quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm ... is this the "backup" position, now that "AGW" seems to be on the ropes?

"Well, maybe Anthropogenic Global Warming was a fraud, and bad science, and we've been caught out .... but we can still destroy the capitalist system and take away those pesky Americans' money by claiming that the evil CO2 is destroying the oceans!"

Firm

Do you honestly believe that this is all a vast conspiracy by scientists from all over the globe to promote a fraud?

To what end?  Are they all getting rich off this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: asyouwish72

OK, deep breath, folks. Repeat after me:

Humanity really IS altering the global carbon cycle. That's just a fact. The people who deny it make themselves look like flat-earthers (who knows, maybe some of the posters here ARE flat earthers, for all I can tell). Atmospheric CO2 has been directly measured for decades- it's a simple, precise technique that a college undergrad could do well, and the values climb every year (with a small seasonal swing owing to photosynthesis & respiration, depending on where you are). We also have extremely good records based on gas inclusions in ice cores (another direct measure, so there's no worry about interpretation of proxies) going back several hundred thousand years, and we are far outside the natural range within that time. Glacial periods had CO2 concentrations of about 210 PPM, interglacial and preanthropogenic levels were ~ 280, and we're approaching 400 now. Once again, this is fact, not theory. There is no wiggle room whatsoever in these numbers. They simply are what they are.

Like any gas, CO2 solubilizes in water based on partial pressure (a fancy way of saying "the amount in the air"). Once in water, CO2 forms a proportional amount carbonic acid. Note the "acid" part. More CO2 in the atmosphere = more CO2 in the ocean = ocean acidification. I honestly cannot believe that anyone could doubt this. Really. It's that simple.

And just to cut off the obvious question, yes, it IS CO2 form fossil fuel combustion that drives this. There is an isotopic signature of fossil fuels in both C13 (stable heavy carbon) and C14(radiocarbon, which is entirely absent in fossil fuels owing to thier trememdous age), and it turns out that signal has been imprinted on atmospheric CO2 during the industrial period (look up the Suess Effect for further reference).

As to the biological & climatological effects of all of this, well, that's an area that's open for debate (although people who claim that the recent email leaks for the UK discredit antrhopogenic climate change research obviously have not read either the emails or the underlying science; really those allegations are pretty trivial to the overall picture), but issuing a blanket denial of acidification is just ignorant. No other word for it. Sorry.

PS- Yes, the 'volcano' story features acid water. That's not uncommon at geologic seeps, and nobody who knows anything about the subject gets excited by it. It's a matter of scale. That area, and others like it, are absurdly tiny next to the volume of the entire surface ocean, which is where the atmosphere-derived acidification is occuring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Lol. Did you read the leaked emails? Yes, some scientists are promoting a fraud. They do it because they get money for research. You don't get research grants by questioning global warming.  You think scientists are saints? Lol. Wise up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

I heard about that here, from our own National Marine Laboratory, it seems they have got on the AGW band wagon too, but I also read somewhere, maybe these forums, the acidification of the seas, is balanced out by other happenings, the acidification is just one thing that has been isolated amongst other things, but the acidification is more political, so it comes to the fore.

And if it's not, then sea creatures will have to adapt to changing conditions, just like the humans, as nothing is going to stop the planet doing it's thing, or big business making money.

Honestly though, all these , if you can't blind them with science,(because the science is flawed), baffle them with bullshit peddlars, the pro AGW scientific community, they better watch it, because if they try to sell us something based on flawed data, they run the risk of being ignored and ridiculed in future, by a public fed up with bullshit baffling so called scientists, they will destroy their status for everyone involved in science.

See this is what I really don't understand.

What is it you think they are trying to "sell us"?

On one hand you complain of big business but then go on to try to attribute a profit motive to the scientists doing the research.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: asyouwish72

OK, deep breath, folks. Repeat after me:

Humanity really IS altering the global carbon cycle. That's just a fact. The people who deny it make themselves look like flat-earthers (who knows, maybe some of the posters here ARE flat earthers, for all I can tell). Atmospheric CO2 has been directly measured for decades- it's a simple, precise technique that a college undergrad could do well, and the values climb every year (with a small seasonal swing owing to photosynthesis & respiration, depending on where you are). We also have extremely good records based on gas inclusions in ice cores (another direct measure, so there's no worry about interpretation of proxies) going back several hundred thousand years, and we are far outside the natural range within that time. Glacial periods had CO2 concentrations of about 210 PPM, interglacial and preanthropogenic levels were ~ 280, and we're approaching 400 now. Once again, this is fact, not theory. There is no wiggle room whatsoever in these numbers. They simply are what they are.

