|
Post by justsomeguy on May 27, 2011 2:03:50 GMT
Coral reefs, like most living things, have a much greater ability to adapt than any greenie thinks. This is not static kids, and the genetics know that as they have eveolved to adapt.
Most of greenie crap is just rightie crap re-cast - people afraid of change, when change is generallly a positive.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 27, 2011 3:26:43 GMT
socold, Do you plan on regulating all of nature which is producing ~97% of CO2 emissions? I'm still trying to figure out how most of my generation survived without bold lettered warning stickers on lawn mowers complete with pictures depicting the dangers of placing your hands and feet into the path of the rotating mower blade. Gosh, we didn't even wear bicycle helmets and played outside in the sun without sunblock! socold, your posts are looking more and more like a tad bit, how should I say this.......unhealthy? Take a deep breath, enjoy life, it is short, but about twice or three times as long as it was before all this CO2 pollution ruining our lives nowadays. However yours will be shorter if worrying about a bogeyman around every corner dominates your life. Yes, let's stop all carbon based consumerism and go back to the good old days, just to be "safe".
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 27, 2011 20:05:23 GMT
Coral reefs, like most living things, have a much greater ability to adapt than any greenie thinks. This is not static kids, and the genetics know that as they have eveolved to adapt. Most of greenie crap is just rightie crap re-cast - people afraid of change, when change is generallly a positive. How did change work for the dinosaurs?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 27, 2011 20:11:19 GMT
socold, Do you plan on regulating all of nature which is producing ~97% of CO2 emissions? Is that 97% causing the CO2 rise? No. While you wonder about that, ponder those mad regulations concerning driving motor vehicles. Did you know the nanny state requires citizens to pass a test before they can get behind the wheel? And apparently there is a ban on child labor! Wow how did the earlier generations that allowed children to work in mines manage to survive? I think the fact you have put so much effort into responding, without actually responding to anything I've said, speaks volumes that what I have said is not unhealthy at all but a threat to your ideology.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 27, 2011 20:48:01 GMT
You say: "I think doing nothing is sometimes the safest choice until the risks can be quantified." The key words in the above is "I" and "sometimes". Here we have an objective of yours alone where you alone decide "what" we should do nothing about and you are defending lies in achieving those objectives. That sentence doesn't contain an objective. I am making a general point that some things should be avoided until the risks have been quantified. Society already does this in fact. I have conveyed the matter of ocean acidification accurately, so if it sews fear then that fear is an accurate consequence of the matter. if you want to point at people sewing misinformation, magellan is probably the most guilty on this thread for this with his "Do you plan on regulating all of nature which is producing ~97% of CO2 emissions?" It is true that nature emits 97% of CO2 emissions and man only emits 3% of them. This is a fact. Yet when laypeople hear this fact they get the wrong impression. They think "oh then our emissions must be irrelevant". Even though it's our emissions that are causing the CO2 rise. Lets think about that for a second. Magellan by citing a fact, not a lie, makes people think ocean acidification is no risk at all. He might as well have outright lied afterall and said ocean acidification has zero chance of being a problem, it would have the same effect. So facts can be misleading. They can be cited selectively to confuse people. What matters is people are enlightened. It matters more the effect of words rather than whether they are facts or lies, just that they inch people towards better understanding of a subject. Generalizations are a form of lie by omission for example, yet generalizations are used throughout the education system. People who only hear the name of something are always prone to making wrong assumptions. For example lots of people assume the big bang involved an explosion at the start of the universe and lots of people assume the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse does. I've even seen people assume the theory of relativity is about moral relativity. And yes some people think ocean acidification means the oceans will become acidic. Yet in all cases (except relativity) I think the misundestanding brings them a lot closer to understanding the issue than if the phrase was something they didn't even understand (ocean neutralization would fit that bill), and certainly gives them a better understanding than someone who thinks the ocean is getting more "benign". They'll understand there is a risk involved whereas the latter party will not. The fundamental danger behind ocean acidification however is not even reflected in the phrase. As has been mentioned on this thread someone's pond is acidic yet there is still life, so ocean acidification even if it was to mean the ocean dropping below pH 7 could still be wrongly shrugged off as a non-issue by referring to ponds. If I wanted to give it a scary name I would call it something like "unprecedented ocean ph drop afawk". Same goes for the CO2 rise in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 28, 2011 0:28:27 GMT
I've read much on the subject socold. You read only what feeds your fear.
If ocean acidification is certain doom for the planet, and CO2 has a resident life in the atmosphere of 1000 years.......
socold, Please list the positive benefits of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 28, 2011 1:12:48 GMT
You say: "I think doing nothing is sometimes the safest choice until the risks can be quantified." The key words in the above is "I" and "sometimes". Here we have an objective of yours alone where you alone decide "what" we should do nothing about and you are defending lies in achieving those objectives. That sentence doesn't contain an objective. I am making a general point that some things should be avoided until the risks have been quantified. Society already does this in fact. I have conveyed the matter of ocean acidification accurately, so if it sews fear then that fear is an accurate consequence of the matter. if you want to point at people sewing misinformation, magellan is probably the most guilty on this thread for this with his "Do you plan on regulating all of nature which is producing ~97% of CO2 emissions?" It is true that nature emits 97% of CO2 emissions and man only emits 3% of them. This is a fact. Yet when laypeople hear this fact they get the wrong impression. They think "oh then our emissions must be irrelevant". Even though it's our emissions that are causing the CO2 rise. Lets think about that for a second. Magellan by citing a fact, not a lie, makes people think ocean acidification is no risk at all. He might as well have outright lied afterall and said ocean acidification has zero chance of being a problem, it would have the same effect. So facts can be misleading. They can be cited selectively to confuse people. What matters is people are enlightened. It matters more the effect of words rather than whether they are facts or lies, just that they inch people towards better understanding of a subject. Generalizations are a form of lie by omission for example, yet generalizations are used throughout the education system. People who only hear the name of something are always prone to making wrong assumptions. For example lots of people assume the big bang involved an explosion at the start of the universe and lots of people assume the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse does. I've even seen people assume the theory of relativity is about moral relativity. And yes some people think ocean acidification means the oceans will become acidic. Yet in all cases (except relativity) I think the misundestanding brings them a lot closer to understanding the issue than if the phrase was something they didn't even understand (ocean neutralization would fit that bill), and certainly gives them a better understanding than someone who thinks the ocean is getting more "benign". They'll understand there is a risk involved whereas the latter party will not. The fundamental danger behind ocean acidification however is not even reflected in the phrase. As has been mentioned on this thread someone's pond is acidic yet there is still life, so ocean acidification even if it was to mean the ocean dropping below pH 7 could still be wrongly shrugged off as a non-issue by referring to ponds. If I wanted to give it a scary name I would call it something like "unprecedented ocean ph drop afawk". Same goes for the CO2 rise in the atmosphere. socold, Just logging in, but you are so right. Ocean acidification is such an obvious consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3. This is obvious geochemistry.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 28, 2011 1:14:53 GMT
That sentence doesn't contain an objective. I am making a general point that some things should be avoided until the risks have been quantified. Society already does this in fact. I have conveyed the matter of ocean acidification accurately, so if it sews fear then that fear is an accurate consequence of the matter. if you want to point at people sewing misinformation, magellan is probably the most guilty on this thread for this with his "Do you plan on regulating all of nature which is producing ~97% of CO2 emissions?" It is true that nature emits 97% of CO2 emissions and man only emits 3% of them. This is a fact. Yet when laypeople hear this fact they get the wrong impression. They think "oh then our emissions must be irrelevant". Even though it's our emissions that are causing the CO2 rise. Lets think about that for a second. Magellan by citing a fact, not a lie, makes people think ocean acidification is no risk at all. He might as well have outright lied afterall and said ocean acidification has zero chance of being a problem, it would have the same effect. So facts can be misleading. They can be cited selectively to confuse people. What matters is people are enlightened. It matters more the effect of words rather than whether they are facts or lies, just that they inch people towards better understanding of a subject. Generalizations are a form of lie by omission for example, yet generalizations are used throughout the education system. People who only hear the name of something are always prone to making wrong assumptions. For example lots of people assume the big bang involved an explosion at the start of the universe and lots of people assume the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse does. I've even seen people assume the theory of relativity is about moral relativity. And yes some people think ocean acidification means the oceans will become acidic. Yet in all cases (except relativity) I think the misundestanding brings them a lot closer to understanding the issue than if the phrase was something they didn't even understand (ocean neutralization would fit that bill), and certainly gives them a better understanding than someone who thinks the ocean is getting more "benign". They'll understand there is a risk involved whereas the latter party will not. The fundamental danger behind ocean acidification however is not even reflected in the phrase. As has been mentioned on this thread someone's pond is acidic yet there is still life, so ocean acidification even if it was to mean the ocean dropping below pH 7 could still be wrongly shrugged off as a non-issue by referring to ponds. If I wanted to give it a scary name I would call it something like "unprecedented ocean ph drop afawk". Same goes for the CO2 rise in the atmosphere. socold, Just logging in, but you are so right. Ocean acidification is such an obvious consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3. This is obvious geochemistry. Does CO2 from burning fossil fuels stay in the atmosphere to warm the planet or go into the oceans? Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 28, 2011 1:26:53 GMT
