Two Theories

[bripat9643]

Picture that ol' visitor from Mars. He sees a relatively technologically advanced society: advanced solid state electronics, nuclear power, space travel, advanced medicine, etc. Earth culture has a pretty substantial reliance on the work of its scientists. Then he comes across a social phenomenon that they just don't have on back on Mars. Science on Earth has concluded that human GHG emissions are warming the planet and are beginning to have harmful consequences. However, a small group of people rejects what mainstream science has to say. Their arguments flip from one topic to another, their speeches are filled with charges massive incompetence and world spanning conspiracies charging that thousands of a specific group of scientists want to get rich off everyone else's misery and all have the moral lacking to take action on that desire. When the insanity of that charge is pointed out to them, they flip back to charges of mass incompetence. When the insanity of that charge is pointed out to them, they flip back to charges of mass conspiracy. And so forth.

Now you think the Martian is going to conclude YOU are the ones telling the truth around here?

The problem with your little story is that science hasn't concluded anything about the effect of man made GHGs on the planet. Only liberal turds like you have reached any conclusions.

There's nothing "insane" about the fact that some people want to live at the expense of others. Just about everything government does is motivated by that principle. every government employee sucking off the taxpayers is living at the expense of others. So-called AGW researchers are obviously making a living at the expense of the taxpayers. There's nothing shocking about the claim that they want to keep the mazuma flowing and even increase the flow.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank,

How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?

I don't know. I've been asking the AGWCult that question since you starting proposing the idea that AGW is "Acidifying the oceans'

How come you cane show us how that works either?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank,

How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?

A: potato

Yes that's the answer I get from the AGWCult

You need FAITH in the CO2 molecule to believe!

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm. I was never taught that CO2 blocks infrared radiation. I was taught that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. As does water vapor. And there is a whole lot more water vapor in the atmosphere than there is CO2, but our AGW alarmists don't seem to be at all concerned about that.

Just as huge lion's share of our atmosphere is nitrogen, also a so-called greenhouse gas, but that never seems to be a factor in the whole climate change equation does it. All the focus is on controlling CO2 via carbon credits and more and more regulation, restrictions, mandates, etc. while nitrogen is ignored.

You know, it is a curiosity why stuff isn't part of the debate. Does anybody ever wonder why it isn't?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course he doesn't see. He believes.

You're deliberately ignoring my post which debunked Frank's bullshit in detail, and instead are choosing to repeat the debunked bullshit. That's one heck of a brazen cowardly lie on your part.

At least Frank and jc had the decency to feel some shame and quietly slink away in disgrace. You don't even possess that modicum of decency. You're proudly displaying that classic sociopathic trait of being completely incapable of feeling shame or taking responsibility for you own bad behavior. Hence, like most sociopaths, you're a pathological liar.

Excuse me, Admiral. I've been at a closing the past few days and I'm back to ask again that you show us how much CO2 is needed to alter the pH of the oceans as you suggest

Are you at all embarrassed that you've can show that the same way you've never show us a lab experiment that shows "Warming" from a 120PPM increase in CO2?

 

[mamooth]

Hmmm. I was never taught that CO2 blocks infrared radiation. I was taught that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.

Lexical nitpicking is generally taken as a sign of desperation.

As does water vapor. And there is a whole lot more water vapor in the atmosphere than there is CO2, but our AGW alarmists don't seem to be at all concerned about that.

Given water vapor is examined closely, you seem to be shockingly ignorant of the science. Who misinformed you so badly?

Just as huge lion's share of our atmosphere is nitrogen, also a so-called greenhouse gas, but that never seems to be a factor in the whole climate change equation does it. All the focus is on controlling CO2 via carbon credits and more and more regulation, restrictions, mandates, etc. while nitrogen is ignored.

Because nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas.

