The Ocean is broken

[RandomGuy]

Yikes.

The ocean is broken.
By Greg Ray, Newcastle Herald
38 minutes ago


The following article was reprinted with permission from The Newcastle Herald.

IT was the silence that made this voyage different from all of those before it.

Not the absence of sound, exactly.

The wind still whipped the sails and whistled in the rigging. The waves still sloshed against the fibreglass hull.

Read what's happened since this article went global

And there were plenty of other noises: muffled thuds and bumps and scrapes as the boat knocked against pieces of debris.

What was missing was the cries of the seabirds which, on all previous similar voyages, had surrounded the boat.

The birds were missing because the fish were missing.

Exactly 10 years before, when Newcastle yachtsman Ivan Macfadyen had sailed exactly the same course from Melbourne to Osaka, all he'd had to do to catch a fish from the ocean between Brisbane and Japan was throw out a baited line.

"There was not one of the 28 days on that portion of the trip when we didn't catch a good-sized fish to cook up and eat with some rice," Macfadyen recalled.

But this time, on that whole long leg of sea journey, the total catch was two.

No fish. No birds. Hardly a sign of life at all.

"In years gone by I'd gotten used to all the birds and their noises," he said.

"They'd be following the boat, sometimes resting on the mast before taking off again. You'd see flocks of them wheeling over the surface of the sea in the distance, feeding on pilchards."

But in March and April this year, only silence and desolation surrounded his boat, Funnel Web, as it sped across the surface of a haunted ocean.

North of the equator, up above New Guinea, the ocean-racers saw a big fishing boat working a reef in the distance.

"All day it was there, trawling back and forth. It was a big ship, like a mother-ship," he said.

And all night it worked too, under bright floodlights. And in the morning Macfadyen was awoken by his crewman calling out, urgently, that the ship had launched a speedboat.

"Obviously I was worried. We were unarmed and pirates are a real worry in those waters. I thought, if these guys had weapons then we were in deep trouble."

But they weren't pirates, not in the conventional sense, at least. The speedboat came alongside and the Melanesian men aboard offered gifts of fruit and jars of jam and preserves.

"And they gave us five big sugar-bags full of fish," he said.

"They were good, big fish, of all kinds. Some were fresh, but others had obviously been in the sun for a while.

"We told them there was no way we could possibly use all those fish. There were just two of us, with no real place to store or keep them. They just shrugged and told us to tip them overboard. That's what they would have done with them anyway, they said.

"They told us that his was just a small fraction of one day's by-catch. That they were only interested in tuna and to them, everything else was rubbish. It was all killed, all dumped. They just trawled that reef day and night and stripped it of every living thing."

Macfadyen felt sick to his heart. That was one fishing boat among countless more working unseen beyond the horizon, many of them doing exactly the same thing.

No wonder the sea was dead. No wonder his baited lines caught nothing. There was nothing to catch.

If that sounds depressing, it only got worse.

The next leg of the long voyage was from Osaka to San Francisco and for most of that trip the desolation was tinged with nauseous horror and a degree of fear.

"After we left Japan, it felt as if the ocean itself was dead," Macfadyen said.

"We hardly saw any living things. We saw one whale, sort of rolling helplessly on the surface with what looked like a big tumour on its head. It was pretty sickening.

"I've done a lot of miles on the ocean in my life and I'm used to seeing turtles, dolphins, sharks and big flurries of feeding birds. But this time, for 3000 nautical miles there was nothing alive to be seen."

In place of the missing life was garbage in astounding volumes.

"Part of it was the aftermath of the tsunami that hit Japan a couple of years ago. The wave came in over the land, picked up an unbelievable load of stuff and carried it out to sea. And it's still out there, everywhere you look."

Ivan's brother, Glenn, who boarded at Hawaii for the run into the United States, marvelled at the "thousands on thousands" of yellow plastic buoys. The huge tangles of synthetic rope, fishing lines and nets. Pieces of polystyrene foam by the million. And slicks of oil and petrol, everywhere.

Countless hundreds of wooden power poles are out there, snapped off by the killer wave and still trailing their wires in the middle of the sea.

"In years gone by, when you were becalmed by lack of wind, you'd just start your engine and motor on," Ivan said.

Not this time.

"In a lot of places we couldn't start our motor for fear of entangling the propeller in the mass of pieces of rope and cable. That's an unheard of situation, out in the ocean.

"If we did decide to motor we couldn't do it at night, only in the daytime with a lookout on the bow, watching for rubbish.

"On the bow, in the waters above Hawaii, you could see right down into the depths. I could see that the debris isn't just on the surface, it's all the way down. And it's all sizes, from a soft-drink bottle to pieces the size of a big car or truck.

"We saw a factory chimney sticking out of the water, with some kind of boiler thing still attached below the surface. We saw a big container-type thing, just rolling over and over on the waves.

"We were weaving around these pieces of debris. It was like sailing through a garbage tip.

"Below decks you were constantly hearing things hitting against the hull, and you were constantly afraid of hitting something really big. As it was, the hull was scratched and dented all over the place from bits and pieces we never saw."

Plastic was ubiquitous. Bottles, bags and every kind of throwaway domestic item you can imagine, from broken chairs to dustpans, toys and utensils.

And something else. The boat's vivid yellow paint job, never faded by sun or sea in years gone past, reacted with something in the water off Japan, losing its sheen in a strange and unprecedented way.

BACK in Newcastle, Ivan Macfadyen is still coming to terms with the shock and horror of the voyage.

"The ocean is broken," he said, shaking his head in stunned disbelief.

Recognising the problem is vast, and that no organisations or governments appear to have a particular interest in doing anything about it, Macfadyen is looking for ideas.

He plans to lobby government ministers, hoping they might help.

More immediately, he will approach the organisers of Australia's major ocean races, trying to enlist yachties into an international scheme that uses volunteer yachtsmen to monitor debris and marine life.

Macfadyen signed up to this scheme while he was in the US, responding to an approach by US academics who asked yachties to fill in daily survey forms and collect samples for radiation testing - a significant concern in the wake of the tsunami and consequent nuclear power station failure in Japan.

"I asked them why don't we push for a fleet to go and clean up the mess," he said.

"But they said they'd calculated that the environmental damage from burning the fuel to do that job would be worse than just leaving the debris there."

---------------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/the-ocean-is-broken-133327474.html

[m>s]

My uncle who is a biologist says the oceans ph is getting all fucked up because of the carbon emmissions

[Wild Cobra]

My uncle who is a biologist says the oceans ph is getting all fucked up because of the carbon emmissions

He should stop listening to the Climastrologists. CO2 can only change the pH a very small amount in its value changes. The normal variations are far more than CO2 can. In fact, there is a normal cyclical pattern of pH changes most people are unaware of.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CoralreefpH_zps1cb6434e.png

Of course, climastrologists like Manny lie to us, and tell us this drop since about 1960 is because of CO2.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He should stop listening to the Climastrologists. CO2 can only change the pH a very small amount in its value changes. The normal variations are far more than CO2 can. In fact, there is a normal cyclical pattern of pH changes most people are unaware of.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CoralreefpH_zps1cb6434e.png

Of course, climastrologists like Manny lie to us, and tell us this drop since about 1960 is because of CO2.

You so cute like boutons with your labels for your political opponents. So can you even remember where you got the graph from?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Don't listen to scientists. Listen to the really weird guy on the internet with no education but with the ability to post graphs he doesn't understand.

[Wild Cobra]

You so cute like boutons with your labels for your political opponents. So can you even remember where you got the graph from?
Are you really that daft?

The citation is right in the graphic, dumbshit.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Don't listen to scientists. Listen to the really weird guy on the internet with no education but with the ability to post graphs he doesn't understand.
I listen to scientists. I just don't listen to climastrologists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you really that daft?

The citation is right in the graphic, dumbshit.

I said where the graph was from not where the information in the graph was from. You understand the difference right?

[AntiChrist]

I said where the graph was from not where the information in the graph was from. You understand the difference right?


Why does that matter if the data is the same?

[Wild Cobra]

I said where the graph was from not where the information in the graph was from. You understand the difference right?

Yes.

Do you realize the accuracy of the data climastrolists rely on is no better, and generally worse?

Do you have something that properly dismisses the peer reviewed study that shows this pH is cyclical?

[cheguevara]

But I thought the radiation from Fukushima was only as harmful as eating a banana


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

posted 32 months ago in this site "nobody is going to die from this" :lol :lol :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Why does that matter if the data is the same?

He's talking about the relaiability of the proxy data used.

Funny how he arbitrarily dismisses the peer reviewed studies that don't agree with his holy dogma, and blindly believe grey papers that fit the dogma.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I looked it up. It's in there. What else did I find:


Our findings suggest that the effects of progressive acidification of the oceans are likely to differ between coral reefs because reef-water PCO2 and consequent changes in seawater pH will rarely be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Although the relatively large variations in seawater pH at Finders Reef suggest that coral reefs may be resilient to the shorter term effects of ocean acidification, in the coming decades many reefs are likely to experience reduced pH that is unprecedented relative to natural levels. Additional paleo-pH records are required from a range of coral reef ecosystems to improve our understanding of the physical and biological controls on reef-water pH, and the long-term impacts of future ocean acidification.

