbon dioxide forcing.

The research cruises took place between 2007 and 2018 — with future ones scheduled for summer of 2020, 2021 and 2022 — and the researchers would be out on the water for 35 to 40 days at a time.

Cai said that this data collection would not have been possible without the large numbers of international collaborators. He is hopeful that by putting all of this data together, it can be used for future ocean acidification research. Cai also would like to expand this analysis to global scale.

“The different regional collaboration and synthesis efforts to put data together is really important,” said Cai. “We need more of this kind of synthesis work to teach us how these different processes create regions of high and low vulnerability of marine life to ocean acidification.”

###

80 thoughts on “Measuring climate change

      • I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong but….
        I once read that the oceans have 1100 times the mass of the atmosphere.
        and that CO2 currently makes up 1/25th part of ONE percent of the atmosphere….
        eeeeeeeeeek!

        • Rule of thumb is that atmosphere at msl exerts the same pressure as 33 feet of water. !100 times the mass would imply that the equivalent of the whole earth covered in 36,000 feet of water, which is about the same as the deepest part of the ocean. My guess is the ocean has 350 to 400 times the mass of the atmosphere.

          • Easy enough to figure out –
            Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
            Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10^21 kg
            Hydrosphere/atmosphere: 274… (1400/5.1=274)

            Mass of CO2 in atmosphere: 3 x 10^15

          • The ratio of CO2 to atmosphere ignores the fact that CO2 molecules can operate more than once.
            CO2 molecules operate by absorbing a IR photon, then transferring that heat to another molecule. They are capable of doing this millions of times per second.

        • The hydrosphere has 1000x the enthalpy of the atmosphere. Of that 4.2x is the specific heat of water and 240x is the ratio of masses.

          The ocean is the dog. The atmosphere is the stub of its docked tail.

      • Yes, they have the script all worked out before they sail, then collect some data and publish the same political talking points and no real science.

        Inside two years they were not even looking “climate change” or “ocean acidification”, that will require much longer time scales. They claim that regions with colder waters are more “vulnerable” without even having tried to study vulnerability. It is just ASSUMED.

        I would have thought that the regions which have always had colder water with lower pH would have evolved ecosystems MORE resilient to a less basic water pH, not more “vulnerable”.

        There is actually tonne of information and the full paper, data and code is supplied.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16530-z#Sec16

        Behind the hype there is at least some useful detailed data which they are not playing hide and seek with. That is highly commendable.

        • The problem with a paper like this is (1) it could be cut significantly (2) out of 75 references, only a few are from the last century where we knew a lot about pH and less [some knew plenty] about the problem with models (3) the introduction [5 references, then 11 more] reminds me of a conversation where I asked about a crab problem and got the ocean acid answer verified immediately on line with their first equation, something I seem to recall that I learned, sort of, in the 8th grade, certainly before college.

          It’s fine to speculate with a model, but as we used to say don’t baffle me with $&*^*%
          Who are they writing for? The committee of 2 and a half dozen authors?

      • Mark
        Yes, they make broad statements such as “Rising carbon dioxide levels upset the balance of carbonate ions in seawater, making it difficult for some organisms, which have shells composed of the mineral calcium carbonate, to form their shells.” How difficult? How much more energy is required to form their shells? Does it affect their rate of growth, ultimate size, longevity, or what? Where are the numbers? Are these people innumerate?

        • Butt but but…..I thought warmer water temps mean CO2 comes out of solution? Somehow, this evil diabolical man made CO2 is the worst of all worlds all the time? Got it. We gotta stomp this stuff out now.

      • Mark, a press release is a press release. What you are reading here is not even the press release, it’s Urea Alert’s propaganda.

        If you want the numbers, the full paper is available with direct access to the data and even code. It’s rarely that well documented.

        You can not just post a one liner “Show us the numbers. ” Go and get them .

      • Did their numbers include measuring the chemistry and pH of rivers flowing into the oceans. The answer would appear to be no. This is the main reason near shore pH is low in the Northwest for sure. Also, Washington State and all the way north to Alaska, rains are heavy and frequent and doubled up from coastal cites which shed their rain.