I'm guessing you found a blog somewhere that said "Look! Nitrogen absorbs infrared! Global Warming is a hoax!". Yes, nitrogen has an absorption spike in the IR band, but it's in the shortwave IR band. Same with oxygen. Earth doesn't radiate infrared in the shortwave IR band, hence the absorption band of nitrogen doesn't come into play, hence it is not a greenhouse gas.

You know, it is a curiosity why stuff isn't part of the debate. Does anybody ever wonder why it isn't?

Because nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas.

Assuming that some blog has the RealTruth and that all the scientists in the world are stupid or corrupt is not a good idea. A smart starting point is to assume the best minds in the world here actually know what they're doing. That leads to less embarrassment.

 

[mamooth]

Excuse me, Admiral. I've been at a closing the past few days and I'm back to ask again that you show us how much CO2 is needed to alter the pH of the oceans as you suggest

Already done. I showed how less that 1/1000 of the absorbed CO2 could accomplish a bigger pH change than you talk about.

And rather than respond, you ran. Again. And you'll keep running, because your cowardice is one of your defining features, along with your rank dishonesty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Excuse me, Admiral. I've been at a closing the past few days and I'm back to ask again that you show us how much CO2 is needed to alter the pH of the oceans as you suggest

Already done. I showed how less that 1/1000 of the absorbed CO2 could accomplish a bigger pH change than you talk about.

And rather than respond, you ran. Again. And you'll keep running, because your cowardice is one of your defining features, along with your rank dishonesty.

I missed it, please repost

 

[mamooth]

Sure thing.

According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a a .19 pH drop, a larger drop than the one Frank is speaking of in the oceans.

CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.

1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.

That's a thousand times less than Franks 0.000219% figure. Frank claimed such a low percentage could never affect pH, yet here we see 1/1000 as much causing more of a pH drop.

Hence, Frank's theory of "tiny percentages can't possibly drop pH!" is decisively refuted.

I understand that the ocean isn't that simple, that there are buffering agents complicating things, and that it takes exponentially more CO2 to get pH dropping more. But the point of this exercise was not to calculate ocean pH exactly. The point was to show Frank's claim is contrary to how chemistry works, and that there's plenty enough CO2 to make significant pH changes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure thing.

According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a a .19 pH drop, a larger drop than the one Frank is speaking of in the oceans.

CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.

1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.

That's a thousand times less than Franks 0.000219% figure. Frank claimed such a low percentage could never affect pH, yet here we see 1/1000 as much causing more of a pH drop.

Hence, Frank's theory of "tiny percentages can't possibly drop pH!" is decisively refuted.

I understand that the ocean isn't that simple, that there are buffering agents complicating things, and that it takes exponentially more CO2 to get pH dropping more. But the point of this exercise was not to calculate ocean pH exactly. The point was to show Frank's claim is contrary to how chemistry works, and that there's plenty enough CO2 to make significant pH changes.

If that's accurate, I stand corrected

 

[jillian]

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature

Really? You can show us a lab experiment that goes from 280 to 400 PPM?

Really?

Truly?

Show us!

Already been done, Frank....no matter what science deniers say.

 

[polarbear]

Sure thing.

According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a a .19 pH drop, a larger drop than the one Frank is speaking of in the oceans.

CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.

1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.

That's a thousand times less than Franks 0.000219% figure. Frank claimed such a low percentage could never affect pH, yet here we see 1/1000 as much causing more of a pH drop.

Hence, Frank's theory of "tiny percentages can't possibly drop pH!" is decisively refuted.

I understand that the ocean isn't that simple, that there are buffering agents complicating things, and that it takes exponentially more CO2 to get pH dropping more. But the point of this exercise was not to calculate ocean pH exactly. The point was to show Frank's claim is contrary to how chemistry works, and that there's plenty enough CO2 to make significant pH changes.

If that's accurate, I stand corrected

It`s not accurate, it`s way off !

Frank claimed such a low percentage could never affect pH, yet here we see 1/1000 as much causing more of a pH drop.

