[Bored chemist]

Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part.  You would throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world.  and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid.  you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language.  Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!

I'm not saying that I'm superior; I'm just pointing out that your ideas are wrong.
There isn't a baby- just a lot of dirty water.
Wavefunctions apply to many thing and, as I said, they collapse when someone finds out what reality is.
Science didn't try to dismiss it - you may not have realised, but it was science which noticed wavefunctions in the first place.
"The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. "
really?
Name a few?

"you fail to see that people can have win win."
Nonsense, but posting stuff that's just plain wrong doesn't let anyone win. You don't get to learn better and other  people mightmistake the nonsense for truth. That's lose lose rather than win win.

"I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar"
Nice diagnosis; are you qualified to make it? The reason I ask is that it's plain wrong. I have a cousin with bipolar disorder and believe me, you can tell us apart. (Incidentally, you should use a spell checker).
You are also (as seems to happen a lot) flat out wrong- you didn't mention it.
..."and see things in black and white"
Only if they are.
For example the idea that adding CO2 to the ocean will make it have less CO2 in it is a black and white issue. It's plain wrong.

"Chemists are not being subtle about language."
That's a remarkable slur on many people.
So to follow it with "Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!" is remarkably ironic.

Any chance that you will stop wasting time on my use of language while making daft assertions and actually answer the fundamental point.
You have made some remarkable, but baseless, claims.
Prove them.
Show some evidence
Show your working
Show something, but don't expect us to just believe that you are right and science has been wrong since Le Chatelier's day

[Chondrally (OP)]

Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part.  You would throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world.  and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid.  you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language.  Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!

I'm not saying that I'm superior; I'm just pointing out that your ideas are wrong.
There isn't a baby- just a lot of dirty water.
Wavefunctions apply to many thing and, as I said, they collapse when someone finds out what reality is.
Science didn't try to dismiss it - you may not have realised, but it was science which noticed wavefunctions in the first place.
"The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. "
really?
Name a few?

"you fail to see that people can have win win."
Nonsense, but posting stuff that's just plain wrong doesn't let anyone win. You don't get to learn better and other  people mightmistake the nonsense for truth. That's lose lose rather than win win.

"I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar"
Nice diagnosis; are you qualified to make it? The reason I ask is that it's plain wrong. I have a cousin with bipolar disorder and believe me, you can tell us apart. (Incidentally, you should use a spell checker).
You are also (as seems to happen a lot) flat out wrong- you didn't mention it.
..."and see things in black and white"
Only if they are.
For example the idea that adding CO2 to the ocean will make it have less CO2 in it is a black and white issue. It's plain wrong.

"Chemists are not being subtle about language."
That's a remarkable slur on many people.
So to follow it with "Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!" is remarkably ironic.

Any chance that you will stop wasting time on my use of language while making daft assertions and actually answer the fundamental point.
You have made some remarkable, but baseless, claims.
Prove them.
Show some evidence
Show your working
Show something, but don't expect us to just believe that you are right and science has been wrong since Le Chatelier's day

I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal.  Thats not science
you wanted to bet money.  thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is ,  deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface.  They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all.  show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis,  if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community,  people have seen it and analyzed it,.  the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help!  I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side!  probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!

[Tim the Plumber]

Hi Tim,
I just wonder what you made of his post that you and I are the same person?

...  bet you and tim plumber are the same person.

To be frank I missed it. I kind of stopped reading the junk after the first few lines.

You are far more dilligent than me. I will decied that something is drivel quickly just because of the way it is presented.

You should try poker at the pub. Both very interesting and educational. Makes you good at spotting either fools (good for winning by) or bad liars. And very good at understanding that when somebody is bullying or evading they know they are out of anything better.

[Tim the Plumber]

Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part.  You would throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world.  and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid.  you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language.  Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!

I'm not saying that I'm superior; I'm just pointing out that your ideas are wrong.
There isn't a baby- just a lot of dirty water.
Wavefunctions apply to many thing and, as I said, they collapse when someone finds out what reality is.
Science didn't try to dismiss it - you may not have realised, but it was science which noticed wavefunctions in the first place.
"The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. "
really?
Name a few?

