No worries. I would like to see what period of time they used to measure the acidity, what location they took samples from. The Ocean is such a moving body as an absolute number like 30% better come with more than a blanket statement. I would bet there is a local pollution or geo phenomenon affecting those oysters and/or acidity levels, if they are at all. So many people from the NW are alarmests and easily side with the rich environmentalist corporations ready to hate on anything capitalist. NOAA has the 30% numbers but agree they need good science to support making decisions on what is the real cause. We had more acidic waters 20million years ago according to NOAA. Is this a cycle? Will the earth adapt to humanity by evolving with us or destroying us? Before we blame mankind we need to see what changes we can make that China and India will agree with. They have surpassed the evil west and now they do not want to stop polluting, unless they bribe us to help them out. It may be worth paying for if we are indeed the souce of acidity. How do you measure effectiveness? We make all these changes and nothing happens, then what? http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions "As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere. The world has pumped out half a trillion tonnes of carbon since 1750, and temperatures have risen by 0.8C. At current rates, the next half-trillion tonnes will be emitted by 2045; the one after that before 2080. Since COâ‚‚ accumulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by around 2C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4C. Hardly reassuring."
Here is a good link to clear things up so big words and acronyms do not confuse. The use of may, perhaps, possibly, likely in research is expected but leaves open the avenue of doubt. They even state the ocean and nature itself is a culprit in their numbers. The timeline of changes does follow a logical pattern linked to expanded industry and populations. http://igbp.sv.internetborder.se/download/18.30566fc6142425d6c91140a/1385975160621/OA_spm2-FULL-lorez.pdf The UN's involvement is a bit of a detractor for me, they have a known bias towards the west and the wealthy. That being said, changes are happening and the solutions will lead to more nuclear power plants. We are already making cleaner cars, and living cleaner. Not perfect but getting better! Too bad the poorer nations do not want to make changes yet. They want global redistrinution of wealth to get them to conform. It is environmental blackmail.