So you take from that their is no issue right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes.

Do you realize the accuracy of the data climastrolists rely on is no better, and generally worse?

Do you have something that properly dismisses the peer reviewed study that shows this pH is cyclical?

Yeah the paper you cited.

[MannyIsGod]

Not sure why there's even a debate about that graph other than people not understanding what it shows and how it does or doesn't apply today. Has PH gone up and done int he past? Of course, pH in the ocean is directly related to the temperature of the water and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, when you raise both of those levels you exit the bounds of the previous cycle and change the fundamental bounds of the system to begin with. WTF do I know though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why does that matter if the data is the same?

And to think that you must have studied statistics.

:lol UTSA engineering.

You remember anything about discrete systems, normalization and the like? They even teach that there?

[Wild Cobra]

I looked it up. It's in there. What else did I find:



So you take from that their is no issue right?
These people always have to give a sound bit to the people who pay their research. They quantified the graph. What are they speaking of? tenths of a pH? Hundreths? Thousanths?

They don't say dumbsthit, do they!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

These people always have to give a sound bit to the people who pay their research. They quantified the graph. What are they speaking of? tenths of a pH? Hundreths? Thousanths?

They don't say dumbsthit, do they!

:lol confirmation bias at its finest.

You have no idea how they compiled the data nor normalized the data. You dismiss their conclusion as biased but accept their dataset because you think a cyclical pH cycle dismisses the concern over ocean acidification?

It's sad enough that you weren't sure what your 'proxy' was in the first place.

[Wild Cobra]

Not sure why there's even a debate about that graph other than people not understanding what it shows and how it does or doesn't apply today. Has PH gone up and done int he past? Of course, pH in the ocean is directly related to the temperature of the water and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, when you raise both of those levels you exit the bounds of the previous cycle and change the fundamental bounds of the system to begin with. WTF do I know though.
Do you agree your disagree that there is a rather steady cyclical patern show?

Do you think the graph shows any evidence that CO2 had an effect?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol confirmation bias at its finest.

You have no idea how they compiled the data nor normalized the data. You dismiss their conclusion as biased but accept their dataset because you think a cyclical pH cycle dismisses the concern over ocean acidification?

It's sad enough that you weren't sure what your 'proxy' was in the first place.
Wow..

Are you really that dumb?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow..

Are you really that dumb?

If you are going to call me dumb I would suggest that you justify it with reasoning. We both know that a) I have no respect for your opinion and b) you are constantly ridiculed as a fool here. Given that you don't have much in the way of benefit of the doubt.

You just said you accept their graph at face value but outright reject their findings. If anyone looks stupid here I would have to say it was you because of that REASON. We have been in this exact same type of argument before.

[Wild Cobra]

Believe as you wish Fuzzy. Please notice that Manny is smart enough not to debate me. Maybe you should follow his lead.

[Th'Pusher]

Please notice that Manny is smart enough not to debate me.
:lol he probably has you on ignore.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol he probably has you on ignore.

If so, it's because I always own him on climate debates.

[AntiChrist]

And to think that you must have studied statistics.

:lol UTSA engineering.

You remember anything about discrete systems, normalization and the like? They even teach that there?


So, if I give you some data and give Manny the same data, you two will produce different graphs???

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, if I give you some data and give Manny the same data, you two will produce different graphs???

Most likely especially when there are different recording devices, environmental factors or any number of things you would control for. They never taught you how to compile data at UTSA? It is pretty fundamental to our profession.

I am being quite serious. If you think it is just okay to take a random data set, make a graph and present it as valid then your education did you a disservice.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If so, it's because I always own him on climate debates.

Skull-1, boutons and now you with this exact posturing. Interesting commonality with you guys.

He has stated before that he is not going to argue with foolishness as you are wont to do. We have had this exact same argument in the past.

[AntiChrist]

Most likely especially when there are different recording devices, environmental factors or any number of things you would control for. They never taught you how to compile data at UTSA? It is pretty fundamental to our profession.

I am being quite serious. If you think it is just okay to take a random data set, make a graph and present it as valid then your education did you a disservice.


So, if I give you some data and give Manny the EXACT SAME data, you two will produce different graphs???

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Believe as you wish Fuzzy. Please notice that Manny is smart enough not to debate me. Maybe you should follow his lead.

You are the one choosing to not debate me thus the 'believe as you wish.' While I disagree as to why he decides not to, you have told us what you see such a decision to mean.

[AntiChrist]

.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, if I give you some data and give Manny the EXACT SAME data, you two will produce different graphs???

This really is a nonsequitor. That you frame your question as such just speaks to you not understanding what I am getting at.

Let's say I created a device to measure something, put together a controlled environment that output the data into an excel spreadsheet, and then gave Manny the spreadsheet with no more information then that then yes I would guarantee you that our graphs would look different.

You don't remember anything from controls, statistics or signals do you? Do you even try to keep up with new concepts as they are being introduced? Heaven forbid if you ever have to find another job.

[AntiChrist]

Fuck it. Nevermind

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You still do not understand. I was seeing whether or not the people that put together the graph were the same people that generated the data. This is a reason for me to think you are not very bright. Do you really still not understand?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuck it. Nevermind

And he finally gets it. We hope.

[AntiChrist]

You still do not understand. I was seeing whether or not the people that put together the graph were the same people that generated the data. This is a reason for me to think you are not very bright. Do you really still not understand?

Why does it matter who generated the data? The data is the data. If I did a bunch of filtering of the data and gave Manny the raw, unfiltered data, then I can see your point. But, if I gave Manny the filtered data (or told him what kind of filter I used), then he could produce an identical graph.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why does it matter who generated the data? The data is the data. If I did a bunch of filtering of the data and gave Manny the raw, unfiltered data, then I can see your point. But, if I gave Manny the filtered data (or told him what kind of filter I used), then he could produce an identical graph.

if, if, if. You are taking things that are most uncertain and acting as if they are.

You would think that after all of the talk about BEST and how they went about normalizing the data, you would stop with this line of thinking. If you want to accept the graphs from partisan think tanks and various interest groups who obviously cannot answer those 'ifs' then you go right ahead. I will go right ahead and think you a intentionally obtuse and misleading fool.

[AntiChrist]

if, if, if. You are taking things that are most uncertain and acting as if they are.

You would think that after all of the talk about BEST and how they went about normalizing the data, you would stop with this line of thinking. If you want to accept the graphs from partisan think tanks and various interest groups who obviously cannot answer those 'ifs' then you go right ahead. I will go right ahead and think you a intentionally obtuse and misleading fool.


As long as a published work is reproducible, then it doesn't matter if it was funded by the Koch brothers, like BEST :lol, or whether it was produced by some progressive think tank.

Pull your head out of your ass, dude.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As long as a published work is reproducible, then it doesn't matter if it was funded by the Koch brothers, like BEST :lol, or whether it was produced by some progressive think tank.

Pull your head out of your ass, dude.

That works both ways. When the think tank makes it so their methods can be reproduced then you have a point.

That's why I ask who compiled the graph so I can look for myself.

Head out of my ass? Talk about irony.

[AntiChrist]

That works both ways. When the think tank makes it so their methods can be reproduced then you have a point.

That's why I ask who compiled the graph so I can look for myself.

Head out of my ass? Talk about irony.


So, the "who" doesn't matter. What matters is reproducibility.

[AntiChrist]

So, now you can stop asking.

Thanks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, the "who" doesn't matter. What matters is reproducibility.

That just means it's verifiable and not that it is actually valid.

I had stopped asking awhile ago when I went and looked for myself. You just took 2 hours to figure it out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I looked it up. It's in there. What else did I find:



So you take from that their is no issue right?

Amazing huh? That is critical thinking in action!

[RandomGuy]

Eek.

I see we have wandered off on a tangent, per par.

Any one care to comment or tell me what we shoudl do about the death of an ocean's worth of wildlife?

[AntiChrist]

Eek.

I see we have wandered off on a tangent, per par.

Any one care to comment or tell me what we shoudl do about the death of an ocean's worth of wildlife?

I didn't address the OP because the ocean isn't broken.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't address the OP because the ocean isn't broken.

okaaaay.

You think the guy in the OP was lying?

We should sit by and do nothing? Hope it gets better? Pray that there isn't some unknown long-term damage being done?

Are you really that liberal with risk?

[Winehole23]

"wouldn't fill the Superdome"

[Winehole23]

this was after the reactor explosion and after fuel burned through containment at Fukushima: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174441&page=18&p=5095209&viewfull=1#post5095209

[RandomGuy]

Point taken.

I had forgotten how dumb Darrin is when it comes to evaluating risks and thinking critically about data. That's what I get for being busy in RL.

Carry on then. :)

[AntiChrist]

Point taken.

