Let us assume that the bottom end the line is labelled alkaline.

Let us assume that the top end of the line is labelled acidic.

Let us assume a second straight line at right angles to the first. Let us call this the x axis. Let us label it as a time series, lets choose annual.

Let us measure each year the PH of sea water at a wide range of locations across the oceans of this planet. Let us call this planet ‘Earth’.

If we graph these results and the line rises over time, we could reasonably say that sea water was becoming more acidic. If on the other hand, the graph fell over time, we could reasonably say that sea water was becoming more alkaline.

It does not seem to me to matter whether we are starting from a position of extreme acidity or alkalinity, it is the trend that is being measured. And described by the word ‘more’.

Could someone point out what is wrong with that?

Here we have a nomenclature agreed upon by thousands and thousands of scientists across the globe, but Neil doesn’t like it because he doesn’t understand it, so he ignores all the things which tell him he is wrong, such as wikipedia through to the NOAA, and continues with his stupidity.

You could try and understand pages like these:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081121_coralacidification.html

http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2006_en/wbgu_sn2006_en_voll_4.html#Heading47

Cite?

Answer my point – do you acknowlwdge that CO2 will make sea water, if anything, more neutral like pure water. That that is clearly not damaging & thus that all the eco-Fascists claiming it will be damaging are simply engaged in yet another fraudulent scare story?

So, to summarise – Neil Craig is wrong, and this is quite normal.
And still the CO2 dissolves in the water, decreasing the pH, making it more acidic.

Neil, your reading comprehension is pathetic. I’ve already said “more acidic”, which is not thesame as “acidic” of itself. I’ve explained the pH scale and roughly how itworks, butnaqturally you are deluded enough to think that you know better.
Your quote from wikipedia doesn’t help your case – if you had any intellectual honesty you would also admit that said page includes ocean acidification leading to a whole page on the topic…
So you trust it to prove that pH above 7 is basic and below 7 is acidic, but not to demonstrate that all I have said regarding oceanic acidification is correct?

Thus you see the madness of the ideologue.

Now you are you are simply playing verbal games by trying to redefine “acid” as something that includes neutrality. You are, of course, lying on that too:

“Pure water is said to be neutral, with a pH close to 7.0 at 25 °C (77 °F). Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are said to be basic or alkaline” Wikipedia

Seawater is alkaline, ie reactive in the opposite direction & all more CO2 could possibly to is make it more neutral. I hope you don’t think “moron” is overstating it?

For anyone reading this – Neil is showing the classic behavioural traits of a lunatic science denier – he is correct about how acidification is defined, never mind the many thousands of scientists who use the term according to their scientific definition. But oh no, Neil knows better, the absolutely classic sign of a crank.

You can tell that Neil still doesn’t understand what I have written, because he types ‘there is no acidity at all’ when I’ve already pointed out the pH scale is based upon the H+ concentration, i.e. even in a solution with a pH of say 10, there will be H+ (or rather H3O but lets not make things too complex) and therefore some acidity.

How can you get ‘more’ neutral? Again, you twist the language to suit yourself, never mind that the evidence is that the H+ concentration is increasing and thus the ocean is becoming more acidic.
As for distilled water being a pollutant, you are making yourself look stupid again, because oddly enough sea water with added CO2 isn’t distilled water, it has lots of atoms and dissolved salts and stuff in it.
As for making no effot to prove it, that NOAA page I linked to has on it “What is ocean acidification?”, but I can only assume that you havn’t read it or refuse to agree with the scientists, thus showing yourself to be an idiot.

Acidic means more acid not more neutral. You have clearly done a little checking, long after speaking & found that the ocean is alkaline so that adding CO2 would not make it more acidic but would make it more neutral like distilled water. Rather than admitting to being an ignorant fool (& in this you are not alone because the eco-fascist everywhere are making the same claim) you have attempted to redefine your tems. The idea that distilled water is a pollutant is an even more ridiculous lie than than that CO2 is but such are the lunacies of you eco-fascists.

You have, of course, made no attempt to prove that, though being a Luddite liar any of the other things you have said this time is more than 10,000 times closer to honest than you ever aspire to. Let me know which, if any, you regard as such with, covering evidence, & I will be happy to blow you out of the water yet again.

