|
Post by icefisher on May 3, 2009 21:54:51 GMT
But how much time? Could one region be warmer than another for 200 years? The greenland and antarctic temperature ice core temperature records don't match up perfectly. Those types of animals, but not the same species. Today's species in today's oceans are adapted for higher pH. Drop the pH sharply and many of the current species will not be able ot adapt in time. Many? What do you mean by many? 100, 10,000, 50%, 99%? What do you mean by "in time"? Where do you get such broad declarations? What is not likely is all shellfish are going to disappear. They may in fact prosper. . . .like plants do with higher CO2. Shellfish in the presence of more bicarbonates might accelerate their growth. What is really the engine of extinction is adaptation not moderately different environments. Many species will do fine with change, until of course competition arrives.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 3, 2009 22:52:07 GMT
But how much time? Could one region be warmer than another for 200 years? The greenland and antarctic temperature ice core temperature records don't match up perfectly. Those types of animals, but not the same species. Today's species in today's oceans are adapted for higher pH. Drop the pH sharply and many of the current species will not be able ot adapt in time. Many? What do you mean by many? 100, 10,000, 50%, 99%? What do you mean by "in time"? Where do you get such broad declarations? The maximum is unknown, it could be a mass extinction. Calcification will become harder in a lower pH ocean.
|
|
van
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 59
|
Post by van on May 3, 2009 23:48:38 GMT
SOCOLD Its as pointless in providing you facts disproving your belief in AGW as it was for Marsha Clark and Chris Darden providing the OJ jury with the facts showing overwhelming proof of his guilt, (OJ blood evidence at murder scene, Nicoles, Goldmans OJs blood in his Bronco etc etc etc) when the jury was predisposed to believed that all the evidence was planted by the police. Hell if they had a security tape showing him in the actual act that jury would have thought it was a fake. So it is with you, no matter what the historic, geologic or proxy data - it just meaningless to you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 4, 2009 4:28:23 GMT
The maximum is unknown, it could be a mass extinction. Indeed a meteor could hit you on the head tonight. What is not likely is all shellfish are going to disappear. They may in fact prosper. . . .like plants do with higher CO2. Shellfish in the presence of more bicarbonates might accelerate their growth.Calcification will become harder in a lower pH ocean. Do you have a source for that or are you just a sycophant? Freshwater shellfish have no problem calcifying shells and fresh water is factors of magnitude more acidic than ocean water.
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on May 4, 2009 18:51:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on May 4, 2009 18:56:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 4, 2009 20:37:22 GMT
See why warmologists get their clocks cleaned in every debate they dare enter in: penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?page_id=417Science is numbers....show me the numbers. ;D Q: Do the models get any of it right? A: They get that it’s warmer in summer and cooler in winter well, and jet streams, and where 7 deserts are, but you’d never use a climate model for regional projection. Even IPCC agrees. Two models, one projected SE becomes jungle, other semi-arid.
|
|
|
Post by questioneverything on May 4, 2009 20:58:46 GMT
Why did you ask this question? What are you trying to get? Since you post on this site often, you know our feelings, so what was the purpose of this post?
Are you really trying to understand what we think AGW is? There would be no real reason to ask this question and actually expect an answer to your specific question.
But for what it is worth.
AGW is the increase of C02 in the atmosphere brought about by human activity (coal, natural gas, etc.) will cause if not directly, a warming and drying of our planet to the point that our planet will not be able to support life in the future (insert most recent date of Armageddon here).
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 4, 2009 22:33:05 GMT
Indeed a meteor could hit you on the head tonight. What is not likely is all shellfish are going to disappear. They may in fact prosper. . . .like plants do with higher CO2. Shellfish in the presence of more bicarbonates might accelerate their growth.Calcification will become harder in a lower pH ocean. Do you have a source for that or are you just a sycophant? Freshwater shellfish have no problem calcifying shells and fresh water is factors of magnitude more acidic than ocean water. Here's one. It's only the likes of co2science and that kind of band that are trying to push the idea that ocean acidification isn't a problem. People actually in that field of expertize are not so quick to dismiss the issue. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 4, 2009 22:33:43 GMT
SOCOLD Its as pointless in providing you facts disproving your belief in AGW as it was for Marsha Clark and Chris Darden providing the OJ jury with the facts showing overwhelming proof of his guilt, (OJ blood evidence at murder scene, Nicoles, Goldmans OJs blood in his Bronco etc etc etc) when the jury was predisposed to believed that all the evidence was planted by the police. Hell if they had a security tape showing him in the actual act that jury would have thought it was a fake. So it is with you, no matter what the historic, geologic or proxy data - it just meaningless to you. Noone has provided any facts.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 4, 2009 22:57:54 GMT
Indeed a meteor could hit you on the head tonight. Do you have a source for that or are you just a sycophant? Freshwater shellfish have no problem calcifying shells and fresh water is factors of magnitude more acidic than ocean water. Here's one. It's only the likes of co2science and that kind of band that are trying to push the idea that ocean acidification isn't a problem. People actually in that field of expertize are not so quick to dismiss the issue. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737Where are the numbers? The calculations? The chemistry? It is pure conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 4, 2009 23:19:51 GMT
Here's one. It's only the likes of co2science and that kind of band that are trying to push the idea that ocean acidification isn't a problem. People actually in that field of expertize are not so quick to dismiss the issue. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737Where are the numbers? The calculations? The chemistry? It is pure conjecture. You claim to have not found any numbers. What you don't tell us is whether you have even looked for them. Don't look, won't find. Doesn't make it "pure conjecture"
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 4, 2009 23:29:48 GMT
Where are the numbers? The calculations? The chemistry? It is pure conjecture. You claim to have not found any numbers. What you don't tell us is whether you have even looked for them. Don't look, won't find. Doesn't make it "pure conjecture" If you're going to make a claim, be prepared to be hounded for evidence. We've been inundated with the certain doom of the GBR, so how this be? www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005239In 2006, mass bleaching of corals on inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef caused high coral mortality. Here we show that this coral mortality was followed by an unprecedented bloom of a single species of unpalatable seaweed (Lobophora variegata), colonizing dead coral skeletons, but that corals on these reefs recovered dramatically, in less than a year. Unexpectedly, this rapid reversal did not involve reestablishment of corals by recruitment of coral larvae, as often assumed, but depended on several ecological mechanisms previously underestimated. Yes, there is a bit more to coral reefs than propaganda headlines and cherry picking. Please review; lots of references. www.co2science.org/education/reports/corals/coralreefs.pdf
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 4, 2009 23:55:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 5, 2009 0:34:47 GMT
SoCold: I don't have the url handy, but there was a study done 2 years ago near a volcano where the ph was below 7. The authors of the study were totally amazed at how the shellfish etc had adapted to the low ph and were doing marvelously well.
I would recommend that you look at the baseline for co2 that is used by todays scientists. If you look at the choices back in the 1800's of said baseline, you will find that the baseline is actually quit a bit higher than is indicated today. The one study used exclusively had holes miles wide in its mythology.
|
|