I had forgotten how dumb Darrin is when it comes to evaluating risks and thinking critically about data. That's what I get for being busy in RL.

Carry on then. :)


Add it to your scoreboard.

[mouse]

:lmao

Don't listen to scientists. Listen to the really weird guy on the internet with no education but with the ability to post graphs he doesn't understand.

POTD :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Add it to your scoreboard.

I stopped trying to keep track of your stupidity a long time ago. There is just so much of it, and it was so obvious. I made my point, and the suck thing is you never learned from it.

In-fucking-credible.

[AntiChrist]

All that atom bomb testing apparently has nothing on this reactor.

[RandomGuy]

All that atom bomb testing apparently has nothing on this reactor.

http://images.quizilla.com/Y/yourgoodfriend/1041833830_ndthatssad.gif

[Winehole23]

All that atom bomb testing apparently has nothing on this reactor.http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/08/03/enough-fallout-for-everyone/

[Winehole23]

there might be a basis for comparison. the Fukushima accident is ongoing.

[boutons_deux]

there might be a basis for comparison. the Fukushima accident is ongoing.

... with a typhoon on the way.

[Winehole23]

In a 2012 study (http://www.nature.com/news/ocean-still-suffering-from-fukushima-fallout-1.11823), Jota Kanda, an oceanographer at Toyko University of Marine Science and Technology, calculated that the plant is leaking 0.3 terabecquerels (trillion becquerels) of cesium-137 per month and a similar amount of cesium-134. While that number sounds mind-boggling, it’s actually thousands of times less than the level of radioactive contamination that the plant was spewing in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, estimated to be from 5,000 to 15,000 terabecquerels, according to Buesseler. For a comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima released 89 terabecquerels of cesium-137 when it exploded.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leak/

[Winehole23]

Title: Wayne Brittenden’s Counterpoint (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2563632/wayne-brittenden%27s-counterpoint)
Source: Radio New Zealand
Date: July 28, 2013


Wayne Brittenden, host: [...] This latest revelation, the leaking of radioactive water into the sea to harm marine and ultimately human life, hasn’t just happened — the revelation came a day after Prime Minister and nuclear power devotee Shinzo Abe was re-elected. The bad news would’ve undoubtedly affected his chances. [...]
At ~12:00 in



Arnie Gundersen (http://fairewinds.org/donate/), former nuclear industry executive and now chief engineer at the Fairewinds organisation: The net effect is the Pacific near Japan, and likely the whole Pacific, over the next 5 years will have cesium levels 5 to 10 times higher than what they were at the peak of bomb testing. So this is the biggest release of radiation to a body of water in the history of the world, much worse than Chernobyl. So the net effect is we’ve contaminated the biggest body of water on the planet [...]

http://enenews.com/radio-fukushima-daiichi-has-contaminated-the-biggest-body-of-water-on-the-planet-whole-pacific-ocean-likely-to-have-cesium-levels-5-10-times-higher-than-at-peak-of-nuclear-bomb-tests-audio

[Winehole23]

In October, a U.S. study - co-authored by oceanographer Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the non-profit Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts - reported Fukushima caused history's biggest-ever release of radiation into the ocean - 10 to 100 times more than the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe.http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/343-203/9463-canada-fish-eaters-threatened-by-fukushima-radiation

[Winehole23]

eating bananas is more dangerous, for sure: http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/fukushima-radioactive-plume-reach-us-130901.htm

[AntiChrist]

there might be a basis for comparison. the Fukushima accident is ongoing.


Something tells me that > 100 nuclear tests in the Pacific might be worse than Fukushima.

[Winehole23]

you're hilarious, Darrin

[AntiChrist]

"wouldn't fill the Superdome"

Yep, that BP spill broke the ocean, too.

Here's anecdotal proof

SRbbGSoLR68

[Winehole23]

lol strawman

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Something tells me that > 100 nuclear tests in the Pacific might be worse than Fukushima.

He just posted a quantification of radioactive debris from the a bombs versus what fukushima did. It was 89 vs 15000.

Willful stupidity.

[AntiChrist]

He just posted a quantification of radioactive debris from the a bombs versus what fukushima did. It was 89 vs 15000.

Willful stupidity.


Where?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where?

Read his posts from today. There are two of them that are germane. I'll even give you a hint: it's in the quoted portion.

All you are doing is demonstrating how you are willfully stupid. Bravo.

[Wild Cobra]

Eek.

I see we have wandered off on a tangent, per par.

Any one care to comment or tell me what we shoudl do about the death of an ocean's worth of wildlife?
I doubt there is much we can do about fighting against natural processes. I'll bet this is a cycle that regularly occurs, like the graph i presented earlier. The strong will survive and repopulate the species, except those who's time has come to be extinct.

Life will go on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I doubt there is much we can do about fighting against natural processes. I'll bet this is a cycle that regularly occurs, like the graph i presented earlier. The strong will survive and repopulate the species, except those who's time has come to be extinct.

Life will go on.

There is an upper limit and lower limit to the cycle. As the paper pointed out, those are going to be surpassed as we are going. This is very similar to what BEST was getting at in their analysis. It like this has been shown to be beyond your capacity to understand.

[Wild Cobra]

There is an upper limit and lower limit to the cycle. As the paper pointed out, those are going to be surpassed as we are going. This is very similar to what BEST was getting at in their analysis. It like this has been shown to be beyond your capacity to understand.
You claim I don't understand, but it is you, who never displays your understanding.

When is the last time you explained any climate chemistry or energy physics in your own words? I don't recall a single time. All you do is link passages from your holy AGW dogma.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You claim I don't understand, but it is you, who never displays your understanding.

When is the last time you explained any climate chemistry or energy physics in your own words? I don't recall a single time. All you do is link passages from your holy AGW dogma.

I just did. The article that you cited fwiw never said anything about upper and lower bounds. I have tried to discuss heat exchange models between ocean layers as well as surface and air. I mean ffs when I first started posting here I embarrassed you about energy storage and the function of capacitors. You remember my discussion of the PDE's used to describe the heat exchange? Probably not because you don't understand the math.

At the end of the day, I realize that the PhD's we reference here know more about the topic than I do. I understand what they are saying but I do not front like it was my idea and give them credit. That is just ethical.

In this case, the upper and lower bounds of the cycle are what they are. The way that it is trending will exceed those bounds. You can whine about it not being my idea but it still is what it is. How about you discuss that instead of trying this lame bait and switch.

[boutons_deux]

How the world’s oceans could be running out of fish


Entire species of marine life will never be seen in the Anthropocene (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120209-welcome-to-the-age-of-modern-man) (the Age of Man), let alone tasted, if we do not curb our insatiable voracity for fish. Last year, global fish consumption hit a record high (http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf) of 17 kg (37 pounds) per person per year, even though global fish stocks have continued to decline. On average, people eat four times as much fish now than they did in 1950.

Around 85% of global fish stocks are over-exploited, depleted, fully exploited or in recovery from exploitation. Only this week, a report suggested (http://grist.org/news/only-100-cod-in-the-north-sea-no-but-theres-still-a-problem/) there may be fewer than 100 cod over the age of 13 years in the North Sea between the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. The figure is still under dispute (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19755695), but it’s a worrying sign that we could be losing fish old enough to create offspring that replenish populations.

Large areas of seabed in the Mediterranean and North Sea now resemble a desert – the seas have been expunged of fish using increasingly efficient methods such as bottom trawling. And now, these heavily subsidised industrial fleets are cleaning up tropical oceans too. One-quarter of the EU catch is now made outside European waters, much of it in previously rich West African seas, where each trawler can scoop up hundreds of thousands of kilos of fish in a day. All West African fisheries are now over-exploited, coastal fisheries have declined 50% in the past 30 years, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdf).

Catches in the tropics are expected to decline a further 40% by 2050, and yet some 400 million people (http://livestockfish.cgiar.org/) in Africa and Southeast Asia rely on fish caught (mainly through artisanal fishing) to provide their protein and minerals. With climate change expected to impact agricultural production, people are going to rely more than ever on fish for their nutritional needs.

The policy of subsidising vast fishing fleets to catch ever-diminishing stocks is unsustainable. In Spain, for example, one in three fish (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/10/02/6733/nearly-6-billion-subsidies-fuel-spain-s-ravenous-fleet) landed is paid for by subsidy. Governments, concerned with keeping jobs alive in the fishing industry in the short-term, are essentially paying people to extinguish their own long-term job prospects – not to mention the effect on the next generation of fishermen. Artisanal fishing catches half the world’s fish, yet it provides 90% of the sector’s jobs (http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14753/en).

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish

[AntiChrist]

Something tells me that > 100 nuclear tests in the Pacific might be worse than Fukushima.


He just posted a quantification of radioactive debris from the a bombs versus what fukushima did. It was 89 vs 15000.

Willful stupidity.



Read his posts from today. There are two of them that are germane. I'll even give you a hint: it's in the quoted portion.

All you are doing is demonstrating how you are willfully stupid. Bravo.




