"Ocean Acidification"

02/10/2022 16:50 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
Beside Global Warming, the second scare governments all around the world are trying to make us believe is that man-made CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, that will have a severe impact on all ocean life. A related issue is coral bleaching, a process that is supposed to threaten unique ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef.

The Main Stream Media play an important role in this whole process. A simple Google search "Ocean Acidification" opens a long list with well-known information sources to choose from, starting with Wikipedia, followed by the science-sections of most common newspapers and scientific publications. All articles seem to have one common message. Our CO2 emissions cause a dramatic surge of atmospheric CO2, witch is absorbed by the world's oceans, causing a deadly acidification that will kill most of the sea life.

This is a Science Wonderland. A world of Self-Proclaimed Experts. Everybody agrees, nobody's asking for scientific proof, they're not hindered by any scientific method, critical questions... the infamous consensus is absolute.

I've chosen one of the most popular publications, that sums up the same arguments as found in all other articles: "Ocean acidification, explained", as published on the National Geographic website, August 7th, 2019.

"I know that a lot of this stuff sounds really... Doomsday."

Joanie Kleypas - "Ocean Adicification Expert"
National Geographic Shortfilm How Carbon Dioxide Kills Ocean Life (01:58)

This is more or less the only truth in the whole article, and it's really strange this "Ocean Adicification Expert" classifies her field of expertise in such terms. She might well be whistle-blowing here... Something like "My bosses make me say all this, if I do not they'll fire me. Be careful."

The pH scale
The acidity of a chemical compound depends on it's H+ concentration. It's measured in pH units. As the H+ concentration in things and stuff vary a lot, the pH is a 10-base logarithmic scale. In every step the H+ concentration is 10 times bigger or smaller.
"Acid" sounds scary, "Neutral" and "Alkaline" do not. That's strange as the "Acid" side is what I call the "Gourmet side" of the scale, coffee, wine, milk, cheese.... In fact, our own stomach is among the most acidic things we know. Alkaline stuff looks much less attractive or eat or digest.

As we saw, the pH of ocean water is 8.1. It's an alkaline, not an acid. Its H+ concentration should be 10 times lower to reach the "Neutral" point at the scale. So, this supposed process should be called "Neutralization", not "Acidification".
But of course "Neutralization" doesn't sound alarming at all, in fact, it sounds positively protective. So, why they use "Acidification"?
It's pure propaganda! Anyone who uses "Acidification" does indicate his/her main goal is not to inform you. Their objective is to scare you, to make you change your habits, to make you pay.

CO2 absorption from the atmosphere
The Global Warming hypothesis tells us that our fossil fuel consumption has a nasty side effect. It's supposed to enhance the CO2 greenhouse effect that warms the atmosphere and the oceans.
Warm water can contain less CO2 than cold water, so the enhanced greenhouse effect causes the ocean's CO2-concentration to drop. But the "Ocean Acidification scare" tells us the complete opposite! When the atmospheric CO2-concentration rises, this magically increases the ocean's CO2-concentration as well, causing the supposed "acidification".
So, a higher CO2-concentration in the atmosphere both increases and decreases the ocean's CO2-concentration at the same time.

Now, let's have a closer look at this. The rise in CO2-concentration that is supposed to be caused by the humans (not true!) is from 300 to 400 parts per million. That means that for every 10 thousand molecules in the atmosphere, we add one additional CO2 molecule. And now they try to make us believe that that tiny difference causes a 5-kilometer deep ocean to "acidificate" and kill all plants and fish. They really seem to have lost all sense of proportion, our common sense makes it clear that this is impossible. But as all this is said by "Experts" nobody even cares.

Coral bleaching
It's true that the Great Barrier Reef has an age of 6 to 8 thousand years and formed when atmospheric CO2-concentrations were low. But the oldest remains of ancient reefs is named Chazy Reef, which is off the coast of the Isle La Motte in Lake Champlain, Vermont.

Approximately 480 million years ago, when Chazy Reef formed, the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere was about 5,000 ppm. So scare us out of our vehicles and warm houses because the current CO2-concentration of 400 ppm will kill the corals has nothing to do with science.
It's all just propaganda.

Peter Ridd
At Holoceneclimate.com we want to express our sympathy for Peter Ridd, the Marine Scientist who lost his job at the James Cook University in Australia after trying to tell us all the truth about the current condition of the Great Barrier Reef.

Tom van Leeuwen, February 10, 2022.


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

Video - Who are the real climate deniers?

The climate has shown many fluctuations during the Holocene. The difference between the highest and lowest average temperature of the past 10 thousand years is about 3 °C.

Climate alarmists, led by the IPCC, are trying to deny this, and understandably so. This variation means that without human influence there was climate change as well.

This undermines their hypotheses and often their jobs depend on it.

Climate change seen from a historical perspective.

Satellite Earth temperature February 2022

The satellite temperature departure measurement for February 2022 is exactly 0° C.

This means that Earth temperature during February 2022 was exactly the same as the average from 1991 to 2020.

Satellites are the best way to have insight into the short-term temperature variations. They measure the whole surface, independent of weather station distribution, Heat Islands, measurement failures, surface condition (land or water).

There is a step-wise increase in temperature, triggered by two very strong El Niño events (1998 and 2016.) The energy that welled up from the deep oceans established a new level in these two ocasions, where the warming paused. This is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with CO2, or human activity.

Where is the Climate Emergency? It just does not exist.

Wake up and spread this information to your government!

Tom van Leeuwen, March 1st, 2022.

The H2O greenhouse effect

The IPCC's CO2 hypothesis, with which Western governments try to incite their citizens to group-think, panic and unnecessary measures and taxes, rests in large part on the belief that there is a positive feedback effect between the greenhouse effects of CO2 and water vapor (H2O). A small increase in temperature, caused by the increase in CO2 concentration, would lead to an increase in water vapor concentration and thus increase the H2O greenhouse effect.

This is a misconception. First, positive feedback effects are extremely rare in nature. Furthermore, there is no sensible word to say about the effect that an increase in the H2O greenhouse effect has on the temperature.

Below are three reasons why it is impossible to model this effect.

Rob Jetten, Minister of Climate and Energy

Rob Jetten is the new, brand new Minister of Climate and Energy in the Dutch cabinet Rutte IV.

This is a new ministry, but unfortunately it is characterized by the same ideas as in previous cabinets. The idea that humans, by burning fossil fuels, are responsible for the recent warming of the Earth.


This article is partly based on the thorough research done by Freek van Leeuwen on the scientists Valentina Zharkova and Willie Soon and their work on sunspots.

As we have seen in recent weeks, new research indicates that there is no increased CO2 emissions. global warming, and that only 12% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to human action.

Good news, then, but then the question arises where the heating comes from, which many people feel and which can also be seen in the monthly charts of the satellite measurements.