But it's fun to point out when he inserts his foot into his mouth up to his ass.
Ok then, dogma boy, how will such a change in ph affect microscopic marine life.
Explain it so all of us mere mortals can understand.
Aw it. WC isn't honest enough to answer a straight question, I will answer it for him.
Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify).“There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans.
Here is where the spin and lies start coming.
Let's start here:
It certainly sounds nice and science-y, right?we would have had to expel modern day CO2 levels for 185 years, and have no deep ocean mixing or farther chemical changes from the carbonic acid.
"no deep ocean mixing"...
Plankton and coral don't live in the deep ocean. They live in the upper strata that is still hit with enough sunlight to photosynthesize and filter nutrients.
The article was talking about increased acid in that upper layer, the damage doesn't have to come from "deep ocean mixing".
Ooops.
I just thought I'd give this thread a few days to percolate, and the results were predictable.
Tlong, if the US has these oil reserves you speak of, and the US government has, for a decade, continually talked about weaning the country off Middle Eastern oil, please explain to me exactly why those reserves are not being tapped. Is it because of the economic cost? The price of oil has doubled in 18 months and continues to rise (peakoil, anyone?), so surely that could not be the case. Or is it because THEY DON'T EXIST? of course it is. There is the oil shale in Nevada, and the small deposits in ANWAR, and that's it. Wake the up, seriously.
T Park, who said the world had 100 years of oil supply left? I never did. The intersection of proven reserves and demand curves for oil have pointed to the stuff running out some time between 2040 and 2060 for a decade now. In fact, American petro-geologist M King Hubbert was talking about peak oil for the US back in 1956, and correctly predicted the peak in US oil production.
Travis, as I said, I have been reading articles about global change for a decade now, I do not rely on the IPCC. And to some extent I agree that the IPCC is not a wonderful source because it is politically co-opted. However, the most damning evidence for climate change that I have read comes from observations of the natural world - the impact of warming on glaciers, on ice sheets in Greenland and Antartica, flowering and migration patterns, localised climatic shifts being experienced all over the world, the pause in the Great Conveyor Belt in 2004, etc. Global mean temperature is used extensively in the media because it is easy for people to understand, however it gives the wrong impression of the profound changes happening on more localised scales all across the planet, which are being reported by peer reviewed science. I place far more weight on these reports than on modelling.
But let's go right back to the start - you're a physicist, which means you understand some chemistry, namely equilibrium states. Explain to me how you can significantly change the concentration of gases in a closed system and not alter the equilibrium of the system? It is undisputed that the concentration of trace gases in the atmosphere has changed markedly, particularly gases that trap heat, so where is that heat magically disappearing to? If it's not disappearing, how then is that heat not going to change the equilibrium state of the atmosphere? Sure, oceans, which are responsible for 75% of planetary photosynthesis, are a buffer, but every buffer has its resilience threshold. What will happen when the oceanary buffer is overwhelmed?
As for ocean acidification, how is an increase in the CO2 absorbed by the oceans not going to result in greater ocean acidification? It must, according to our understanding of chemistry. There has already been work in the Southern Ocean on s -forming marine plants and animals that shows that they have thinner s s as a result of the pH change.
You're obviously a bright guy, and putting the IPCC aside for a moment, it really surprises me that someone like you can't see that the massive volume of man's impact on the planet (pollution of the air, earth and water, changes in land use, overharvesting of natural ecosystems, etc) is fundamentally affecting its systems on a local and global scale. It's ing obvious to anyone with a brain, which you obviously have.
It's a strategy Ruff that I don't necessarily agree with. Basically it's "why deplete your own oil reserves when you can you use someone else's?".
wrong "small" deposits? Please.long, if the US has these oil reserves you speak of, and the US government has, for a decade, continually talked about weaning the country off Middle Eastern oil, please explain to me exactly why those reserves are not being tapped. Is it because of the economic cost? The price of oil has doubled in 18 months and continues to rise (peakoil, anyone?), so surely that could not be the case. Or is it because THEY DON'T EXIST? of course it is. There is the oil shale in Nevada, and the small deposits in ANWAR, and that's it. Wake the up, seriously.
Theres loads and LOADS of oil out in the gulf and off the coast of Florida, but thanks to enviromentalist wackos, no ones allowed to drill out there.
But , Cuba and China are out there drilling.
So lets see, who would drill more enviromentally friendly, Cuba and China, or USA.