In a 2012 study, Jota Kanda, an oceanographer at Toyko University of Marine Science and Technology, calculated that the plant is leaking 0.3 terabecquerels (trillion becquerels) of cesium-137 per month and a similar amount of cesium-134. While that number sounds mind-boggling, it’s actually thousands of times less than the level of radioactive contamination that the plant was spewing in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, estimated to be from 5,000 to 15,000 terabecquerels, according to Buesseler. For a comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima released 89 terabecquerels of cesium-137 when it exploded.





You lied.

And this required no anger or insults on my part.


Good day

[AntiChrist]

And the oceans survived all those nuclear tests. It will survive Fukushima too.

[Wild Cobra]

I just did. The article that you cited fwiw never said anything about upper and lower bounds. I have tried to discuss heat exchange models between ocean layers as well as surface and air. I mean ffs when I first started posting here I embarrassed you about energy storage and the function of capacitors. You remember my discussion of the PDE's used to describe the heat exchange? Probably not because you don't understand the math.


You serious? If so, you are monumentally dumb.

There was nothing embarrassing about not realizing capacitors have developed to such capacity. I'm not a car stereo freak like you. Then you prove you still don't know shit about electronic when it came to putting capacitors in series, or the real reason high power is in three phase.

You have got to be the least deserving egotistic ass in this forum.

As for heat exchange, you were telling me something was impossible that I quoted from your AGW Gods, and you thought I was making it up.

You are a loser to such a degree, you don't even realize it. I'd put you on ignore again, but I'm getting too many laughs from your stupidity!

[Wild Cobra]

And the oceans survived all those nuclear tests. It will survive Fukushima too.
True, but will Godzilla return?

[Winehole23]

You lied.

And this required no anger or insults on my part. no, but it did involve your characteristic lack of gusto for reading. there were two other relevant posts. the Arnie Gunderson speculation about cumulative impact sounds PFA, so let's lay that aside. what about the article comparing Fukushima with the biggest blast: Bravo.

That was only one bomb, true, but at least there's a concrete comparison --you know, uh, data points to discuss and dispute -- instead of waving your hands at Fuzzy and the allegedly pearl-clutching OP.


(scoffing is cool, conversation is optional.)

[Winehole23]

And the oceans survived all those nuclear tests. It will survive Fukushima too.The human impact of atomic testing was kept secret a long time; I wonder if it will be this time too.

[AntiChrist]

no, but it did involve your characteristic lack of gusto for reading. there were two other relevant posts. the Arnie Gunderson speculation about cumulative impact sounds PFA, so let's lay that aside. what about the article comparing Fukushima with the biggest blast: Bravo.

That was only one bomb, true, but at least there's a concrete comparison --you know, uh, data points to discuss and dispute -- instead of waving your hands at the allegedly pearl-clutching OP.


(scoffing is cool, conversation is optional.)


Yeah, the Bravo was 15 megatons. The Russians detonated one that was 50 megatons. But these are just two of the hundreds of bombs tested.

I'm still guessing that all that testing was more harmful to the environment than Fukushima. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[Winehole23]

essentially you're scoffing at Fukushima's (unquantified) effect on the Pacific Ocean and human beings, because in your mind it doesn't measure up cumulatively to (again, wholly unquantified) atomic testing. bravo.

[Winehole23]

I'm still guessing that all that testing was more harmful to the environment than Fukushima. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.comfortable relying on hunches while avoiding any discussion of included info; using ignorance as a shield. classic DarrinS.

[AntiChrist]

essentially you're scoffing at Fukushima's (unquantified) effect on the Pacific Ocean and human beings, because in your mind it doesn't measure up cumulatively to (again, wholly unquantified) atomic testing. bravo.


It's a disaster, but, in all fairness, I didn't post a thread called "The Ocean is broken".

[AntiChrist]

comfortable relying on hunches while avoiding any discussion of included info; using ignorance as a shield. classic DarrinS.


You realize that the OP is entirely based on anecdote?

[Winehole23]

anecdotal on its face. has someone denied that?

[AntiChrist]

But, go ahead and blast me. No big deal.

[Winehole23]

You realize that the OP is entirely based on anecdote?sure do. seems obvious it is. the thread is not the OP.

[Winehole23]

But, go ahead and blast me. No big deal.go ahead and avoid talking about anything; make it all about some construed insult and go sulk.

[Cry Havoc]

It's a disaster, but, in all fairness, I didn't post a thread called "The Ocean is broken".

Yeah, fuck the OP for using the title of the article in the subject heading!

[Winehole23]

catchy headlines and striking anecdotes are journalism's butter and bread. it makes sense to scoff at that, but there's no reason the discussion has to stop there.

[Winehole23]

this is a discussion board, right?

[RandomGuy]

I doubt there is much we can do about fighting against natural processes. I'll bet this is a cycle that regularly occurs, like the graph i presented earlier. The strong will survive and repopulate the species, except those who's time has come to be extinct.

Life will go on.

You didn't really read the article in the OP did you?

(facepalm)

[RandomGuy]

You realize that the OP is entirely based on anecdote?

I pretty much accede to that.

Still, it is worth getting some more information to assess it, don't you think?

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't really read the article in the OP did you?

(facepalm)

Ass-U-ming again, I see.

[Wild Cobra]

Random.

Are you assuming that one predator consuming most of the lesser species is not natural?

That trip would have to be near the islands and mainland for birds to have been present, and over the shelf where the smaller fish would be.

Can you accept that with Clinton's free trade agreements, that the market opened up world wide to these fishermen (predators.)

With the talk of pH in post 2, I assumed this was what you were addressing. maybe if you would pose a question that doesn't lead to misinterpretation...

The author doesn't even give a viewpoint of why it's broken, or did I miss that?

You know what else...

Events also don't work like clockwork. maybe the fish run may of one year, and June in a different year.

Two data points...

Give me a break.

[RandomGuy]

Ass-U-ming again, I see.

6DrRE1LDY_U

[RandomGuy]

Random.

Are you assuming that one predator consuming most of the lesser species is not natural?

That trip would have to be near the islands and mainland for birds to have been present, and over the shelf where the smaller fish would be.

Can you accept that with Clinton's free trade agreements, that the market opened up world wide to these fishermen (predators.)

Seriously though, did you actually read the OP?

The entire article wasn't predicated on just overfishing.

[Wild Cobra]

Seriously though, did you actually read the OP?

The entire article wasn't predicated on just overfishing.
I read it fast, read it again to see if I missed anything important.

Yes, these threads almost always go off tangent.

We can not fix environment or economic reasons. We have known about overfishing for a long time.

Am I to trust a trust fund elitist who makes yacht trips as knowing anything?

What do you think the cause is? Cannot solve a problem until the cause is known.

[RandomGuy]

Random.

Are you assuming that one predator consuming most of the lesser species is not natural?

That trip would have to be near the islands and mainland for birds to have been present, and over the shelf where the smaller fish would be.

Can you accept that with Clinton's free trade agreements, that the market opened up world wide to these fishermen (predators.)

With the talk of pH in post 2, I assumed this was what you were addressing. maybe if you would pose a question that doesn't lead to misinterpretation...

The author doesn't even give a viewpoint of why it's broken, or did I miss that?

You know what else...

Events also don't work like clockwork. maybe the fish run may of one year, and June in a different year.

Two data points...

Give me a break.

... .and to answer your question:

I don't know enough about fishing and "Clinton's free trade agreements" to be able to say one way or another. I find it a bit sad to see that blaming clinton is such a knee-jerk reflex. That is the kind of unthinking partisanship that makes me dread trying to address anything you bother posting.

The author didn't give a view point either other than to note that the oil slicks and garbage seemed to be a lot more voluminous.

[RandomGuy]

I read it fast, read it again to see if I missed anything important.

Yes, these threads almost always go off tangent.

We can not fix environment or economic reasons. We have known about overfishing for a long time.

What do you think the cause is? Cannot solve a problem until the cause is known.

Tragedy of the commons is not an unknown problem, and it quite fixable.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, I have a knee-jerk reaction to what free trade agreements have done. They have changed our way of living. Too many people with no skills, worked in factories making a decent living. Now they work at places like McDonald's, because our jobs are being exported.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, I have a knee-jerk reaction to what free trade agreements have done. They have changed our way of living. Too many people with no skills, worked in factories making a decent living. Now they work at places like McDonald's, because our jobs are being exported.

Life sucks. Get a helmet.

Robots are replacing humans and no amount of un-exporting is goign to change that.

Deal with the world as it is, not as it was.

[Wild Cobra]

Life sucks. Get a helmet.

Robots are replacing humans and no amount of un-exporting is goign to change that.

Deal with the world as it is, not as it was.
Yes.. I program robots. People still operate and repair automation equipment. It doesn't benefit our workers when we buy from china, Malaysia, etc, now, does it?

Wouldn't you rather have these jobs here?

[RandomGuy]

Yes.. I program robots. People still operate and repair automation equipment. It doesn't benefit our workers when we buy from china, Malaysia, etc, now, does it?

