Tachyon_Nova: You say that one study, according to the 'Nature' journal, has found that Foraminifera shells on the deep ocean floor are up to 35% thinner due to the oceans becoming more acidic.
Now, you say you are 20 years old. I was once your age, in 3rd year university, thankfully in an era where people were taught "how" to think rather than "what" to think, as appears to be the case today.
So in that same necessary spirit of scientific understanding, could you kindly explain to forum members:
(i) Why use the term "more acidic"? That term implies the oceans are already acid, when in fact they are alkaline with a pH of around 8.
(ii) There are billions of cubic kilometres of ocean on the planet, yet CO2 comprises a miniscule fraction of the earth's atmosphere - and therefore of the dissolved air - contained within the ocean.
Why should any thinking person accept that an increase in CO2 atmospheric concentrations (due to industrialisation, but still only 40 thousandths of one percent) will still have any meaningful impact on the ocean's carbonic acid concentration, given the VAST oceanic volumes?
(iii) Given that the decrease in pH on the ocean floor would have been negligible over the last 150 years or so, and that for most life forms an increase in carbon concentrations is usually positive for shell growth, did the authors of the study look to any OTHER causes of Foraminifera shell thinning?
(iv) There are a whole host of shell species on the ocean floor. Why did the authors of the study not do a CONTROL on all those other shell species, before coming to their conclusion?
(v) The Editorial Board of 'Nature' journal - are they composed of members who automatically reject peer review studies which offer contrary conclusions to AGW theory?
These are the types of questions I'd like to have answered, instead of accepting anything at face value from someone as knowledgable as youself.
