I concur with Paulm — your objection is just a quibble.

If I said, “The climate this January is getting more warm,” would you argue that it must have been warm to begin with?

They did not just say “acidification” which would have been benign enough.

Instead they said “turning the seas more acid” which can only mean they were acid to begin with, and of course they were not.

Our host said, “Turning the seas acid.” He did not say “more acid.” No, they will not be turning acid or even acidic. Again, “more acidic” means they were acidic to begin with, which they were not.

Then 70 world academies of some sort continued, “– levels of acidification –that would be corrosive to clams –” Now we visualize the poor little clams being stripped naked as their calcium carbonate shells bubble off to nothing. If the 70 had any credibility before, it surely has to be reassessed with this inanity.

I understand the need to make science better understood, but get a grip.

I missed your post which better articulates my point, though my emphasis might be more on the way overstatement can tend to damage credibility.

You probably know about barnacles.

You are way too literate to get away with abuse of the most basic language of chemistry. Calling CO2 “carbon” makes the scientific community sound like sports event cheering section, but jumping on the oceans as imminently becoming corrosive is just way too much.

If you start with a solution characterized by a pH of 8, CO2 in concentrations you are talking about will not cause it to be “acid.” A solution is not “acid” unless its pH is less than 7.

Yes, you might say, “more acidic,” though even this sounds like trying to make a bad thing into something that sounds cataclysmic.

Whether it is bad for clams and coral; get to the real issue.

And then tell me if it is bad for barnacles.

[JR: Sorry, but this post is just reprinting news stories, which in this case are quoting top scientists. Take up your objections with them.]

Acidification merely indicates the direction of pH change not the absolute value. Instead, learn about the various forms of calcium carbonate and the needed pH.

The world’s marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.

This sounds very alarming, so being diligent researchers we should of course check the facts. The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909.
The BBC article then asserts:
The researchers warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as “the other CO2 problem”, could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.

This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today. (One might also note in the graph below that there was an ice age during the late Ordovician and early Silurian with CO2 levels 10X higher than current levels, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is essentially nil throughout the Phanerozoic.)

In North Carolina, for example, environmental activists will tell you that not a single power plant expansion has been ruled to be subject to New Source Review regulations in over a decade. And if you ask them why, they’ll point to a former Progress Energy employee who’s in charge of permitting at the state department of environment and natural resources, appointed by an appointee of a governor who’s been out of office for eight years. The DENR is in charge of regulating the permitting process because that’s how it’s done-the responsibility has been handed over to the state by the EPA.

Saving the Dutch delta region requires ‘immediate measures’

The commission concluded that the Dutch can continue to live in their flood-prone delta region if they take immediate measures. “This is music to my ears,” commented Landrieu, who compared this clear conclusion with the “mixed signals the people of south Louisiana” have been receiving from the U.S. federal government about whether or not they should remain where they live.

http://climatesecurity.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 05/ how-military-can-shape-public-opinion.html