Essay by Eric Worrall
Coral cover is breaking records, real world data proves ocean life loves CO2, but none of this impedes a never ending drip feed of ocean acidification scares.
‘Ticking time bomb’: Ocean acidity crosses vital threshold, study finds
BY SAUL ELBEIN – 06/09/25 11:24 AM ET
The deep oceans have crossed a crucial boundary that threatens their ability to provide the surface with food and oxygen, a new study finds.
Nearly two-thirds of the ocean below 200 meters, or 656 feet, as well as nearly half of that above, have breached “safe” levels of acidity, according to findings published on Monday in Global Change Biology.
The fall in ocean pH is “a ticking time bomb for marine ecosystems and coastal economies,” Steve Widdicombe, director of science at the United Kingdom’s Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), said in a statement.
The study was funded in part by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency that has been targeted for steep cuts by the Trump White House, in large part because of its role in investigating climate change.
…
Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/5340239-ocean-acidity-study-climate-change-carbon/
The referenced study;
Ocean Acidification: Another Planetary Boundary Crossed
Helen S. Findlay, Richard A. Feely, Li-Qing Jiang, Greg Pelletier, Nina Bednaršek
First published: 09 June 2025
Funding: This work was supported by European Space Agency, AO/1-10757/21/I-DT. Natural Environment Research Council, NE/X006271/1. NOAA’s Global Ocean Monitoring and Observing and Ocean Acidification Programs, GOMO Fund Reference Number 100018302 and OAP NRDD. Slovene Research Agency, N1-0359. Climate Program Office, NA19NES4320002, NA210AR4310251.
ABSTRACT
Ocean acidification has been identified in the Planetary Boundary Framework as a planetary process approaching a boundary that could lead to unacceptable environmental change. Using revised estimates of pre-industrial aragonite saturation state, state-of-the-art data-model products, including uncertainties and assessing impact on ecological indicators, we improve upon the ocean acidification planetary boundary assessment and demonstrate that by 2020, the average global ocean conditions had already crossed into the uncertainty range of the ocean acidification boundary. This analysis was further extended to the subsurface ocean, revealing that up to 60% of the global subsurface ocean (down to 200 m) had crossed that boundary, compared to over 40% of the global surface ocean. These changes result in significant declines in suitable habitats for important calcifying species, including 43% reduction in habitat for tropical and subtropical coral reefs, up to 61% for polar pteropods, and 13% for coastal bivalves. By including these additional considerations, we suggest a revised boundary of 10% reduction from pre-industrial conditions more adequately prevents risk to marine ecosystems and their services; a benchmark which was surpassed by year 2000 across the entire surface ocean.
Read more: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.70238
The ocean acidification “boundary” is based on Aragonite saturation. Aragonite is a form of calcium carbonate. Marine animals use Calcium Carbonate to form shells and coral structures. The theory is if Aragonite saturate drops below one (biased towards dissolution), shellfish and corals will find it difficult to build the calcium carbonate structures they depend on for survival.
Of course, determining habitable Argonite saturation levels is complicated by substantial natural variability.
… Ocean Ω conditions vary significantly across the globe, with levels in tropical regions being more than twice as high as those in polar regions (Feely et al. 2023; Jiang et al. 2015). These regional and seasonal gradients exists due to temperature-driven CO2 solubility, enabling colder high-latitude waters to store more CO2, along with other factors including circulation of carbon away from the surface into deeper waters, mineral inputs from land and freshwater dilution (Jiang et al. 2019; Orr et al. 2005). Marine life is exposed to such regionally varying gradients to which it has evolutionarily adapted (Vargas et al. 2022), resulting in a wide variability of observed responses to OA found in laboratory experiments. However, the envelope of the overall conditions experienced by organisms is also changing due to OA, which can make scaling up from single-species experiments to ecosystem predictions more complicated. This is particularly true when we consider the other challenges of scaling, including incubation effects, lack of natural variability and lack of adaptation and/or acclimation.