Great move Eviros!! THANK YOU!!!
The enviros won't be happy, until were all riding bikes, and living back in the stone age.
These changes you are seeing right now, like the price of oil and food skyrocketing, are only the vanguard of a wave of economic, political, social and environmental change which is about to sweep the planet this century.
With 7bil humans on the planet, and another 3 billion set to arrive in the next 40 years, the carrying capacity of the planet has already been greatly exceeded, and the crash in human population is pretty much inevitable. There is no more arable land to exploit, and the great advances in yield seen during the green revolution are a thing of the past - in fact, productivity in many agricultural regions across the planet is on the decline. You can only extract so much from a fixed pool of resources, you can't get blood from a stone. What's more, the green revolution was largely BUILT ON OIL (fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are OIL-DERIVED), and proven reserves indicate that there's only about 40 years of the stuff left at current rates of consumption. So, essentially, take away the oil and modern the agricultural system doesn't work. What happens then? People will starve. Don't worry though, it will be people in poor coutries who bear the brunt to start with, as has always been the way, and always shall be.
Economically, most of the Western world has been living beyond its mean for 20 years now. The deregulation of banking which led to the explosion of credit, combined with a "me! me! me!"/"gotta have it now!" culture reinforced by media, has resulted in a generation that owes more than its ability to repay. That will continue to worsen as prices and interest rates rise.
Politically, the world will become increasingly unstable due to shortages of basic resources, namely food, water and oil. The world is already beyond it's sustainable threshold for fresh water and food supply, and that is going to lead to famine, war and disease.
Socially, it's pretty predictable what flows out of the challenges outlined above - the rich will be okay, the poor will be left to fend for themselves. Such is life.
Environmentally, the climate will change, extreme weather events will become more frequent, sea levels will eventually rise. Soils will become less productive as soil degredation and desertification continue, and thus agricultural production will decline, and meat will once again become a true luxury as grain prices skyrocket (8kg grain goes into 1kg beef, for eg). Fresh water will become scarcer. The only fish you eat will be farmed (75% of the world's fisheries are either already gone or will disappear in the next 50 years). Somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the world's species will disappear as their habitats disappear and human pressures overwhelm them.
The 21st century will be a time of ugly global change, caused by overpopulation and greed. We'll revisit this post in 2025 and see how things have gone. Lord, how I hope I'm wrong, but the simple physical limits of the planet as an ecosystem have been passed, and when you do that a crash is inevitable... may it be a transition, and not a sudden plunge into the depths.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 06-07-2008 at 01:47 AM.
Just like the "enviros" stopped drilling in ANWAR!? Pulease, pull your head out of your arse. Point me to do ented evidence of these massive reserves, I can't find any.
Oh, and just to point out, a massive find in terms of oil is 200+ billion barrels. I say this because the "massive find" off Brazil a few months ago was 14 billion barrels, enough to supply the world for 165 days at current rates of consumption.
There have been no significant oil finds in the world since the 1970s.
In other words, YOU ARE TALKING OUT YOUR ARSE AGAIN.
If this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/
is what you are talking about, it's only (a maximum of) 15bil barrels, about 2 years of current US oil supply. A drop in the ocean.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 06-07-2008 at 01:52 AM.
Yes, Enviros have kept there being any drilling in anwar.Just like the "enviros" stopped drilling in ANWAR!? Pulease, pull your head out of your arse. Point me to do ented evidence of these massive reserves, I can't find any.
There has been many do entated cases for the pros of drilling in anwar.
the people of Alask are practically BEGGING for them to come drill.
Its a friggen barren sheet of ice out there.
But yes, lets let it go to rot, have 6 dollar gas, and continue to blame the president.
Oh, and just to point out, a massive find in terms of oil is 200+ billion barrels. I say this because the "massive find" off Brazil a few months ago was 14 billion barrels, enough to supply the world for 165 days at current rates of consumption.
Brazil doesn't even need it due to running off of the sugar beets or whatever.
Thats great and all, bring on switchgrass too.
Truth is, I'm sick of paying big money for fuel, and I'm sick of enviro whackos blocking the drilling for new oil, the development of the shale for oil, and the blocking of the natural gas reserves in I think COlorado or Utah.
All of a sudden after beautiful weather two weeks ago, Philly is going to be seeing record breaking heat this week with temps in the upper 90's (98 degrees today) for the next 5 days
I can't remember the last time it was this hot so early in June around here
I HATE summer.
