A Rising Tide of Acid Off California

ScienceNOW ^ | 14 June 2012 | Robert F. Service

[neverdem]

If I coudn't copy the correct code, there's a video at the source.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

I like turtles.

[bikerman]

OH no! we’re DOOMED need more money NOW./s

[Redcloak]

One would expect that actual scientists would state measurements of acidity in terms of pH, not nebulous percentages.

You know...

Sciencey stuff.

[Vendome]

Cry-st. It just doesn’t end.

Damned if you do, Damned if don’t do.

Damned no matter what. .

Check mate.

[neverdem]

“Now, a new high resolution computer model,” predicts more doom from CO2.

[Bobalu]

MarxistScienceNOW says so, so it must be true!.

[LRS]

Legacy of Timothy Leary...

[Carry_Okie]

Humanity's use of fossil fuels sends 35 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. That has already begun to change the fundamental chemistry of the world's oceans, steadily making them more acidic.

Oh, you mean it doesn't come from billions of Chinese burning coal in the open air? It isn't sulfuric acid?

Silly me. I thought CO2 was chemically neutral. Ah, well, what do I know? I guess I have a just basic understanding.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The ocean is becoming a little less basic, not a seething cauldron of acid.

[Pontiac]

Prior to industrialization, undersaturation conditions essentially did not exist at this top layer in the ocean. Today, Gruber says, undersaturation conditions exist approximately 2% to 4% of the time. But by 2050, surface waters of the California Current System will be undersaturated for half of the year.

Gee; I wonder who was out there off the California coast prior to the industrial era taking these measurements and recording the results for posterity so these Green Leftists could use them to condemn the capitalist industrialist for destroying the world ecosystem.

[OldMissileer]

Oh NO!!!!!!!!

I has to be from humans. That way more money and control can be wrested from citizens

Do not mention the many underwater volcanoes and such that spew acids into the oceans every single day.

[Pontiac]

I wonder how sea life made their shells back in the Cambrian era when the CO2 concentration was about ten time what it is now.

[Jack Hydrazine]

[Fresh Wind]

“will likely have profound impacts”
“have the potential”
“likely to happen”
“could spell doom”
“likely to face difficulty”
“it’s not clear”
“likely be broad based”
“probably have important effects”

[RJL]

A Rising Tide of Acid Off California

And best of all is the happy coincidence that massive new taxes and regulations, every totalitarian leftist's wet dream, will fix this problem.

[DeaconRed]

HMMMMMMMMM
ACID
California
No wonder they are so screwed up. . . . . The whole state is high on ACID.

[Rocky]

So this is the next gambit for the Leftists, in order to gain control of industry?

I suppose there’s lots of historical data to support the “trend”? Underwater tree rings? Seaweed rings?

And, oh boy, another computer model. But this one has 400x better “resolution”, whatever that it.

[Carriage Hill]

Solid, scientific factoid statements of the leftist morons.

[samtheman]

One would expect that actual scientists would state measurements of acidity in terms of pH, not nebulous percentages. You know... Sciencey stuff.

Any "science story" involving "global warming" is automatically suspect in my mind.

First of all, I strongly believe that 99% of such "stories" originate with an intended conclusion.

The author says to him/herself, "what new global warming angle can I invent that will set me apart from the others and help advance my career?"

Then, once an interesting now approach is figured out, the "research" begins. I am 100% sure that in 99% of all "global warming studies" the initial research phase is a long, tedious process of cherry-picking data to fit the pre-determined, career-enhancing conclusion. In a large majority of those "stories", some stuff just has to be "slipped in" that isn't even true, just to make the cherry-picked data more consistent.

So with this story, as with all other "global warming stories", I have two questions:

!. What is the author leaving out?

2. What lies has the author told?