Global warming alarmists reach new heights

[gowlerk 1,902]

brenthutch

I am fiercely advocating for their future. What the hell do you think I am doing? How many kids do you have?

Two, same as you. Mine are grown. Two step daughters as well, they are a little younger, but also adults. We are empty nesters now. Do you really believe an atmosphere with a higher percentage CO2 will be what they need to help them thrive? That somehow this will be a good thing because plants will grow better?

You asked what the bad effects might be, then you call those that disagree with you "bed wetters". You seem to think name calling is an effective way to make a point. You are wrong about that. And you are wrong about more carbon release being a good thing.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[turtlespeed 212]

gowlerk

***I am fiercely advocating for their future. What the hell do you think I am doing? How many kids do you have?

Two, same as you. Mine are grown. Two step daughters as well, they are a little younger, but also adults. We are empty nesters now. Do you really believe an atmosphere with a higher percentage CO2 will be what they need to help them thrive? That somehow this will be a good thing because plants will grow better?

You asked what the bad effects might be, then you call those that disagree with you "bed wetters". You seem to think name calling is an effective way to make a point. You are wrong about that. And you are wrong about more carbon release being a good thing.

I suppose you have never used the term "tea bagger" before have you?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[gowlerk 1,902]

I suppose you have never used the term "tea bagger" before have you? ***


No, I have not. I had to Google it to find out what it might mean in context. It's vulgar, I tend to mostly avoid vulgarity.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 383]

There is zero evidence that higher CO2 levels are detrimental. ZERO, none, full stop. However there is evidence that higher CO2 levels are beneficial. The nightmare scenarios you have laid out are nothing more than theoretical musings. On the other hand the policy prescriptions for this non-problem hurt people, and hurt the poor the most.

[gowlerk 1,902]

brenthutch

There is zero evidence that higher CO2 levels are detrimental. ZERO, none, full stop. However there is evidence that higher CO2 levels are beneficial. The nightmare scenarios you have laid out are nothing more than theoretical musings. On the other hand the policy prescriptions for this non-problem hurt people, and hurt the poor the most.

Well then, you have spoken. Keep the blinders firmly on then while the world passes by you. And hope you die before you find out that you are wrong and the larger world was right. Only in America can you find large numbers of people who think like you. That's because in America you have a right wing media talk show industry to feed your fantasy and tell you what the team should believe.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 383]

My positions are backed up by data, not hyperbole. BTW I listen to NPR and watch MSNBC, hardly right wing media.

[DanG 1]

Quote

My positions are backed up by data, not hyperbole.

Cherry picked data, sure. Then sprinkled with your own hyperbole.

Quote

BTW I listen to NPR and watch MSNBC, hardly right wing media.

I'll bet you listen to Car Talk and Morning Joe, not NPR or MSNBC news.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 383]

Close, Morning Joe in the AM and All Things Considered in the PM.

BTW Car Talk is just re-runs now.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

BTW Car Talk is just re-runs now.

RIP Tom Magliozzi.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

My positions are backed up by data, not hyperbole.

Cherry picked data, sure. Then sprinkled with your own hyperbole.

Quote

BTW I listen to NPR and watch MSNBC, hardly right wing media.

I'll bet you listen to Car Talk and Morning Joe, not NPR or MSNBC news.

the show info that disputes it.
Should be real easy for someone as up to date on the topic as you think yourself to be. Right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,380]

>There is zero evidence that higher CO2 levels are detrimental. ZERO, none, full stop.

>My positions are backed up by data, not hyperbole. BTW I listen to NPR and watch MSNBC.

=====================
NPR
Environment
Increased Carbon Dioxide Levels Damage Coral Reefs

April 17, 2013
Morning Edition
Richard Harris 2010

Scientists have been worried about coral reefs for years, since realizing that rising temperatures and rising ocean acidity are hard on organisms that build their skeletons from calcium carbonate. Researchers on Australia's Great Barrier Reef are conducting an experiment that demonstrates just how much corals could suffer in the coming decades.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

As we burn fossil fuels - we're talking about oil, gas and coal - carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere. Now, there are debates about how quickly that is changing the global climate, but there is no question that billions of tons of carbon dioxide have soaked into the ocean. That's making waters more acidic, which puts some ocean ecosystems at risk, particularly coral reefs. We sent NPR science correspondent Richard Harris to Australia's Great Barrier Reef to look into these consequences. His first stop was a research station on Heron Island.