"you fail to see that people can have win win."
Nonsense, but posting stuff that's just plain wrong doesn't let anyone win. You don't get to learn better and other  people mightmistake the nonsense for truth. That's lose lose rather than win win.

"I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar"
Nice diagnosis; are you qualified to make it? The reason I ask is that it's plain wrong. I have a cousin with bipolar disorder and believe me, you can tell us apart. (Incidentally, you should use a spell checker).
You are also (as seems to happen a lot) flat out wrong- you didn't mention it.
..."and see things in black and white"
Only if they are.
For example the idea that adding CO2 to the ocean will make it have less CO2 in it is a black and white issue. It's plain wrong.

"Chemists are not being subtle about language."
That's a remarkable slur on many people.
So to follow it with "Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!" is remarkably ironic.

Any chance that you will stop wasting time on my use of language while making daft assertions and actually answer the fundamental point.
You have made some remarkable, but baseless, claims.
Prove them.
Show some evidence
Show your working
Show something, but don't expect us to just believe that you are right and science has been wrong since Le Chatelier's day

I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal.  Thats not science
you wanted to bet money.  thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is ,  deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface.  They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all.  show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis,  if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community,  people have seen it and analyzed it,.  the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help!  I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side!  probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!

Wow!!

For clarity;

The plumber is the one who is happy to tell you to your face that you are a nut job who should not talk about science because you don't know anything at all and will also arrange a bet with you to take what money you have if any at all.

The Chemist is the nice middle class bloke who will point out that you are talking gibberish in a less inpolite manner without the attempt to take money from a fool. And he can spell better than me as well.

P.S. Sook harder.

[Bored chemist]

I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal.  Thats not science
you wanted to bet money.  thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is ,  deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface.  They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all.  show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis,  if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community,  people have seen it and analyzed it,.  the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help!  I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side!  probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!

OK, since Le Chatelier's principle says that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have the direct effect of pushing more CO2 into solution you are, in fact, saying Le Chatelier is wrong.

My attacks are essentially on what you say- it's just wrong. That's not personal, it's just that you are taking it personally.
well scientists are not meant to get personally attached to their conjectures.
If you get upset when I point out that your idea is wrong, then it's you who is being unscientific.
I didn't offer to bet- I'm the one who told you to ignore the bets.
It's another example of your ideas being wrong.

"you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority."
Given that I think your ideas a re total nonsense, why would I steal them?
If I did try to nick them it would be because I thought that your ideas, and you, were superior.

"Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. "
I haven't said anything of the sort .
If you think I have, quote me saying it.
"show me your calculation."
I don't have one- but if you insist, it's this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

"And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile"
Sceptical people are the best audience to show your work to. They help you refine it by pointing out the flaws.
However if you refuse to say what you have actually done then there's nothing to debate and that pretty much closes the thread.

" and obviously have a vendetta against me personally!"
That's absurd- I don't have a clue who you are. I just pointed out the problems with your claim.
You taking it personally, while a very human trait, isn't scientific.
" you sound vicious!"
That's getting fairly close to another personal insult.
"I believe you need professional help!  "
That's even closer in most contexts, but following it with "I have sook professional help myself!" probably counts as an extenuating  circumstance.
"Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control."
That's nice. So what?

"I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side!  "
I thought you didn't like betting. Anyway, as I said I'm a chemist working in s/w testing and programming.
" probably working for an oil company!"
Not even close- I did do a piece of work as part of a contract with an oil company about 5 years ago- but I was analysing nonanitro meta terphenyl. I don't see how it's relevant.

"You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!"

Why?
I mean, I'm sure they are nice people- but surely  they have better things to do.
"Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!"
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, you forgot  to put enough verbs in that.

[Chondrally (OP)]

I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal.  Thats not science
you wanted to bet money.  thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is ,  deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface.  They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all.  show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis,  if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community,  people have seen it and analyzed it,.  the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help!  I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side!  probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!

OK, since Le Chatelier's principle says that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have the direct effect of pushing more CO2 into solution you are, in fact, saying Le Chatelier is wrong.