Wouldn't you rather have these jobs here?

Sure. Let's just get some government controls on imports, then have the government set wages to get everybody up to some decent pay.

Good to see we finally agree on the solution.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You serious? If so, you are monumentally dumb.

There was nothing embarrassing about not realizing capacitors have developed to such capacity. I'm not a car stereo freak like you. Then you prove you still don't know shit about electronic when it came to putting capacitors in series, or the real reason high power is in three phase.

You have got to be the least deserving egotistic ass in this forum.

As for heat exchange, you were telling me something was impossible that I quoted from your AGW Gods, and you thought I was making it up.

You are a loser to such a degree, you don't even realize it. I'd put you on ignore again, but I'm getting too many laughs from your stupidity!

Wow, you still don't understand how caps work. It has nothing to do with car stereos as I pointed out then. It has everything to do with how caps behave and because of it it is possible to get obnoxiously high capacitance values. I know nothing more about car stereos in particular over most electronics. Extremely large cap values were possible as far back as the 19th century when farraday was still fucking around with them. You call me stupid and do not back it up. I call you stupid and point out that you work with capacitors every day in your work yet do not understand the additive principles behind them.

The heat exchange was about the functions describing CO2 and heat between the oceans and more specifically about how YOUR rocket scientist guy made claims about climate model functions. You quoted nothing but a blog. I did bring up the PSU paper that had the model in it so we could discuss it though. How stupid of me!

And do not think I have no noticed that you didn't discuss the upper and lower bounds of the system we were discussing before. You have at this point granted that you are wrong and had not considered that in the context of the oceans current ph trajectory.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure. Let's just get some government controls on imports, then have the government set wages to get everybody up to some decent pay.

Good to see we finally agree on the solution.

My God man.

I have several mentioned tariffs and never government controls as broad as that implies. I have never advocated wage control.
Are you Fuzzy's brother making shit up in your mind of what I mean?

Look at his idiotic post that follows your. He too, assumes and argues against things that I didn't say as well.

[RandomGuy]

My God man.

I have several mentioned tariffs and never government controls as broad as that implies. I have never advocated wage control.
Are you Fuzzy's brother making shit up in your mind of what I mean?

Look at his idiotic post that follows your. He too, assumes and argues against things that I didn't say as well.

I wuz fuckin' with you, holmes. IT was meant to be a bit of sarcasm, and irony. The things you seem to want to do are the result of the free market at work, and the only real solutions to the problems you identified are not going to come out of the same free market that created them.

[Wild Cobra]

I wuz fuckin' with you, holmes. IT was meant to be a bit of sarcasm, and irony. The things you seem to want to do are the result of the free market at work, and the only real solutions to the problems you identified are not going to come out of the same free market that created them.
I like a national free market. Not a global one. I believe our founding fathers had it right when they mention tariffs in the constitution.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My God man.

I have several mentioned tariffs and never government controls as broad as that implies. I have never advocated wage control.
Are you Fuzzy's brother making shit up in your mind of what I mean?

Look at his idiotic post that follows your. He too, assumes and argues against things that I didn't say as well.

Coward. We have admitted that you had not considered the bounds of the pH system and how the current trajectory relates to them nor how that relates to the OP.

That is all I really care about. You can front like the rest all you like.

[SnakeBoy]

Any one care to comment or tell me what we shoudl do about the death of an ocean's worth of wildlife?

Kill all Asians.

[Wild Cobra]

Coward. We have admitted that you had not considered the bounds of the pH system and how the current trajectory relates to them nor how that relates to the OP.

That is all I really care about. You can front like the rest all you like.

I'm not coward. I just don't feel it necessary to defend myself against your delusions. You need also to elaborate better if you want a repose. I don't read minds. If you speak of what I think you do, outside those imaginary bounds is simply a statistical outlier.

Have a link for all you accused me of earlier, so we can have full context instead of your imagination?

[Wild Cobra]

Kill all Asians.

Funny thing is, the reported lack of fish was on the first leg of the trip. The ocean currents would keep the effect away from the fish from from what happened in Japan, during that leg of the trip, until near Japan. It was the second and third leg of his trip that he found the debris.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not coward. I just don't feel it necessary to defend myself against your delusions. You need also to elaborate better if you want a repose. I don't read minds. If you speak of what I think you do, outside those imaginary bounds is simply a statistical outlier.

Have a link for all you accused me of earlier, so we can have full context instead of your imagination?

And yet when I call you on said cowardice you respond. You can claim whatever you want. Your actions speak for themselves.

There is a minimum and maximum in that pH cycle from what you linked. That is not imaginary.

The fact that it is an outlier from the system makes it alarming. You're right it is not within the normal scope yet the trajectory is what it is.

Its pretty obvious at this point you are just throwing shit against the wall.

Link of what? You doubled down on the car stereo stupidity. I didn't need a link as you did it on your own.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy, it is what it is. If you wish to hang your reputation on a statistical outlier, then have at it. Your reputation can't get any worse anyway.

i have to ask... Did you run out of Preparation H?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, it is what it is. If you wish to hang your reputation on a statistical outlier, then have at it. Your reputation can't get any worse anyway.

i have to ask... Did you run out of Preparation H?

The article is about the trajectory relative to said limits. You can try and claim it is an 'outlier' so as to dismiss it just speaks to your ignorance to the concept. The trajectory of said change is what is important. Your graph indicates that the pH is lower by about .05 from any other point on the graph. There are no indications that the ocean is becoming more basic. Instead it shows the opposite. If you want to cross your fingers and just hope it's all going to be okay then you are a fool.

This goes back to what RG repeatedly comes back to in risk analysis. The comparison of outcomes and relative cost. We have already gone over what the actuarial community sees in that.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't care what their opinion is from what is still just one data point.

Don't you get it?

It's only one data point!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't care what their opinion is from what is still just one data point.

Don't you get it?

It's only one data point!

That was single data point from a graph that you were using to try and justify your nonsense. At the very least you have discredited your original position when you posted your graph. Nevermind your bullshit flailing since then which you have now abandoned.

The acidity of that particular reef is outside of any known bound. How about you pull up more studies and try and make arguments that you do not fully understand once more. This time resulted in your position being turned on you and you giving up the argument with a whine of, "I don't care."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And remember that Bertrand Russell quote?


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

This once again fits you like a glove. You posted that graph trying to make a case for the same shitty cyclical argument similar to the one that BEST discredited with the frequency analysis in regards to surface temperatures. You did not use critical thinking to look at the graph and see what the most recent data point was nor did you read the study to see what they said on the matter.

Instead you translated it onto something else ie what you wanted it to say. Why? Because you are a stupid man.

[Wild Cobra]

That was single data point from a graph that you were using to try and justify your nonsense. At the very least you have discredited your original position when you posted your graph. Nevermind your bullshit flailing since then which you have now abandoned.

The acidity of that particular reef is outside of any known bound. How about you pull up more studies and try and make arguments that you do not fully understand once more. This time resulted in your position being turned on you and you giving up the argument with a whine of, "I don't care."

No, I was showing that pH is shown to have a cyclical type pattern. I was using the graph as a whole. Not a single data point. This pattern has no indication of being swayed by CO2 levels. If you can derive a small drop in pH over average of the graph, it is well withing noise levels.

It is so fucking funny watching you make yourself out to be a monumental fool, almost every time you post.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I was showing that pH is shown to have a cyclical type pattern. I was using the graph as a whole. Not a single data point. This pattern has no indication of being swayed by CO2 levels. If you can derive a small drop in pH over average of the graph, it is well withing noise levels.

It is so fucking funny watching you make yourself out to be a monumental fool, almost every time you post.


This pattern has no indication of being swayed by CO2 levels.

:lol

Are you really going to stand by that isolated statement? You are going to claim the pH cycle is not swayed by CO2 levels?

Noise levels? What do you think bounds of a cycle means? Read the paper. They do a spectrum analysis just like BEST did. They relate the cycle to externalities.

I don't know why I even bother. For anyone who is not a moron, the paper states that in 2035 the cycle is going to trend towards more acidity and that combined with what we know about what happens when CO2 dissolves in water will be even more of an issue than what we are currently experiencing.

It's a good paper and the spectrum analysis does spike very obviously with little external noise at the frequency in question. You can see the spectrum analysis here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2005/09/27/309.5744.2204.DC1/Pelejero.SOM.pdf

Wild Dumbass seems to think that just showing that it is a cycle just makes it so that all variability is natural and nothing to worry about. People that actually know how to analyze periodicity know that to be simpleminded foolishness.

[Wild Cobra]

My dog ate my homework

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Indication of intellectual surrender

It is. It's okay you have already been judged for how willfully stupid you are so no more harm done.

[Wild Cobra]

I believe in the biased conclusion of peer reviewed papers rather than knowing how to interpretate the same data they use.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So tell me how I should interpret the spectrum analysis?

Should it be something obviously unbiased and totally not centered around the conclusion I want based on my political allegiance such as:


The normal variations are far more than CO2 can. In fact, there is a normal cyclical pattern of pH changes most people are unaware of.

