pH measures the concentration of H3O+, or, in simpler terms, the availability of free protons for reactions. Acids are substances that like losing a proton. The acid that causes acidification of our oceans (and sparkle in sodas and sparkling water) is carbonic acid, or CO2 dissolved in water. More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more CO2 dissolved in the water, which equals more carbonic acid and a lower pH. How you measure pH is an independent question.

I think you misread my comment. I'm trying hard to avoid an ad-hominem attack on you while pointing out that the level of understanding you exhibit does not give the impression that you understand the principles of the issue.

See what above?

Who is "they"? The authors of the original paper or the operators of Junk Science? The original paper is here, and looking at the abstract, you can see that the interpretation at Hockeyschtick parroted at Junk Science is completely misleading, and basically has nothing to do with the paper.

Most of those links are to political propagandists, few of which have even a formal scientific qualification. And they don't seem to even mention a good reference to the original article they do whine about. Sabine and Feely have several articles on the topic, e.g. The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2 (2004), or The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 since the mid 1990s (2014), but I could not find one with those as the only authors. Google Scholar shows the first with over 2000 citations - if it is so bad, I would expect some serious criticism in the scientific literature, not just in the denialist echo chamber.

Since when is a web site a hominus?

I'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.

I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem. I do read scientific papers for a living (well, part of it). I do write reasonably well-regarded papers, and I frequently are asked to formally review papers (which I usually do). I find it quite hard to fully comprehend papers that are within my general area of science (computer science) and even my specialty (logic and deduction) if they are not within my area of micro-specialisation (first-order reasoning). Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry. What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?

Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.

At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.

Actually, JunkScience is, well, junk science. Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.

It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.

The iMac "Retina" has a AMD R9 M290X (Pitcairn?) by default. It can be ordered with an AMD R9 M295X (Tonga XT?). Both are "mobile" chipsets,

Who decides who "example.com" is? A collection of CAs or the person who gets the money for adding the NS entry for example.com? You may have existential angst over this, but at a practical level the registrar is going to be intimately involved in deciding who owns your domain and will have a de facto ability to spoof that, cut you off, or do other bad things. The question is whether they can do any of this stealthily. One nice thing about DANE is that you can actually monitor the records which are being provided to ensure that people are getting the correct records (doing this right would mean either having a number of test locations or hiring a third-party provider that does this as a service). This is in contrast to the CA model, in which you don't know that someone is presenting a bogus cert unless you're google and you get to instrument everybody's browser.

As for the price, you misunderstand. Paying more certainly doesn't guarantee quality, but not paying certainly guarantees that a provider won't implement expensive controls. If you need a highly secure domain in the DNSSEC scheme, then you want a registrar that will implement things like out of band verification of changes, multi-party controls on their end to prevent unauthorized changes, routine auditing, etc. That will cost more than getting a domain from a registrar that doesn't provide those services. You're probably going to be using a registrar that has a low enough volume that they can actually inspect changes to a degree impossible if you support automated bulk registrations (so the costs are spread over fewer customers).The neat thing is, you get to decide what you need--there's no good reason why my vanity domain needs the same level of security as microsoft.com. If you're on the really high end, I'd expect that you'd actually third-party audit the registrar to make sure that they're doing the things they say they are. (That also won't be free.) But at least there would be economic incentives to do all of these things, unlike the current regime where there's no effective difference between a $100k verisign EV cert and a free startssl cert.

Why is that not good? If your registrar is malicious, they can get a certificate issued for you anyway. The really nice thing about the "you have to trust your registrar" model is that you can actually vote with your wallet. Don't care about security? Get a cheap registrar. Want really good security? Pay extra for a registrar that has stronger guarantees. Even better: if a registrar screws up, its customers can leave. (Unlike the CA model, where if the CA screws up, they're too big to fail.) The techincal aspects are almost secondary to the benefits of providing economic incentives for the security-critical actors to do the right things.

Their politics are irrelevant. The question is whether the entire world should trust the post office in hong kong to secure every web site in the entire world.

You mean the section that says "It is important to note that none of this research suggests that global warming and climate change are not affecting the ice sheets of Antarctica but they do imply that any melting due to global warming is being exacerbated by geothermal heating from beneath the ice cap"? Yes, I read that. I also read that "A survey of the thickness of the Earth's crust in Antarctica found a particularly thin zone under Marie Byrd Land, where the Thwaites Glacier is located, which is consistent with the presence of a 'major volcanic dome'", which indicates that this is a long-term effect and should not affect the net rate of melting - it would be part of the steady state if we had one.

Again, what is increasing is the maximum sea ice extend. The ice mass balance is strictly negative - i.e. there is more ice melting than water freezing year over year. The amount of ice is going down, by about 70 Gt per year (albeit with large uncertainties), and accelerating.

From your source: "Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year." Do you read those sources, or do you just google for confirmation using bad search terms?

And your point is? Because one non-scientist made an ambiguous claim about a possible outcome, all scientific claims are invalid? We've started commercial shipping through the Arctic, and "Antarctic ice" is shrinking, what is growing slightly is maximum Antarctic sea ice extend.

Actually, the full quote is "...and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean..." (emphasis mine). The source of the claim, Berndt Balchen certainly had an interesting biography, but neither was he trained as a scientist, nor what the statement in a scientific publication.

I'm sorry, but that is simply unscientific nonsense. Human emissions are about 2 orders of magnitude greater than all volcanic emissions combined. None of the major volcanic eruptions of the last decades have left a significant blip in the CO2 curves. See e.g. the USGS on the issue.

..."Enterprise Software Systems Architect". "Framework Analyst". "Data Modelling Architecture Consultant".

These are the positions that suck $200/hour out of your accounts as they ask you to explain for the fourth time how you manage your list of projects and track their progress and pay their bills. Tens, then hundreds of thousands will disappear like Danny Ocean and the Boys had visited your bank, as your hoped-for upgrade to your Access application is turned into a web-based app with 20-second response time.

Former(?) criminals would be the 'best fit' for these jobs as a certain indifference to the customer's costs, stress and general suffering is valuable.

My favourite part on that is that the Interpol document with the warrant was a top-priority "red notice" normally reserved for something like a child molester at high risk of re-offending. Khadaffi got only an "orange notice".

Sadly, not.