My attacks are essentially on what you say- it's just wrong. That's not personal, it's just that you are taking it personally.
well scientists are not meant to get personally attached to their conjectures.
If you get upset when I point out that your idea is wrong, then it's you who is being unscientific.
I didn't offer to bet- I'm the one who told you to ignore the bets.
It's another example of your ideas being wrong.

"you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority."
Given that I think your ideas a re total nonsense, why would I steal them?
If I did try to nick them it would be because I thought that your ideas, and you, were superior.

"Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. "
I haven't said anything of the sort .
If you think I have, quote me saying it.
"show me your calculation."
I don't have one- but if you insist, it's this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

"And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile"
Sceptical people are the best audience to show your work to. They help you refine it by pointing out the flaws.
However if you refuse to say what you have actually done then there's nothing to debate and that pretty much closes the thread.

" and obviously have a vendetta against me personally!"
That's absurd- I don't have a clue who you are. I just pointed out the problems with your claim.
You taking it personally, while a very human trait, isn't scientific.
" you sound vicious!"
That's getting fairly close to another personal insult.
"I believe you need professional help!  "
That's even closer in most contexts, but following it with "I have sook professional help myself!" probably counts as an extenuating  circumstance.
"Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control."
That's nice. So what?

"I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side!  "
I thought you didn't like betting. Anyway, as I said I'm a chemist working in s/w testing and programming.
" probably working for an oil company!"
Not even close- I did do a piece of work as part of a contract with an oil company about 5 years ago- but I was analysing nonanitro meta terphenyl. I don't see how it's relevant.

"You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!"

Why?
I mean, I'm sure they are nice people- but surely  they have better things to do.
"Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!"
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, you forgot  to put enough verbs in that.

I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal.  Thats not science
you wanted to bet money.  thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is ,  deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface.  They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all.  show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis,  if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community,  people have seen it and analyzed it,.  the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help!  I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side!  probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!

OK, since Le Chatelier's principle says that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have the direct effect of pushing more CO2 into solution you are, in fact, saying Le Chatelier is wrong.

My attacks are essentially on what you say- it's just wrong. That's not personal, it's just that you are taking it personally.
well scientists are not meant to get personally attached to their conjectures.
If you get upset when I point out that your idea is wrong, then it's you who is being unscientific.
I didn't offer to bet- I'm the one who told you to ignore the bets.
It's another example of your ideas being wrong.

"you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority."
Given that I think your ideas a re total nonsense, why would I steal them?
If I did try to nick them it would be because I thought that your ideas, and you, were superior.

"Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. "
I haven't said anything of the sort .
If you think I have, quote me saying it.
"show me your calculation."
I don't have one- but if you insist, it's this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

"And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile"
Sceptical people are the best audience to show your work to. They help you refine it by pointing out the flaws.
However if you refuse to say what you have actually done then there's nothing to debate and that pretty much closes the thread.

" and obviously have a vendetta against me personally!"
That's absurd- I don't have a clue who you are. I just pointed out the problems with your claim.
You taking it personally, while a very human trait, isn't scientific.
" you sound vicious!"
That's getting fairly close to another personal insult.
"I believe you need professional help!  "
That's even closer in most contexts, but following it with "I have sook professional help myself!" probably counts as an extenuating  circumstance.
"Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control."
That's nice. So what?

"I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side!  "
I thought you didn't like betting. Anyway, as I said I'm a chemist working in s/w testing and programming.
" probably working for an oil company!"
Not even close- I did do a piece of work as part of a contract with an oil company about 5 years ago- but I was analysing nonanitro meta terphenyl. I don't see how it's relevant.

"You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!"

Why?
I mean, I'm sure they are nice people- but surely  they have better things to do.
"Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!"
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, you forgot  to put enough verbs in that.

if the pH drops in the ocean the co2 concentration will rise and the surface will have to find a new equilibrium and in the process it will off gas it is so obvious you weren't helpful and don't know what you are talking about
at last i can trust you but not tim the plumber

[Chondrally (OP)]

Gibberish isn't so bad,  Josiah Willard Gibbs and rich at the same time?  Who could argue with that?
Josiah was the first to explain Gibbs Free Energy and Entropy and started the whole World War I along with Maxwell!
if you respond to chondrally@gmail.com i can send you my spreadsheet so you can critique it.
You are correct, a skeptical audience with a good conscience is best to refine it and improve it.
You may need to refer to Intro to Visual BASIC and Doug Wallaces and Ernie Lewis' Brookhaven code and software,
and you would also need to refer to CO2 in Seawater: Kinetics,Isotopes and Equilibrium
many thanks for the interest and surviving my own paranoia.  i've never had the pleasure of such contact before.
Thankyiou for staying with the thread.... i had to make sure it wasn't an enemy of Science and Humanity
I hope your cousin will feel better.