We are getting back into harmonics again. If you really want to be shamed again, try and answer the question.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy.

Why does their pH data end at 1988 but other data goes on to 2000 in the 2005 article?

Seems to me they didn't like the pH data so they didn't include it.

Now all this time frame, the pH included roughly stays withing the Pacific Oscillation pattern.

How can you be so blind as to trust anything an article says?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol confirmation bias at its finest.

You have no idea how they compiled the data nor normalized the data. You dismiss their conclusion as biased but accept their dataset because you think a cyclical pH cycle dismisses the concern over ocean acidification?

It's sad enough that you weren't sure what your 'proxy' was in the first place.

But now you are rejecting the dataset claiming that they must be willfully omitting contrary data. We have come full circle and you lack even a semblance of creativity. If you are going to throw shit against the wall to see if it sticks at least try and throw new shit. You have now discredited your initial graph. Bravo, dumbass.

I was hoping you would take a stab at the frequency analysis. At least you learned better than to do that again.

[Wild Cobra]

Believe as you wish. You suggest the trend continues from only the last 20 to 30 years of data shown, yet they didn't include the 1989 to 2000 pH data. I suggest the the trend continues as it has since 1850.

I think you should consider the statistical odds of which of us is correct.

Let me also remind you that there is more than CO2 as a factor for pH in the oceans. Carbonic acid is not the only form of CO2 and is not the only acidic factor. CO2 forms also produce their own buffering actions in equilibrium which is temperature dependent.

Did you know that pH decreases as temperature increases?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Believe as you wish. You suggest the trend continues from only the last 20 to 30 years of data shown, yet they didn't include the 12 years of data. I suggest the the trend continues as it has since 1850.

I think you should consider the statistical odds of which of us is correct.

Let me also remind you that there is more than CO2 as a factor for pH in the oceans. Carbonic acid is not the only form of CO2 and is not the only acidic factor. CO2 forms also produce their own buffering actions in equilibrium which is temperature dependent.

Did you know that pH decreases as temperature increases?

If you are unwilling to discuss the frequency considerations then I cannot help you. I linked the spectrum analysis and it does indeed spike at said frequencies. That is why they give that time frame. That is the trend since 1850, dimwit. That is the whole point. this isn't probabilities, it's harmonics.

and no shit there are other factors. That is besides the point before you start regaling us with tales of calcium carbonate. buffers act like friction in that they only oppose a change but do not reverse it. If you add CO2 to the ocean the pH is going to go up.

you always do this. when you get exposed as being ignorant on a particular point you start listing all the things you do know about the subject. it's irrelevant and only underscores what you don't know so just stop.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Are you too ignorant to see what you "always do?"

You repeatedly try to discredit people like me with nonsense.

Tell us again why I'm wrong and you are right and I am wrong about why 3 phase is used?

There are repeated examples I could dig up if I thought you were worth taking the time.

You simply aren't worth any more effort than a few words here and there to give me more laughs.

[The Reckoning]

it's probably tons of shit china pollutes the pacific with too

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Are you too ignorant to see what you "always do?"

You repeatedly try to discredit people like me with nonsense.

Tell us again why I'm wrong and you are right and I am wrong about why 3 phase is used?

There are repeated examples I could dig up if I thought you were worth taking the time.

You simply aren't worth any more effort than a few words here and there to give me more laughs.

If I remember correctly I said it has to do with the peaks and troughs at 180 degree phase staggering the supply but by all means go ahead and dig them up. That thread was hilarious. I would love to revisit it, partschanger.

In the meantime lets reiterate that you discredited your original position and have demonstrated on this subject that you are talking out of your ass. You are now claiming that the dataset that was used to create your original graph was corrupt. Try and keep up with your sophistry better next time.

[Wild Cobra]

What was my original position that I discredited, and how?

I suggest it's all in your demented mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He should stop listening to the Climastrologists. CO2 can only change the pH a very small amount in its value changes. The normal variations are far more than CO2 can. In fact, there is a normal cyclical pattern of pH changes most people are unaware of.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CoralreefpH_zps1cb6434e.png

Of course, climastrologists like Manny lie to us, and tell us this drop since about 1960 is because of CO2.


Fuzzy.

Why does their pH data end at 1988 but other data goes on to 2000 in the 2005 article?

Seems to me they didn't like the pH data so they didn't include it.

Now all this time frame, the pH included roughly stays withing the Pacific Oscillation pattern.

How can you be so blind as to trust anything an article says?

Do I need to connect the dots for you?

[Wild Cobra]

Do I need to connect the dots for you?

Yes.

It appears you are putting your bias into what I said, so please do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes.

It appears you are putting your bias into what I said, so please do.

What article did that graph you posted come from?

What article am I being so blind to trust?

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

That's it?

You keep showing us how much of a joke you are.

What's wrong, don't have the balls to "spell it out?"

[Wild Cobra]

You are a fucking idiot if you think linking an article means agreeing with all of it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol ffs you're surprising in how dumb you are. I go from thinking that you are trolling to you having some degree of MR or autism.

You just sat there and started talking about how they omitted data from their dataset. Now how do you think they put the graph together? Fine I will spell it out explicitly. The graph was put together using the data from what you are claiming is a bad dataset by people that you think intentionally falsified data.

It's shit like this that makes people not take you seriously and just laugh at you. I keep thinking to myself that he has to be trolling me, he cannot be that fucking stupid and sure enough it does appear that you can be that stupid.

It's just sad.

[Wild Cobra]

I see...

You still fail to understand what I said... Or... like always... you are making shit up...

I never said the data was bad. I said it was incomplete.

Where is the pH for 1989 to 2000?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seems to me they didn't like the pH data so they didn't include it.

How can you be so blind as to trust anything an article says?

Seems to me you are full of shit and you are just changing your story.

How can I trust anything an article says........ except for this graph that says what I think I want.

Seems to me they didn't like the pH data so they didn't include it...... except for everything in this graph that says what I think I want it to say.

It's sucha pathetic display of confirmation bias that it's sad. I pity you.

[Wild Cobra]

Why did they run some data to the year 2000, but not the pH? It stops in 1988...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why did they run some data to the year 2000, but not the pH? It stops in 1988...

Well why bother reading the article where they talk about the data collection and just make up bullshit that undermines your graph.

[Wild Cobra]

Well why bother reading the article where they talk about the data collection and just make up bullshit that undermines your graph.
I'm not making anything up. They ran the paper to 2000, but don't use and pH data after 1988. Instead, they suggest it follows the same downward trend.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not making anything up. They ran the paper to 2000, but don't use and pH data after 1988. Instead, they suggest it follows the same downward trend.

Actually no, they don't. And you made up the part about what they didn't 'like' so they omitted it. If you were to actually read the paper and look at the frequencies in question and the amplitude of said frequencies you would realize the said that the trend would be more basic counteracting the effects of increased CO2 until 2035 when the trend would reverse.

That is the thing about you, you have no interest in anything other than your preconceived narrative. You just fill the gaps in everything with it. It's why I have said that people such as yourself enable some real evil shit to go on. youre the perfect minion for a despot.

[Wild Cobra]

That's right.

Blindly believe their conclusions.

You sure are a good little lemming...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's right.

Blindly believe their conclusions.

You sure are a good little lemming...

I didn't go so far as to do the DFT myself, but I know the methodology and I know that other scientists reviewed it. I know how to read a spectral analysis and compare to their conclusions. that is hardly blind.

I do find it hilarious that you do not trust them to tell the truth in their findings but you do trust their graph. You're just a fool. I don't know how you could think that any objective individual reading this would think that you are anything but a dumbass.

[Wild Cobra]

So, after this rather constant cyclical pattern, and no pH data at these two reef locations since 1988, you believe the pattern breaks where the data ends?

When's the last time you had your head checked?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, after this rather constant cyclical pattern, and no pH data at these two reef locations since 1988, you believe the pattern breaks where the data ends?

When's the last time you had your head checked?

So you think they were intentionally trying to mislead us?

[Wild Cobra]

So you think they were intentionally trying to mislead us?
Intention or not, the data conveniently stops at the low point of the cycle, and you "suggest" it continues that trend of getting lower.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Intention or not, the data conveniently stops at the low point of the cycle, and you "suggest" it continues that trend of getting lower.

I just told you what the spectral analysis and subsequent frequencies said. It's not my fault if you still cannot understand it and you clearly do not.

It's obvious you have your mind made up and I am sure that any objective individual who reads this see what is what so I am done wasting my time watching you fumble about.

[Wild Cobra]

You really should go back to my first post in this thread and realize what I was saying. I was pointing out that the natural pH variations are far larger than the small changes CO2 makes.

Do you deny that?

[RandomGuy]

I like a national free market. Not a global one. I believe our founding fathers had it right when they mention tariffs in the constitution.

Economic fail.

For someone who says he likes free markets, you consistantly demonstrate that you don't know how they work.

Don't you find ignorance of economics troubling for someone who says they like "free markets"?

