Acidic Ocean
- Thread starter Madfronter
- Start date
MCsaxmaster
New member
About...
wet reefer
New member
Ahh, you guys are all just part of the international global conspiracy between Governments and scientists who are going to make a killing off the threat of global warming. 
For every article debunking global warming there are 10 backing it up.
CO2 itself isn't the only thing to worry about. Even a slight increase in temp caused by CO2 alone is thawing the permafrost and releasing methane which is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. Methane Hydrate deposits can also be released from the sea bed. It is already being released from melting polar ice.
Here's how it works: (not necessarily in order)
CO 2 increases temp-juuuust a little.
Methane and CO2 is released from permafrost and polar ice.
CO 2 and Methane increase temp even more.
CO 2 reduces PH in the oceans.
The take up of carbonates is reduced. (as in CO2)
Increased temp increases water vapor-also a greenhouse gas.
(warmer air holds more vapor)
BTW-Clouds do not block solar radiation from heating the planet. An old argument. Those clouds absorb that heat and it gets released into the atmosphere.
Ice at the poles melts reflecting less light into space.
Methane Hydrate is released (slowly) from the Oceans. Changes in currents (caused by warmer air) warm cold areas of the ocean that contain Methane Hydrate that otherwise would not get warm enough to release the deposits. If that happens we are really screwed.
More CO2, more heat.
More Methane, more heat.
More heat, more Methane.
More Methane and CO2, more heat.
See the snowball yet?
There are those that say increased CO 2 will increase algae production and terrestrial plants which in turn will eat up that CO 2. That would be true about terrestrial plants to a point if we were not cutting everything down and if think we're not, you have some reading to do. Even if we weren't reducing forests globally, any increase CO2 uptake would be short lived. CO2 turns rain acidic. It might help your Rhododendrons but the vast majority of plants cannot handle a low PH. Sure algae production will increase but the benefit will also be short. That just means more will die. We all know what happens when things die.
Methane is the real gas we need to worry about.
I'm no tree hugger in the least and I don't like Al Gore. Hell, I don't even recycle. I'm as guilty as anybody in my putting my head in the sand at times and pretending everything is going to work out fine. But you don't need a PhD to understand the cycles of a closed ecosystem. I would think reefers would understand this more than the general population and our little reefs are not really closed. If anybody has doubts about what is too come I would suggest reading up on the Earths climate history. Temperatures have been lower with higher concentrations of CO2 in the air many times throughout Earth's history. But throw in a volcano or some other dramatic event (like humans) and things go haywire.
So all them Geologists, Climatologist's, Chemists, etc., and Governments claiming global warming is a real threat are all meeting in this little room somewhere trying to come with ways to scare the crap out of us. For what end?
For every article debunking global warming there are 10 backing it up.
CO2 itself isn't the only thing to worry about. Even a slight increase in temp caused by CO2 alone is thawing the permafrost and releasing methane which is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. Methane Hydrate deposits can also be released from the sea bed. It is already being released from melting polar ice.
Here's how it works: (not necessarily in order)
CO 2 increases temp-juuuust a little.
Methane and CO2 is released from permafrost and polar ice.
CO 2 and Methane increase temp even more.
CO 2 reduces PH in the oceans.
The take up of carbonates is reduced. (as in CO2)
Increased temp increases water vapor-also a greenhouse gas.
(warmer air holds more vapor)
BTW-Clouds do not block solar radiation from heating the planet. An old argument. Those clouds absorb that heat and it gets released into the atmosphere.
Ice at the poles melts reflecting less light into space.
Methane Hydrate is released (slowly) from the Oceans. Changes in currents (caused by warmer air) warm cold areas of the ocean that contain Methane Hydrate that otherwise would not get warm enough to release the deposits. If that happens we are really screwed.
More CO2, more heat.
More Methane, more heat.
More heat, more Methane.
More Methane and CO2, more heat.
See the snowball yet?
There are those that say increased CO 2 will increase algae production and terrestrial plants which in turn will eat up that CO 2. That would be true about terrestrial plants to a point if we were not cutting everything down and if think we're not, you have some reading to do. Even if we weren't reducing forests globally, any increase CO2 uptake would be short lived. CO2 turns rain acidic. It might help your Rhododendrons but the vast majority of plants cannot handle a low PH. Sure algae production will increase but the benefit will also be short. That just means more will die. We all know what happens when things die.
Methane is the real gas we need to worry about.