[Bored chemist]

if the pH drops in the ocean the co2 concentration will rise and the surface will have to find a new equilibrium and in the process it will off gas it is so obvious you weren't helpful and don't know what you are talking about
at last i can trust you but not tim the plumber

Why would the pH drop?

[Chondrally (OP)]

if the pH drops in the ocean the co2 concentration will rise and the surface will have to find a new equilibrium and in the process it will off gas it is so obvious you weren't helpful and don't know what you are talking about
at last i can trust you but not tim the plumber

Why would the pH drop?

First the pH will rise when the magnesium buffer saturates and then it will drop due to the calcium carbonate buffer.
Ca reacts with CO2(2-) , taking it out of solution, causing the HCO2(-) to dissociate and become CO2 (2-) and H+ and causing the H2CO2 to become HCO2 (-) and H+ increasing the H+ concentration and raising the CO2 concentration eventually as well and lowering the pH.  Its the complicated nonlinear interaction between all the positive and negative ion species in the water.  You would have to calculate the concentrations from the equations
to know for sure what the end state is, and i have done this in my Excel Spreadsheet which you are welcome to examine.  It is a bit like the moon's orbit with all the forces of gravity acting on from the sun, mercury, venus, Earth, Mars , Jupiter, Saturn Uranus Neptune and pluto plus all the satellites and asteroids plus the gravity of the milky way all of this acting on the moon instantaneously and its all nonlinear also the centripetal force mv^2/r.
and solar wind, and magnetic flux from the earth if the moon contains any magnetic compounds. I'm just saying to really understand why the pH would drop and you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean, you need to understand all the buffers at play and model them with their nonlinear kinetics equations until equilibrium is found, remember it is always dynamic and equilibriums are transient... they don't always stay put. The whole system reacts and interacts constantly but the key to solving it is CO2 concentration along with the buffers and carbonic acid HCO2(-) and H2CO2 and NaHCO2 and MgCO2 and CaCO2 and Mg(HCO2)2 and Ca(HCO2)(2) all these forms of calcite and aragonite and magnesite must be included and all their equations are nonlinear and interacting with pH. Nonlinear Fluid Flow and Fluid Dynamics is probably one of the toughest things to predict but now they have a chance with the Density Functional Stock Forecasting and its application to Air Turbulence in jet airplanes! And i am using Henry's Law in my modeling!
http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/9086/
Fitting the Task to the Man, Grandjean
A holistic approach is better,  Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, The Systems View of Life!

[Bored chemist]

OK, I have spotted the first mistakes
Firstly you think that removing calcium carbonate from solution reduces the calcium carbonate concentration.
It does not because the solution was, and remains, saturated.
Secondly you think that removing carbon from the solution by precipitation of a carbonate will lead to carbon dioxide offgassing.
It won't- simply because there's less CO2 there.
Fundamentally, you are muddling cause and effect.
The only reason that more calcium carbonate would precipitate would be if something were making the ocean more alkaline.
But we are not; we are adding acid- specifically CO2.

So, once again (and if you can answer the question rather than prattling about non linear systems that will help)

Why would the pH drop?

[Chondrally (OP)]

OK, I have spotted the first mistakes
Firstly you think that removing calcium carbonate from solution reduces the calcium carbonate concentration.
It does not because the solution was, and remains, saturated.
Secondly you think that removing carbon from the solution by precipitation of a carbonate will lead to carbon dioxide offgassing.
It won't- simply because there's less CO2 there.
Fundamentally, you are muddling cause and effect.
The only reason that more calcium carbonate would precipitate would be if something were making the ocean more alkaline.
But we are not; we are adding acid- specifically CO2.

