Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 7:44:59 AM   
submittous


Posts: 345
Joined: 6/12/2004
Status: offline 		A general observation first, your post illustrates why most of us rely on peer reviewed pubs, I have some background in the chemistry of how the ocean acts as a moderator and sink for CO2 in the atmosphere but not so much on the dynamic of ocean PH... from what I have read it isn't a simple chemical reaction at all but highly complex and involves interaction with microbes and other marine life. I never claimed to understand everything I have read on the subject and like most people who aren't marine biologists and don't work full time in the field I have to take on some level of faith what experts write and is then reviewed by a sampling of other experts and then published... most of us don't have your apparent expertise in all phases of oceanography and climatology to reinterpret the raw data and draw conflicting conclusions to the vast majority of experts. I'm just a simple retired engineer/business man who has faith in the scientific method... not blind faith but on occasions like this one, where we reach a 90% consensus I do tend to lean in that direction and then when personal observation of anecdotal incidents fits then I can say it is what I believe is true, not that is it truth.

Each fishery you asked about was radically changed by human action in different ways ... and of course there are many many more examples that could have been brought up just in the mid region of the eastern pacific and probably thousands world wide. Simple overfishing is yet another oversimplification, changes in the chemical makeup of ocean waters near hi density human habitation and/or intense agriculture runoff are factors, the high technology changes in harvesting techniques and the increased market for ocean products from the rapidly growing population of humans are part of the formula... but like most real science, it is complicated and won't fit into a sound bite or simple formula. That's why we need people who devote their lives to study of each part of the world and why we should listen to them... unless of course you know better.

You say you understand peer reviewed publications and that should include the ramifications but then you say you don't trust them and prove you don't with your positions. I think I will decide my belief of your grasp by your actions and conclusions rather than your blanket statement.

I see your position as one of a denier because it has no scientific basis, just your personal opinion or maybe more honestly how you want the world to be. Deniers pick and chose which science they believe based on their world view and don't seem to be able to change that world view when new science contradicts... skeptics are willing to listen to experts over time and evolve new views. I feel the same way about GCC deniers as I do about people who claim evolution is just a theory and intelligent design is a theory so they are equal.... scientifically illiterate.

I will hazard a guess that your view on fishing is overfishing bad, managing harvesting the ocean like a ranch or farm good and if so it too is an oversimplification of a very complex system and we really don't agree. To agree with my views you'd have to have some trust in peer reviewed science on the subject and people who have devoted their entire working careers to gleaning insight into this particular system...

Apparently we differ on our views of patriotism, I believe real patriots hold their government responsible for it's action (or lack of action) and asks the same of our fellow citizens.


_____________________________

"If you are lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it." John Irving

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 7:54:01 AM   
submittous


Posts: 345
Joined: 6/12/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks for the compliment on our bus.... We converted it ourselves when we retired and lived and travelled in it all over the west and Mexico for a long time. It actually does have a thousand watts of solar panels on the roof that powers the satellite internet, computers, refrigeration and lights, either directly or through inverters. The air conditioning requires the propane generator to be fired up when parked. The bus itself uses a 8V71 Turbo for motive power that has a 300 amp alternator that provides road air conditioning power. I'm a retired engineering type, not a tree hugger.

Since we have settled here on lake Chapala we are unsure if the old bus will get much more use...

_____________________________

"If you are lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it." John Irving

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 9:30:38 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: submittous

A general observation first, your post illustrates why most of us rely on peer reviewed pubs, I have some background in the chemistry of how the ocean acts as a moderator and sink for CO2 in the atmosphere but not so much on the dynamic of ocean PH... from what I have read it isn't a simple chemical reaction at all but highly complex and involves interaction with microbes and other marine life. I never claimed to understand everything I have read on the subject and like most people who aren't marine biologists and don't work full time in the field I have to take on some level of faith what experts write and is then reviewed by a sampling of other experts and then published... most of us don't have your apparent expertise in all phases of oceanography and climatology to reinterpret the raw data and draw conflicting conclusions to the vast majority of experts. I'm just a simple retired engineer/business man who has faith in the scientific method... not blind faith but on occasions like this one, where we reach a 90% consensus I do tend to lean in that direction and then when personal observation of anecdotal incidents fits then I can say it is what I believe is true, not that is it truth.


