Climate News Reports of ocean acidity discredited
|
12 June 2009
A noted skeptic of "climate change" disagrees with a recent report that the oceans are becoming too acidic.
In recent hearings before the Oceans Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, researchers and scientists predicted a dire future for the world's oceans. According to their research, "manmade climate change" is warming the oceans and increasing the acidity of the water as they absorb more carbon -- which they claim, in turn, could destroy the economies of coastal communities.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted skeptic of manmade climate change who has testified before Congress, edits the Science & Public Policy Institute's "Monthly CO2 Report." He says global-warming alarmists have realized that their predictions are not coming true, so they are resorting to a new scare tactic.
"The U.N.'s own reports show very clearly that if the sort of warming that they pretend is going to happen to the oceans does actually happen, then by a very elementary law of gases called 'Henry's Law,' the oceans will out-gas CO2 -- just as you'll find happening with a bottle of Coke if you stand it open in the hot sun," he explains. "It will start frothing out as the CO2 is out-gassed because, as Henry's Law operates, the warmer water can't contain so much CO2."
Monckton contends that the exact opposite will happen if the oceans warm according to the alarmists' models, resulting in an alkalization -- but he contends not enough to harm ocean life. Monckton calls the alarmists' claims "extravagantly baseless."
Comments
I too was a believer not long ago, but I am now awake to the lies. So are most Americans now, and they are speaking up but your legislators are doing their best to ignore them. They want this legislation whether it saves the planet or not. This is a strange time in your history. I wonder how people will explain this bazaar period. And how will the media explain how they were crusaders for Global Warming when they were supposed to be objective observers?
climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/coldjune2009.htm
What's more infuriating is when they cite things that are obviously problems with runoff (such as the Gulf-of-Mexico dead zone) and try to attribute it to climate change. That's pollution that can actually be fixed, and will be massively increased by biofuel mandates. This emphasis on CO2 is hurting real environmental causes.
RSS feed for comments to this post