DOVE: So as you see, the future is not a great place. Here's - the needle coral is underneath here. It's gone. And there's really not very much left alive.

HARRIS: In all there are four sets of tanks here: the healthiest coral are in a tank that simulates pre-industrial conditions. The present day tank looks almost as good, but the coral looks progressively worse in tanks with increasing carbon dioxide and temperature.

HARRIS: Now, plenty of small-scale experiments in the lab have shown that corals suffer in hotter waters and in more acidic conditions. This experiment puts those two threats together, since that's what the reefs of the future will face. Dove tries to be dispassionate about her findings, but the site touches the human chord.

DOVE: I feel pretty sad when I look into this. You know, I look at the others, the control tank, and I think, well, that would be nice if we could at least stay like that.

HARRIS: But doing so would mean civilization would have to stop burning fossil fuels immediately. That's not going to happen. Instead, once the carbon dioxide concentrations get high enough in the ocean, the stony structure of the reef actually starts to dissolve. That's bad news for the vibrant life that lives on the reef.

DOVE: There's no reef building going on here. It's reef dismantling that's going on here. Maybe some fish can survive in this type of environment, but I think we're going to lose a lot of the fish capabilities, you know, for fishing and everything. So people who are trying to live off what the reef offers them, this is going to be much harder. From a tourist's point of view, I don't imagine this is something that tourists would feel that attracted to come and see.
========================

[brenthutch 383]

The oceans are around a PH of 8.1. A PH of >7 is a base, not an acid. Bone up on tenth grade chemistry and get back to me. BTW I inject CO2 into my reef tank to maintain alkalinity and calcium levels.

[gowlerk 1,902]

brenthutch

The oceans are around a PH of 8.1. A PH of >7 is a base, not an acid. Bone up on tenth grade chemistry and get back to me. BTW I inject CO2 into my reef tank to maintain alkalinity and calcium levels.

From the well known alarmist National Geographic:

On the pH scale, which runs from 0 to 14, solutions with low numbers are considered acidic and those with higher numbers are basic. Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

That is 200 years out of 300 million. More info on keeping your pet fish happy is here:

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

Along with an explanation about why more CO2 is not the wonder cure you seem to think the world needs. And why Bill Von is correct.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,380]

> Bone up on tenth grade chemistry and get back to me. BTW I inject CO2 into my
>reef tank to maintain alkalinity and calcium levels.

One wonders why you claim to listen to NPR when you immediately deny the science they report on. Is it just because you wanted to be taken a bit more seriously, by claiming you listen to NPR rather than Breitbart? If so don't bother; it's not working.

[kallend 1,620]

gowlerk

Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

Just to clarify, by "25-percent increase in acidity" what is meant is that the hydrogen ion concentration has increased by 25% (since pH is a logarithmic measure, a small change in pH implies a large change in hydrogen ion concentration).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

[gowlerk 1,902]

brenthutch

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

Thanks for that. I'll just ignore Nat Geo, Sci American, and all the other mainstream science info I find. I'll choose to believe your "science skeptic" site run by the TV presenter who calls herself "Jo". Because she has a pretty face and therefore MUST be correct.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 1,620]

brenthutch

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

Do you also teach your grandma to suck eggs?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 620]

Elon Musk just tweeted about CO2 levels and where we are
But, what does he know anyway?
/s

[GeorgiaDon 340]

brenthutch

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

There are several major flaws in the "thinking" in that article. For example:
1. It is true that pH does fluctuate some naturally, even on a daily basis as phytoplankton are photosynthetically active during the day and not at night. Aquatic organisms can obviously live within this natural range of variation. As the average pH falls, though, with acidification, the fluctuation range falls too. The historical mean pH of the ocean surface is 8.2, and this will fluctuate up and down by about 0.02 pH units. It is disingenuous to say that if an organism can survive withing a range of pH values (say for example between 8.22 and 8.18. mean of 8.2) it will be perfectly happy if the mean pH goes to 8.18, because now normal fluctuations will mean some of the time those organisms will be exposed to pH 8.16, more acid than what they have experienced to this point.