…
Aragonite saturation state (ΩArag) has emerged as a key indicator for OA, reflecting the precipitation/dissolution tendencies of CaCO3, as well as its association with marine calcifiers. Consequently, the global mean surface ΩArag was chosen as the OA indicator in the planetary boundary assessments (Rockström et al. 2009). The boundary was set at 80% of the pre-industrial ΩArag value, that is, a 20% reduction from the pre-industrial surface ocean average. This level was chosen based on two criteria: first to keep high-latitude surface waters above ΩArag undersaturation; and second, to ensure adequate conditions for most warm-water coral reef systems (Rockström et al. 2009). …
Read more: same link as above
Given the immense natural variability, and high genetic mobility of shellfish and corals, many of which reproduce by emitting vast numbers of microscopic larvae, setting the boundary condition at 80% of pre-industrial looks suspiciously like a guess.
Is there a way can we test this 80% boundary?
The solution of course, is to look at how fish and shelled creatures living in extreme environments cope with acidification. And there are few places more extreme than “champagne reefs”, patches of ocean where a constant source of volcanic gas keeps sea water supersaturated with CO2, well beyond anything we could ever achieve with anthropogenic emissions.
Evidence trumps guesswork. Given proof that fish and shelled organisms can thrive in the most extraordinary ocean CO2 levels, and the likelihood many of those organisms have genetically compatible relatives which live outside natural CO2 saturated regions, perhaps it is time to revise that 80% boundary.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So I hope I googled this right . .
Amount of carbon
in the ocean about 3.8E3 GtCin the ocean sediment more than 3.8E5 GtCcurrent annual CO2 production about 1.1E1 GtC (energy related)current annual CO2 production about 7.2E2 GtC (energy related)
funny side fact google KI screwed up the conversion “2,650 GtCO2 * (12/44) = 7,350 GtC”, lol
So from these numbers I estimate that the annual anthropogenic CO2 production is about 0.025% of the ocean carbon content and the total amount humans ever produced about 0.5%
And please keep in mind that we are talking about pH which is a logarithmic parameter and the ocean carbon content is buffered by the sea sediments.
I would argue that we do not know the ocean´s carbon content precisely enough (especially going back in time) to see a 0.5% change, surely there a cycles in the local carbon content following well known patterns
Not to be confused with the isotope fingerprint of fossil fuel which can be tracked!
“I would argue that we do not know the ocean´s carbon content precisely enough…” The “scientists” fiddled with earlier estimates of the pertinent parameters to make it look like current conditions are worse, from the standpoint of calcium carbonate shelled or supported creatures, than once thought. There are widespread deposits of crystalline aragonite (used by critters to make shells and supports, There are also very widespread deposits of calcite such as the white cliffs of Dover the product of buried and heated shells, which if dated and compared with estimates of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at the time of formation, might reveal whether there is any substance to their conclusions that modern atmospheric CO2 levels endanger shelled creatures or corals. Since our current CO2 levels are quite low compared to estimates of prior levels in the geologic record, I suspect there is no substance whatsoever.
Something that is not well appreciated with respect to the shells of calcifiers is that the shells of dead organisms dissolve more readily than live organisms. That is because the organisms employ different strategies to preserve the energy they have invested in building the shells. That includes such things as covering the exterior with chitin and producing mucous to protect the interior. Probably most importantly, calcifiers are able to manipulate the pH to grow and repair damaged shells.
I expect there are cycles, both long and short as CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature. This is easy to see in de trended temperature and CO2 data where temperature is linearly de-trended, and [CO2] is de-trended using a quadratic (integral of linear).
The only volcano that has been able to increase measured CO2 concentrations is the one near the Mauna Loa observatory. The claim is that the MLO data isn’t biased by a volcano 4 miles away. I wonder. Due to global cooling Pinatubo appears to have actually reduced [CO2] by 1.5 ppmv,
I’ve found a simple single-equation empirical relationship between temperature and [CO2] which suggests that ocean temperatures (and SST fluctuations) regulate atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
>> I expect there are cycles
We KNOW the oceans have cycles, for the pH and USA there is the noteworthy coastal upwelling!l.. I googled 5min (which makes me a real expert) and found for example this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01065-0
Over 37 years, the surface ocean at station 90.90 has decreased in pH by 0.0015 yr-1
[..] we found that widely used empirical proxy relationships introduced a 40% bias in the rate of CO2 local uptake, underscoring the need for sustained measurements. We also report a strong annual cycle in carbonate system variables, with dominant control of the seasonal cycle by temperature and total inorganic carbon.