Anyway, I’m sure you can all see that Neil, instead of answering my comments regarding his previous post, has chosen to attack me, because he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Why I’d want to comment on his own blog escapes me, because there’s no need to waste time on a lunatics echo chamber. As for trolling around after him, my first post on this site was several weeks ago and this is the first time I’ve bumped into Neil. As for on record for havign no economic growth at all, I don’t remember writing that, but it is behaviour oddly like an internet stalker to bring it up, as if Neil has little files with people’s posts in them he refers to later.

As for being wrong about “CO2 making the sea acidic”, note the total lack of scientific awareness summarised in the above phrase. Or perhaps the word salad of a good PR flack. The reality is somewhat different – ocean acidification means that the ocean is becoming more acidic. This means its Ph is moving towards the acidic end of the scale, ie towards 0.
As documented by the notorious communist fascists of the Royal Society:
http://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=1220&terms=ocean+acidification

Or the National oceanic and atmospheric administration in the USA:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/

Go on Neil, prove that the oceans aren’t getting more acidic, and thereby overturn over a century of chemistry and gain yourself a Nobel prize.

He is a total Luddite on record as saying he wishes to prevent any economic growth whatsoever. In this cause he has repeatedly proven himself a typical eco-fascist in that he will tell any lie whaysoever in the cause of enhancing poverty.

Please prove that any of the things you say above are more 10,000 times closer to honest than the very highest standard of honesty to which you aspire.

You are, of course, wrong about CO2 making the sea acidic. But then you really don’t know any science do you, like the rest of the eco-fascist liars?

88-92 – they don’t seem to address the claim that there are 100 reasons why the copenhagen governments and proponents of AGW are wrong. The list should therefore be 95 reasons, perhaps you would agree?

Point 93 – you are lying.
Point 94 – Disagreement is all very well but when one party is flat out wrong (Ie jaworoski) it seems a bit silly to rely upon him to disprove AGW. Unless you want to get into a discussion about how science is biased and should be replaced by a relativistic decision making process in which everyone can be correct.
point 95- Not evidence against AGW. Especially if it doesn’t mention climate change…
Point 96 – I think Unity dealt with that one.
POint 97 – I think the Oregon petition has been demonstrated to be a pile of rubbish many times before, like those petitions that creationists put forwards.
Point 98 – the nipcc is a biased non-scientific organisation, whose opinion is worth as much as yours, ie nothing.
POint 99 – does not address the many other issues such as ocean acidificaiton. Indeed deniers continue to avoid carrying out any proper cost benefits analysis of AGW, instead shouting from the sidelines about how the game should be played.
Point 100 – It is entirely possible that Russia both believes in AGW and wants a bribe at the same time. Either way point 100 does nothing to show why AGW supporters are wrong.

Oh for a bit of intelligent debate.
88-92 So if political arguments are out LibCon will have repeatedly denounced everybody who said sceptics were right wing & friends of Big Oil (unlike the CRU who are only frineds of Shell & BP). You haven’t – imagine my surprise.

93 It is currently cooler than during the mediaval warming period. This is why the IPCC shortened the Hockey stick from 1,000 years to 500.

94 So somebody else disagrees with Prof J hust as he disagrees with alarmists. That is why disagreement is allowed in science – heresy hunts are for religion.

95 The Heidelberg Appeal says “We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to
scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development”. If that is not a reference to the eco-fascists & their use of false scare stories I would be interested to know whta you think it is. I’ll grant that if there weren’t another 99 other pouints this would not stand alne, but thjere are though you refuse to answer most.

96 Ditto Leipzig

97 The alleged debunking of the oregon Petition has never been independently verified or repeated. As such it is meaningless. I don’t think you can deny that the Oregon petition has had les coverage on the BBC than 31,000 alarmist, or indeed 1.

98 You object to the NIPCC getting some funding from Exxon. I guess that answers my question about whether you were being hypocritical about on 88-92 over raising political rather than factual objections.

99 That rising CO2 helps crop growth, as you accept, is absolutely relevent to the question of whether its overall effect is catastrophic or whether it is beneficial. There are other rweasons to believe the latter too.

100 FFS it is a fact that at the given date Russia & the other countries hadn’t ratified it & were holding out for the right quid pro quo. Had they really believed the nionsense they wouldn’t have needed the bribe.

Yes indeed. The thing that gets me is that the people at ConHome are presumably not stupid (I make no such claims about the Daily Express). They must realise that any reasonably intelligent and honest person even if they know nothing about the science behind climte change could demolish half their points because they are they are either logical fallacies or just irrelevent to the question of whether global warming is “natural”, and the points which are actually based on science have been demolished hundreds of times in the past. It really is just embarrassing.