|
Post by magellan on May 5, 2009 1:41:06 GMT
Tell us socold, if we are witnessing "unprecedented" warming now and worse in 50 years, how did forests grow in the Arctic region of Russia in the recent past? The evidence is immense, such as archeological evidence........the remains of the forests themselves. BTW, your link to climateshifts.org has a cartoon that made me chuckle. It shows a line drawn of CO2 limits necessary to prevent warming to exceed ~2C. That's interesting considering temperatures are already below IPCC predictions projections scenarios(?) if atmospheric CO2 levels were halted at today's levels. I especially like the lack of citation for their cartoon. They are in good company with ReinventedClimate, complete with digging up CO2Science's funding by Evil Oil companies. You know, the same evil oil companies providing the energy allowing you to turn your computer on and leave carbon footprints throughout the world. If you really believe the oceans are going to turn into a body of acid (ooh, that sounds so scary) soup, you may as well pack your bags for the next Hale Bopp excursion; there is nothing that can stop it. I actually have empathy for people who wake up everyday thinking nature is like an egg precariously balanced on the head of a pin. It must be a horrible to not enjoy life. I digress. You did not comment on the apparent miraculous recovery of the Great Barrier Reef. The same ones predicting "acidification" (an erroneous use of the word) are the same ones preaching the end of the GBR.
|
|
van
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 59
|
Post by van on May 5, 2009 12:26:12 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. As I said before and your reply proves it, you dismiss the facts as irrelevant because you believe in AGW. It obvious that you can't see the Forest because of all the damn trees (facts) that get in the way of your view.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 5, 2009 22:46:40 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. That's not entirely suprising because over a long period of time life will evolve and adapt to all sorts of environments. The issue is what happens when you change an environment very quickly so there isn't a lot of time for life to evolve. In the past such changes have led to mass extinctions. For example, how would species outside that volcanic zone fare if they were suddenly pulled into it?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 5, 2009 22:49:32 GMT
Noone has provided any facts. As I said before and your reply proves it, you dismiss the facts as irrelevant because you believe in AGW. It obvious that you can't see the Forest because of all the damn trees (facts) that get in the way of your view. I dismiss the claim that sargasso sea temperatures are a proxy of global temperatures. All you effectively did was respond by saying I shouldn't do that. You didn't explain why. Imagine if I had proposed arctic temperatures over the 20th century are a proxy for global temperatures, or antarctic peninsula temperatures over the 20th century were a proxy for global temperatures... And when you told me those regions weren't indicative of global trends I had turned round and said something like "that just proves you won't look at facts".
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 5, 2009 22:57:34 GMT
Tell us socold, if we are witnessing "unprecedented" warming now and worse in 50 years, how did forests grow in the Arctic region of Russia in the recent past? The evidence is immense, such as archeological evidence........the remains of the forests themselves. This has nothing to do with ocean acidification either. I don't feel like playing against the Gish Gallop. You can look that up if you want. That means nothing to me. I don't care where funding comes from. What amazed me was how unimpressed the two scientists were with co2science's spin interpretation of that paper. I've seen it before though. In fact having braved numerous creationist websites in the past doing the same thing I have a nose for the language used in that kind of pseudoscience BS and co2science reeks of it. Because it has nothing to do with ocean acidification. I would have to read quite a few articles on the matter to form an opinion. I suspect this issue conerns part of the reef rather than the whole thing though.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 6, 2009 2:15:26 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. LOL! Ecology is one of those fields like sociology and economics. None of them solve anything. . . .most of them just suck grants off stupid environmentalists and suggest any change of anything is apt to be catastrophic which leads to more moola.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 6, 2009 2:32:01 GMT