So, once again (and if you can answer the question rather than prattling about non linear systems that will help)

Why would the pH drop?

I have told you already,  The HCO2 dissociates to form H+ and CO2(2-)  so the final concentration of CO2(2-) is not less at the end state.  It is more.
Also Calcium carbonate buffer is not saturated , the magnaesium buffer is, there is a difference.
i should point out that adding Co2 gas to water is more alkaline,  but when it combines with H+ to form both HCO2(-) and H2CO2 (carbonic acid) it is taking H+ out of solution and raising the pH
What keeps the pH stable is the calcium and magnesium carbonate buffers,  that take CO2 out of solution by binding with them.
I am not muddling cause and effect.  Its just that i have memories and am not German!
The buffer goes both ways dynamically. If there is more CO2, the magnesium and calcium in solution bind with it and form sea snow (precipitate) which falls
to a deeper depth and redissolves under pressure,  where it makes CO2 concentrations higher and then forms HCO2(-) and H2CO2 binding with H+ and raising pH.
At the shallower waters,  where the CO2 concentration suddently decreases due to precipitate (sea snow) HCO2(-) dissociates into CO2 and H+ and H2CO2 dissociates into
H+ and HCO2(-) increasing H+ and lowering pH and rebalancing the CO2 concentration.  It is a nonlinear system. and it can go both ways. It always tends toward equilibrium by Le Chateliers law.
If one concentration changes, all the other concentrations change.
but the equations tell me that when pH lowers the final concentration of CO2 will be higher.
 To truly understand it you have to solve the kinetic equations... read CO2 in Seawater by Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow .
https://www.elsevier.com/books/co2-in-seawater-equilibrium-kinetics-isotopes/zeebe/978-0-444-50946-8
I hope bored chemist goes out to the Pub with his friends and ridicules them and gets ridiculed back, all in fun!
I think the German has no memories of a good time with his mates!
Thanks for the banter Bored Chemist!
All the kids know I always tell a lie! Sometimes its funny!
I'll never forget the John Cleese skit on Fawlty Towers,  where the Germans come to stay at the hotel!
Or the one where the Psychiatrist comes to stay!

[Bored chemist]

No.
You have not told me what event you believe is causing the change in pH.

Why would the pH drop?

[Chondrally (OP)]

It's a chicken and egg problem. Assume enough carbonic acid has already formed and both buffers are not saturated then the pH would not driop because the buffer is active.
When the magnesium carbonate buffer is saturated co2 disappears out of solution and forms sea snow rereleasing at greater depth.  In the shallow water. The carbonic acid buffer reacts and hco2(-)andh2co2 both dissociate to form extra h+ which lowers the pH and will raise the co2 concentration  you really have to do the math to know what for a fixed co2 level the final ph is! I can't help you anymore if you are too lazy to do the math. The pH would rise in deep water and drop in shallow water! You haven't described yourself how you think the buffer operates. I'd like to hear your description when it is not saturated, when the magnesium buffer is saturated but the calcium buffer is not saturated, and when both of them are saturated? And diffusion of all these species occurs simultaneously plus the Coriolus force and centripetal forces and pressure and temperature At depth! and in the case of ferrous sulphate some magnetic forces as well! The living fish absorb o2 and give off co2 and have magnetic fields due to their blood the hemoglobin and th fish poop is magnesite and aragonite and calcite and fish behaviour matters it brings magnesium and calcium to shallow waters! The phytoplankton and algae absorb CO2 and give off oxygen in the shallow water! Jacques and Jean- Michel Cousteau!

[Bored chemist]

Well, I went to the pub, and I came back
And you still have not yet answered a simple question.
Here's a hint.
Do you think that the changes we have recorded in the concentration of CO2 in the air will make a difference to things like the pH, and carbonate concentration of the oceans?

[Chondrally (OP)]

Well, I went to the pub, and I came back
And you still have not yet answered a simple question.
Here's a hint.
Do you think that the changes we have recorded in the concentration of CO2 in the air will make a difference to things like the pH, and carbonate concentration of the oceans?

