|
Post by commonsense on Oct 10, 2011 4:54:25 GMT
astroposer, great denialist reply. ie, prove it! fyi, this is how obfuscation is applied in practice. By the way, astroposer, could you provide any references to the contrary? As I am sure you are aware no evidence exist either way. Predictions do not qualify as evidence. I acknowledge that mankind has a net negative impact on other species, but am inclined to dispute the importance of the climate aspect. The first major candidate for potential extinction from ocean acidification is a little critter that sits near the base of the polar food chain whose loss is expected (by the researcher) around 2040-2050. It's loss will wreak havoc with polar ecosystems. Since it's impossible to quickly change the acidification rate and authentification takes a long time, isn't it likely that by the time a single species has been authenticated to have gone extinct primarily? solely? from ocean acidification, it will be impossible to stop many extinctions? Predictions are our best tools to prevent catastrophe. It's unproductive to set a metric, such as "prove it's already happened" to a catastrophe which is mostly or entirely in the future.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 10, 2011 5:13:34 GMT
Over fishing is more of a threat to bio diversity in the oceans. Overfishing is coming under control especially in the US. But also there has been a very large increase in international processes since about 1990 to address unregulated fishing. The biggest unmitigated threat to ocean biodiversity is non-point source pollution. Storm runoff taking the lead. Domestic cat poop for example, in storm runoff, is spreading diseases to ocean mammals. Its but one of thousands of issues. If there is a risk to mankind from environmental causes the ocean is the place to look. CO2 and ocean acidification is distracting dollars from funding important stuff that protects ocean biodiversity. This is probably my biggest beef with the AGW stuff; its more about politics and kicking oil companies than its about improving the ocean and our environment. What needs to be done is to actually identify problems, locate their sources and deal with them. Ocean acidification is about money being spent to try to find a problem. And before anybody tries to cut my head off, I am not saying ocean acidification is not going to be a problem, I am just saying in a resource poor world problems from it have not been identified. "Researchers at Canada's Dalhousie University say the global population of phytoplankton has fallen about 40 percent since 1950." www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-populationThe entire ocean ecosystem depends on phytoplankton. In a resource poor world, this is critical.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 10, 2011 5:23:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 10, 2011 6:04:03 GMT
That's 0.17 per century, which is a huge number. pH is logarithmic, so that's something like a 50% increase in acidity.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 10, 2011 6:37:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 10, 2011 9:16:04 GMT
Ocean acidification is about money being spent to try to find a problem. And before anybody tries to cut my head off, I am not saying ocean acidification is not going to be a problem, I am just saying in a resource poor world problems from it have not been identified. "Researchers at Canada's Dalhousie University say the global population of phytoplankton has fallen about 40 percent since 1950." www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-populationThe entire ocean ecosystem depends on phytoplankton. In a resource poor world, this is critical. You are quoting a Nature Magazine study by D. G. Boyce, M. R. Lewis & B. Worm published in July 2010 and refuted by a Nature Magazine study by Ryan R. Rykaczewski & John P. Dunne published in February 2011 that concluded: Closer examination reveals that time-dependent changes in sampling methodology combined with a consistent bias in the relationship between in situ and transparency-derived chlorophyll (Chl) measurements generate a spurious trend in the synthesis of phytoplankton estimates used by Boyce et al.1. Our results indicate that much, if not all, of the century-long decline reported by Boyce et al.1 is attributable to this temporal sampling bias and not to a global decrease in phytoplankton biomass. Your study was refuted by the magazine that published it.
Unrestrained extrapolating by people that should know better is about the only crisis we need to deal with. Either that or find some way to educate morons too stupid to follow the discussion. Tstat says: "The present CO2 increase is creating a quite unique geologic signature. It is also driving ocean acidification and a major global extinction event."Common Sense says: The first major candidate for potential extinction from ocean acidification is a little critter that sits near the base of the polar food chain whose loss is expected (by the researcher) around 2040-2050. It's loss will wreak havoc with polar ecosystems.