Here's another way to think about it. Temperature fluctuates daily and seasonally. Suppose the normal mean is 75 degrees, and it ranges from 45 to 95. Obviously any organism that lives under those conditions can survive that range, although they may be physiologically stressed at the extremes. Occasionally the temperature may go a bit above or below that range, which will be quite stressful but probably survivable for brief periods. Now imagine that temperature shifts to a mean of 85 degrees, with a daily/seasonal range between 55 and 105. The average is still within the range of what used to be normal, but now that organism is frequently exposed to temperatures significantly higher than what it is physiologically adapted for. Will it still be able to live under those conditions? If the trend continues and now it is exposed to 115 degrees for half the year will it survive? The point is, it's not the average that will kill you, it's the high or the low of the range of fluctuation.

2. Just because some animals are continuously secreting a carbonate shell does not mean pH will not affect them. If the water is dissolving the shell at a rate that is slower than the shell is secreted, the animal will still have an abnormally thin shell. The shell thickness is a response to environmental pressures, such as predators or being pounded by waves. A thin shell is a weak shell, and may not be good enough to do the job. Once the water gets to be too acid, the shell will dissolve as it is being secreted and no shell at all will form, but the organism will be dead long before that pH is reached.

3. Some life stages are more sensitive to pH than others. Fish and marine invertebrates have external fertilization, and sperm and eggs tend to be more sensitive to pH than the adult animals are. So you could easily have a situation where adult animals are not dying due the pH, but they are not reproducing. Guess what happens if that goes on for a while.

4. Many species of phytoplankton and zooplankton seem to be especially sensitive to pH. These organisms are the foundation of the marine food chain. Even if fish can survive a particular degree of acidification, how well will they do without food?

Current rates of ocean pH change indicate that pH will fall by as much as 0.4 pH units by the end of this century. That is a massive change (as the pH scale is logarithmic), and is likely to cause widespread devastation. pH has likely changed over geological time, but not at such a rapid rate. Evolution is a slow process, marine organisms could likely adapt to a somewhat more acid environment if the change was slow enough. Change at the current rate is only going to result in mass extinctions if it is allowed to proceed unchecked.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[speedy 0]

gowlerk

***http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

Thanks for that. I'll just ignore Nat Geo, Sci American, and all the other mainstream science info I find. I'll choose to believe your "science skeptic" site run by the TV presenter who calls herself "Jo". Because she has a pretty face and therefore MUST be correct.

Actually Jo did not write the piece linked, Professor Brice Bosnich did.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

GeorgiaDon

***http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

There are several major flaws in the "thinking" in that article. For example:

...2. Just because some animals are continuously secreting a carbonate shell does not mean pH will not affect them. If the water is dissolving the shell at a rate that is slower than the shell is secreted, the animal will still have an abnormally thin shell. The shell thickness is a response to environmental pressures, such as predators or being pounded by waves. A thin shell is a weak shell, and may not be good enough to do the job. Once the water gets to be too acid, the shell will dissolve as it is being secreted and no shell at all will form, but the organism will be dead long before that pH is reached...

Don

Well, one more major flaw about coral reefs is that the reef structure itself is not alive and secreting itself.

The reef has built itself over a very long time on the dead shells of previous residents. "Long time" meaning upwards of 10000 years.

So any dissolving of the coral won't simply be a matter whether or not the growing coral will stay alive, it's a matter of the long dead reef structure disappearing.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 1,620]

speedy

******http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

Thanks for that. I'll just ignore Nat Geo, Sci American, and all the other mainstream science info I find. I'll choose to believe your "science skeptic" site run by the TV presenter who calls herself "Jo". Because she has a pretty face and therefore MUST be correct.

Actually Jo did not write the piece linked, Professor Brice Bosnich did.

Since when did being a professor carry any weight in SC?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[speedy 0]

kallend

*********http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

Thanks for that. I'll just ignore Nat Geo, Sci American, and all the other mainstream science info I find. I'll choose to believe your "science skeptic" site run by the TV presenter who calls herself "Jo". Because she has a pretty face and therefore MUST be correct.


Actually Jo did not write the piece linked, Professor Brice Bosnich did.

Since when did being a professor carry any weight in SC?

I never said it did I was just pointing out that the weather forecaster did not write the article. gowlerk was attacking the wrong messenger

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 18]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change

People are smart

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln