Paper Debunks Acidification Scare

Warmists have been pushing the ocean acidification meme for years now, conveniently forgetting that life under the sea evolved and developed when the seas were much warmer. A new paper says “hold on a minute”

(The Hockey Schtick) A paper published today in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or “acidified” if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the “ocean acidification” scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry’s Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming. 

Thus, if global warming resumes after the “pause,” ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:

“Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense. 

Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense. 

Take your pick – REAL SCIENCE says you can’t have both.”

THS ends with

These findings completely contradict the basis of the CAGW “acidification” scare and instead show that warming should make the oceans more alkaline, not “acidic.”

No worries. Warmists will hysterically ignore the findings, because this is not about science, but politics.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Paper Debunks Acidification Scare”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Ignore the findings? Hardly. It’s clear Teach neither read, nor would he even understand the paper.

    Let’s examine the actual paper rather than the Hockey Schticker’s droppings.

    First they were examining a small lake in Japan, not the oceans. A small lake is more sensitive to run-off from surrounding lands, than the oceans are. Oceans are big. Small lakes are small. See the difference?

    Second, the scientists write this:

    “Our aim was to understand the responses of precipitation and air temperature in central Japan to the East Asian monsoon variability on orbital timescales. Because the water pH in Lake Biwa is determined by phosphorus and alkali cation inputs, the record of water pH should indicate the changes in precipitation and temperature in central Japan.”

    Did you catch that? The freshwater pH of the little lake they were studying, Lake Biwa, is “determined by phosphorus and alkali cation inputs”, not CO2 levels. I take this to mean that sodium and potassium phosphates wash into the lake from the rains. Did you see any mention of CO2 or oceans.

    The Hockey Schticker, a buddy of Anthony Watts, is misleading you once again. Except for the mention of pH and water, this paper has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ocean acidification.

    The Hockey Schticker and WUWUT are not valid scientific citations. They lie to you.

    I don’t think Teach is scientifically sophisticated enough to understand.

  2. Jeffery says:

    “Warmists will hysterically ignore the findings, because this is not about science, but politics.”

    There is nothing related to ocean acidification in this paper to ignore. You are correct that the Hockey Sniffer is only about politics – although he/she lies about science to promote political beliefs.

    The anonymous Hockey Schticker routinely does this – misappropriating a scientific paper and lying about the conclusions.

    Please read the Discussion section of the actual paper to understand the authors’ conclusions (The Hockey Shitter’s conclusions are a waste of time).

    http://www.clim-past.net/10/1843/2014/cp-10-1843-2014.pdf

    “In Lake Biwa, photosynthesis is controlled mainly by the
    phosphorus concentration in the water (Ishida et al., 1982;
    Tezuka, 1985). The anthropogenic eutrophication of Lake
    Biwa induced high primary production, resulting in an increase
    in the pH of the lake water by more than 1 from the
    1960s to the 1970s (Nakayama, 1981). The phosphorus concentration
    in the lake is determined by the inflow of phosphorus
    from the catchment soils, which is governed by precipitation
    in the watershed (Kunimatsu, 1993).”

    OK. What they’re saying here (and the Hockey Sucker ignored), is that phosphorus runoff (the anthropogenic component) caused algae growth (eutrophication). These rapidly growing plants consume CO2, dropping the CO2 content of the lake. Since dissolved CO2 causes acidification, removing this CO2 by plant growth causes the pH to increase.

    And Ruh-Roh!, The Hockey Stuffer steps in a big pile of it here! The paper he cites as debunking ocean acidification explains in some detail how even lake pH can depend of CO2 levels. More CO2 causes acidification.

    “The phosphorus concentration may also be governed by air temperature because
    the dissolution of silicate depends on temperature in chemical
    weathering processes (White and Blum, 1995). Thus,
    both higher precipitation and higher temperature potentially
    increase the inflow of phosphorus to the lake, enhancing primary
    production, and thus raise the lake water pH. Increases
    in precipitation and temperature intensify chemical weathering.
    The chemical weathering increases the inflow of Ca2+
    and phosphorus to the lake, with both raising lake water pH.”

    Ah ha! Higher temperatures may increase phosphorus inflow and increase chemical weathering, also increasing calcium ion and phosphorus inflow, raising the pH. So the authors’ own conclusions do not support the Hockey Schmuck’s conclusions.

    Who you going to believe? The scientists who conducted the work and who take responsibility for their results or an anonymous conservablogger with a history of lying?

    Feel free to share this with the Hockey Schmuck.

  3. Jeffery says:

    And let’s see if the Hockey Schmuck allows any critical comments…

  4. Jeffery says:

    In all seriousness, I want to acknowledge that Teach allows very critical (sometimes abusive!) comments. Thank you.

    I just submitted a benign comment at Hockey Schtick demonstrating how the paper he/she cited did not support the Hockey Schtick conclusions. It was not allowed. This is the norm for most conservative blogs (e.g, Gateway Pundit).

  5. Jeffery says:

    Why do you think the Hockey Schticker doesn’t want to discuss the papers he/she trashes?

    I think it is because he/she’s a coward and a liar.

Bad Behavior has blocked 12115 access attempts in the last 7 days.