Author Topic: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten  (Read 1464 times)


  • Nybegynner
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Sterk og langvarig Svalbardk
« Reply #15 on: 17.03.2020, 08:47:17 »
Denne kulden gjenspeiler seg også på sjøtemperaturen i Isfjorden,


  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
    • View Profile
Re: Professor Peter Ridd og ytringsfriheten
« Reply #16 on: 17.03.2020, 12:44:26 »
Patrick Moore har i sin bok Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout (2013), som også finnes digitalt, foretatt en grundig behandling av alle aspekter knyttet til global oppvarming/klimaendringer, også dette.

Coral Reefs, Shellfish, and “Ocean Acidification”
It has been widely reported in the media, based on a few scientific papers, that the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in “ocean acidification,” threatening coral reefs and all marine shellfish with extinction within 20 years.  The story goes like this: The oceans absorb about 25 percent of the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere each year. The higher the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the more CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans. When CO2 is dissolved in water, some of it is converted into carbonic acid that has a weak acidic effect. If the sea becomes more acidic, it will dissolve the calcium carbonate that is the main constitu-ent of coral and the shells of clams, shrimp, crabs, etc. It is one more doomsday scenario, predicting the seas will “degrade into a useless tidal desert,”
In his latest book, Earth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben claims, “Already the ocean is more acid than anytime in the last 800,000 years, and at cur-rent rates by 2050 it will be more corrosive than any time in the past 20 million years.” In typical hyper-bolic fashion, McKibben, the author of the well-known essay, “The End of Nature,” uses the words acid and corrosive as if the ocean will burn off your skin and flesh to the bone if you dare swim in it in 2050. This is just plain fear-mongering.

Results of research published in the journal Science by M.R. Palmer et al., indicate that over the past 15 million years, “All five samples rec-ord surface seawater pH values that are within the range observed in the oceans today, and they all show a decrease in the calculated pH with depth that is similar to that ob-served in the present-day equatorial Pacific.” The five samples recorded pH values for 85,000 years ago and for 2.5, 6.4, 12.1, and 15.7 million years ago.
First, one should point out that the ocean is not acidic, it has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline, the oppo-site of acidic. A pH of 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic, above 7 is alkaline. Researchers have reported in scien-tific journals that the pH of the seas has gone down by 0.075 over the past 250 years, “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approxi-mately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).”  One has to wonder how the pH of the ocean was measured to an accuracy of three decimal places in 1751 when the concept of pH was not introduced until 1909.
It turns out that just as with climate science in general, these pre-dictions are based on computer models. But oceans are not simple systems whose components can just be plugged into a computer. First, there is the complex mix of ele-ments and salts dissolved in the sea. Every element on Earth is present in seawater and these elements in-teract in complex ways. Then there is the biological factor, tens of thou-sands of species that are consuming and excreting every day. The salt content of seawater gives the oceans a very large buffering capacity against change in pH. Small addi-tions of acidic and alkaline sub-stances can easily alter the pH of freshwater, whereas seawater can neutralize large additions of acidic and alkaline substances.

One of the most important biological phenomena in the sea is the combining of calcium, carbon, and oxygen to form calcium carbonate, CaCO3, the primary constituent of corals and shells, including the skel-etons of microscopic plankton. The formation of calcium carbonate is called calcification. All of the vast chalk, limestone, and marble depos-its in the earth’s crust are composed of calcium carbonate, which was created and deposited by marine organisms over millions of years. The carbon in calcium carbonate is derived from CO2 dissolved in seawater. One might therefore im-agine that an increase in CO2 in seawater would enhance calcifica-tion rather than destroy it. It turns out this is precisely the case.

