A nice explanation of how ocean acidification works.
4 thoughts on “How Does Ocean Acidification Work?”
There is no need to worry about ocean acidification as long as there is something like a metal or mineral to neutralize it and make a saline (salty) solution. The kind of science presented in the above article is as shallow and insipid as Obama’s philosophy.
Hi Patrick
Hows your day going?
What does Obama have to do with science? Do you suggest we fill the ocean with some kind of metal or mineral to neutralize it? Where do we get this mineral from? How much do we need? Is there enough?
Do you have your own science to present that is neither shallow or insipid?
Do you think about the stuff you type, or do you just knee jerk react to everything that doesn’t fit comfortably into your world view?
If you can’t back up your claims, why should I listen to you?
Are you a comment troll? Should I ignore you? Convince me to take you seriously.
Naib,
If the producer of that video were a true scientist and not a globaloney charlatan, he would have produced some quantitative evidence, such as the volume or mass, and ph, of the oceans now, the quantity of CO2 that is being produced now, and the quantity of CO2 that would be required to change the ph of the oceans significantly. And it would be useful to know how much CO2 is consumed by plants and algae and how much is necessary for sea life.
Calcium carbonate is a mineral that is the result of calcium that is dissolved by carbonic acid, I think, and calcium phosphate is a mineral that results from calcium that is dissolve in phosphoric acid. Calcium carbonate is an major component of nacre and calcium phosphate is a major component of shell and bone. So how does the producer of the video reconcile this bit of science with his ‘science’.
The fact is: CO2 production and depletion is a integral part of the life cycle on Earth.
My reference to Obama was gratuitous, I suppose, but he is a lazy thinker and he buys in to all this nonsense, in part I suspect, because it begs for a more oppressive, freedom strangling, statism to solve the faux crisis.
.
Hi Patrick
It seems unreasonable to me to expect every single video (especially one that is so short) to contain all of that information. However, if you listen to the video they provide a website, which has a much more in depth discussion, even answering some of the questions you ask.
If you are curious, or if that website is not up to your standards (although its all peer reviewed science) about 5 minutes with google will answer just about all of those answers.
I think you will also find that you have a couple things above wrong. the video above has the facts correct.
Every single question you raise above, and every error you make above, can be easily answered and corrected by spending a bit of time with google looking stuff up, isn’t the internet wonderful :)
You are not just wrong, you are demonstrably wrong. Provably wrong, and you seem to like to wrap in topics that have nothing to do with science into your criticism of science, so again I ask you, why should I take you seriously when you continually have little outbursts of provably wrong, off topic, rants?
There is no need to worry about ocean acidification as long as there is something like a metal or mineral to neutralize it and make a saline (salty) solution. The kind of science presented in the above article is as shallow and insipid as Obama’s philosophy.
Hi Patrick
Hows your day going?
What does Obama have to do with science? Do you suggest we fill the ocean with some kind of metal or mineral to neutralize it? Where do we get this mineral from? How much do we need? Is there enough?
Do you have your own science to present that is neither shallow or insipid?
Do you think about the stuff you type, or do you just knee jerk react to everything that doesn’t fit comfortably into your world view?
If you can’t back up your claims, why should I listen to you?
Are you a comment troll? Should I ignore you? Convince me to take you seriously.
Naib,
If the producer of that video were a true scientist and not a globaloney charlatan, he would have produced some quantitative evidence, such as the volume or mass, and ph, of the oceans now, the quantity of CO2 that is being produced now, and the quantity of CO2 that would be required to change the ph of the oceans significantly. And it would be useful to know how much CO2 is consumed by plants and algae and how much is necessary for sea life.
Calcium carbonate is a mineral that is the result of calcium that is dissolved by carbonic acid, I think, and calcium phosphate is a mineral that results from calcium that is dissolve in phosphoric acid. Calcium carbonate is an major component of nacre and calcium phosphate is a major component of shell and bone. So how does the producer of the video reconcile this bit of science with his ‘science’.
The fact is: CO2 production and depletion is a integral part of the life cycle on Earth.
My reference to Obama was gratuitous, I suppose, but he is a lazy thinker and he buys in to all this nonsense, in part I suspect, because it begs for a more oppressive, freedom strangling, statism to solve the faux crisis.
.
Hi Patrick
It seems unreasonable to me to expect every single video (especially one that is so short) to contain all of that information. However, if you listen to the video they provide a website, which has a much more in depth discussion, even answering some of the questions you ask.
http://na.oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/overview
http://na.oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/learn-act/what-is-ocean-acidification
If you are curious, or if that website is not up to your standards (although its all peer reviewed science) about 5 minutes with google will answer just about all of those answers.
Here is a place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
I think you will also find that you have a couple things above wrong. the video above has the facts correct.
Every single question you raise above, and every error you make above, can be easily answered and corrected by spending a bit of time with google looking stuff up, isn’t the internet wonderful :)
You are not just wrong, you are demonstrably wrong. Provably wrong, and you seem to like to wrap in topics that have nothing to do with science into your criticism of science, so again I ask you, why should I take you seriously when you continually have little outbursts of provably wrong, off topic, rants?