=> pH change of about 0.1 in 100years
(if their analysis does not have any bias itself, there should be multi-decal cycles and global greening in that region affecting the numbers..) )
In contrast google says:
In the Salish Sea and two NE Pacific estuaries, researchers observed a seasonal shift in pH, from less than 7.6 in winter to greater than 8.0 in summer, driven by the transition from respiration-dominated to photosynthesis-dominated conditions
Given the easy to see lacking of understanding it should not wonder that ocean acidification of not too high on the alarmist agenda anymore..
It isn’t just marine sediments. Carbon dioxide, carbonate ions, and bicarbonate ions all interact to stabilize the pH if any of the three components change. See the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot
“The theory is if Aragonite …..etc …. ”
Is it a theory or a hypothesis?
It’s desperate.
If it is somewhat supported by analysis, etc., including models, it is a hypothesis, not a conjecture. If it is supported by testing, actual data, and a null hypothesis test can be configured, passing the null hypothesis test at least once makes it a theory.
good explanation- which I sort of understood- but now understand it better
Zactly the sentence I picked out to comment on.
Oh Theory or Hypothesis? Does it make a difference?
Either way observation is key.
As EW pointed out, “The solution of course, is to look . . . .“
People often confuse those two. In attribution everything goes it seems. And non sequiturs fly high..
Social language got rid of hypothetical as it carried the stigma of doubt.
It was replaced with theoretical, which conveys a context of somehow being valid, scientifically, to the masses.
How do the clowns who wrote this nonsense explain the existence of freshwater bivalves, which live happily in water which is neutral or even slightly acidic?
Don’t let mere facts get in the way of ocean acidification alarm.
They will claim it is a different species.
There may be something to that. It appears that different calcifiers have different ranges of optimal pH, which I suspect is the result of the ocean pH at the time they first evolved. They can exist outside of their optimal range with the expenditure of additional energy.
And how did they determine the “pre-industrial aragonite saturation state?” The paper indicates they are “estimates.” How good are these estimates? Error bars anyone?
pH wasn’t working.
So, make something up.
“pH wasn’t working.” Apparently didn’t understand the message. Happened to get this link earlier today. Might produce a conspiracy theory?
Di Qi, Zhangxian Ouyang, and a bunch of other authors. 2022. Climate change drives rapid decadal acidification in the Arctic Ocean from 1994 to 2020. Science. 377( 6614):1544-1550
DOI: 10.1126/science.abo0383
“Sea ice melt exposes seawater to the atmosphere and promotes rapid uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, lowering its alkalinity and buffer capacity and thus leading to sharp declines in pH and Ωarag. We predict a further decrease in pH, particularly at higher latitudes where sea ice retreat is active, whereas Arctic warming may counteract decreases in Ωarag in the future..”
They were proud showing pH went down to around 8 in one generation, I vote that it’s better than going up to 9. Of course my experience is from much lower latitudes, but we didn’t average pH. Lots of Chinese, at least one from NOAA who was responsible for “Validation and Writing review & editing.” Funding mostly from NSF, NOAA, and National Natural Science Foundation of China. 73 references mostly from their acidification period, but I liked this one. R. F. Weiss, Carbon dioxide in water and seawater: The solubility of a non-ideal gas. Mar. Chem. 2. 203–215 (1974). Cited by 2559.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
You don’t say! And what has that to do with the EARTH’s ocean pH. Look up buffer capacity.
“lowering its alkalinity”
Wow. Someone had the nerve to publish that?
Wow.
Back in 2008 there was a Science paper that refuted all this Science 18 April 2008: Vol. 320. no. 5874, pp. 336 – 340 DOI: 10.1126/science.1154122 Prev | Table of Contents | Next Research Articles Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World M. Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez,1* P
That means it is forgotten so it can be hyped again.
One of two fradulent ‘ocean acidification alarms’ I dissected in essay ‘Shell Games’ in ebook Blowing Smoke was the Fabricius paper concerning 3 ‘champagne reefs’ in Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea. It got widely popularized at the time by the Seattle Times series on ocean acidification.