What's going to happen if Obama is elected and the price of gasoline keeps going up? Who will they blame it on? I know they'll blame Bush as long as they can but they cant do it forever. Oh , yes they can.
Your really are an idiot, aren't you. I was not trying to explain what a PH change would do. I was saying we could not possible change it that much. There can be a miniscule change in ocean PH from our added CO2. I was saying we cold not possible change it by 1/3rd of a PH unit.
First of all, with temperature and pressure equal, an equilibrium is established between the atmosphere and the ocean. CO2 levels in the ocean increase with atmospheric increases. The is also an equilibrium between CO2 and H2CO3. This makes for a factor of 10 change in atmospheric CO2 making a 0.5 PH change
If we consider that full equilibrium too effect between the atmosphere and ocean, then the 280 ppm changing to 380 ppm in the atmosphere can make a 0.066 PH change. One fifteenth of a PH unit. Not one third. I wouldn't call that outside of any natural deviations, but I also will not say it doesn't cause marine life damage. I don't know how sensitive the different life types are. Keep in mind, to have the 1/3 PH unit change the article speaks of, the preindustrial CO2 in the atmosphere would have to change from 280 ppm to 1300 ppm.
Do the math. Prove me wrong.
Again, you haven't a clue of what I am speaking of. I mentioned there would have to be no mixing to keep the saturation to such levels. Mixing with the lower layers dilute the CO2 and H2CO3 levels. You are jumping to the wrong conclusion. I am pointing out that with mixing, it takes far more CO2 to maintain a high enough equilibrium to make any measurable change. If the ocean is completely stagnate, with no mixing, then it still takes a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 to make a PH change that matters. What was the number in my last post? over 1000 ppm, right?
I'm for that strategy, i might not be around for the ination, but it will be nice to over the Arabs when they are out of oil, like the are ing us over now
You actually believe that the US government has massive hidden reserves of oil that they are somehow hiding from the world... c'mon now, next you'll be saying you believe in aliens! How come you know about this when the world's best petrogeologists and intelligence agencies don't? C'mon now.
Once again, you ignore the evidence. ANWAR is projected to have 10.4bil barrels of oil, which is about 1 year, 3 months worth of oil for the US. It is NOT a lot of oil when you use 23,000,000 barrels a day as the US does. The problem is overconsumption of a finite non-renewable resource.
As for the "pros" of drilling, that's all fine for you living in Texas. It's not so fine for the people who live in Alaska, and certainly not the indigenous people. They don't benefit from the oil money, they just get their land raped and their ecosystem ruined while shareholders benefit.
This story from the Anchorage Times covers both sides of the debate:
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/...ry/390865.html
You seem incapable of understanding the issue though - oil is a FINITE RESOURCE. There have been no big oil discoveries in over 35 years. As I have pointed out continually for about 5 years now, when the world is using 31,000,000,000 - that's 31 BILLION - barrels of oil a year, as it has been this century, a discovery of 5-15bil barrels is a drop in the bucket, merely 6 months of world supply. There are no supergiant fields left to be found or petrogeologists would have found them.
Oil is running out, and after peak oil each barrel becomes more expensive to extract. The time of cheap oil has come to a close, and the world economy is now experiencing the first shocks related to this fact. Get used to it. We will all have to adjust our behaviour, because the oil price will continue to rise over the long-term from here on in.
Anwar is a barren sheet of ice out in the middle of nowhere.It's not so fine for the people who live in Alaska, and certainly not the indigenous people. They don't benefit from the oil money, they just get their land raped and their ecosystem ruined while shareholders benefit.
What do YOU not understand about that?
The government is not hiding anything from anyone.You actually believe that the US government has massive hidden reserves of oil that they are somehow hiding from the world.
The oil in the gulf and anward and the coal is there to freakin get, but the far left and freakin enviros keep blocking it.
you stupid, stupid, man.
http://mic emalkin.com/2008/05/22...-bear-listing/
do you know why alaska was admitted into the Union, scholar? eat your vegemite and shut the up with your tree-hugging B.S. they were added to the union to use their resources. guess why they haven't been tapped. look in the frickin mirror.
Seward was a genius damnt.
It was all goin good if it wasn't for those damn kids...
hmmmm. choke on this
http://icecap.us/index.php
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
