Most research on the effects of ocean acidification are flawed according to a Nature article. But we still believe the evidence?From Nature, Crucial ocean-acidification models come up short
I followed Milloy’s tweet on this article. The reading was interesting because the authors of the study on research, Experimental design in ocean acidification research: problems and solutions, found serious experimental design flaws on research. Yet they believe that there is still a problem. Belief trumps science?
Cornwall says that the “overwhelming evidence” from such studies of the negative effects of ocean acidification still stands. For example, more-acidic waters slow the growth and worsen the health of many species that build structures such as shells from calcium carbonate. But the pair’s discovery that many of the experiments are problematic makes it difficult to assess accurately the magnitude of effects of ocean acidification, and to combine results from individual experiments to build overall predictions for how the ecosystem as a whole will behave, he says.
Shell fish grow in water with varying pH, yet we seem to look at decreasing the mythical sea pH is by 0.1 standard unit is supposed to be very damaging. A number of the studies tend to look at one variable, pH, and ignore others, like pollution. Are they saying that for all the ranting and raving about water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, that all we need to do is raid the pH?