She assayed three Milne Bay champagne reef transects about 8 meters wide and 50 meters long, where the outer edges were ‘normal pH8.2, and the bubbling centers were 8.1, 8, and 7.8 respectively. 8.1 center was fine. 8.0 was also fine, but with a slightly different central coral biome. 7.8 was dead in the center. Alarm—NOT.
In the SI, she gave the gas composition of the champagne bubbles. 8.1 and 8 were pure CO2. 7.8 contained 150ppm of H2S. (Milne Bay bubbles are formed by an old, now inactive, volcano.) The H2S LD 50 for most marine organisms including corals is about 30ppb! Even blue mussels, evolved for a natural H2S producing environment, have an LD50 of ‘just’ 50ppm. The 7.8 reef was dead not from ocean acidification but rather literally from poison gas. (In marine organisms, H2S has the same effect for the same reasons as cyanide gas on humans.)
Anybody that hasn’t read Rud’s ‘Blowing Smoke’ really should do so.
Let’s apply some logic here: if high (er)CO2 levels causes problems for shell animals it surely wouldve caused massive extinctions in the past when CO2 levels were much higher, right?
I would guess that these species have high levels of adaptation because they have been around for millions of years w fluctuating climate/ temperature/ CO2 conditions. OR, this is the only times that CO2 levels have been this high.OR, humans have produced a particular kind of carbon that destroys these type of animals.
Answers on a post stamp please..
The fall of CO2
Indeed.
As always, a knowledge of Earth’s history is the key to disproving climate alarmism.
Funny. Ocean chemistry demonstrates that CO2 combines with calcium to produce chemical shell fish need to grow their shelves. I have not time to look up the link, but it is verified.
Separate observation. As Jim Steele has pointed out here many times, most marine organisms biologically alter the immediate pH environment (raising it) where they build shell, so are surprisingly insensitive to ambient pH.
I have seen one lab study and one observational study where they observed photosynthesizing shell-forming organisms as CO2 concentrations increased and pH went down slightly. In both cases, shell-forming increased against the steeper pH gradient.
Apparently, the wee beasties preferred the life-giving aspects of increased CO2 for photosynthesis which allowed them to more easily push up against a greater energy requirement.
(Sorry, I wish I had saved the paper references. I think one was on WUWT many years ago.)
Rud,
A most significant reminder, thank you.
By analogy, we humans live in an external environment that has huge variations in factors like temperature. The body copes by having internal mechanisms that regulate body temperatures to 38C or so.
Marine creatures seem to make their shells OK by providing their own internal chemistry while their surroundings are variable.
Geoff S
Besides their own physiological adaptations there are warm water clams whose shell is covered with an organic, acid resistant periostracum. These live in low oxygen muddy waters with a pH of a low 7or less. They have both excurrent and incurrent siphons long enough to reach the important area above the oxic/anoxic or just hypoxic boundary. The boundary is often closer to the sediment in productive waters late at night when they retract the siphons and close a water tight shell and feed during the opposite late in the day when the oxygenated water is available. It is chemically a very complex boundary dependent on many factors.
I suspect that I could cherry-pick data to show a statistical ‘proof’ of the positive correlation between productivity and both low oxygen and pH, especially using averages. Fortunately, I was taught and understood better statistics.
Maybe start with, you know, that acidification cannot be done on a basic solution. Acidification means, “making more acidic”. You can’t be more of something if you are not of something at all.
The oceans are basic, meaning pH well above 7.0 – averaging around 8.1. To be acidic an aqueous solution must have a pH of less than 7.0. It’s also a logarythmic scale (negative log to base 10 of hydronium ion concentration), meaning pH 8 is much more than 1/7 times higher than pH 7. In fact the concentration of hydronium ions at pH 8.1 is more than an order of magnitude higher than at pH 7.
Yes, suggesting acidification of oceans is a climate alarmist torture of the actually meaning of the term. We who know the lie for what it is feed the nonsense by not rejecting the misuse of the term every time it appears. Ditto calling illegal invaders acting like enemy combatants “undocumented immigrants” and homosexuals “gays”.
Sulpis et al wrote an excellent paper on the limits of CO2 tickling ocean alkalinity. But perhaps to ensure publishing relied heavily on “acidification”.
Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 leads to decreased pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation state with respect to CaCO3 minerals, causing increased dissolution of these minerals at the deep seafloor. This additional dissolution will figure prominently in the neutralization of man-made CO2. Our findings place constraints on future predictions of ocean acidification…
…The dissolution of sedimentary CaCO3 neutralizes excess CO2, thus preventing runaway acidification, and acts as a negative-feedback mechanism in regulating atmospheric CO2 levels over timescales of centuries to millennia. Olivier Sulpis et al, Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2, 2018.
Thank you.
Everything you said is correct except for the hydronium ion concentration at pH 8 is an order of magnitude less than at pH 7. Hydroxide ion is higher at higher pH.
I stand corrected, thank you.
Another piece of junk science by the cargo cult.
The paper referenced below – “Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World M. Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez” is clear with real, measured results, but the paper, Ocean Acidification: Another Planetary Boundary Crossed, is filled with ‘mights and coulds’. The role of aragonite and calcite, plus incorporation of Mg, to stabilize carbonate shells is an evolutionary tactic developed over a billion years. It works very well. The Luddites insist NOTHING be allowed to change as if the pre-Victorian world were perfect. It was not; it was just another epoch.
From Australia, the recent King’s Birthday Honours list gave the highest honour to Ian Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, journeyman scientist and major alarmist about the impending climate change death of the Great Barrier Reef. The significant positive contributions of people in the farming, manufacturing and mining sectors, people who generate Other
Peoples’ Money to spend, were scarcely mentioned.
More journeymen come to mind with the authors of the paper in this WUWT article.
Richard Feely, PhD 1974, over 200 papers in this competition to publish or perish. He must be aware of the large uncertainty of ocean pH measurements, but seems to ignore it.
Johan Rockstrom, b. 1965, over 100 papers, Stockholm Resilience Centre, also works with that top example of climate activism PIK, Potsdam Institute for Climate Research Impact. He has papers jointly with Aussie activist Will Steffen, 1947-2023, who spearheaded Australian climate change from the National University in Canberra.
These are some of the darlings of the science funding set who have done quite well with a little questionable science and a lot of advertising.
Geoff S
Geoff, I like that you make note of “the large uncertainty of ocean pH measurements.”
So true, making pH not a basis for policy.
Even worse, as I understand it from what I have read here and elsewhere, the historical pH data have been ignored and someone, whose name I don’t remember probably because I have repressed it, created a computer model to justify the claim that the current open-ocean pH of 8.1 was 8.2 prior to the Industrial Revolution. That is to say, the claim of a 0.1 pH decline in the last century is based on a computer model, not empirical measurements.
Maybe they should join the next Gretta cruise to Gaza?
Typical “climate crisis” fear mongering. Invent a “boundry” out of whole cloth that has no basis in any actual science, and announce that it has been “breached” and caterwail for climate “action.”
🙄
There is no ocean acidity and there will never be any ocean acidity. It is as simple as that.
Of course, “acidity” is a word that can and will have its meaning changed by communists, very similar to “immigrant” and “workers paradise”.
The famous Stanford geochemist, Konrad Krauskopf, said the same thing in his textbook.
” Some climate modelers incorrectly suggest that a small drop in pH will inhibit shell-building in marine organisms. This mistaken assertion on is based on inorganic chemistry that correctly observes reduced carbonate ion concentrations when pH falls. However, shell-building organisms lack the ability to directly import carbonate ions. So, the ocean’s concentration of carbonate ions is largely irrelevant. Shell-building organisms evolved to first import the always pletiful bicarbonate ions. Once bicarbonate ions are transported inside a shell-building compartment, H+ ions are pumped out. The resulting higher pH then causes bicarbonate ions to release their H+ and convert into the carbonate ions needed for shell-building.”, Ocean Health White Paper REV 061120.indd (co2coalition.org)
In ocean water the pH is ca. 8.1 and the proportions of CO2:HCO3:CO3 are 0.5:89:10.5. All the animals get their carbon from CO2. Whales are a huge sink for CO2.
Apparently NOAA hasn’t learned anything, time for another round of cuts.
First proposed in 2009 (Rockström et al. 2009), the planetary boundaries assessment defines nine large scale Earth-system processes and associated boundaries that, if crossed, could generate unacceptable environmental change.