Like any gas, CO2 solubilizes in water based on partial pressure (a fancy way of saying "the amount in the air"). Once in water, CO2 forms a proportional amount carbonic acid. Note the "acid" part. More CO2 in the atmosphere = more CO2 in the ocean = ocean acidification. I honestly cannot believe that anyone could doubt this. Really. It's that simple.

And just to cut off the obvious question, yes, it IS CO2 form fossil fuel combustion that drives this. There is an isotopic signature of fossil fuels in both C13 (stable heavy carbon) and C14(radiocarbon, which is entirely absent in fossil fuels owing to thier trememdous age), and it turns out that signal has been imprinted on atmospheric CO2 during the industrial period (look up the Suess Effect for further reference).

As to the biological & climatological effects of all of this, well, that's an area that's open for debate (although people who claim that the recent email leaks for the UK discredit antrhopogenic climate change research obviously have not read either the emails or the underlying science; really those allegations are pretty trivial to the overall picture), but issuing a blanket denial of acidification is just ignorant. No other word for it. Sorry.

PS- Yes, the 'volcano' story features acid water. That's not uncommon at geologic seeps, and nobody who knows anything about the subject gets excited by it. It's a matter of scale. That area, and others like it, are absurdly tiny next to the volume of the entire surface ocean, which is where the atmosphere-derived acidification is occuring.

I think that requires repeating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: asyouwish72

OK, deep breath, folks. Repeat after me:

Humanity really IS altering the global carbon cycle. That's just a fact. The people who deny it make themselves look like flat-earthers (who knows, maybe some of the posters here ARE flat earthers, for all I can tell). Atmospheric CO2 has been directly measured for decades- it's a simple, precise technique that a college undergrad could do well, and the values climb every year (with a small seasonal swing owing to photosynthesis & respiration, depending on where you are). We also have extremely good records based on gas inclusions in ice cores (another direct measure, so there's no worry about interpretation of proxies) going back several hundred thousand years, and we are far outside the natural range within that time. Glacial periods had CO2 concentrations of about 210 PPM, interglacial and preanthropogenic levels were ~ 280, and we're approaching 400 now. Once again, this is fact, not theory. There is no wiggle room whatsoever in these numbers. They simply are what they are.

Like any gas, CO2 solubilizes in water based on partial pressure (a fancy way of saying "the amount in the air"). Once in water, CO2 forms a proportional amount carbonic acid. Note the "acid" part. More CO2 in the atmosphere = more CO2 in the ocean = ocean acidification. I honestly cannot believe that anyone could doubt this. Really. It's that simple.

And just to cut off the obvious question, yes, it IS CO2 form fossil fuel combustion that drives this. There is an isotopic signature of fossil fuels in both C13 (stable heavy carbon) and C14(radiocarbon, which is entirely absent in fossil fuels owing to thier trememdous age), and it turns out that signal has been imprinted on atmospheric CO2 during the industrial period (look up the Suess Effect for further reference).

As to the biological & climatological effects of all of this, well, that's an area that's open for debate (although people who claim that the recent email leaks for the UK discredit antrhopogenic climate change research obviously have not read either the emails or the underlying science; really those allegations are pretty trivial to the overall picture), but issuing a blanket denial of acidification is just ignorant. No other word for it. Sorry.

PS- Yes, the 'volcano' story features acid water. That's not uncommon at geologic seeps, and nobody who knows anything about the subject gets excited by it. It's a matter of scale. That area, and others like it, are absurdly tiny next to the volume of the entire surface ocean, which is where the atmosphere-derived acidification is occuring.

I think that requires repeating.

You have to respect someone who's so patient when arguing, with, well... this is why I could never be a kindergarten teacher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I agree with all but 3.

The arrogance of current leadership in the US is such that they don't care about what the country believes or what the political consequences of forcing unpopular solutions on us might be. They believe, as they do in all areas, that they are smarter than everyone else, and we need to be saved from ourselves.

They haven't acted yet because they haven't had enough time. They were all ready to verbally commit us to financing developing countries, opinion be damned. They may already have done that, I don't know that we have heard everything that will come out of Hopenhagen yet. They will also try and ram Crap and Tax down our throats

quote:


Yeah, even the kindergartners would run cirlces around your puerile reasoning abilities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: asyouwish72
OK, deep breath, folks. Repeat after me:

Humanity really IS altering the global carbon cycle. That's just a fact. The people who deny it make themselves look like flat-earthers (who knows, maybe some of the posters here ARE flat earthers, for all I can tell)....