socold, Just logging in, but you are so right. Ocean acidification is such an obvious consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3. This is obvious geochemistry. Does CO2 from burning fossil fuels stay in the atmosphere to warm the planet or go into the oceans? Which is it? Magellan, Both. I am no expert here, but the short answer is that a most human released CO2 goes into the ocean. The atmospheric increase and persistence of CO2 is a related phenomenon. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is well documented.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 28, 2011 1:39:42 GMT
Does CO2 from burning fossil fuels stay in the atmosphere to warm the planet or go into the oceans? Which is it? Magellan, Both. I am no expert here, but the short answer is that a most human released CO2 goes into the ocean. The atmospheric increase and persistence of CO2 is a related phenomenon. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is well documented. 3% of CO2 emissions are man made. We're told rising atmospheric CO2 levels are caused by man. Apparently Henry's Law is negotiable. So let me understand this. Most human released CO2 goes into the ocean, yet it also has a residency time in the atmosphere for 200-1000 years? Also tstat, when you see reports such as this, should it be taken as fact? It is the AGW storyline from the "consensus": This is the claim: Then a researcher says such claims are based on faulty tests: When experiments are performed using CO2, results are quite different than the claims by AGW promoters:
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 28, 2011 1:49:26 GMT
Magellan, Both. I am no expert here, but the short answer is that a most human released CO2 goes into the ocean. The atmospheric increase and persistence of CO2 is a related phenomenon. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is well documented. 3% of CO2 emissions are man made. We're told rising atmospheric CO2 levels are caused by man. Apparently Henry's Law is negotiable. So let me understand this. Most human released CO2 goes into the ocean, yet it also has a residency time in the atmosphere for 200-1000 years? Also tstat, when you see reports such as this, should it be taken as fact? It is the AGW storyline from the "consensus": This is the claim: Then a researcher says such claims are based on faulty tests: When experiments are performed using CO2, results are quite different than the claims by AGW promoters: Magellan, I appreciate that you are confused about science. Everyone who follows this forum knows that.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 28, 2011 2:11:20 GMT
Thermostat: Before you try and discredit the Scripps paper on ocean ph and crustacean growth I would suggest that you read it. It found a huge flaw in previous studies.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 28, 2011 2:17:08 GMT
3% of CO2 emissions are man made. We're told rising atmospheric CO2 levels are caused by man. Apparently Henry's Law is negotiable. So let me understand this. Most human released CO2 goes into the ocean, yet it also has a residency time in the atmosphere for 200-1000 years? Also tstat, when you see reports such as this, should it be taken as fact? It is the AGW storyline from the "consensus": This is the claim: Then a researcher says such claims are based on faulty tests: When experiments are performed using CO2, results are quite different than the claims by AGW promoters: Magellan, I appreciate that you are confused about science. Everyone who follows this forum knows that. What do you think would happen if we took a poll of the forum members ;D So, you say most of man made CO2 emissions go into the ocean. AGW science says CO2 has an atmospheric residency time of 200-1000 years depending on which source is used. I'm wondering how some, part or all CO2 ends up in the ocean given that well documented assumption. I posted pictures of experiments performed using CO2 instead of hydrochloric acid which killed the shell fish. Are you saying those experiment results are bogus?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 28, 2011 2:20:54 GMT
Thermostat: Before you try and discredit the Scripps paper on ocean ph and crustacean growth I would suggest that you read it. It found a huge flaw in previous studies. Sigurdur, Are you proposing that carbonic acid does not form from a reaction between CO2 and H2O, or that it does not matter?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 28, 2011 2:42:26 GMT
According to you the wrong impression is right if it spurs action. Impact from ocean acidification is the right impression. If people think ocean acidification is a big deal then they have got the right impression. Ocean pH is dropping faster than any known example in Earth's history. 55 million years ago it dropped sharply following a large dump of CO2 or methane into the atmosphere. There was a mass extinction of life in the deep ocean. Yet still it dropped slower than today. The reason this can happen is that never before has a species pulled up all the hydrocarbons stored over millions of years and pushed them into the atmosphere in a few hundred. The fall in ocean pH is a direct consequence of the rate of CO2 rise. The same CO2 rise done more slowly (ie over thousands of years) would hardly register a change in ocean pH because the oceans would have time to buffer it. So if people get the impression that ocean acidification is a big deal, they've got the right impression. Hello! are you serious?
|
|