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.
'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.
Hmmm... CO2 concentrations in liquid, sure. But what does that have to do with PH? You indicate that it's self-evident, but it's not to me. Maybe you can explain that relationship in high-school sciencey language. There are actually 3 different ways to measure PH, one of which is specific to ocean chemistry (the PH Seawater Scale - sws).
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'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem.
No, it's not, actually. Especially in science (not the scientific community that is awash in politic, but the work of science it certainly is).
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.
Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry.
Nice try. See above.
See what above?
What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?
I can't understand everything, certainly, but much of it is accessible to me. Much of it because I'm good at maths. And language.
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.
I think you are misreading it. They are using the data from the lake in Japan to demonstrate specific relationships. For 280,000 years. It's no more an extrapolation than "More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect." Physical properties are physical properties.
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.
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.
Most of that is a review of the ONE study on ocean acidification that keeps getting quoted. And those reviews are pretty damning to that study, IMHO.
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.