        Are their abundant limestone formations formations in the river basins? Both pH and calcium ion concentrations in the influx of river water effect solubility of calcium carbonate carbonate in the sea. Are there big cities onshore from sampling sites or not. You will get more “acidification”opposite big cities.

        They are at sea for 40days at a time. Are they sampling along lines going outwards from the coast or running parallel to the coast. The latter gives meaningless variations. These ocean folk take to the boat when really the variability along shore reflects what happens along and behind the shore. Your samples may be Mississippi, or Columbia or Fraser river water you are collecting.

    • If people who claim to be climate scientists don’t know what the dominant greenhouse gas is, why should we listen to anything else they have to say on the climate?

  1. “While pulling the anthropogenic, or man-made, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is good for the earth’s system, it leads to problems for the world’s oceans as dissolved carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid and leads to ocean acidification, changing the chemistry of the world’s oceans and impacting some of the life forms within it. In particular, the organisms that use calcium to build their carbonate skeletons — such as corals or mollusks — will have a harder time under acidified conditions.”

    Why don’t they conclude CO2 is wot done it and go home on a health pension? Talk about studying something with preconceived conclusions.

    • Oldseadog June 2, 2020 at 2:23 am
      I got as far as “….. CO2, the dominant greenhouse gas…..” and gave up.

      Exactly what I was going to post.

      I didn’t read another word & headed straight to the comment section.

      • Curious, why would you be interested in comments on something you have not read?

        It’s shame Urea Alert make such a partisan hack out of everything they touch, irrespective of the actual content.

        There is a lot of data published here, lots of graphs and even code is published as well a transcript of the peer review comments. There’s quite a lot to digest for those who can be bothered.

        • Greg June 2, 2020 at 4:40 am
          Curious, why would you be interested in comments on something you have not read?

          I intended to post exactly what Old Sea Dog posted. Claiming CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas is total bullshit. Why should I read bullshit? If I wanted to do that, I’d go right to
          https://www.skepticalscience.com/
          and get it straight from the horse’s mouth.

          When something you’re reading starts out with a lie, there’s no point to go further. You know the rest is going to be slanted, if not a complete pack of lies.

          And I figure the readers here will do a good job of pointing them out (See Carbon 500’s post below), so I don’t have to read the whole stupid thing.

          • “and get it straight from the horse’s mouth”

            I believe shit comes out the other end.

          • MarkW June 2, 2020 at 7:21 am
            “and get it straight from the horse’s mouth”

            I believe shit comes out the other end.

            Ha ha ha

            Bullshit is a meaningful term. Some truth some lies, lots of misdirection, politics, dogma, etc. it’s a term that covers a lot that no other really does. I suppose poppycock, codswallup, and a few other euphenisms do too, but they don’t have the zing.

        • Greg June 2, 2020 at 4:40 am
          …There is a lot of data published here, lots of graphs and even code is published as well a transcript of the peer review comments. There’s quite a lot to digest for those who can be bothered.

          Maybe at the link you posted in the comments section, but not in the above WattsUpWithThat article.

          • the dominant greenhouse gas,…was my first thought too to post about, b’cause the downwritten rest is wothless under this condgition.

      • Do you really expect the pH of the oceans to decrease measurably in the near future?

        • During the various ice ages the oceans must have been much colder than today. The thesis of this paper depends in on the increase in CO2 solubility in colder water exacerbating the pH changes they say are dangerous.

          What does the geologic record show for deposition of the calcium carbonate from the organisms said to be at risk? Did the organisms die off during the ice ages? And how did the coral reefs do, for that matter?

          My guess is that the various species adapted as the ice ages came and went.

          • Technically Earth is still in an Ice Age. From the last 200 Ma the last 3.5 Ma have been the coldest. How could life ever have existed between 200 and 3.5 Ma ago?

    • That’s most interesting, because Potholer54, YouTube’s leading climate change shill, is now trying to claim that CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas in a desperate attempt to explain away the famous lag between changes in temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration from the ice-core record.