I'm no tree hugger in the least and I don't like Al Gore. Hell, I don't even recycle. I'm as guilty as anybody in my putting my head in the sand at times and pretending everything is going to work out fine. But you don't need a PhD to understand the cycles of a closed ecosystem. I would think reefers would understand this more than the general population and our little reefs are not really closed. If anybody has doubts about what is too come I would suggest reading up on the Earths climate history. Temperatures have been lower with higher concentrations of CO2 in the air many times throughout Earth's history. But throw in a volcano or some other dramatic event (like humans) and things go haywire.
So all them Geologists, Climatologist's, Chemists, etc., and Governments claiming global warming is a real threat are all meeting in this little room somewhere trying to come with ways to scare the crap out of us. For what end?
Last edited:
MCsaxmaster
New member
You should see our meeting room: it's hard to squeeze hundreds of thousands of people in for a plenary talk, and it gets really stuffy with everyone laughing maniacally and stroking black cats :lol:
Chris,
Thanks for having read at least that much of that article. If that is the standard of that author's arguments, it's the old "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull feces". Based on that argument, the air in my scuba tanks should settle out and stratify, causing quite the problems for breathing :lol:
wet reefer,
I think you just earned those credits that Poorcollegereef is worried about loosing
MCsaxmaster
New member
Worse than that, if the argument had any truth to it at all there wouldn't be any O2 for us to breath here at ground level--the bottom 4 m or so would be CO2 followed by about 100 m of argon. We wouldn't be able to go to sea level if we wanted to breathe O2, and we'd get O2 toxicity if we went to the elevation where it occured :lol:
Poorcollegereef
Future Doc
Ahh, the academic lair of evil, (ALOE, as we call it, is good for the skin) its under that "specific" volcano. The pass code is the either the first 10 decimal places of pie or the conversion of a metric ton into a empirical ton. Also, if you forget the password, the reset command is the title Foucault's seminal piece.
I have to admit, I love that concept of an academic conspiracy. If I was not deeply involved academia, I might actually think it was true. Shesh, the professor complex is centered around the "Don't tell me what to do" complex. Profs can even agree during a faculty meeting, its herding those black cats.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
The second article also makes the argument that CO2's absorption bands only cover about 8% of the IR spectrum so CO2 can only possibly absorb 8% of IR energy. Eh, that's not how you calculate electromagnetic energies. Even if it was, so what? It's hard to believe an honest physicist would make a mistake like this that would get you an F in freshman physics. I stopped reading there.
Up to that point though, I saw the author confuse weather and climate, underestimate the history of climate science by about 100 yrs, claim Piltdown man as evidence that scientists aren't critical of each other, claim that Nature articles aren't peer reviewed, and claim that the conclusion of the "hockey stick graph" was proven wrong.
Up to that point though, I saw the author confuse weather and climate, underestimate the history of climate science by about 100 yrs, claim Piltdown man as evidence that scientists aren't critical of each other, claim that Nature articles aren't peer reviewed, and claim that the conclusion of the "hockey stick graph" was proven wrong.
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
I can't say that this will work but in general things that are more expensive are used less, supply and demand. They may not be raising less beef right now but if they increase the cost then likely demand will decline. In the end it is often the market which changes peoples consumption habits. I would hazard a guess that oil prices dictated the increase in sales of fuel efficient cars more than a sudden desire to lower carbon footprints. But as you stated, anytime we are trying to model human behavior it gets even harder to predict than complex natural systems
I kind of enjoy the "academic conspiracy" theories. To prove a leading scientist wrong can make a career as easily as establishing a new theory. We are quite willing to tear each other to bits over a few publications... at least in the social sciences
I'm concerned that world governments are about to spend untold trillions on lowering co2 production in order to just slow down the predicted global warming effects, not stop them. I think we are better off attacking these problems head on i.e. flood control, disease control, population control, water distribution, ect. .
I think Bjorn Lombard has some very good arguments concerning this.
http://www.lomborg.com/publications/?PHPSESSID=8981e64352234e781eaa0b746e6d631c
I think Bjorn Lombard has some very good arguments concerning this.
http://www.lomborg.com/publications/?PHPSESSID=8981e64352234e781eaa0b746e6d631c
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
"Lomborg finds that the smartest way to tackle global warming is to invest heavily in R&D in non-carbon emitting technologies, which will enable everyone to switch over to cheaper-than-fossil-fuel technologies sooner and thus dramatically reduce the 21st century emissions. Specifically, he suggests a ten-fold increase in R&D in non-CO2 -emitting energy technologies like solar, wind, carbon capture, fusion, fission, energy conservation etc.... This is entirely in line with the top recommendation from the Copenhagen Consensus 2008, which includes some of the word's top economists and five Nobel Laureates.