Tell us socold, if we are witnessing "unprecedented" warming now and worse in 50 years, how did forests grow in the Arctic region of Russia in the recent past? The evidence is immense, such as archeological evidence........the remains of the forests themselves. This has nothing to do with ocean acidification either. I don't feel like playing against the Gish Gallop. You can look that up if you want. That means nothing to me. I don't care where funding comes from. What amazed me was how unimpressed the two scientists were with co2science's spin interpretation of that paper. I've seen it before though. In fact having braved numerous creationist websites in the past doing the same thing I have a nose for the language used in that kind of pseudoscience BS and co2science reeks of it. Because it has nothing to do with ocean acidification. I would have to read quite a few articles on the matter to form an opinion. I suspect this issue conerns part of the reef rather than the whole thing though. Ocean acidification is just another in a long line of scare mongering by environmentalists (including those in the science community). I'll contend humans couldn't acidify the oceans with CO2 if it were law, and further, CO2 is wholly beneficial for the vast majority of life both on the surface and in the oceans. The amount humans contribute to the cycle is barely noticeable compared to nature. Tom Segalstad and others say the buffering capacity of the oceans is nearly infinite, yet like shivering little bunnies, true believers refuse to even consider that. That said, have you ever considered nature is more than adequate to compensate for added CO2 into the oceans and in fact it causes an explosion of benefits? For instance, and there are others: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090115164607.htm
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 7, 2009 19:11:12 GMT
I'll contend humans couldn't acidify the oceans with CO2 if it were law, and further, CO2 is wholly beneficial for the vast majority of life both on the surface and in the oceans. The amount humans contribute to the cycle is barely noticeable compared to nature. Tom Segalstad and others say the buffering capacity of the oceans is nearly infinite, yet like shivering little bunnies, true believers refuse to even consider that. Ocean pH has dropped over the last century. Denying it's happened is akin to denying co2 has risen in the atmosphere over the last century. Buffering capacity being infinite doesn't mean pH will not drop, in fact quite the opposite, it means the ocean will absorb more and more co2 without end. It hasn't done. To believe that story you have to accept the oceans will warm significantly as atmospheric co2 rises. You don't so you can't. I would ask if you have considered the explosion of negative impacts from falling pH, but I am already aware you dismiss them out of hand for ideological reasons.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 8, 2009 3:21:02 GMT
Ocean pH has dropped over the last century. Denying it's happened is akin to denying co2 has risen in the atmosphere over the last century. Buffering capacity being infinite doesn't mean pH will not drop, in fact quite the opposite, it means the ocean will absorb more and more co2 without end. Yeah just imagine Socold if the amount seawater has become more acidic in the past century continues by the year 3000 the ocean will be as acidic as rainwater. Thats something to really start worrying about!!! p.s. Opps goofed on the math I meant to say by the year 102000!!!! (forgot to multiple the 1000 fold decrease by a century)
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 8, 2009 3:40:55 GMT
Buffering capacity being infinite doesn't mean pH will not drop, in fact quite the opposite, it means the ocean will absorb more and more co2 without end. Socold, The definition of "Buffering Capacity" is the ability to resist changes in pH. To "buffer" chemically , is to resist changes in pH! Do you realize how ridiculous the above statement of yours is to anyone who understands this? It is so frustrating trying to have a rational discourse with you, because you say so many things that make no sense whatsoever. I think that you either need to do a crash course in basic science, or stick to Myspace. Please know what you are talking about before making such ridiculous statements. There is no value in simply regurgitating things you don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on May 8, 2009 22:50:50 GMT
"Ocean pH has dropped over the last century. Denying it's happened is akin to denying co2 has risen in the atmosphere over the last century."
Or like admitting that temperatures have fallen for the last seven years without invoking some smoke and mirrors average. Yes CO2 rose and yes temperatures have fallen. What does that tell us exactly.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 9, 2009 6:09:56 GMT
An eerie quiet has fallen over the thread.......
|
|
kmj
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by kmj on May 9, 2009 18:28:24 GMT
I find the entire ocean acidification theory flimsy. How is it possible that the earths major coral systems which are composed predominately of Scleractinia which have been established since the Triassic when CO2 was greater than 3000ppmv could now be threatened by acidification with CO2 at 400ppmv? If my counting is right, these corals survived 200million years with CO2 levels above 1000ppmv. Even as recently as the late Eocene CO2 was in excess of 1000ppmv and that's the low end of the estimate per IPCC Chapter 6.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 9, 2009 19:12:59 GMT
Buffering capacity being infinite doesn't mean pH will not drop, in fact quite the opposite, it means the ocean will absorb more and more co2 without end. Socold, The definition of "Buffering Capacity" is the ability to resist changes in pH. If you think infinite buffering capacity means ocean pH won't drop then your argument has already been falsified. pH has dropped over the 20th century, so either the idea that buffering capacity is infinite is wrong, or the idea that infinite buffering capacity prevents a fall in pH is wrong. Either way ocean acidification is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 9, 2009 19:31:25 GMT
The corals can survive with reduced, or without being able to, build reefs.
|
|