Me No Nemo
Premium Member
Greenhouse effect on corals: alternate views
- Thread starter Me No Nemo
- Start date
I have trouble with "scientists" predicting water temps in the year 2100. We were told that the 2006 hurricane season was going to be another real bad year in Florida due to a bad mix of ocean temps and wind directions. I believe the "scientists" reevaluated the forcast several times, and the only time the wind blew was those recent bad tornados.
But hey, the theory makes interesting reading. But I what I don't understand is if the CO2 levels increase, the pH goes down, disolving the calcium in dead coral skeletons and sand, causing more calcium to be available for the increased coral calcification.
I think!!!
But hey, the theory makes interesting reading. But I what I don't understand is if the CO2 levels increase, the pH goes down, disolving the calcium in dead coral skeletons and sand, causing more calcium to be available for the increased coral calcification.
I think!!!
mrcrab
In Memoriam
Have to agree with mflamb here. Not sold on the global warming thing. 30 years ago chicken little was running around saying we were heading into the next ice age.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Here's another article from your same source less than 2 years ago: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398
Try this one:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo13no25_alarmism.htm
Could it be that we are just in a cycle that sees our sun getting warmer?
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Here's another article from your same source less than 2 years ago: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398
Try this one:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo13no25_alarmism.htm
Could it be that we are just in a cycle that sees our sun getting warmer?
Last edited:
cschweitzer
New member
Yes the world does cycle on 20 year(I forget, but I'm pretty sure that's right) cycles. Yes, most of the time when they talk of global warming they leave this part out. Yes, that could be considered immoral not to mention, but there are too many people out there that would use the warming cycle as an excuse as to why there is no global warming.
Of course both sides will skew facts and figures so they are right, but you have to look at where the science comes from, who is supporting it, and what the motive is for figuring it out. I remember not so long ago people saying not only are cigarretes not harmful, but they are actually helpful. Who is on the side of no global warming? Mainly, these people are the big business, the oil companies, the people who have pretty much made themselves on the fact that they create mass amounts of greenhouse gasses. Who is on the side of global warming? Environmentalists, activists, scientists, people who are considered the caring side.
If it is a choice between believing environmentalists or capitalists, I will go for environmentalist, because I truely believe they have less to personally gain(unless you look at the earth as an asset). I've learned that the person who gains less from their position is usually the one who is less inclined to actively pursue their point. This means that many of their gain is centralized on truely helping the earth. You really cannot trust the science on either side because of the predominent skewing of facts and figures. All I know is that I'm sitting here in February and it is 80degrees out. I've never been in the dead of summer and said, "I'm so cold right now, I think I need a jacket."
Of course both sides will skew facts and figures so they are right, but you have to look at where the science comes from, who is supporting it, and what the motive is for figuring it out. I remember not so long ago people saying not only are cigarretes not harmful, but they are actually helpful. Who is on the side of no global warming? Mainly, these people are the big business, the oil companies, the people who have pretty much made themselves on the fact that they create mass amounts of greenhouse gasses. Who is on the side of global warming? Environmentalists, activists, scientists, people who are considered the caring side.
If it is a choice between believing environmentalists or capitalists, I will go for environmentalist, because I truely believe they have less to personally gain(unless you look at the earth as an asset). I've learned that the person who gains less from their position is usually the one who is less inclined to actively pursue their point. This means that many of their gain is centralized on truely helping the earth. You really cannot trust the science on either side because of the predominent skewing of facts and figures. All I know is that I'm sitting here in February and it is 80degrees out. I've never been in the dead of summer and said, "I'm so cold right now, I think I need a jacket."
cschweitzer
New member
By the way, global warming will cause the ice age that was mentioned earlier. Don't know the exact forces behind it, but the caps melt, cover the earth, refreeze, and BAM!!! Ice Age all over again...no Ido not know the cause of the refreezing, but I'm sure if you were interested enough that you could look it up.
mrcrab
In Memoriam
Since you seem so knowledgable on the "science" and prejudices could you explain to this simple layman how the earth has gone through at least 7 ice age type periods before man industrialized or even before he was on the earth and caused what is happening now?
Maybe the dinosaurs were farting too much?
Maybe the dinosaurs were farting too much?
chrisstie
Premium Member
I love the peanut gallery here 
In my hometown we had an area that was a pass that opened up into the gulf. Of course everyone had houses near this area but 200 years or so worth of maps show that passes along this particular string of islands open and close - especially in relation to large storms kicking up sand etc.. But people who aren't educated in such history freak out and are like omg my house will go into the water we must keep the current pass open! Quick, get filler sand and keep it shaped the way it was!
Crazy people crazy times.
In my hometown we had an area that was a pass that opened up into the gulf. Of course everyone had houses near this area but 200 years or so worth of maps show that passes along this particular string of islands open and close - especially in relation to large storms kicking up sand etc.. But people who aren't educated in such history freak out and are like omg my house will go into the water we must keep the current pass open! Quick, get filler sand and keep it shaped the way it was!Crazy people crazy times.
Me No Nemo
Premium Member
I also found it interesting that the original article is dated 2004 but it's in the February 2007 edition with no updated copy. I tried to find articles refuting that contained in the article, but none.
Me No Nemo
Premium Member
More to think on...
More to think on...
Another interesting read:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11170-cosub2sub-being-pushed-deep-into-the-oceans.html
More to think on...
Another interesting read:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11170-cosub2sub-being-pushed-deep-into-the-oceans.html
Me No Nemo
Premium Member
And just in case it's all true...a proposed solution...yikes!
And just in case it's all true...a proposed solution...yikes!
Let's hope it doesn't come to this:
http://environment.newscientist.com...25905.300-keep-earth-cool-with-moon-dust.html
And just in case it's all true...a proposed solution...yikes!
Let's hope it doesn't come to this:
http://environment.newscientist.com...25905.300-keep-earth-cool-with-moon-dust.html
Similar threads