Lomborg also supports a CO 2 tax comparable with the central or high estimates of CO2 damages. That means an estimate in the range of $2-14 per ton of CO 2, but not the unjustifiably high taxes of $20-40 implicit in Kyoto or the even higher ones ($85) suggested by the Stern report or Gore ($140). "
He seems to largely be supporting many of the things others on here have endorsed. Population control, flood control, water distribution and disease management are important issues to control, no argument. However it is important to theorize how if carbon emissions are not curbed if these things will even be plausible. Population control is certainly an issue but you have to look at the amount of resources the affluent parts of the world are consuming and realize that if we had 0 population growth we are already well beyond the carrying capacity of earth to support western levels of consumption.
As far as disease management, in the cold equations of carrying capacity managing disease and thus decreasing infant mortality and increasing average lifespan generally happens before curbing birth rates. This greatly increases population.
Poorcollegereef
Future Doc
Here is the trick, (and take it from a city planner), trying to control the water supply, flood plain, even procreation is well "darn" near impossible. People want green lawns in the dessert, they want a house by the river, they want 2.3 kids or more... (insert octamom reference). The trick is that taxing is one of the only regulatory issues that are not always fought by property rights activists... but I would like anyone to come to South Carolina and mention taxes... it may be the last word they ever spoke. So there are cultural barriers.
Trying to limit the "liberties" of people and their property is difficult, everyone wants more than their piece of the pie. People will build in flood/hurricane/drought/fire susceptible areas, get wiped out, and build it all over again (And expect someone to bail the out).
The trick is that I don't want "creative natural selection" (Let the world fix the problem...aka remove us) to solve the problem, I like living. R&D is a good idea and I do believe in research, however the US has always taken an infrastructure approach to solving problems rather than a cultural one. The culture of the suburban 20+minute single occupancy commute can be solved... no technology needed. The trick is that we are too lazy and expect that the 3-4 bedroom on a .25-.5 acre in the 'burbs is the was it has to be. True, there are exceptions to those who think this, but Americans think that there is a plug-and-play solution in a lab, but really the culture has to meet us halfway.
Just think of all the noobs who come here looking for the magic solution/chemical/product to fix their tank woes. The only way to correct the noob is to retrain, rewire, and educate them. Note that this only works on a few. We change their fish culture and then also add some new equipment.
Last edited:
Megalodon
Clowning Around
I wonder...
If every single person on this planet lived a technologically-advanced, eco-friendly, and sustainable lifestyle, how many people then could the world support?
I hate to see nature damaged, but I also hate to see humankind's progress stifled. What a balancing act, nature on one side of the scale, us on the other. Which is more important? I'd like to say both. It's unbearable to have to chose one over the other, but if I had to, I'd chose nature, for without nature, there wouldn't be any us.
If every single person on this planet lived a technologically-advanced, eco-friendly, and sustainable lifestyle, how many people then could the world support?
I hate to see nature damaged, but I also hate to see humankind's progress stifled. What a balancing act, nature on one side of the scale, us on the other. Which is more important? I'd like to say both. It's unbearable to have to chose one over the other, but if I had to, I'd chose nature, for without nature, there wouldn't be any us.
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
sustainability is very hard to estimate, but most range between 3 and 12 billion. Sustainable food production on a primarily vegitarian diet is estimated to be 7 billion or 4 billion on a modest diet of a around 15% calories from animal. This is of course with current technologies and food sources (like we could eat more bugs sustainably). If 6 billion people were to live at current western standards with current technologies we would require an additional 2 earths. These estimates are a bit dated (2001) and comes from Human Frontiers, enviroments and disease by Tony McMichael, a professor of epidemiology.
There are model of global sustainability that is estimated to support both high economic growth and a global population of around 7.2 billion. These numbers seem a bit optimistic given if this is compared to the numbers above does this mean a primarily vegitarian world? TO ignore the effects of unmanaged economic growth would lead to horrid economic conditions if there was half of the repurcussions being predicted.