[Wild Cobra]

Economic fail.

For someone who says he likes free markets, you consistantly demonstrate that you don't know how they work.

Don't you find ignorance of economics troubling for someone who says they like "free markets"?
What exactly is your beef? Do you misunderstand my intent here?

Our founding fathers realized the purpose of a tariff. We should be taxing goods that can be made here to make them as expensive, or mare expensive than we can make them for.

Tell me. Why do you think "tariff" is mentioned in our constitution?

[SnakeBoy]

Where is the pH for 1989 to 2000?


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

...but there is a cyclical pattern so it's impossible to recognize any kind of overall trend. Maybe someday science will advance to a point where we can draw some type of conclusion from these graphs.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

...but there is a cyclical pattern so it's impossible to recognize any kind of overall trend. Maybe someday science will advance to a point where we can draw some type of conclusion from these graphs.
Notice how annually, the insolation to the sun, which affects temperature, causes the largest change.

Still, how do you distinguish cause an effect?

Warmer waters vent more CO2...

I find it odd that they give the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 rather than the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean...

If we are to correlate CO2 to ocean pH, then we need to know what the partial pressure of CO2 is in the ocean. Not the atmosphere!

[Wild Cobra]

Where's Fuzzy?

Did he tuck tail and run like Manny the climastrologist??

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

...but there is a cyclical pattern so it's impossible to recognize any kind of overall trend. Maybe someday science will advance to a point where we can draw some type of conclusion from these graphs.

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

...but there is a cyclical pattern so it's impossible to recognize any kind of overall trend. Maybe someday science will advance to a point where we can draw some type of conclusion from these graphs.

You really think that they cannot interpret cycles. Look up spectrum analysis and the discrete fourier transform and get back to us. How do you think they get cars and clocks to work?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Notice how annually, the insolation to the sun, which affects temperature, causes the largest change.

Still, how do you distinguish cause an effect?

Warmer waters vent more CO2...

I find it odd that they give the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 rather than the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean...

If we are to correlate CO2 to ocean pH, then we need to know what the partial pressure of CO2 is in the ocean. Not the atmosphere!

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where's Fuzzy?

Did he tuck tail and run like Manny the climastrologist??

Reading is fundamental. I told you before.


I just told you what the spectral analysis and subsequent frequencies said. It's not my fault if you still cannot understand it and you clearly do not.

It's obvious you have your mind made up and I am sure that any objective individual who reads this see what is what so I am done wasting my time watching you fumble about.

Last sentence is the key if you need help reading.

[SnakeBoy]

You really think that they cannot interpret cycles.

<sigh> Yes I really think that :rolleyes

Sorry for the interruption. We now return you to dumb and dumber debate global warming.

[TSA]

You really think that they cannot interpret cycles. Look up spectrum analysis and the discrete fourier transform and get back to us. How do you think they get cars and clocks to work?

And you wonder why I think you have Aspergers.

"Some studies also suggest sufferers have a weak sense of humor: They may understand a joke on a cognitive level but lack "understanding of the intent of humor to share enjoyment with others,"

http://gawker.com/5885196/the-tech-i...tion-or-insult

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you wonder why I think you have Aspergers.

"Some studies also suggest sufferers have a weak sense of humor: They may understand a joke on a cognitive level but lack "understanding of the intent of humor to share enjoyment with others,"

http://gawker.com/5885196/the-tech-i...tion-or-insult

I didn't even understand it on a cognitive level at the time that I wrote what I wrote. I do not underestimate the capacity of people to be stupid.

And as I told you, your arm chair psychobabble is weak. Interpreting my missing sarcasm on the interwebs as a sign of autism is about the level of diagnostic ability I expect someone of your cognitive ability to achieve because it is baseless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

<sigh> Yes I really think that :rolleyes

Sorry for the interruption. We now return you to dumb and dumber debate global warming.

Probably would have helped if I would've clicked on the link. Sorry for thinking that you could be that stupid though I have been dealing with WC in this thread.

[TSA]

I didn't even understand it on a cognitive level at the time that I wrote what I wrote. I do not underestimate the capacity of people to be stupid.

And as I told you, your arm chair psychobabble is weak. Interpreting my missing sarcasm on the interwebs as a sign of autism is about the level of diagnostic ability I expect someone of your cognitive ability to achieve because it is baseless.

I've seen jokes and sarcasm go over your head on a weekly basis. And I never thought you had Autism, I think you have Aspergers.

Take the test. It may not be too late for you and I cam PM you plenty of places to help you depending on your location.
http://www.aspergerstestsite.com/75/autism-spectrum-quotient-aq-test/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've seen jokes and sarcasm go over your head on a weekly basis. And I never thought you had Autism, I think you have Aspergers.

Take the test. It may not be too late for you and I cam PM you plenty of places to help you depending on your location.
http://www.aspergerstestsite.com/75/autism-spectrum-quotient-aq-test/

For someone that supposedly has experience with child psychology you seem quite ignorant of axis 1 disorders.

http://www.autism-society.org/about-autism/diagnosis/diagnostic-classifications.html

Why are you lying? You feel ashamed about something or do you just feel you need to lie to gain more credibility?

[TSA]

For someone that supposedly has experience with child psychology you seem quite ignorant of axis 1 disorders.

http://www.autism-society.org/about-autism/diagnosis/diagnostic-classifications.html

Why are you lying? You feel ashamed about something or do you just feel you need to lie to gain more credibility?

I've been out of the field for a while and wasn't aware they changed the sub-categories to all be included under the umbrella of Autism. That could be benificial to you as I assume it will be easier to receive services.

I'm still waiting for your test results. If you are too ashamed to post them for the whole forum to see you can just PM me the results.

[Wild Cobra]

I've been out of the field for a while and wasn't aware they changed the sub-categories to all be included under the umbrella of Autism. That could be benificial to you as I assume it will be easier to receive services.

I'm still waiting for your test results. If you are too ashamed to post them for the whole forum to see you can just PM me the results.

I don't know what, but there is definitely something wrong with that FuzzyTwit.

[SnakeBoy]

For someone that supposedly has experience with child psychology you seem quite ignorant of axis 1 disorders.

http://www.autism-society.org/about-autism/diagnosis/diagnostic-classifications.html

Why are you lying? You feel ashamed about something or do you just feel you need to lie to gain more credibility?

I think it's good that you are standing up against the aspergers label and embracing your autism. Be proud!

http://maymunahkadiri.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AUTISM-4-GTBANK1.jpg

We are trying to understand you Fuzzy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've been out of the field for a while and wasn't aware they changed the sub-categories to all be included under the umbrella of Autism. That could be benificial to you as I assume it will be easier to receive services.

I'm still waiting for your test results. If you are too ashamed to post them for the whole forum to see you can just PM me the results.

I went ahead and took the test and got a 6 I am assuming It is mostly because I answered all the "I like numbers" questions strong positive. Over 32 is the threshold for positive diagnosis. Now that we have that out of the way let's talk about your motivation here.

The distinction has never been such that it was outside of the autism spectrum. That tells me you have absolutely no idea as any psych major in the country would know that. You couldn't even be an orderly and not know that. Were you a janitor spying on the children or soemthing? You a weirdo or are you just 100% lying?

I am just curious why you are doubling down on the deception for this troll? It's unnecessary.

[TSA]

I went ahead and took the test and got a 6 I am assuming It is mostly because I answered all the "I like numbers" questions strong positive. Over 32 is the threshold for positive diagnosis. Now that we have that out of the way let's talk about your motivation here.

The distinction has never been such that it was outside of the autism spectrum. That tells me you have absolutely no idea as any psych major in the country would know that. You couldn't even be an orderly and not know that. Were you a janitor spying on the children or soemthing? You a weirdo or are you just 100% lying?

I am just curious why you are doubling down on the deception for this troll? It's unnecessary.
I never once said Aspergers was outside of the ASD, I said I wasn't aware that it was now being diagnosed simply as Autism and was no longer getting a separate distinction. Now that I am aware of the changes I will no longer say I think you have Aspergers, and I apologize for labeling you incorrectly as I should have just been saying I think you have Autism.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never once said Aspergers was outside of the ASD, I said I wasn't aware that it was now being diagnosed simply as Autism and was no longer getting a separate distinction. Now that I am aware of the changes I will no longer say I think you have Aspergers, and I apologize for labeling you incorrectly as I should have just been saying I think you have Autism.

:lol well you do so without cause. I will stick to referring to your poor critical thinking which again is shown in your inability to see an autism spectrum disorder as a form of autism. Further your lack of discussion of the DSM as guideline rather than exacting as well as neglecting to discuss the disorders on merits speaks to your being full of shit.

You can claim I am autistic without cause. I will claim that you are both dumb and a liar with cause. Not gibbering stupid but I would put your IQ is around 85. I cannot speak to spatial relations but critical thinking, reading skills, creativity, and ability to understand complex ideas are all areas that you struggle with.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And TSA, its readily apparent that you know you are losing an argument and are butthurt at me because of it when you start throwing things around the room and bumping threads. It reminds me of tantrums that people get when they lose it and start breaking stuff.