Yes, but not as much as you think.  For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean, so far, but that can change in the future.
You still haven't been doing any thinking! you've been trying to make me do it all.  The ball is now in your court.  what do you think is happening and how would you describe the buffer!
you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean.  please tell me where and by how much?
I forecasted the CO2 in the atmosphere,  used Henry's law and equilibrium and diffusion to calculate ocean concentrations of CO2 and computed the equilibrium in the water and pH in the top 1000 feet of the water.  I did not model Sea Snow admittedly, but i know about it.  Can you predict how deep sea snow will fall before it redissolves?  What are the equations for this?  Do you know? In fact in microenvironments like coral reefs, the sea snow doesn't redissolve because it doesn't get to go deep enough!  It forms coral instead!

[Bored chemist]

Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean.  please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.

[Chondrally (OP)]

Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean.  please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.

You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
You are supposed to be a chemist or scientist not agreeing with populist
Jargon and epithets! A Semiotician would applaud you for appealing to a mass audience that didn't know the difference!its a good tease if we care about education!
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
And why do you call co2 acid?
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous.  This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not? Where do the two electrons come from? And what happens to pH when co2 (2-) reacts with pure h2o? Please carry out this experiment in a lab with distilled water and tell me what the resultant pH is? Please add co2 to mineral water and tell me what the resultant pH is?  I predict the pH will be raised in the distilled water and lowered in the mineral water! I predict the electrons in the ocean come from lightning! To properly do the experiment in the lab with distilled water you might need to add a source of current to it! What happens when you add co2 to distilled water with and without a source of electrons? By the way distilled water doesn't conduct electricity very well!
It's only when co2 diffuses into mineral water that carbonic acid makes it more acidic!
A couple of decades ago a baby cow was born and they measured the amount of calcium and magnesium in it at birth. They measured all the calcium and magnesium content of its food and how much it ate and all the calcium and magnesium content of all the milk it ever produced and the content when it passed. They reckoned there was evidence that it produced more than it consumed! This is an apocryphal story told to me by 94 year old man!
By the way it DOES MATTER if they feel hurt by science!
You might need selenium, vitamin b12 , vitamin E and vitamin C

[Bored chemist]

Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean.  please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.

You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
I just have a more complete picture of it than you
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous.  This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not?

No.
Of course I do not agree with it.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water and some of it reacts to form H2CO3 which is an acid.
CO₂ + H₂O --> HCO₃-  + H⁺
The fact that it gives H⁺ as a product means two things
One, it's an acid and two
you don't know what you are talking about and should apologise.
It's an oversimplification of mine, perhaps, to say we are putting acid into the air. We are putting an acid anhydride into the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_anhydride

[Tim the Plumber]

Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean.  please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.

You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
You are supposed to be a chemist or scientist not agreeing with populist
Jargon and epithets! A Semiotician would applaud you for appealing to a mass audience that didn't know the difference!its a good tease if we care about education!
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
And why do you call co2 acid?
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous.  This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not? Where do the two electrons come from? And what happens to pH when co2 (2-) reacts with pure h2o? Please carry out this experiment in a lab with distilled water and tell me what the resultant pH is? Please add co2 to mineral water and tell me what the resultant pH is?  I predict the pH will be raised in the distilled water and lowered in the mineral water! I predict the electrons in the ocean come from lightning! To properly do the experiment in the lab with distilled water you might need to add a source of current to it! What happens when you add co2 to distilled water with and without a source of electrons? By the way distilled water doesn't conduct electricity very well!
It's only when co2 diffuses into mineral water that carbonic acid makes it more acidic!
A couple of decades ago a baby cow was born and they measured the amount of calcium and magnesium in it at birth. They measured all the calcium and magnesium content of its food and how much it ate and all the calcium and magnesium content of all the milk it ever produced and the content when it passed. They reckoned there was evidence that it produced more than it consumed! This is an apocryphal story told to me by 94 year old man!
By the way it DOES MATTER if they feel hurt by science!
You might need selenium, vitamin b12 , vitamin E and vitamin C

The thing is with this one that;

1, The Chemist is not stupid.

2, You have less idea about Chemistry than me. And I did not take it after the age of 13 and could not do it then. CO2 is not Co2 or co2.