It is too bad you cannot resist taking an ad homonym attack instead of contributing something helpful to our discussion. I never claimed to have an "expertise in all phases of oceanography and climatology" and I realize the process of converting hydrogen carbonate into marine shells is complex. You seem not to be aware that this thread is based upon a news article reporting on an IPCC report which contains this statement: "the harmful effects of carbon absorption in the oceans as decreasing the amount of calcium carbonate that can be used by marine creatures to construct shells or skeletons." That seems incongruous with the chemical equilibria involved and with the observed law of physics that renders carbon dioxide less soluble when the water warms, so one would expect the evaporation of the gas instead. There is no expertise claimed in that conclusion. If you have something to enlighten me, I invite you to make the counterpoint instead of resorting to a snarky personal attack.

Your condescending refusal to grasp the notion that simple citizens can express doubts about policy with honest and sincere intentions is evident in your continued reference to peer review papers. I invited you to submit one at least that you rely upon and will educate me and show me where I am wrong about the solubility of CO2. I am disappointed you chose to stay on your superior highway. You rely upon 90% consensus with faith. As someone has written elsewhere, consensus is a political term not a scientific term. Furthermore, there is some cry that the Scientists who were skeptical were not given an opportunity to present a dissenting report to the political committee of the UN receiving the IPCC summary.

quote:

Each fishery you asked about was radically changed by human action in different ways ... and of course there are many many more examples that could have been brought up just in the mid region of the eastern pacific and probably thousands world wide. Simple overfishing is yet another oversimplification, changes in the chemical makeup of ocean waters near hi density human habitation and/or intense agriculture runoff are factors, the high technology changes in harvesting techniques and the increased market for ocean products from the rapidly growing population of humans are part of the formula... but like most real science, it is complicated and won't fit into a sound bite or simple formula. That's why we need people who devote their lives to study of each part of the world and why we should listen to them... unless of course you know better.


Here you provide interesting information and suggest that there are many other factors involved in the problems we might be encountering with marine environment. So, it is not the result of acidification solely.

quote:

You say you understand peer reviewed publications and that should include the ramifications but then you say you don't trust them and prove you don't with your positions. I think I will decide my belief of your grasp by your actions and conclusions rather than your blanket statement.


I never said I don't trust peer reviewed publications. Where the hell did you get that from? That's just more of your bullshit.


quote:

I see your position as one of a denier because it has no scientific basis, just your personal opinion or maybe more honestly how you want the world to be. Deniers pick and chose which science they believe based on their world view and don't seem to be able to change that world view when new science contradicts... skeptics are willing to listen to experts over time and evolve new views. I feel the same way about GCC deniers as I do about people who claim evolution is just a theory and intelligent design is a theory so they are equal.... scientifically illiterate.


You do not know my position on Neo-Darwinism. Nor that of anyone else on this thread. Your comments are slander by association just as using the word "deniers" is a stealthy attempt to associate skeptics with religious fanaticism. For a taste of religion of the side of AGW or GCC as you prefer to call it I give you this quote from an article:

Though Gore's books, speeches, and Oscar-winning film on the issue are chock full of secular scientific information, they are also laced with biblical references. And Gore himself has said that climate change is "ultimately a moral and spiritual issue." Gore recently told Newsweek that since the publication of An Inconvenient Truth, he has trained Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu clergy to spread his message. He admitted that he uses a version of the "Inconvenient Truth" slide show that is "filled with scriptural references." Moreover, "It's probably my favorite version, but I don't use it very often because it can come off as proselytizing."

Gosh, ya think?

quote:

I will hazard a guess that your view on fishing is overfishing bad, managing harvesting the ocean like a ranch or farm good and if so it too is an oversimplification of a very complex system and we really don't agree. To agree with my views you'd have to have some trust in peer reviewed science on the subject and people who have devoted their entire working careers to gleaning insight into this particular system...


Actually, I have no informed view on the subject. Your statement reeks of condescension. Back to your peer reviewed superiority again.

quote:

Apparently we differ on our views of patriotism, I believe real patriots hold their government responsible for it's action (or lack of action) and asks the same of our fellow citizens.


Yes, and some of us believe in the necessity to seek information and voice dissent when we disagree.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to submittous)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 11:09:26 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sagedom

Localized warming is the only warming humans are capable of.  Globalized warming is a farce.  The sun is the only factor powerful enough to affect the temperatures on the entire earth.  Humans are responsible for localized warming, but transferring that localized warming to a global phenomena is stupidity on a colossal scale.  All the global warming wackos are all about us believing what they claim as gospel without expecting us to check their math or doing our own research.  Show us some real numbers and all the non-believers will be on board.

