Re: Snow in 49 states right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MannyIsGod
Ignored? The IPCC attributed a large portion (around 25% if I recall correctly) to deforestation. How on earth is that ignoring the fact?
I said largely ignored. If they had research indicating the effect is equal to or greater than the effect of burning fossils fuels and they said 25% then I think saying "largely ignored" is appropriate.
Re: Snow in 49 states right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
No the op is only another example of the fact that people who reject agw theory like to talk about the weather in the winter and people who accept agw theory like to talk about the weather in the summer.
I like how you scanned through the links I gave only looking for a sentence that would support your position. If you were really looking for an honest discussion you would have recognized that the first link from Sept. 2009 is not proof of ocean acidification and instead of quoting a sentence from the background section you would have grasped the point of of the entire article, which is that ocean acidification is something that needs to be studied. Which contradicts Manny's position position that ocean acidification is a fact that is more studied and understood than AGW theory.
The second link refers a recent single study which is the FIRST direct evidence of ocean acidification. A single study is hardly enough to be absolute scientific proof and certainly not enough to support Manny's claim that ocean acidification is more understood than AGW theory.
And just as with the global temperature, even if it is shown that the ph of the oceans is decreasing there is still the burden of proof to show that our burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. There is a body of evidence that our destruction of rainforests worlwide has had as great or greater impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course that doesn't really fit into the political agenda of the agw crowd, which is probably why that science has been largely ignored by the IPCC.
That's all from this denier who dares to question the assertions of the agw crowd. The debate is over...for me at least. Carry on folks.
Don't go getting your panties in a bunch simply because you left it for me to figure out exactly what you meant by the articles.
If you want to post material, but don't tell me how you think it supports your case, you will have to allow for some misinterpretation since I can't read your mind. I made an honest attempt to figure out what you were trying to say, and came away a bit confused.
Ocean acidification is a helluva lot simpler to measure and study than temperature of the atmosphere, from what I understand.
Manny may have indeed overstated our total understanding of it, but the fact remains, that our understanding, such as it is, points to CO2 being a problem in that regard, if nothing else.
Re: Snow in 49 states right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
I said largely ignored. If they had research indicating the effect is equal to or greater than the effect of burning fossils fuels and they said 25% then I think saying "largely ignored" is appropriate.
That doesn't prove "largely ignored". That proves they didn't think it was as much of a factor as burning fossil fuels. If the weight of research says one thing, but you find an outlier saying something completely the opposite, how do you reconcile that reasonably?
You discount the outlier, until you get more information.
Is that really an unreasonable conclusion?
By the by:
link?
Re: Snow in 49 states right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
I really intended not to respond anymore in this thread but you are being too stupid.
Doh!
This statement really shows you don't know wtf you're talking about more than you not even being able to keep straight whether co2 increases or decreases ph. It's the equivalent of saying the sky is blue when discussing the worlds weather patterns. I can (and am) pumping CO2 into reef aquariums in order to increase the growth of calcareous corals without lowering the PH. Can you tell me how I am doing that if the chemistry of the seawater in a biological system is so cut and dry?
Seriously Manny, you seem like a smart guy but on this issue you're just being stupid. Keep in mind I'm not denying the theory of ocean acidification. I actually think it's a stronger argument for limiting CO2 than global warming (in fact I argued that with Wild Cobra a long time ago) but for you to claim that the ocean carbon cycle is simple and fully understood is just stupid.
Here's another link for you. Now it's 5 whole pages (but interesting) so try not to fixate on every sentence that supports your dogma and try to take in the larger point that the oceans aren't such a simple thing after all and scientists are a long way from having it all figured out.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...rbon/page1.php
I'm being stupid? Really now? Because I'm not breaking down explicit details for you of a very broad system in a fucking Spurstalk post when you're arguing for the sake of arguing?
I never once said anything was a simple system. Not once. Thats you're purposely obtuse inference so that you could keep arguing for the sake of arguing. These are the facts as I have pointed them out.
1. Ocean PH is dropping.
2. Atmospheric CO2 content is rising.
3. The ocean is known to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and this is known to make it more acidic.
Its so god damn stupid to say that we don't know that CO2 is a pollutant when we're observing the effects and you even agree with them. If you want to argue the semantics of what is better understood then feel free, but acting as if I'm stupid for pointing out some basic principles (I never said they were absolute in every situation - thats your shitty inference not mine) is beyond moronic.
If you can find a credible reason for ocean acidity rising across the globe that is not CO2 then I'm all ears.
Re: Snow in 49 states right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
I said largely ignored. If they had research indicating the effect is equal to or greater than the effect of burning fossils fuels and they said 25% then I think saying "largely ignored" is appropriate.
LOL and I'm being the stupid one? Pretty sure largely ignored is completely incorrect when the IPCC is claiming it is a quarter of the forcing.
Edit - Not to mention the newer research I've seen says its actually a lower amount than the 25% so if anything the IPCC has overstated its values.
Re: Snow in 49 states right now
Yeah, about the IPCC and their "projections."
Sea level may drop in 2010
Quote:
Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.
Re: Snow in 49 states right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SnakeBoy
This statement really shows you don't know wtf you're talking about more than you not even being able to keep straight whether co2 increases or decreases ph. It's the equivalent of saying the sky is blue when discussing the worlds weather patterns. I can (and am) pumping CO2 into reef aquariums in order to increase the growth of calcareous corals without lowering the PH. Can you tell me how I am doing that if the chemistry of the seawater in a biological system is so cut and dry?
Seriously Manny, you seem like a smart guy but on this issue you're just being stupid. Keep in mind I'm not denying the theory of ocean acidification. I actually think it's a stronger argument for limiting CO2 than global warming (in fact I argued that with Wild Cobra a long time ago) but for you to claim that the ocean carbon cycle is simple and fully understood is just stupid.
Here's another link for you. Now it's 5 whole pages (but interesting) so try not to fixate on every sentence that supports your dogma and try to take in the larger point that the oceans aren't such a simple thing after all and scientists are a long way from having it all figured out.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...rbon/page1.php
What they don't understand is PH is more regulated by temperature than Co2. That's because the temperature regulates the equilibrium of the different carbon forms in the water. If I recall, salinity does also.
They are just lemming losers, believing any hype of global warming.
