Do climate change deniers also deny ocean acidification?

I don't think they'd have any problem denying carbonic acid acidification... the denier answers in this thread demonstrate no familiarity with what the evidence actually says, or a willingness to grossly mis-represent the evidence.

(1) geee, maybe tens of thousands of scientists forgot to check whether currently observed warming was natural... no, wait, it's been demonstrated time and time again that there is no natural explanation.

(2) CO2 is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gass, with water vapour being the majority? Only if one adopts an absurd definition of the word "tiny". CO2 is responsible for 10 - 25% of the greenhouse effect on earth, compared to 36 - 70 %... so at its smallest, CO2 is responsible for 1/3th - 1/7th the greenhouse effect... that's not tiny.

Is water vapour increasing? No.

Is CO2 increasing? Yes.

Will an increase in one, without the other cause warming? Yes

To use an anology: Consider a room containign a large 700 w electric radiator. It's warm. If I leave the 700 w radiator on, and turn on an additional 300 w radiator the room will get warmer. It'll get even warmer if I turn the little radiator up to 350 w.

To suggest otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

So, to answer the original question: yes. Deniers already hold an non-evidence-based position, I doubt they will have any trouble explaining away more evidence.

What, are you suggesting that I do not understand fundamental chemistry and physics simply because I do not believe that the proponents of AGW have made a very good case for their hypothesis? Of course the addition of acid (CO2) to the system will have an effect on pH. We aren't talking a big change though.

Yes, I do understand the carbonate chemistry of the ocean involves a lot of balances at or near the cusp between precipitation and dissolution, or perhaps one could say that affecting the pH even modestly will have an effect on the expansion or contraction of the zones of precipitation and dissolution within the water column.

The two process (global warming and seawater chemical change) are really quite distinct even if there is a presumed commonality of cause. I try not to confuse my apples with my oranges, even if both happen to be tree fruits.

Do climate change deniers actually exist? I thought it was just the very large portion of the thinking population who question any link between mankind's activities and the natural changes in Earth's climate that have always taken place (unless, of course, you have evidence that dinosaurs drove cars).

And to answer your question: changes in average global temperature will in turn impact the amount of free carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - which in turn will alter the amount dissolved in the sea. To attribute a lowering of oceanic pH to fossil-fuel power stations is to make a series of massive and unsubstantiated assumptions.

All you're doing is falling for the environmental con-trick. Take a look around and see where all the money is being made: everything that's making money has the prefix "eco". It makes good business sense to jump on the "eco bandwagon" and gullible fools are falling for it.

Just remember: there are plant fossils in Antarctica. Antarctica was at the South Pole 100 million years ago. When it wasn't covered in ice. That was "global warming" too - without a human being or fossil-fuel power station in sight. We're coming out of an ice age - it's supposed to get warmer.

you only are not getting it do you, the U.N. needs a each year paycheck from the U.S. and the different united states it may swindle it from. they desire billions of greenbacks A year to "fix" the priority. yet they only supply you the matters with out the ideas, they say they choose the money to return up with the ideas. additionally, with ALL this know-how, the place are the figures, the particularly numbers, if it will develop one hundred fifty%, what is going to that take it to. And precisely what became into the acidic ranges of the oceans sixty 5 million years in the past???? once you examine this, your heavily no longer slightly skeptical, particularly?

Some of us take a view that global temperatures have been rising slowly recently, but this has little or nothing to do with mans activities.

There have been many fulctuations in the past, and CO2 is a tiny proportion of green house gases - the majority being water vapour.

It is not us who are unscirntific, it is people like Al Gore who even admitted that he misreprented data to try and make his case stronger.

From what I've seen on YA "global warming", yes they do, in the face of the inescapable data on falling pH and the unavoidable consequences for aragonite-using marine life.

AGW deniers may. It's the latest trick. Now that more and more people are starting to realize that there is NO proof of AGW they had to throw this one out there to keep their ship afloat. It's Bull!!! Don't believe it.

P.S. Try reading that Scientific American article again. You may see the propagandist tone the second time.

They will deny anything that interferes with their ideology, regardless of the massive amount of data the suggests otherwise