3, You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Chondrally (OP)]

Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean.  please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.

You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
You are supposed to be a chemist or scientist not agreeing with populist
Jargon and epithets! A Semiotician would applaud you for appealing to a mass audience that didn't know the difference!its a good tease if we care about education!
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
And why do you call co2 acid?
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous.  This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not? Where do the two electrons come from? And what happens to pH when co2 (2-) reacts with pure h2o? Please carry out this experiment in a lab with distilled water and tell me what the resultant pH is? Please add co2 to mineral water and tell me what the resultant pH is?  I predict the pH will be raised in the distilled water and lowered in the mineral water! I predict the electrons in the ocean come from lightning! To properly do the experiment in the lab with distilled water you might need to add a source of current to it! What happens when you add co2 to distilled water with and without a source of electrons? By the way distilled water doesn't conduct electricity very well!
It's only when co2 diffuses into mineral water that carbonic acid makes it more acidic!
A couple of decades ago a baby cow was born and they measured the amount of calcium and magnesium in it at birth. They measured all the calcium and magnesium content of its food and how much it ate and all the calcium and magnesium content of all the milk it ever produced and the content when it passed. They reckoned there was evidence that it produced more than it consumed! This is an apocryphal story told to me by 94 year old man!
By the way it DOES MATTER if they feel hurt by science!
You might need selenium, vitamin b12 , vitamin E and vitamin C

The thing is with this one that;

1, The Chemist is not stupid.

2, You have less idea about Chemistry than me. And I did not take it after the age of 13 and could not do it then. CO2 is not Co2 or co2.

3, You have no idea what you are talking about.

You failed to look at the quantitative spreadsheet.  You will see that wherever i used CO2(2-) in the above it was really CO3(2-)
I apologize.  I had an error of memory.  Human memory is not infallible.  and that goes for tim and bored chemist too.
You are both insulting in your language and never examined the original work that was done starting in 2007!
Alas this is the internet and it is the domain of instant gratifiacation and instant put downs, rather than serious work! Very Childish! Does anybody take the internet seriously anyway!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate
Now we can rectify the problem.
The ocean will get more acidic due to the acid anydride,  you have convinced me.  I don't necessarily believe everything everybody says and obviously that goes true for Tim and BC.
H2CO2 and HCO2 and CO2(2-) do not exist,  but HCO3 (-) and H2CO3 and CO3(2-) do exist and are valid.
and still my calculation is valid.  just look at the spreadsheet for gods sake, i did it years ago and i did not train as a chemist.  however it includes henrys law, Revelle and diffusion and the atmosphere and the ocean down to 1000 feet.
you won't appreciate it just by arguing on the internet.  at the end of the day you have to do some math!
 i respect BC  CO2 and co2 and Co2 can all be understood to be CO2 and the case is irrelevant.  if you understood math the symbols are clear enough capitals or no.
Gaseous CO2 and acqueous CO2 are still both gases, one is dissolved according to henrys law thats all.
Do either of you have a sense of humour? or respect?
Calling the chemist stupid isn't absolute, its like calling your brother stupid for calling you an as&h%^le.
i know hes not stupid, but his posts are minimalistic and not very meaty.  tim can't say anything
The buffer still prevents the pH from falling too much
Mg(2+) +CO3(2-) -> MgCO3
and Mg
HCO3 dissociates and makes the water more acidic
MgCO3 -> CO3(2-) + Mg(2+)
this causes
CO3(2-) +H+ -> HCO3(-)
HCO3(-)+H+ -> H2CO3
which takes H+ out of solution and makes it more alkaline!
the buffer responds
CO2+ H2O -> HCO3(-) + H+
makes the water more acidic
so CO2 added to distilled H2O makes it more acidic for sure.
I apologize for my mistake BC, its been many years and i had a brain fart!
best wishes

Whether the ocean will off gas or not is still an open question
The co2 and co3(2-) will have higher concentrations when the pH is lower
So I would guess it will but I am no longer absolutely sure because it is a living ocean. And all its life might respond with the will to survive the most basic instinct of all life on Earth! It's the will to survive that science can't predict!