Do the math for yourself, then see if the warming myth still is plausable.  It's really very easy.  Find the global population, divide it by the total square miles of the earth.  This results in the total square feet each person on earth accounts for.  Compare that figure to the number of BTU's it would take to affect a 1000 square foot home at a height of 8 feet and see just how many BTU's each person would have to produce to change the temperature of their cubic foot section of the earth by one degree.  Even if you're kind and only consider the height of the atmosphere on the planet each person is responsible for as 1000 feet, the math doesn't add up.  Each person on earth would have to be responsible for a ridiculous number of BTU's for us to change the temperature of earth even one degree.  That also accounts for those who live in grass huts in tropical areas with near zero BTU's produced. 

Localized warming is very real, but global warming is a myth.  Get with the program wackos.  The global warming myth is worth billions of dollars to Al Gore and those who preach it.  That's the ONLY truth behind it!!!!!!!!! 



Sagedom, that's an interesting way to calculate it, I've never seen that before.
Also, about a year or two ago scientists discovered that all the planets in our Solar system were warming *at the same rate*!
That can only mean one thing, increased solar activity! There's no way to get around that so the global warming religion simply discards it just like they did with *tree ring data* that doesn't match their "agenda."
It makes you wonder what their actual "agenda" really is, doesn't it. They simply discard or ignore long accepted scientific methodology and practices and expect people to believe the voodoo "figures" they come up with!
Not only is it an insult to people's intelligence it's out and out fraud and bald faced lying!
Even when they're caught *red-handed* (infrangrante delicto) they continue to lie! Or to try to change the subject or claim that the e-mails were "stolen."
What if those e-mails were "handed over" to the Press, I wonder how they'd try to do "damage control" then?
When someone has to resort to lying to support their position they have no position.
Vincent showed us some of the math. As I said before, "Mathematics is NOT an opinion."
And as any good detective always knows, "Follow the $Money$!" And there are many people who stand to make a lot of money from this farce by *stealing* Taxpayer dollars!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to sagedom)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 11:30:34 AM   
submittous


Posts: 345
Joined: 6/12/2004
Status: offline 		First I need to apologize, you are correct, the quote I had in my mind was "we understand peer review just fine. We also understand when the peer review process is subverted. ...." and it wasn't you but 'willbeyourdaddy"... my error and I am truly sorry to blame you for something you didn't say.

I should reserve 'snarky personal attacks' for the deserving.

I agree that acidification is not the sole cause of loss of sea life, especially going back 50 years. Temperature change has a more pronounced affect in many cases (coral for one example). It is just another result of pouring million of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is a fairly short period of time. The earth's chemical balance or lack of it is complex, we probably won't know the worst effects of CO2 increases until they are big problems... climate and environmental scientists are doing their best to predict but since there is no historical example of changing the atmosphere this much this quickly to look it they have to struggle with computer models and theory... the things they do identify and have data on are just the tip of the iceberg (no pun). All of us should be focused on the as yet unknown ramifications of what we have done and continue to do instead of arguing about what has already been identified and is being studied.

The reason I do go back to peer review is it is at the heart of scientific method... publishing repeatable experiments and/or reviewable data is how science weeds out the personal opinions or 'bought' science from reality. The process is not fast or perfect and science is not my religion... (I am a secular buddhist by philosophy), but so far it is the best system we have come up with to grasp reality around us. There are lots of published articles showing that human interactions with the environment are likely causal to the increase in energy in our atmosphere and none in opposition. If you do have trust in the system how do you reconcile that? Despite Fox News reports, opposition opinions are very popular with editors of peer reviewed journals when they have a reasonable basis and can be evaluated by 'peers'.

My objection is not to you having a differing opinion... everyone has opinions, sometimes right sometimes wrong. What I object to is couching your opinion that is not backed up by any science with arguments that it is.... which is much like what creationists have been doing. I never said you were or were not a creationist, just that you are using the same methods.... or maybe a better example would be the 'science' that tobacco companies used in the 60's to 'refute' smoking being a cause of cancer.

The truth is the government is taking your position on GCC... the US is not doing a thing to work on it and isn't going to. I see the situation as those of us who see this as a problem that needs to be dealt with are the ones voicing dissent.

Again, Vincent, I do apologize for my misquoting you...

