Snow in 49 states right now

[SnakeBoy]

Ocean acidification says otherwise.

No the theory of ocean acidification says otherwise but that's an entirely seperate theory. One that is far less studied and even more difficult to prove than AGW theory. Not that I necessarily disagree with it.

[MannyIsGod]

No the theory of ocean acidification says otherwise but that's an entirely seperate theory. One that is far less studied and even more difficult to prove than AGW theory. Not that I necessarily disagree with it.

Its not a theory that the ocean is getting more acidic. Its not a theory that this is due to carbonic acid. It isn't a theory that is due increased CO2 amounts placed into the atmosphere.

These are all observed and recorded and far more understood than climate dynamics so I'd wager to say everything you said in your post is wrong.

[SnakeBoy]

I'd wager to say everything you said in your post is wrong.

And you're free to do so. You're also free to provide proof of what you have said.

Here's a little proof of what I said...

Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group
SCOR Biological Observatories Workshop
Venice, September 2009.
http://www.scor-int.org/OBO2009/A&O_Report.pdf

USF Study Shows First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification
January 20, 2010
http://www.physorg.com/news183231158.html

[Wild Cobra]

First thought before reading any posts:

Snow in 49 states right now

Well, that doesn't prove . The liberals will tell you that 8 states have no snow.

[Wild Cobra]

Climate instability is an old prediction for global warming.

Really? Tell me now. When has the climate ever been stable?

[Wild Cobra]

The supply of "it's cold outside, where is your global warming now?!?!?!" threads seemingly has no end. Glad to see the level of debate is sandwiched right between that of a kindergrartener and a monkey.

Problem is, we see no amount of warming that confidently exceeds that of the 30's, or other periods in history. There simply are natural cycles, and anyone who understands all the information available would agree. There is no evidence that anthropogenic warming is increasing the natural effect. It would seem that nature compensates for the little added capture of heat we introduce into the system.

[Wild Cobra]

Where did you study? I mean, where did you get your PHD? How long did your climate study run? Your answer was so definitive with no qualifiers, that I could only surmise that it came from someone who has done exhaustive primary research on the subject. Seems strange, especially since it also came from someone who didn't even know what climate change was.... odd.

Education has nothing to do with being able to understand concepts. In fact, I would argue that universities today keep peoples mind inside a box. A box that is often, indoctrinations. Especially when it comes to Climatology.

Anyone who thinks it requires a degree to be competent on a topic, is incompetent.

Anyway, human induced climate change or not, cap and trade would be great as it would reduce pollutants being spewed into the atmosphere.

If it only affected USA companies, I would say maybe. Problem is, it would becomes a global redistribution of wealth.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you forget the blue font?

Either that, or he forgot things like "the flood."

[Wild Cobra]

Thats not true at all either but the fact that people think it is remains the biggest reason people can't help but deny AGW.

Maybe when you stop limiting your thinking, to believeing we use one thing, m,aybe you will start to understand. The fact that we continue to have near record colds simply shows the AGW theory can be picked away at, and it is one of several ways to pick at it. I doubt you will find any one of us real scientific types (meaning skeptical till proven) saying that is the binding proof that AGW is false.

We simply aren't as stupid as you true believers.

AGW theory is the understanding that the Earth is warming due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. No climate scientist worth a damn is going to say that this means the extinction of the human race. It could have consequences for the human race, but extinction? Not likely.

Sure, the earth is warming some from man made greenhouse gasses. You will not find any of us who studied the issue to disagree with that. We simply say that it is significantly lower of a warming effect than you lemmings believe.

[Wild Cobra]

Ocean acidification says otherwise.

Ocean acidification is like what came first. The chicken or the egg. There is a flip side to that you know.

[RandomGuy]

CO2 which isn't a pollutant

Ocean acidification says otherwise.

No the theory of ocean acidification says otherwise but that's an entirely seperate theory. One that is far less studied and even more difficult to prove than AGW theory.

Its not a theory that the ocean is getting more acidic. Its not a theory that this is due to carbonic acid. It isn't a theory that is due increased CO2 amounts placed into the atmosphere.

I'd wager to say everything you said in your post is wrong.

And you're free to do so. You're also free to provide proof of what you have said.

Here's a little proof of what I said...

Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group
SCOR Biological Observatories Workshop
Venice, September 2009.
http://www.scor-int.org/OBO2009/A&O_Report.pdf

USF Study Shows First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification
January 20, 2010
http://www.physorg.com/news183231158.html

??????????????????????

the oceans have taken up at least one third of the total amount of CO2 produced by human activities since 1800 and one half of all fossil fuel emissions (Sabine et al., 2004). This addition of CO2 to the surface ocean changes seawater chemistry, resulting in a decrease in pH (Fig. 2) and carbonate ion concentration, and an increase in the concentrations of bicarbonate and hydrogen ion – ocean acidification. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere seems likely to double over its pre‐industrial value by the middle of this century: in response the chemistry of the ocean is changing more rapidly than at any time in the past 20 million years (Feely et al., 2004).

Adding carbon dioxide to seawater makes it more acidic, and each year the world’s oceans absorb about one-third of the atmospheric CO2 produced by human activities.

Using pH-sensitive dyes that turn from purple to yellow in more acidic waters, the scientists were able to track changes produced by 15 years of CO2 uptake near the ocean's surface, Byrne said. In deeper waters, down to about half a mile, both anthropogenic and naturally occurring changes in CO2 and pH were seen. In the very deepest waters, no significant pH changes were seen.

The results verify earlier model projections that the oceans are becoming more acidic because of the uptake of carbon dioxide released as a result of fossil fuel burning

I guess one can say man-made CO2 as a pollutant is indeed a *theory*, and even that our CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, but it seems to be one that is supported by some pretty good evidence and that fits observed data.

One can easily say that it is a FACT that oceons are becoming more acidic, because that is a direct measurement. In that, Manny is exactly right.

Given that changes in acidity have the potential to collapse aquatic food chains by killing off the plankton that form it's base, that should be a cause for concern.

[RandomGuy]

Unless of course snow in the Southern US somehow disproves ocean acidity measurements?

[Wild Cobra]

I guess one can say man-made CO2 as a pollutant is indeed a *theory*, and even that our CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, but it seems to be one that is supported by some pretty good evidence and that fits observed data.

You don't get it. There is another important variable to ocean acidification. The simple fact that it isn't addressed, and scientifically eliminated before blaming CO2, makes the article void. I'll bet Manny cannot even tell us what that other important variable is, because he is so indoctrinated by the pseudoscience he was taught.

One can easily say that it is a FACT that oceons are becoming more acidic, because that is a direct measurement. In that, Manny is exactly right.

I will agree the measurement are likely correct.

Given that changes in acidity have the potential to collapse aquatic food chains by killing off the plankton that form it's base, that should be a cause for concern.

Yes, it is a concern. So is the false science that ignores other possible causes.

[RandomGuy]

You don't get it. There is another important variable to ocean acidification. The simple fact that it isn't addressed, and scientifically eliminated before blaming CO2, makes the article void.

... and that variable is?

And you have read the scientific papers to be able to make the claim that the variable has not been considered?

[Wild Cobra]

... and that variable is?

And you have read the scientific papers to be able to make the claim that the variable has not been considered?

I'll let you find that for yourself. If you are going to blindly follow someone, then so be it. If you are unwilling to do a little research, then that's on you. I have posted a chart showing another significant factor to acidification in the past. The fact you deniers of proper science so easily forget, prove you are useful idiots to the agenda. You simply tune out any pertinent information that is contrary to your belief.

Let Manny tell you. He claims to know all this stuff.