[TSA]

:lol well you do so without cause. I will stick to referring to your poor critical thinking which again is shown in your inability to see an autism spectrum disorder as a form of autism. Further your lack of discussion of the DSM as guideline rather than exacting as well as neglecting to discuss the disorders on merits speaks to your being full of shit.

You can claim I am autistic without cause. I will claim that you are both dumb and a liar with cause. Not gibbering stupid but I would put your IQ is around 85. I cannot speak to spatial relations but critical thinking, reading skills, creativity, and ability to understand complex ideas are all areas that you struggle with.


Your Autism is clearly getting the best of you. Take note:



I've been out of the field for a while and wasn't aware they changed the sub-categories to all be included under the umbrella of Autism

You do understand what the bolded implies correct? If not would you like like me to ms paint what a sub-category of Autism is?

:lol at taking the test
:lmao at lying about your score

[boutons_deux]

The Pacific Ocean is now warming 15 times faster than it used to

It’s conservatives’ favorite science-denying talking point: that global warming has slowed down, or even stopped altogether, over the last 15 years. It’s bogus, of course. Read Chris Mooney’s great feature (http://grist.org/climate-energy/who-created-the-global-warming-pause/) for a full breakdown of how the myth has been spread. (Among other dishonest shenanigans, conservatives are using 1998 as their baseline because it was an unusually warm year due to El Niño.)

But there is a grain of truth to it: Average global surface-air temperatures have been rising at a slower rate than some climate scientists projected.

A reason, as a new study (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617.full) published in Science on Thursday helps demonstrate, is that the oceans have been absorbing much of the heat.
The fact that the oceans are warming has already been established. As Grist’s John Upton explained (http://grist.org/climate-energy/its-hard-to-sea-but-the-globe-is-still-warming/) earlier this year, previous studies have measured oceanic temperatures every year for the last few decades and demonstrated that the oceans are warming.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-pacific-ocean-is-now-warming-15-times-faster/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%2520Nov%25201&utm_campaign=daily


Who created the global warming “pause”?

http://grist.org/climate-energy/who-created-the-global-warming-pause/

[boutons_deux]

Hottest September On Record, Fastest Pacific Warming In 10,000 Years, Warmest Arctic In 120,000 Years (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/03/2876491/hottest-september-record/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Marcott-small.jpg


Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new INSTAAR study.

The study is the first direct evidence the present warmth in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth there in the Early Holocene, when the amount of the sun’s energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere in summer was roughly 9 percent greater than today, said study leader Gifford Miller.

“The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is,” said Miller, also an INSTAAR fellow. “This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”


… a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

“We’re experimenting by putting all this heat in the ocean without quite knowing how it’s going to come back out and affect climate,” said study coauthor Braddock Linsley, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “It’s not so much the magnitude of the change, but the rate of change.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/03/2876491/hottest-september-record/

[RandomGuy]

What exactly is your beef? Do you misunderstand my intent here?

Our founding fathers realized the purpose of a tariff. We should be taxing goods that can be made here to make them as expensive, or mare expensive than we can make them for.

Tell me. Why do you think "tariff" is mentioned in our constitution?

Tarriffs reduce the efficiency of the free market, and force the economy to operate below its full capacity. If you think we need them, you are against free markets and for the government picking winners and losers.

The founding fathers did not understand modern economics, either.

[boutons_deux]

Tarriffs reduce the efficiency of the free market, and force the economy to operate below its full capacity. If you think we need them, you are against free markets and for the government picking winners and losers.

The founding fathers did not understand modern economics, either.

Corporations pushed very hard for free market globabilization in the 80s and 90s. When they got it, the killed 10Ms of jobs in the USA (great side effect of destroying the hated unions and flattening real household incomes since 1980).

China held its currency way undervalued vs dollar. In that case, the USA should have placed a tariff on all Chinese imports to keep jobs in the US.

[Wild Cobra]

Tarriffs reduce the efficiency of the free market, and force the economy to operate below its full capacity. If you think we need them, you are against free markets and for the government picking winners and losers.

The founding fathers did not understand modern economics, either.
Really?

You really think global free trade was their intent?

If so, tariffs would have never been mentioned or used, don't you think?

Can you explain why tariffs would be mentioned in the constitution?

[Wild Cobra]

Hottest September On Record, Fastest Pacific Warming In 10,000 Years, Warmest Arctic In 120,000 Years (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/03/2876491/hottest-september-record/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Marcott-small.jpg


Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new INSTAAR study.

The study is the first direct evidence the present warmth in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth there in the Early Holocene, when the amount of the sun’s energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere in summer was roughly 9 percent greater than today, said study leader Gifford Miller.

“The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is,” said Miller, also an INSTAAR fellow. “This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”


… a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

“We’re experimenting by putting all this heat in the ocean without quite knowing how it’s going to come back out and affect climate,” said study coauthor Braddock Linsley, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “It’s not so much the magnitude of the change, but the rate of change.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/03/2876491/hottest-september-record/


I see B-Shit had the shits again today...

[boutons_deux]

I see B-Shit had the shits again today...

:lol I'm devasated by your substantiated retort, just devastated.

[RandomGuy]

Really?

You really think global free trade was their intent?

If so, tariffs would have never been mentioned or used, don't you think?

Can you explain why tariffs would be mentioned in the constitution?

I have not done enough reading of the background of why tariffs were mentioned in the constitution to hazard more than a guess, sorry, you will get no answer to that question from me, if I do not know the answer. If you can't accept "I don't know" as an answer, you may as well add it to your siggy, cause you are gonna have to ask it a lot.

Why do you give a fuck what the founding fathers intended in 1791?

Do you think the founding fathers were infallible?

[RandomGuy]

Really?

You really think global free trade was their intent?

If so, tariffs would have never been mentioned or used, don't you think?

Can you explain why tariffs would be mentioned in the constitution?

Do you understand how tariffs reduce the efficiency of the free market?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you understand how tariffs reduce the efficiency of the free market?
Yes.

Do you understand there are different levels of commerce?

Do you understand supply and demand, and want our wages to go to what places like Indonesia pays so we have jobs?

[Wild Cobra]

link: Tariff (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h394.html)


A tariff is a tax levied by a government on imported goods. In some countries it also may be a tax on exported goods. A tariff also is called a customs duty or an impost.

In general terms the purposes of a tariff are twofold:

To supply revenue to the government. This was especially true in the early days of the United States when other forms of federal taxation had not been developed

To protect domestic producers from foreign competition. Placing a tax on an imported foreign item would make a similar domestic item more competitive in price. Use of this form of tariff is called protectionism. The stock argument presented by protectionists is that such duties are needed only until there is an equalization of production costs between the U.S. and the foreign nation.

[RandomGuy]

link: Tariff (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h394.html)

Not really an explanation regarding the economic effects of tariffs.

I, for one, do not want my standard of living effected by such things. You want our government to pick winners and losers, and I would be one, as would the majority of Americans, which is deeply ironic.

[RandomGuy]

Yes.

Do you understand there are different levels of commerce?



I don't understand your question. You will have to expand that until I do.


Do you understand supply and demand,

yes.


and want our wages to go to what places like Indonesia pays so we have jobs?

No. Tariffs will not prevent that from happening if the market moves in that direction.

[boutons_deux]

Tariffs will not prevent that from happening if the market moves in that direction.

eg, sure they will. US mfrs wouldn't have moved to China with its suppressed value of currency if US had not allowed them to tax write-off their moving expenses, and if the US had imposed import tariffs on ALL Chinese-origin products, including US mfrs, to counter the Chinese undervaluing their currency.

[RandomGuy]

eg, sure they will. US mfrs wouldn't have moved to China with its suppressed value of currency if US had not allowed them to tax write-off their moving expenses, and if the US had imposed import tariffs on ALL Chinese-origin products, including US mfrs, to counter the Chinese undervaluing their currency.

Meh, it will get harder and harder for them to support that. If they want to prop it up, it will get more and more expensive as their economy grows.

[boutons_deux]

Meh, it will get harder and harder for them to support that. If they want to prop it up, it will get more and more expensive as their economy grows.

we'll see when, if Apple, etc start bailing out of Asian assemblers and subcontracting to US mfrs.

[spurraider21]

did the world end yet

[TeyshaBlue]

did the world end yet

Yes. Welcome to hell.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/AntiDoc.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/AntiDoc.jpg.html)

[pgardn]

No

but we have royally screwed a whole lot of fisheries.
South China Sea is a real mess.

Our managing of resources is fairly pitiful.

[boutons_deux]

No

but we have royally screwed a whole lot of fisheries.
South China Sea is a real mess.

Our managing of resources is fairly pitiful.

pitiful? It's unsustainable disaster. major food fish in many oceans have collapsed, cod, tuna, sharks.

Now there is industrial harvesting of krill for Omega-3 oil in antarctic waters, reducing the main food for whales.