You guys are all over the place! Tstat says a major global extinction event is being driven by ocean acidification and you claim the "first candidate" for extinction comes from a study whose findings were refuted and never indicated anything about extinction in the first place. I guess we could wait for Tstat to produce an ocean extinction list but we would be waiting a loooooooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggggg time! So that is probably not a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 10, 2011 11:10:29 GMT
That's 0.17 per century, which is a huge number. pH is logarithmic, so that's something like a 50% increase in acidity. and, no problem, they can measure pH to within a thousandth of a point, worldwide, and then "average" it just as with temperature, without a single problem at all so please don't worry about it, and then compare the figure to the figures obtained using the exact same methodology that has been applied, worldwide, for well over three million years, allowing us to see every minute pH fluctuation in the context of the current ice age, during which, until now, pH has never declined at this rate, ever, and if it did we'd all be extinct, for sure, no doubt, no problem got it
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 10, 2011 11:42:00 GMT
Icefisher, “I guess we could wait for Tstat to produce an ocean extinction list but we would be waiting a loooooooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggggg time! So that is probably not a good idea.”
I asked T’stat for a list but he declined.
He said asking for proof is a denialist tactic.
T’stat: “great denialist reply. ie, prove it! fyi, this is how obfuscation is applied in practice.”
Apparently, the new scientific method doesn’t require proof, just fawning acquiescence.
And I must say, he is very good at that.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 10, 2011 12:20:04 GMT
Woodstove; Apparently they had to invent a special machine to measure such minuscule changes. I'm sure it works perfectly for their purposes.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 15, 2011 2:27:15 GMT
Icefisher, “I guess we could wait for Tstat to produce an ocean extinction list but we would be waiting a loooooooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggggg time! So that is probably not a good idea.”I asked T’stat for a list but he declined. He said asking for proof is a denialist tactic. T’stat: “great denialist reply. ie, prove it! fyi, this is how obfuscation is applied in practice.”Apparently, the new scientific method doesn’t require proof, just fawning acquiescence. And I must say, he is very good at that. Let's be clear, on this forum; requests for this or that support are ubiquitous. As an alterative voice I encounter constant objection. I am personally interested in understanding the physical world. Physical reality is what it is, guys.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 15, 2011 5:15:13 GMT
Let's be clear, on this forum; requests for this or that support are ubiquitous.
That is only relative to the amount of support you have proffered!
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 3:19:34 GMT
Let's be clear, on this forum; requests for this or that support are ubiquitous.
That is only relative to the amount of support you have proffered! icefisher, This is a denialist centric forum. Nevertheless, it is a forum that does allow for alternative points of view. That is what makes this particular forum interesting. That is why I post here. The scientific POV is not generally represented here.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 17, 2011 3:26:42 GMT
Let's be clear, on this forum; requests for this or that support are ubiquitous.
That is only relative to the amount of support you have proffered! icefisher, This is a denialist centric forum. Nevertheless, it is a forum that does allow for alternative points of view. That is what makes this particular forum interesting. That is why I post here. The scientific POV is not generally represented here. Thermostat: Your point of view certainly has proven to be non-scientific. Is your PHD in English Literature or such?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2011 3:28:40 GMT
icefisher, This is a denialist centric forum. Nevertheless, it is a forum that does allow for alternative points of view. That is what makes this particular forum interesting. That is why I post here. The scientific POV is not generally represented here. Thermostat: Your point of view certainly has proven to be non-scientific. Is your PHD in English Literature or such? His spambot algorithm needs updating.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 17, 2011 3:30:07 GMT
icefisher,This is a denialist centric forum. Nevertheless, it is a forum that does allow for alternative points of view. That is what makes this particular forum interesting. That is why I post here. The scientific POV is not generally represented here.
Its good you found something to do. Idle hands are the devil's playthings.
|
|