Hence, Frank's theory of "tiny percentages can't possibly drop pH!" is decisively refuted.
The point was to show Frank's claim is contrary to how chemistry works,

I had a good laugh when I`ve seen that and so would any chemist, because in order to drop the pH the CO2 needs to converted into carbonic acid.
Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hydration equilibrium constant at 25°C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] ≈ 1.7×10−3 in pure water[3] and ≈ 1.2×10−3 in seawater.[4] Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules.

And before CO2 can form carbonic acid with water it first has to get dissolved in water.
"mamooth" said:

According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.
That's a a .19 pH drop, a larger drop than the one Frank is speaking of in the oceans.

So he used pH 7 as a baseline and picked the numbers of the wiki table for pH 6.81 without understanding what the table shows.
On the left side of the table are the numbers for the partial pressure of CO2 you need to get from pH 7 down to pH 6.81
For pH7 pCO2 = 10^(-8) atm and to get it down to pH 6.81 you need a pCO2 of 10^(-6) in other words 100 times more CO2 than what it is
if the oceans were already at pH 7
But they are not

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.3596.pdf

Caldeira and Wickett [7] project a maximum pH reduction in 2300 of 0.77 units for an
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide of 1900 ppmv.

Using Eq. (5) again, one obtains pH(2300) = 7.44. So again, the eighteen
years of Ocean Station Aloha or similar data
appear to have been linearly extrapolated out to 2300. This is even more questionable than a linear extrapolation to 2100.

Conclusion
A good deal of research and wide area monitoring is needed before the understanding of the effects of rising carbon dioxide concentration on ocean pH will allow projections
adequate to guide public policy decisions. Future research needs and strategies have been detailed in the June 2006 report of an 18-20 April 2005 workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
the U.S. Geological Survey [11].

So NOOA says a good deal of more research is needed before we can make ocean pH projections.
If "mamooth" whould give them a chemistry lesson, that would save a lot of money

....how chemistry works, and that there's plenty enough CO2 to make significant pH changes

 

[Crick]

PolarBear, do you deny the following statement:

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 [5], representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7]

5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96–9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop

 

[mamooth]

On the left side of the table are the numbers for the partial pressure of CO2 you need to get from pH 7 down to pH 6.81
For pH7 pCO2 = 10^(-8) atm and to get it down to pH 6.81 you need a pCO2 of 10^(-6) in other words 100 times more CO2 than what it is if the oceans were already at pH 7
But they are not

You don't understand what the table shows. It has nothing to do with seawater. The table simply shows how much CO2 dissolves in regular water at different partial pressures, and what pH will result from having that much CO2 dissolve. It has separate columns for CO2 and Carbonic Acid concentrations, and I correctly used the CO2 column, since the topic being discussed was the amount of CO2 being dissolved in the ocean. I compared apples to apples, while you're doing apples to oranges.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.3596.pdf
Caldeira and Wickett [7] project a maximum pH reduction in 2300 of 0.77 units for an
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide of 1900 ppmv.

So that source says a lot of CO2 would makes for a huge pH decrease. It's basically confirming the point that CO2 drops pH.

So NOOA says a good deal of more research is needed before we can make ocean pH projections.

Good thing then that I wasn't making a precise ocean pH prediction, something I specifically pointed out.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature

Really? You can show us a lab experiment that goes from 280 to 400 PPM?

Really?

Truly?

Show us!

Already been done, Frank....no matter what science deniers say.

Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PolarBear, do you deny the following statement:

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 [5], representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7]

5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96–9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop

It's an ESTIMATE From people who have been caught with their thumb on the scale multiple times

 

[Crick]

How would you go about obtaining a more accurate figure dude?


Or should I say, "A more ACCURATE figure"?

 

[Crick]

Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking

No Frank, you didn't miss it and EVERYONE here knows that to be a fact. Thus, everyone here knows you are LYING. Bravo. Well Done.