As is the case with terrestrial plants, it has been thoroughly demonstrated that increased CO2 concentration in the sea results in higher rates of photosynthesis and faster growth. Photosynthesis has the effect of increasing the pH of the water, making it more alkaline, counteracting any minor acidic ef-fect of the CO2 itself.  The own-ers of saltwater aquariums often add CO2 to the water in order to increase photosynthesis and calcifi-cation, a practice that is similar to greenhouse growers adding CO2 to the air in their greenhouses to pro-mote the faster growth of plants. The vast bulk of scientific literature indicates increased CO2 in the ocean will actually result in in-creased growth and calcification, as opposed to the catastrophe scenario pushed by the NRDC, Greenpeace, and many other activist organiza-tions.
A long list of scientific publications that support the view that increased CO2 in seawater results in increased calcification can be found on the CO2 Science website.  A paper by Atkinson et al., published in the journal Coral Reefs, states that their finding “seems to contradict conclusions ... that high CO2 may inhibit calcification.” [100]

“Ocean acidification” is a perfect example of a contrived catastrophe scenario. The average person does not have a grasp of the complexities of marine chemistry and biology. The activists simply coin a new, scary term like “acidification” and then effectively extort money from people who are concerned for the future. And all this emphasis on the dangers of CO2 tends to divert people from thinking about the real dangers to coral reefs like destruc-tive fishing methods and pollution from sewage.

Our little house by the Sea of Cortez in Cabo Pulmo in southern Baja, Mexico, looks out over a Na-tional Marine Park that contains the only large coral reef on the west coast of the Americas. Pulmo Reef is a popular dive site, known for its rich abundance of reef fish, many of which school in the thousands. It was after a dive on the reef during our first visit to Cabo Pulmo in 1999 that Eileen and I decided to make a base there. Since then we have dived and snorkelled on the reef many times each year.

In September of 2002 a tropical storm brought torrential rains that dumped over 20 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period. It must have been a once in a 100-year event as the flooding was the worst the locals could remember. A lens of freshwa-ter about 20 feet deep spread out over the reef as a result of the run-off from the mountains. This killed all the coral, as coral cannot live in freshwater. Only the corals below the 20-foot depth of the freshwater layer survived.

For a few years after the event virtually no living coral could be seen in the shallower waters. The reef turned white and became cov-ered in green algae, which in turn resulted in an explosion of sea ur-chins where there had been very few before. By 2006 the reef began to recover noticeably with nodules of new coral becoming established. Coral polyps from the deeper re-gions of the reef were recolonizing the shallow waters. The sea urchins died out and fish returned in greater abundance. Today the reef is in full recovery as the coral is now grow-ing substantially each year. It may take another 20 years or more to recover completely, and will only do so if there is not another torrential rainstorm.

I imagine some people who believe we are causing catastrophic climate change would suggest we were responsible for the torrential rains that killed part of the reef. I don’t believe we can be so certain, especially as such events have been occurring since long before humans began emitting billions of tons of CO2 each year. And regardless of the storm’s cause, it is comforting to know that the reef can recover despite the dire predictions of the early death of coral reefs worldwide.


[91]. Frank Pope, “Great Barrier Reef Will Be Gone in 20 Years, Say s Charlie Veron,” Sunday Times, July 7, 2009,

[92]. Richard Girling, “The Toxic Sea,” Sunday Times, March 8, 2009,

[93]. M. R. Palmer et al., “Reconstructing Past Ocean pH-Depth Profiles,” Science 282, no. 5393 (November 20, 1998): 1468–1471, (Register with Science to see full article free-of-charge)

[94]. James C. Orr et al., “Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification Over the Twenty -First Century and Its Impact on Calcify ing Organisms,” Nature 437 (September 29, 2005): 681–686,

[95]. “pH,” Wikipedia,

[96]. “Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification—A New Propaganda Film by The National Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test,” Science & Public Policy Institute, January 5, 2010,

[97]. “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem,” Natural Resources Defense Council, September 17, 2009,

[98]. “Putting a Stop to the Arctic Meltdown,” Greenpeace International, January 26, 2010,

[99]. “CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future,” CO2 Science,

[100]. Atkinson, M.J., Carlson, B.A. and Crow, G.L. 1995, “Coral Growth in High-Nutrient, Low-pH Seawater: A Case Study of Corals Cultured at the Waikiki Aquarium, Honolulu, Hawaii,” Coral Reefs 14, no. 4, pp. 215–223,

Patrick Moore, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, pp. 374.377
IPCC - They've told us what it's NOT. But NOT what it is.