http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/27/co2-in-the-air-co2-in-the-seawater/
It's a complicated process. If he wants to make a real contribution, he should not be publishing on Watts' blog. I do like that he got the data from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, but it's too bad he paid so little attention to detail that he got the name wrong.
<
Pointing out that Wondering Willis is a qualified masseur with NO (ZERO; ZILCH; NADA) experience in climate science is not an ad hom; it's a warning. Equally, pointing out that WUWT is a denial rag with a long and well-documented history of being wrong, extremely biased, vindictive and dishonest should in theory to any normal, unbiased person serve as a clear warning that such a place is (to put it mildly) not the best place for scientific info on climate change.
And if that weren't enough, despite 'Wondering Willis' substantial error, you continue to insists that we provide 'intelligent comments' on Willis' latest unscientific wanderings.
If you want advice on what the best massage technique is, by all means use a qualified masseur as a source. But if you want us to treat a qualified masseur with a long list of errors as if he is a climate researcher, be prepared to be responded with ridicule.
Why don't you go read some real climate science for a change?
As oceans continue to absorb ever-increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2, scientists are concerned that the chemistry of the ocean will change. A change in ocean chemistry could have negative consequences for marine organisms, marine food webs and entire ecosystems. Scientists are particularly concerned about the pH chemistry of ocean water. A change in pH can make substances more acidic or more basic(or alkaline). Many organisms, including ourselves, cannot tolerate changes in pH. For example, human blood has a narrow pH range of 7.35 - 7.45. If our blood pH were to change even slightly, our health could be negatively impacted. Marine organisms are no different.
I did have a quick look at that article but soon lost interest.
Willis seems to be assuming that both atmosphere and ocean CO2 content should be 400ppm. I could not see why that should apply to the ocean.
Willis took the difference between the air and sea surface CO2 data, which he mistakenly thought was parts per million by volume of CO2, and plotted it against sea surface temperature.
Willis' positives meant CO2 was going from the sea to the air (which is expected as water warms up) and his negatives going from air to sea, not the other way around - which was what Willis mistakenly thought
Plain and simple the answer is NO!
Read this article and the comments as well please
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/27/co2-in-the-air-co2-in-the-seawater/