_____________________________

"If you are lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it." John Irving

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 11:33:57 AM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Its been pointed out to you several times that research grants are these people's bread and butter, rml. Not mentioned as often but still in play is that most college and university faculty members lean pretty far to the left, and it should be obvious to you by now that there is a huge political agenda behind this.

In the sciences?  Not in my school(s).

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 11:42:15 AM   
submittous


Posts: 345
Joined: 6/12/2004
Status: offline 		It was pretty clever of evil Al Gore to melt glaciers in Boliva, Chile, the Alps, Greenland and all over north America to further his fraud that is making him millions... He must of bribed those island nations to be so upset about the flooding of their countries. ... and all the other temp changes.. sea water, air ... etc. You give him a lot of credit for being able to change the world, don't you think he would have changed the results in 2000 if he had that much power??

If you don't think a couple of hundred MILLION more TONS of CO2 going into the atmosphere every year hasn't changed the balance and won't have ongoing affects than I guess you won't change your mind about the issue no matter the facts.

_____________________________

"If you are lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it." John Irving

(in reply to submittous)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 11:59:59 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: submittous

First I need to apologize, you are correct, the quote I had in my mind was "we understand peer review just fine. We also understand when the peer review process is subverted. ...." and it wasn't you but 'willbeyourdaddy"... my error and I am truly sorry to blame you for something you didn't say.


Thank you for clarifying and for the gentlemanly apology. It is rare here where positions are defended so fiercely. Your words are therefore very much appreciated.

quote:

My objection is not to you having a differing opinion... everyone has opinions, sometimes right sometimes wrong. What I object to is couching your opinion that is not backed up by any science with arguments that it is.... which is much like what creationists have been doing. I never said you were or were not a creationist, just that you are using the same methods.... or maybe a better example would be the 'science' that tobacco companies used in the 60's to 'refute' smoking being a cause of cancer.


Well I am definately not a creationist but rather very much an atheist and Darwinist who daily is in awe of the wonder of the Universe and of being alive.

I shall continue to search out some understanding of how the gas CO2 is dissolving in greater amounts into a warming sea. Seems to defy the physics of it.

quote:

The truth is the government is taking your position on GCC... the US is not doing a thing to work on it and isn't going to. I see the situation as those of us who see this as a problem that needs to be dealt with are the ones voicing dissent.


I don't understand how you can say that when the EPA has declared CO2 a hazardous pollutant. I expect there will be some regulations soon enough.

Have a safe and pleasant continued journey in your bus. And thank you again.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to submittous)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 12:14:03 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: submittous

It was pretty clever of evil Al Gore to melt glaciers in Boliva, Chile, the Alps, Greenland and all over north America to further his fraud that is making him millions... He must of bribed those island nations to be so upset about the flooding of their countries. ... and all the other temp changes.. sea water, air ... etc. You give him a lot of credit for being able to change the world, don't you think he would have changed the results in 2000 if he had that much power??

If you don't think a couple of hundred MILLION more TONS of CO2 going into the atmosphere every year hasn't changed the balance and won't have ongoing affects than I guess you won't change your mind about the issue no matter the facts.


Deglaciation has occurred repeatedly in earth's history. With respect to that cycle here is another inconsistency that puzzles me. I have put up this graph a number of times seeking some answer. Here is a graph pubished by the IPCC that appears to show the rise of CO2 following the rise in temperature, not preceding it, in each instance of deglaciation. Seems to reverse the cause and effect relationship claimed by anthropogenic global warming alarmists. I wonder if you have any explanation for it.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to submittous)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 1:23:50 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: submittous

It was pretty clever of evil Al Gore to melt glaciers in Boliva, Chile, the Alps, Greenland and all over north America to further his fraud that is making him millions... He must of bribed those island nations to be so upset about the flooding of their countries. ... and all the other temp changes.. sea water, air ... etc. You give him a lot of credit for being able to change the world, don't you think he would have changed the results in 2000 if he had that much power??

If you don't think a couple of hundred MILLION more TONS of CO2 going into the atmosphere every year hasn't changed the balance and won't have ongoing affects than I guess you won't change your mind about the issue no matter the facts.


Deglaciation has occurred repeatedly in earth's history. With respect to that cycle here is another inconsistency that puzzles me. I have put up this graph a number of times seeking some answer. Here is a graph pubished by the IPCC that appears to show the rise of CO2 following the rise in temperature, not preceding it, in each instance of deglaciation. Seems to reverse the cause and effect relationship claimed by anthropogenic global warming alarmists. I wonder if you have any explanation for it.