I think that requires repeating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I just realized I forgot to add the link, so here it is for anyone that wants to read the full article:


Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change‎

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I just realized I forgot to add the link, so here it is for anyone that wants to read the full article:


Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change‎

Acidification of the Oceans

More BS, rule. According to this article the pH estimate of ocean surface water in 1751 was 8.179

The pH estimate for 1994 was 8.104

The estimate for the year 2100 is 7.824.

The ph of deionized water is taken as neutral 7.00 because hydrogen ion concentration = hydoxide ion concentration.

The ocean is not being acidified. It is nowhere near to being acidic. It is becoming less basic.

The Great Coral Reef is being harmed due to farmland runoff not the dissolving of nearly insoluble atmospheric CO2.

The more crap the AGW alarmist claim the more terror they hope to inspire. Truth is that recent poles confirm more and more people in the UK and US are becoming skeptical of the ideological scam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: asyouwish72


Like any gas, CO2 solubilizes in water based on partial pressure (a fancy way of saying "the amount in the air"). Once in water, CO2 forms a proportional amount carbonic acid. Note the "acid" part. More CO2 in the atmosphere = more CO2 in the ocean = ocean acidification. I honestly cannot believe that anyone could doubt this. Really. It's that simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I just realized I forgot to add the link, so here it is for anyone that wants to read the full article:


Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change‎

Acidification of the Oceans

More BS, rule. According to this article the pH estimate of ocean surface water in 1751 was 8.179

The pH estimate for 1994 was 8.104

The estimate for the year 2100 is 7.824.

The ph of deionized water is taken as neutral 7.00 because hydrogen ion concentration = hydoxide ion concentration.

The ocean is not being acidified. It is nowhere near to being acidic. It is becoming less basic.

The Great Coral Reef is being harmed due to farmland runoff not the dissolving of nearly insoluble atmospheric CO2.

The more crap the AGW alarmist claim the more terror they hope to inspire. Truth is that recent poles confirm more and more people in the UK and US are becoming skeptical of the ideological scam.

Maybe that's 'cause the 'poles' are melting...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I agree with all but 3.

The arrogance of current leadership in the US is such that they don't care about what the country believes or what the political consequences of forcing unpopular solutions on us might be. They believe, as they do in all areas, that they are smarter than everyone else, and we need to be saved from ourselves.

They haven't acted yet because they haven't had enough time. They were all ready to verbally commit us to financing developing countries, opinion be damned. They may already have done that, I don't know that we have heard everything that will come out of Hopenhagen yet. They will also try and ram Crap and Tax down our throats

Obviously, the U.S. government isn't really financing developing countries, nor has it ever except when doing so is in it's own self-interest.

Let's review, then. The structure of U.S.-led globalization is as follows: 1) give developing countries loans that are too big, that they can't pay 2) have the countries develop infrastructure that they don't need, hiring U.S. and associated firms with that same loaned money 3) when these countries can't pay the loans they didn't need, have them sell over rights to precious resources, if they aren't already foreign-owned. 4) Force these countries to buy U.S. subsidized produce, driving local farmers out of business, so that big export-oriented farms can develop 5) If the country resists any of this, assassinate their democratically-elected leader and set up some kind of dictator. Later, call him a terrorist or a communist.

Note also that the amount guaranteed by U.S. at 'Hopenhagen' is, if I recall, 100 billion a year for all developing countries. Compare that to 700 billion for the 'not allowed in the church' money changers, that bill signed under a Republican president and I believe a democratic majority in congress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:


Yeah, even the kindergartners would run cirlces around your puerile reasoning abilities.

This coming from the guy who cited the discovery of fire as part of the profit motive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm ... is this the "backup" position, now that "AGW" seems to be on the ropes?

"Well, maybe Anthropogenic Global Warming was a fraud, and bad science, and we've been caught out .... but we can still destroy the capitalist system and take away those pesky Americans' money by claiming that the evil CO2 is destroying the oceans!"

Firm

Do you honestly believe that this is all a vast conspiracy by scientists from all over the globe to promote a fraud?

To what end?  Are they all getting rich off this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm ... is this the "backup" position, now that "AGW" seems to be on the ropes?

"Well, maybe Anthropogenic Global Warming was a fraud, and bad science, and we've been caught out .... but we can still destroy the capitalist system and take away those pesky Americans' money by claiming that the evil CO2 is destroying the oceans!"

Firm