  2. Quote from the above post: ‘it leads to problems for the world’s oceans as dissolved carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid and leads to ocean acidification.’
    When will this nonsense ever end? The oceans are buffered (buffered solutions resist pH change), and are a complex varying mixture of organic and inorganic material. Why do these so-called ‘climate scientists’ not perform a simple experiment in which levels of CO2 are varied above a tank full of seawater agitated under defined conditions of temperature and pressure? For example, does the pH change if the CO2 concentration above the water is altered by 1ppm? 10ppm? 100ppm? Such an experiment should also be duplicated in other laboratories around the world to supply conclusive proof as to the levels of CO2 required to change oceanic pH.
    There is of course the misleading use of the term ‘acidification’, whereby any slight reduction in pH is referred to as ‘acidification’ – so a change from a pH of 14.00 to 13.99 would be considered as ‘acidification’.
    Such are the ways of the climate change industry – keep the scare going, and keep the grant money rolling in for pointless so-called research.
    I despair.

      • The paper does look at buffering, Revel factor, total alkalinity … read it and post whether you think they get it right or wrong.

        They did collect and publish a lot of data , this will be useful in 5-10 years if a similar survey is done. In the space of one years it not going to tell us anything about acidification / basification or any other changes.

  3. Not one mention of pH value!?
    To some people the oceans are alkaline with little chance of ever getting acid.

    But, I suppose a headline stating that the oceans could become slightly less alkaline, would be a little lame.

      • It may be slightly acidic at the mouth of the Amazon River. “ The Amazon River is circumneutral pH (pH 6.6 ± 0.2), high conductivity (44.8 ± 24.8 S/cm) and solute-rich (total dissolved solid, TDS= 23).”

        So what does life in the ocean look like there? A huge, thriving, underwater reef system, and some of the best fishing in the world. It seems that denizens of the oceans love the nutrients being carried out to sea by large rivers. Affected by the pH? Not so much.

        • An important part of the reason the Amazon outflow is so productive is supposed to be the strength of the flow causing upwelling. Not totally absent off the more alkaline Mississippi, but probably not that important.

          Acidic rivers still get diluted so much by salt water, hard to make them acid with much salinity.
          Salinity, or lack thereof, more of a problem to lots of critters, was called the Artenminimum.

          • The outflow of the Amazon is huge, and constant. There is a broad area of the Atlantic Ocean there with pH levels far below that of the rest of the world. It is that area in which you will find the reef systems and best fishing. The insistence that a minuscule reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans means doom is nonsense. Life will still thrive.

    • Shush, you must never, ever give the actual pH values! That would give the game away!

      • Figure 3c in the paper is a geographic plot of pH, the scale goes from 7.6 to 8.3 pH 😉

        Maybe a useful reference for the future.

        • The pH of seawater ranges naturally from 7.6 to 8.3. That’s far greater than any change of hydrogen ion concentration caused by increased atmospheric CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels.

    • Carl Friis-Hansen and Carbon500, your comments are both spot on and you could teach remedial chemistry to Professor Cai et al. If any of us had used the term “acidification”, referring to a lowering of the pH value still in the alkaline range, in any chemistry class we would have gotten an F for the day. This is nonsense funded by tax money (plus some money from True Believers?). Who is Professor Cai? His BS and MS are from China, and his PhD is from Scripps in San Diego. So some “Professor” from China comes to the West and uses terms he knows are false, but are adjusted to cause support for the Green Weenie Deal et al, and we should be surprised? I have more faith in marine organisms ability to adjust to slightly lower alkalinity than I do in some Professor telling the truth.

  4. CO2 is not just a dissolved gas, it forms calcium and magnesium bicarbonate. This species likely buffers the pH. It is quite stable in cold water but breaks down in warm water (with the help of microorganisms) releasing CO2 and sequestering calcium carbonate. Limestone forms in warm shallow seas essentially sequestering CO2.