Translation: they picked nine large scale processes, set arbitrary boundaries based on zero evidence that there is any negative impact from crossing the boundaries (like the silly 1.5 ºC warming target), then screamed until they were hoarse about the imminent disaster ahead, despite no evidence of any harm. These people should not be allowed to play with numbers. They’re too stupid and irrational.
Rockstrom was one of the authors of a book published by the Club of Rome in in 2022 entitled ‘Earth for All’. Although not about ocean acidity the following quote (page 136) shows how delusional he is
“Rather than concern about intermittent supply, the implication is that the clean energy disruption……heralds the potential breklthrough to a new energy system which……will enable humanity not only to meet our current energy needs sustainably but to electrify a vast array of other things that are economically impossible within the current system”
You cannot have a permanent change down in ocean pH until all of the solid bicarbonates are dissolved.
Not gonna happen. Ever.
When we measure pH in soil we measure the water in the soil.
Yes, the pH of seawater is immediately buffered by the (bi)carbonate buffering reaction (as shown in the Bjerrum diagram) and to a lesser extent by a similar borate-based buffering reaction. If the bicarbonate get below saturation, more can be obtained from the calcite and aragonite that is abundant in sediments, albeit a little more slowly.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bjerrum-plots-displaying-concentrations-i-of-the-major-acid-base-species-in-oxygenated_fig1_343296886
TIP
In the WSJ:
The Climate Industry Is Pitting Nature Against Tech. These Researchers Say That’s Wrong.
A new academic paper on carbon-dioxide removal says both nature-based and technical solutions are needed to limit global warming
By Yusuf Khan
I’m reading The Ends of the World”, a 2017 book about the great extinctions the Earth has undergone over its existence, by Peter Brannen.
It’s an informal overview, accessible to laymen like myself, and quite interesting and informative.. But…
Brannen seems to be a climate bed-wetter, offering little asides comparing the reasons for past extinctions with what he sees as analogs to today’s “Climate Change”.
On page 136 there’s this gem: “Today the pH of the modern ocean is falling fast, already by a staggering 30% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Even people unmoved by the galaxy of evidence for global warming have no rebuttal to ocean acidification. It’s simple chemistry.”
I wondered how any one could make such a claim, since:
FINALLY, on a logarithmic scale a 30% increase in ocean pH would represent a 0.1% change in acidity! Hardly “staggering”.
I offer this as further evidence that there’s a whole lotta lotta ill-informed bovex being put out there.
(And that’s without touching the “Simple Chemistry” claim)
I remember a conversation with a biologist friend of mine. He seemed to think that modern agriculture has ruined the oceans w higher levels of pollution. When i put forward the dilution effect he didnt seem to fully grasp the concept but went straight on how humans were killing the oceans. We talked for a while about the importance of clean local streams and rivers which we agreed on. But, from micro he went straight to macro w highly questionable assumptions and propaganda.
And ocean acidification as the cause of the assumed large species extinction happening with millions of climate refugees as a result. Since this concept has been around for a while with no sign of this i asked him when he thought this process would be apparent. As always: sometime in the future. So i then asked him if he would be willing to set a date that would prove him wrong, say in 5 or 10 years. That was clearly a problematic proposal. He thought this was already happening.
So then, to finish i suggested we revisit this in 2030 and leave it out of our conversations. Thing is: 9 out of 10 times he comes back to this..
“state-of-the-art data-model products”
Wow, now I’m impressed and believe everything they say! 🙂
Somehow atmospheric CO2 went from 7,000 ppm to a piddling 420 ppm and sea life was never dissolved in acid.
And the term “acidification” regarding something still basic is nothing more than language abuse.
Much ado about nothing, as usual.
See the comments made by Stokes here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/
Ocean Acidification is another of the Climate Mafia’s psychological warfare creations.
Repeat it often enough and the population is brainwashed into believing it.
Whether you believe it or not, the evidence is clear. We are engaged in a global world war with psychological warfare tactics of propaganda, disinformation, and scare tactics employed.
Any time we use one of the multitude of hijacked and redefined words pushed by the Climate Mafia, we are losing the battle and they gain credibility.
Control the language and you control the ideas.
— Usually attributed to Orwell’s 1984
I know this is a silly question, but how do you accurately average logarithms?
ph of 8.0 averaged with a ph of 9.0 does not yield a ph of 8.5.