Vincent


they have no explanation for it. thats why they had to change the scale of published graphs to obscure the real relationship.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 4:15:30 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: submittous

It was pretty clever of evil Al Gore to melt glaciers in Boliva, Chile, the Alps, Greenland and all over north America to further his fraud that is making him millions... He must of bribed those island nations to be so upset about the flooding of their countries. ... and all the other temp changes.. sea water, air ... etc. You give him a lot of credit for being able to change the world, don't you think he would have changed the results in 2000 if he had that much power??

If you don't think a couple of hundred MILLION more TONS of CO2 going into the atmosphere every year hasn't changed the balance and won't have ongoing affects than I guess you won't change your mind about the issue no matter the facts.


Deglaciation has occurred repeatedly in earth's history. With respect to that cycle here is another inconsistency that puzzles me. I have put up this graph a number of times seeking some answer. Here is a graph pubished by the IPCC that appears to show the rise of CO2 following the rise in temperature, not preceding it, in each instance of deglaciation. Seems to reverse the cause and effect relationship claimed by anthropogenic global warming alarmists. I wonder if you have any explanation for it.

Vincent



Vincent, thankyou for that graph. I just LOVE to see the warming religion's graph and compare the two!
You know, I bet that's why the Warmer Moonbats jettisoned the "tree ring data", you could get CO2 readings from that as well!

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 12/20/2009 4:21:51 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 6:02:39 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline 		Popeye, I think that is the warming religion's graph. It was published by the IPCC and featured in Al Gore's movie. They simply ignore the contradiction and claim a correlation.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/20/2009 10:48:32 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Popeye, I think that is the warming religion's graph. It was published by the IPCC and featured in Al Gore's movie. They simply ignore the contradiction and claim a correlation.

Vincent


GOD! They're pathological liars! They don't think they "can" get caught!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/21/2009 7:17:20 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline 		LOL! Nope, they don't. The graph is not widely publicized but Al G featured it in his movie. I guess they count on a paucity of graph savey people. More likely they count on laziness. Oh, see the obvious correlation! Pattern seems right. Well, that's settles the science doesn't it?

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/21/2009 1:20:54 PM   
submittous


Posts: 345
Joined: 6/12/2004
Status: offline 		Well yes... in normal cycles warming releases perma frost and carbon that has been held there and co2 levels rise after warming, but in our case co2 is artificially been poured into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel that has been held underground for millions of years. CO2 increases from the warming process will provide positive feedback and cause further warming over time.... this and a hell of a lot more is in the most basics of climate models if you read the articles in the journals. No one can look at the data and model and know what will happen, it takes rather large computers to work through the math and provide usable results. Why do you think you can figure it out on a cocktail napkin?

You are picking a part of the working theory out of context and then declaring the theory false.... I'd ask you to do the work of a real critic of a scientific theory and propose another one to replace it but even with millions of dollars being spent by oil and coal companies hiring qualified scientists to do just that .... no results. If you and the rest of people making fun of Al Gore would read and understand the science instead of deciding to believe the world works the way you want it to you'd be calling for action to deal with this byproduct of our technology just like I am.

Much of science and reality is counter intuitive, there are paradoxes and difficult to see ramifications to things.... taking anything out of context will lead to bad conclusions... just like the ones you come to from taking emails out of context or temp readings or the reality that tree ring growth from 1960 does not follow world wide temperatures.... btw, that should concern you for the potential danger signal it is not that scientists are misleading you.

I understand it is more fun to make fun of geeks like Al and I also know that Rush and his ilk are pushing anti science as their religion and I also know minds won't be changed here on a perve politics board... so I'll let ya'll have your fun being anti science thinking you are just naturally smarter than the real experts in the field who have studied this issue for most of their lives....

I am saddened that thinking like this is a big part of American culture today and the results will make a poorer world for everyone's decendents.... The dumbing down of America has a price.

_____________________________

"If you are lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it." John Irving

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/21/2009 1:45:00 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

in normal cycles warming releases perma frost and carbon that has been held there and co2 levels rise after warming, but in our case co2 is artificially been poured into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel that has been held underground for millions of years.
The definition of selective interpretation - "BUT in our case". When I hear that its the preamble for a rationalization coming next. In this case - the rationalized cause and effect is "CO2 artificially been poured into the atmoshphere...." And? Why is the use of that resource - finite by anyones analysis - contributing to a conclusion of a modern day catastrophe when you can point to similar and higher CO2 occurrences in Earth's history predating humanity?