    • There’s no likeliness to it. Carbonate and bicarbonate buffering in seawater are from dissolved carbon dioxide and small amounts of dissolved calcium carbonate (limestone). Not only does carbonate/bicarbonate release carbon dioxide upon dissociation, the carbonate/bicarbonate are also used by corals and other animals to deposit the calcium carbonate that form their shells or skeletons. Believe it or not, ocean animals also have the ability to use dissolved carbon dioxide directly through carbonic anhydrase enzymes. All of these process replenish the buffering capacity of the ocean which allow for a relatively stable oceanic pH.

  5. I often point out that before the oceans become ‘acidic’…first they must become ‘fresh’.
    I love that look the Warmists get as they absorb this fact.

    • Not quite right, freshwater is water that contains less than a certain threshold of dissolved solids, salts.

      Rainwater is freshwater, and it has a pH of about 5, which is about 100,000% more acidic than seawater.

  6. This guy is working on his PhD and didn’t take Chemical Oceanography? BS, it’s a requirement. He seems to have forgotten a few things from Marine Biology 101 too.

    Hell it’s been 20 years since I took those classes and can point out the massive errors in the assumptions.

    I’m not even going to bother with , “to synthesize their findings”….um…….what?

  7. Thank goodness no one ever gave Cai a tape measure to play with, just think of the harm he could have done to science with that.

  8. The word “acidification ” appears 17 times in this diatribe.
    And we all know if you repeat a lie often enough…..

  9. “Rising carbon dioxide levels upset the balance of carbonate ions in seawater, making it difficult for some organisms, which have shells composed of the mineral calcium carbonate, to form their shells.”

    Erm.. no.

  10. I’ve noticed my table salt is more acid too…of course, it is exposed to CO2!

  11. This is just sad. CO2 in the oceans is significantly – likely mostly – a function of the ecosystem much like CO2 in the atmosphere.
    The Earth is greening – no doubt the oceans are too.
    Tunnel visioned, transparent advocacy at best.

  12. “In the east coast’s warmer southern waters, the researchers observed lower levels of dissolved inorganic carbon and a higher mineral saturation state, meaning that [b]acidity is lower[/b] here when compared to the northern waters.”

    Just what does this mean? What a joke for a scientific paper. Does it mean pH is lower or higher? How can acidity be lower when it remains alkaline?

  13. I thought it might be topical to study which humans exhale the most CO2 over time by race sex age physical attributes dietary habits occupation and voting intentions to add to our understanding of how to tackle climate change. No sea or air creatures would be harmed in undertaking this important research. All those in favour of favourable support for their own important climate change research grants?

  14. From the above fluff piece out of the University of Delaware:
    “While pulling the anthropogenic, or man-made, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is good for the earth’s system, it leads to problems for the world’s oceans as dissolved carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid and leads to ocean acidification, changing the chemistry of the world’s oceans and impacting some of the life forms within it.”

    Gee, I wonder how the world’s oceans are able to distinguish man-made CO2 from naturally-occurring CO2? And the percentage of man-made CO2 in the world’s atmosphere is never mentioned . . . why is that?

    And there is this, from the same blurb:
    “Ocean acidification is everywhere, but this paper basically shows that, depending on the location, it can manifest very differently”.

    Well, all truly competent ocean scientists will admit that the world’s oceans are relatively-strongly buffered solutions. In simple terms, when CO2 from the atmosphere reacts with seawater, it immediately forms carbonic acid (H2CO3), which in itself is unstable. This further dissociates to form bicarbonate and carbonate ions. The bicarbonate and carbonate ions create the buffering capacity inherent in seawater; that is, seawater can resist drastic pH changes even after the addition of weak bases and acids.

    There really is no wonder as to why seawater buffering, and the related Revelle Factor, were never mentioned in the University of Delaware article . . . it’s commonly called “carrying a hidden agenda”.

  15. “carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas”

    If they are going to start off with an utter lie, what’s the use of reading further?

  16. The price of oysters has not risen. This will always be the most important datum concerning so-called Ocean “Acidification.”

    Until the prices of oysters do rise, the oysters are doing fine, the lobsters and clams and all the crustaceans are doing fine.

