NOAA admit in private that they can’t name any ocean affected by acidification

Rune said:
In her own words.
The agency is indeed aware of acidification in the Pacific.
Again the article in the Op is incorrect or misleading.
Click to expand...

Gordon Bennett, you are like a dog with a bone!! You have prima facie evidence of how the tenuous science behind ocean acidification is sexed up by ill informed journalists yet you still maintain that there is a serious problem and we should all head for the hills.

The Fishy ‘Science’ of Ocean Acidification

With an obstinate atmosphere failing to warm as predicted, another peril was needed to sustain the junk-science industry and keep lazy reporters supplied with bogus scoops. No problem! Conscript a Disney character, garnish with misrepresentations and there you have it: ocean acidification



How scary is “ocean acidification”? Very scary. The previously scary “global warming” stopped 19 years ago, but do stay scared because all that CO2 since 1997 has instead been “acidifying” the oceans. Please imagine baby oysters dissolving in the equivalent of battery acid, and hermit crabs raising a nervous feeler to discover that their protective shells have disappeared. Curse you, horrible human-caused CO2 emissions!

Read more: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/01/fishy-science-ocean-acidification/
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
What we can see right now is that commercial shellfish, species like oysters, are showing potential impacts of acidification. These potential impacts are not necessarily occurring in advance of those on other species, but rather we may see them first because we’re looking at these species very closely. On the west coast, the shellfish industry is having trouble producing larval shellfish in hatcheries and rearing them successfully. There’s also been a reduced natural set [of juvenile oysters] in some of the estuaries where the commercial shellfish industry relies on natural reproduction of oysters. So, that causes a big alarm. It could be that the same thing is happening with other species, but that we just don’t know about
Click to expand...

Just a ton of speculation...
 
Rune said:
Yet the oysters are not surviving in the wild and only hatch in hatcheries if the water is buffered.
Click to expand...

Worldwide aquaculture production of the Pacific cupped oyster continues to expand steadily, having expanded from 156 000 tonnes in 1950 to 437 000 tonnes by 1970, and 1.2 million tonnes by 1990. Expansion was very rapid in the 1990s, rising to 3.9 million tonnes by 2000. Expansion is continuing, reaching nearly 4.4 million tonnes by 2003. Production is likely to continue to expand, albeit at a slower rate due to coastal urbanization and the increasing need to share the common coastal resource with other users.
Click to expand...

http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Crassostrea_gigas/en
 
Rune said:
Yet the oysters are not surviving in the wild and only hatch in hatcheries if the water is buffered.
Click to expand...

Yet you were telling all and sundry a while ago that coral reefs all over the world are dying from ocean acidification!!
 
Last edited:
They are.
38% of the worlds reefs have been affected with 5% complete die off.

Some areas have lost 70%.
 
Rune said:
They are.
38% of the worlds reefs have been affected with 5% complete die off.

Some areas have lost 70%.
Click to expand...

So where are you getting that BS from? I don't doubt that coral reefs are being affected by pollution, I saw an example of that in the Gulf of Thailand only last month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top