[RandomGuy]

I'll let you find that for yourself. If you are going to blindly follow someone, then so be it. If you are unwilling to do a little research, then that's on you. I have posted a chart showing another significant factor to acidification in the past. The fact you deniers of proper science so easily forget, prove you are useful idiots to the agenda. You simply tune out any pertinent information that is contrary to your belief.

Let Manny tell you. He claims to know all this stuff.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

If you want to be an ass, and not even tell me what it is, the only logical thing to do is dismiss your claim out of hand.

"deniers of proper science"

Thanks for the chuckle. We're all part of the conspiracy to keep your ideas down. It amuses us when you figure that out.

[Blake]

I'll let you find that for yourself.... If you are unwilling to do a little research, then that's on you.

Par FTC

[ChumpDumper]

So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


Isn't that confirmation bias?

Yes, it is.

[BlackSwordsMan]

still no snow in san antonio =/

[SnakeBoy]

Unless of course snow in the Southern US somehow disproves ocean acidity measurements?

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 guess one can say man-made CO2 as a pollutant is indeed a *theory*, and even that our CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, but it seems to be one that is supported by some pretty good evidence and that fits observed data.

One can easily say that it is a FACT that oceons are becoming more acidic, because that is a direct measurement. In that, Manny is exactly right.

Given that changes in acidity have the potential to collapse aquatic food chains by killing off the plankton that form it's base, that should be a cause for concern.

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.

[Wild Cobra]

Your claim, your burden of proof.

If you want to be an ass, and not even tell me what it is, the only logical thing to do is dismiss your claim out of hand.

"deniers of proper science"

Thanks for the chuckle. We're all part of the conspiracy to keep your ideas down. It amuses us when you figure that out.

LOL...

It's times like this that I really wonder why I spend so much time with you idiots.

Are you saying CO2 levels in sea water are the only significant factor to PH?

I'll tell you what. I'll give you a hint that may jog a few braincells if you took any chemistry.

Temperature changes equilibrium of reactions. With global warming, is also the warning of sea water.

[Ignignokt]

Global warming does not mean it's going to be hot all the time. It's an evolutionary increase in extreme weather that will result in an inhospitable (for human life) environment. The Earth is not dying, it's just getting rid of it's disease.

This is the most idiotic statement ever. humans are a part of nature, and our technologies and capacities are all part of nature. Nature is not some ing brook with bunny rabbits, bambi, and a little abode down by the hills you dumb . Nature is the Universe, the metaphysical world.

You're just as ignorant about nature as Yoni is about climate change.

Human capablities of reason are not synthetic, it's organic, man does not alter the laws of nature or it's essence, he merely arranges what is organic already and suits it to fit his needs.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

Actually if you would have read the links you would have seen that the context of the second link was the first direct study that measured the PH in an ocean basin. You think this is the first time we've taken PH readings in the ocean and noticed that the PH has been going up?

I'd agree that a single study would not be enough, however there are decades of studies into this (much like AGW actually) and there is far less political controversy because the ocean's role int he carbon cycle is understood. You add more carbon to the air and the ocean will absorb more and the PH will go up. You can replicate this on a smaller scale unlike the atmospheric actions required for climate dynamics. I can take a small lab and prove to you that added CO2 content into air coming into contact with water will raise the acidity of that water.

In any event, there is an known mechanism by which we can readily explain the PH drop in the oceans and its well understood. There should be little doubt to anyone that CO2 is indeed a pollutant but you're welcome to believe otherwise.

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.

Ignored? The IPCC attributed a large portion (around 25% if I recall correctly) to deforestation. How on earth is that ignoring the fact?

[SnakeBoy]

I really intended not to respond anymore in this thread but you are being too stupid.

You think this is the first time we've taken PH readings in the ocean and noticed that the PH has been going up?

You add more carbon to the air and the ocean will absorb more and the PH will go up.

Doh!

You can replicate this on a smaller scale unlike the atmospheric actions required for climate dynamics. I can take a small lab and prove to you that added CO2 content into air coming into contact with water will raise the acidity of that water.

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

[SnakeBoy]

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.