    • I used to eat fish fairly often. Perhaps two decades ago there was mass media press and TV news pointing out that fish were not only tasty (to most people) but much less expensive than most other meats. Prices started to rise almost immediately. Fish has been out of my budge range now for a long time. I much doubt that has anything to do with any aspect of climate.

    • Correlation is not causation. However, I always.thought it was the proverbial “price of rice in China’ that was supposed to control, well, everything?

  17. The article states, ” In particular, the organisms that use calcium to build their carbonate skeletons — such as corals or mollusks — will have a harder time under acidified conditions.” Where is the quantification associated with such a broad claim? I thought that only geologists engaged in hand waving while waxing eloquent on such topics as Precambrian bio-geopoetry. However, these individuals frequently engage in pejorative claims without any numerical context. That is, what changes in pH result in what percentage increase in energy consumption for the growth of shells/skeletons, and what are the quantitative consequences for that energy requirement?

    Thanks to Greg posting a link for the actual article, I have skimmed that and find it similarly does not have quantitative justifications for such claims.

    • Proponents of Ocean “Acidification” have never explained how shelled molluscs manage to live in neutral or even slightly acidic river water. Why don’t their shells dissolve?

      • The paper does mention mollusks but does not make the misleading claim made up by the media studies freshman at Urea Alert. It’s pure propaganda, and not a correct summary of the paper.

  18. Upwelling brings colder, nutrient-rich subsurface waters to the ocean’s surface to replace surface water that has been pushed away by winds. “The water from the subsurface has low pH and high carbon dioxide, which causes stress to the biological system,” said co-author Richard Feely of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL). “So the combination of the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the upwelling of CO2-rich low-pH water from below leads to enhanced acidification in this region.”

    Despite an attempt to blame humans for the conditions along the California coast, it is obvious that their agenda-driven rationalization is illogical. The upwelling water is so cold and saturated with CO2 that it outgasses on the surface and actually adds CO2 to the local atmosphere, rather than absorb anthropogenic CO2. Rather than combining, the CO2 goes from the high concentration (water) to the lower concentration (atmosphere). It is pathetic that they have lost their objectivity and have to place everything in the context that everything Man does is bad and it affects everything.

  19. 6 weeks a year on a cruise!!
    It’s free and I get to keep my whole salary.
    What’s not to like.
    Where do I sign up?

  20. “While pulling the anthropogenic, or man-made, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is good for the earth’s system” I want that magic ocean that can tell where a molecule of CO2 came from!!!!! Think how much money I could make if I could duplicate this magic effect and market it.

  21. This paper has a lot of decent quality data in it. Here are a few points that seem important to me.

    1. It’s not about ocean water chemistry. It’s about the chemistry of coastal waters.

    2. pH of coastal waters varies greatly from about 8.3 in the north Atlantic and north Pacific to about 8.0 in the tropics (but when they normalize it to 25C the trend is reversed) with local incursions into lower pH, presumably due to fresh water influx from big rivers.

    3. They measured pH, salinity, DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) and total alkalinity but they did not measure calcium (or other cation) concentrations (which, I would guess, is important for shellfish, corals etc.)

    4. They took measurements from 2007 to 2017. In their colour-coded presentation of pH (figure 3c) I can’t see any secular trend over that 10-year period. IT’S REASONABLE TO INFER THAT, IF THEY COULD HAVE FOUND EVEN A HINT OF A TREND OF DECREASING pH OVER THOSE 10 YEARS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROMINENT IN THE TITLE.

    A more accurate, more relevant title for the paper might have been “10-year study finds no acidification trend in North American coastal waters“. I wonder why they didn’t use it ……..

    • You mean that we better visit the Florida Keys before they melt away?….and the White Cliffs of Dover will be eaten away at their base by acid? The Great Barrier Reef will be great no more? Oh, the humanity!

  22. Someone please tell me what I’m missing..
    As water warms it hold less co2 (and o2) So where is the ”rise in acidity” coming from?

Comments are closed.