A scientific mind would never ascribe the importance to anecdotal data without any direct correlation. Al Gore isn't a "geek" he's a carnival hustler made extremely wealthy on this one issue using convenient interpretation of data. A VERY limited amount of data considering Earth's history - but of course right, absolute, and needing immediate abdication of industry to solve the problem.

You know, I never read any 'anti-global warming' literature or watch any anti-global warming documentaries. There is no need when the 'facts' used to come to the conclusions from the 'warmists', like those advocated in Copenhagen, provide enough information to ignore them.

When there is doubt, all that necessary is to look at their disclaimer....
quote:

No one can look at the data and model and know what will happen,


Why then set policy based upon them as is the desire of the orthodox 'warmists'?


quote:

The dumbing down of America has a price.
It certainly has - people now will belief anything - no prove or valid science required.

(in reply to submittous)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/21/2009 5:03:40 PM   
submittous


Posts: 345
Joined: 6/12/2004
Status: offline 		No offense but we have been digging fossil fuels out of the ground in big numbers for 150 years and burning it creating billions of TONS of new CO2 in the atmosphere... no need for a link to the industrial revolution I hope it is a part of your education. That's what I meant by in our case... the reality we live in. Nothing like this has ever happened before to our knowledge so we don't have a historical situation to compare it to, we have been forced to use computer models of our climate and the last 100 years of observation and people devoting their lives to study and creating theories, testing them, throwing away the ones that don't hold up and adding to the ones that do. It's called scientific method.

As is often the case with deniers you took my comment about no one knowing by looking at the data and model out of context, the context is that it is too complex a system to just look at, it takes intense computation to get the reality... and the reality is apparently counterintuitive to you... and sometimes me too, but still reality. We've heated up the atmosphere and the only real argument among real scientists and experts is how much and what the effects will be when...

You may feel the science is not valid.... if so with scientific method show why, or admit that you can't. (if you can the oil companies will pay you LOTS)

_____________________________

"If you are lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it." John Irving

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change - 12/21/2009 5:18:05 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		mittous,
"How much and when" offers a lot of room for error wouldn't you say? Again - humanity exists ergo it has an impact. "How much and when" are but two aspects needing debate. The other is has the impact been beneficial?

Similarly up for debate is how much resource and capital do you allocate for questionable science and what are you sacrificing in order to do so. The targets in Copenhagen are obvious only in their agenda and hypocrisy. Not only the aforementioned messiah of global warming - Al Gore; but as I watched and read the reports the agenda based delegates such as this one.

The lead negotiator for the small island nation of Tuvalu, the bow-tie wearing Ian Fry, broke down as he begged delegates to take tough action."I woke up this morning crying," and that's not easy for a grown man to admit," Mr Fry said on Saturday, as his eyes welled with tears."The fate of my country rests in your hands," he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause.Bolt comments: "So moving. But let's now learn more from Samantha Maiden about this former Greenpeace official from 'Tuvalu.'" Quoting again from the Australian, Bolt adds:But the part-time PhD scholar at the Australian National University actually resides in Queanbeyan, NSW, where he's not likely to be troubled by rising sea levels because the closest beach at Batemans Bay is a two-hour, 144km drive away. Asked whether he had ever lived in Tuvalu, his wife told The Australian last night she would "rather not comment"....Still, it's a long way from the endangered atolls of Tuvalu, with his neighbour Michelle Ormay confirming he's lived in Queanbeyan for more than a decade, while he has worked his way up to being "very high up in climate change."

The fact that my current government allocated $100 Billion in tax money, some of which will go to this individual, "very high up in climate change", makes me feel as if my somewhat senile parents sent $100k to some televangelist preventing the second coming. Both decisions are based as much, if not more, on faith as science.

The "reality" is we do not know. We agree on that it seems. The question remains the same - without knowing, and with as much likelihood that humanity's influence will have overall beneficial results as bad ones; why institute crisis mode if not for personal and special interest beneficiaries? Considering that the last similar period of 'global warming' resulted in the Renaissance, perhaps we should be seeking one now - not trying to prevent it.

BTW - No offense taken in the least, and trust none assumed from this end either.

(in reply to submittous)
Profile   Post #: 118
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Acid oceans: the 'evil twin' of climate change Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109