There are model of global sustainability that is estimated to support both high economic growth and a global population of around 7.2 billion. These numbers seem a bit optimistic given if this is compared to the numbers above does this mean a primarily vegitarian world? TO ignore the effects of unmanaged economic growth would lead to horrid economic conditions if there was half of the repurcussions being predicted.
wld1783
Premium Member
+1
A bit off subject but relevant in the fact we rely on news. During the First Gulf War we would land and watch the news…Total misinformation…To quote a dude…Trust but verify…To quote CNN or MSNBC you better be able to verify.
To say we are over populating the world is ignoring the fact that the FSU (Russia) has recognized the problem of fewer births and endorsed a national holiday to endorse "close contact". Also it ignores the demographics of birth rate in the EU.
Simply follow the money, who did not turn off his lights for one hour? Unfortunately it was someone big with an agenda. The proof is in the pudding. We all must walk the talk.
True we are now taxing cow farts. In truth we find humor but I’m not laughing. Maybe we should all step back and think about where we are heading. I like to quote movies so a Die Hard is in order…Just the fax. For every cool aid drinker we have a coffee drinker, too bad the individuals who drink coffee are not heard.
Bill
elegance coral
They call me EC
I believe that we are getting WAY to egotistical. We seem to think that we are somehow above the powers of evolution on this planet. There's us and then every other creature. It doesn't quite work that way.
Everyone is preaching about saving the planet. Why? The planet is not going anywhere. Neither is life on it. It's us that may be going, or at least civilization as we know it. Life on this planet has survived catastrophic disasters far greater than anything we can dish out. Life will continue long after we are gone or greatly reduced in number.
A prediction from an average Joe from a hick town in Florida. Me
The first problem we will face, and we are beginning to see it now, is food crops failing. Areas that were once huge agricultural sources will become dry waste lands. Our population continues to grow as our ability to feed ourselves diminishes. People will riot. Wars will break out. Disease and famine will sweep through our population like nothing in history. Society and order will break down. Survival of the fittest will take on a whole new meaning for us. Those that are left, if there are any, will revert back to being hunter/gatherers. Carbon emissions will plummet, and life on this planet will once again recover. It may be different than today, but it will recover.
I'm not going to pretend that I have all the answers, but If something drastic isn't done soon, I don't believe we can avoid the scenario above. What that "something drastic" is? who knows?
Everyone is preaching about saving the planet. Why? The planet is not going anywhere. Neither is life on it. It's us that may be going, or at least civilization as we know it. Life on this planet has survived catastrophic disasters far greater than anything we can dish out. Life will continue long after we are gone or greatly reduced in number.
A prediction from an average Joe from a hick town in Florida. Me
The first problem we will face, and we are beginning to see it now, is food crops failing. Areas that were once huge agricultural sources will become dry waste lands. Our population continues to grow as our ability to feed ourselves diminishes. People will riot. Wars will break out. Disease and famine will sweep through our population like nothing in history. Society and order will break down. Survival of the fittest will take on a whole new meaning for us. Those that are left, if there are any, will revert back to being hunter/gatherers. Carbon emissions will plummet, and life on this planet will once again recover. It may be different than today, but it will recover.
I'm not going to pretend that I have all the answers, but If something drastic isn't done soon, I don't believe we can avoid the scenario above. What that "something drastic" is? who knows?
Last edited:
Poorcollegereef
Future Doc
Haha, My tank was shutdown... but I lost power for 9 hours actually. I had the battery air pumps a-blazen. True, the tank temp went from 77 to 70, but two electric poles were snapped a few feet off the ground so I guess that is life.
wet reefer
New member
Personally, I think we are at the peak of civilization right now. Another 20-30 years maybe. But people probably have been saying that for a millennia. I hope I'm wrong.
This discussion reminds me of one we had in a environmental science class in 1978. The teacher asked the class what they thought the future held for us. This was during the cold war so of course everyone thought we would be blown up by nuclear war. Malthusian theory was popular so we were all going to starve, and of course the next global ice age was coming so we were going to freeze. There wasn't a optimist in the class.
Well, we're still here so I hope you can excuse my skepticism.
Well, we're still here so I hope you can excuse my skepticism.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Things are different now. Nuclear holocaust was a 50/50 thing. Either it was going to happen or it wasn't. Global climate change is here. Scientest predicted we would see signs around 2050. They were way off. We see it today all over the globe, and we have no way to stop it. Things are going to get worse. That's no longer in question. We just don't know how bad it's going to get, or how fast change is coming. All we do know is that the climate is changing far faster than most predicted. You and I will probably be long gone before it get real bad, but I'm not so sure about our children.