 

[polarbear]

PolarBear, do you deny the following statement:

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 [5], representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7]

5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96–9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop

It's an ESTIMATE From people who have been caught with their thumb on the scale multiple times

That`s right it`s an estimate and the people who estimated it are hell bent to "prove" that oceans "acidify at alarming" or "unprecedented" rates....and do it by claiming that they estimate that the "average ocean pH" which varies all over the place was 0.1 pH units higher.
The fact that there is no data supporting that claim does not matter because in that "science" all it takes is an estimate and a "consensus" amongst those who estimated it. After that some of the media and individuals with no background in chemistry whatsoever do the rest.
Take "mamooth" for example.

You don't understand what the table shows. It has nothing to do with seawater. The table simply shows how much CO2 dissolves in regular water at different partial pressures, and what pH will result from having that much CO2 dissolve. It has separate columns for CO2 and Carbonic Acid concentrations, and I correctly used the CO2 column, since the topic being discussed was the amount of CO2 being dissolved in the ocean. I compared apples to apples, while you're doing apples to oranges.

Now he is twisting it as if I was the one who picked these numbers from wiki....which are indeed for water without any CaCO3 buffer in it.
Now he admits it has nothing to do with sea water and talks as if it wasn`t him who copied and pasted the numbers from that wiki-page.
All I did was showing how way off the mark his claim was.

mamooth The table simply shows how much CO2 dissolves in regular water at different partial pressures, and what pH will result from having that much CO2 dissolve.

So "mamooth" show me were in your post you addressed the partial pressure for CO2.

mamooth post #349
According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's a a .19 pH drop, a larger drop than the one Frank is speaking of in the oceans.CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.That's a thousand times less than Franks 0.000219% figure. Frank claimed such a low percentage could never affect pH, yet here we see 1/1000 as much causing more of a pH drop.
Hence, Frank's theory of "tiny percentages can't possibly drop pH!" is decisively refuted.

After you posted these ridiculous numbers I posted what it would take for pCO2 for the equally ridiculous pH range you copied from wikipedia:

polarbear post 352
So he used pH 7 as a baseline and picked the numbers of the wiki table for pH 6.81 without understanding what the table shows.
On the left side of the table are the numbers for the partial pressure of CO2 you need to get from pH 7 down to pH 6.81
For pH7 pCO2 = 10^(-8) atm and to get it down to pH 6.81 you need a pCO2 of 10^(-6) in other words 100 times more CO2 than what it is
if the oceans were already at pH 7

And now you pretend that I picked that table and that you did it correctly for ppm CO2.
But that`s par for the course. Everyone of you instant wiki-science "graduates" does the same thing when you get caught bullshitting.
If you had any idea whatsoever how to do the math then why did you not do it for the pH range of 8.25 to 8.14 ?
If I wanted to I could and I would not be confined to the numbers of that wiki-page which don`t go above pH7.
You however are confined to the numbers wiki listed there because you haven`t got the slightest clue how to do that calculation.
and boast to Frank that you know more about chemistry than he does...and are you saying now you know more about it than I do as well?
Weren`t you the one who was talking about "ink molecules" last year when the same subject was discussed.
I`m still waiting for you to show me what the molecular structure of an "ink molecule" looks like.
We have been round the same bend just a little while ago with that instant wiki-science expert"Abraham3" before he changed his name to "Crick".
He can`t even use a log function correctly and you can`t do a simple calculation with exponents either:

mamooth post # 349
According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.
CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.
1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.

