Ocean acidification - is it a problem?

Let us look at hard facts.

One hard fact is that in the past Earth had much higher CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere, which had not reduced biodiversity - on the contrary, biodiversity had increased - namely, hard corals came into existence in one of such periods, and soft corals in another.

Another hard fact is that for significant "acidification" to take place in nature, the dissolved acidic CO₂ in the oceans should increase, without being compensated by the basicity of the dissolved calcium (and magnesium) ions. In practice, this can never happen for a very simple reason - the CO₂ concentrations are not growing quickly enough for that.

Indeed, assuming that we continue burning as much fossil fuels as we want, then we expect the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations to double by 2100, with a characteristic time of about 150 years. On the other hand, the characteristic mixing time of the upper ocean is about 20 years, while the characteristic pH equilibration time of the shallow-water biologically productive zones inhabited by calcifying biota is about 10 years. The latter time was estimated based on the annual volume of the river runoff and the amount of seawater existing in the coastal shallow-water zones. These numbers tell us that calcium (+magnesium) will be perfectly capable of accompanying the increasing concentrations of carbonate ions, maintaining the pH of the seawater fairly constant. In fact, it will never change by much more than it has already changed during the last century (0.1 pH), as the entire process has already achieved steady rates in some 70 years since it had started (70 years is much more than 20 years, mathematically speaking, therefore the non-steady initial kinetic phase has already finished).

There is an additional factor that helps to equilibrate carbonate with calcium (+magnesium), namely the chemical equilibrium. We know that the solubility of acidic carbon dioxide in pure water is lower than its solubility in water containing basic calcium (and magnesium) ions, therefore additional CO₂ will actually dissolve in seawater after it acquires additional amounts of basicity, brought in by the river runoff from the continents, and not before. This factor further reduces the possible pH changes of the seawater.

As regards calcifying biota, it will certainly benefit from the increased dissolved carbonate and dissolved calcium (+magnesium), in the same way as plants benefit from increased atmospheric CO₂. More CO₂ implies higher agricultural yields and higher seafood yields, all in benefit of humanity.

In two words: ocean acidification is a scam, same as the anthropogenic global warming. This hoax, however, is providing for thousands of careers of pseudo-scientists who make their living of studying nonexistent problems, using our tax money to defraud us and earn grants and distinctions. 

Ocean acidification is a moral and a criminal problem, rather than an environmental problem. Environmentally, it is not a problem, and will never become a problem.

Thumbs up, Ivar Giaever; thumbs down, APS

Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits Physics Group over Stand on Global Warming. 

Prof. Giaever has the civic courage and the honor to reject an association to an idea, which he believes is wrong, judging from the general principles - if other ideas can be questioned, why then the American Physical Society (APS) had declared the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to be final and absolute truth, beyond any doubt and controversy?

We know, however, that there are many more things wrong about AGW, apart from the general principles:

• any evidence for the AGW is strictly a product of climate models;
• these climate models do not describe the properties of our climate system, and therefore can't be used for any predictions whatsoever;
• climate data have been intentionally falsified; 
• policies based on the AGW hypothesis are destroying economies,
• and causing Green Genocide in Africa;
• we in fact need more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, and not less;
• our climate will be cooling in the next 40 years, due to the new Grand Solar Minimum, 
• whereas the concentrations of greenhouse gases are largely irrelevant for climate.

Read other articles on this blog to know more.

NY Times finds truth abusive to its readers - and detrimental to its earnings

Yesterday we commented on this post in the NY Times environmental blog. The post in question describes carbon emissions associated with different kinds of food.

Our comment informed the readers that carbon (read "carbon dioxide") emissions are irrelevant for the environment and global warming / climate change, for the simple reason that the IPCC climate models are wrong - they have been refuted by the satellite measurements performed during the last 30 years. We also mentioned our scientific paper that has demonstrated all of the above, explaining that it fact our Earth is heading to a new Little Ice Age, caused by the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum, to be in full swing within 40 years.

The comments on this blog are moderated, with the policy being that "generally, comments will be published if they are on the point and not abusive". We trust that our comment is on the very point of the issue discussed in the blog post, as in fact there is no need to get stressed about carbon emissions, at all. Therefore, it should have been rejected based on the "abusive" clause. However, the real reason is a conflict of interests, as NY Times is publicizing "carbon investments", "green energy" and such like on the same blog, therefore exposing the IPCC climate fraud may reduce the NY Times earnings. Crime pays.

American Democracy, medium rare, please ...

Follows the full text of our comment, submitted to the NY Times blog, for the benefit of the inquiring Reader.

---

Comment

Please be aware that carbon emissions due to any type of human activity are completely irrelevant for climate and environment.

Indeed, as we recently demonstrated in our paper "Climate Change Policies for the XXIst Century: Mechanisms, Predictions and Recommendations" (you can find the text if you Google for the entire title), nothing has ever been wrong with the climate, while the catastrophic predictions produced by the IPCC come from faulty climate models, time and again refuted by the results of satellite measurements made during the last 30 years.

In reality we are all going towards a new Little Ice Age, coming in full force within the next 40 years, and caused by the approaching Grand Solar Minimum, similar to the Maunder Minimum. Moreover, any and all climate change observed during the last 150 years has been caused by factors external to the climate system, such as changes in solar activity, and not by microscopic changes in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide or any other human-dependent effect.

We therefore vehemently object to the usage of the word "science" with respect to the IPCC activities, which should be characterized as either political or religious activism, and should not be financed by the taxpayer money any longer.

_