44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6
and if you have 0.00000014784 grams per liter that would be 0.00014784 ppm. A ppm is one part per million and a percent is one part in 100.
So before you start lecturing us about pH and chemistry you should first learn how to use exponents and how to convert ppm correctly to percent.
And after you did then come back here and tell us what the pH would be if you got a solution of 1.5 ^(-7) grams of CO2 gas in water.
1.7/1000 th of that is Carbonic acid and the pKa for Carbonic acid is on the same wiki page you were quoting.
Since you were the one who used tables for plane water keep using plain water.
You have no idea anyway what you were quoting from there when you did your milkmaid math and could not even do that right.
If you knew how the pH is calculated then you should have realized at the first glance at that table that the numbers you used to perform your screwy math has nothing to do with dissociated CO2 as an acid.
The number you copied from the table [CO2](mol/L) was 3.36E-8 moles/liter
Since you have zero knowledge about chemistry you don`t know the difference between [CO2] and [CO3]2- and took that number as dissociated [CO3]2- which is the anion of carbonic acid.
The correct numbers for the pH you picked (pH 6.81) would have been in then columns labelled [HCO3−](mol/L) and [CO32−](mol/L)
In conclusion it`s abundantly clear that the table you wagged in front of Frank`s face has dick all to do with "ocean" water "acidification, current ppm atmospheric CO2 and the pH range in question.
And it`s also clear that you have no idea whatsoever what the number you picked expressed....which is CO2 dissolved in H2O and is in no way an "acid",...until it is Carbonic acid which only yields :
HCO3−

CO32− + H+Ka2 = 4.69×10^(−11)mol/litre which is the ratio of [H+] times [CO3 2−] to non dissociated, meaning pH inactive carbonic acid.The [H+] concentration in moles per liter would be the square root of that and the pH would be the negative log value taken from that.
After that do the math how much more CO2 you need in the atmosphere to drop the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 considering the partial pressure increase it takes just to increase how much CO2 is dissolved in water and that it takes 1000 times more dissolved CO2 before you get 1 single molecule of carbonic acid which in turn is one of the weakest acids with a pKa of only 4.7 E-7
I won`t do it for you but rather sit back and wait for you and "Crick" to do it so that I can have a good laugh.
It would be a fulltime job to debunk all the bullshit you freaks are posting and I do have better things to do with my time.

 

[Crick]

That`s right it`s an estimate and the people who estimated it are hell bent to "prove" that oceans "acidify at alarming" or "unprecedented" rates....and do it by claiming that they estimate that the "average ocean pH" which varies all over the place was 0.1 pH units higher.
The fact that there is no data supporting that claim does not matter because in that "science" all it takes is an estimate and a "consensus" amongst those who estimated it. After that some of the media and individuals with no background in chemistry whatsoever do the rest.

That's complete bullshit and I would have expected you to know better. You know as well as do I that there exists butt-ton-loads of evidence to support all these ocean acidification commentaries. And you know as well as do we all that these peer-reviewed, PhD chemistry and oceanography authors know this shit far better than do you. Here is the full reference set from Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid. Feel free to identify all the folks with no background in chemistry - the "ridiculous" ones.

1) Acid-Base Physiology 2.1 - Acid-Base Balance by Kerry Brandis
2) Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310. ISBN 0080379419.
3) Housecroft and Sharpe, Inorganic Chemistry, 2nd ed, Prentice-Pearson-Hall 2005, p.368.
4) Soli, A.L.; R.H. Byrne (2002). "CO2 system hydration and dehydration kinetics and the equilibrium CO2/H2CO3 ratio in aqueous NaCl solution". Marine chemistry 78 (2–3): 65–73. doi:10.1016/S0304-4203(02)00010-5.
5) "excretion." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010.
6) Sabine, C.L.; et al. (2004). " "The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2". Science 305 (5682): 367–371. doi:10.1126/science.1097403. PMID 15256665.[dead link]
7) "Ocean Acidification Network".
8) National Research Council. "Summary." Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. 1. Print.
9) Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310. ISBN 0080379419.
10) Loerting, T.; Tautermann, C.; Kroemer, R.T.; Kohl, I.; Hallbrucker, E.; Mayer, A.; Liedl, K. R. (2001). "On the Surprising Kinetic Stability of Carbonic Acid". Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 39 (5): 891–895. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(20000303)39:5<891::AID-ANIE891>3.0.CO;2-E. PMID 10760883.