After reading all of this I would say that the evidence sighted is based on flawed computer models and political pressure for certain agendas. It's not global warming you need to worry about it is global COOLING. The only thing global warming might do is increase the growing time and lead to an agricultural boom. Many of the world climatologists agree that global warming is not the problem certain politicians and contributors are making it out to be.
The Oceans pH Level Is Falling
- Thread starter RobbyG
- Start date
- Status
Timbor
New member
I would agree with this. My sister is a veterinarian, and she told me that golden retrievers have the highest bite rate nowadays. Since they are so popular, everyone needs to have one, and the breeding line loses its integrity due to mass puppy production with no selection. Every decade or so sees a new "fad" dog. The dog is seen in a movie, everybody loves it, demand goes up, quality goes down.
However, I would also like to say that many, many dogs attacks are the fault of the owners. Some dogs have more of an agressive personality. It should be the owner's responsibility to train the dog and make sure it is well socialized. Here in Ontario, pitbulls have been recently outlawed, meaning, it is now illegal to breed them in Ontario (current dogs are allowed to live, just not breed). Pitbulls can be a good dog, I would just say that most people do not have the knowledge to keep one well, or the facilities to keep one. Also, some people think it is cool to have a big, mean dog - and these are the ones who can tend to make problems. They breed pitbull X rotweiller X doberman, then keep it in their 2 room apartment. What do you expect when it bites someone?
I would say this brings up an important point though - human error. I agree with the ban on pitbulls. Not because I think they are all bad, but because I don't trust people to make sure they are well trained and socially adjusted.
So, in this argument, it is hard to trust either side, since people can not always be trusted. Everybody has presuppositions, nobody can be without them, and this often results in error. This includes scientists, politicians, atheists, theists, RC staff, and probably bus drivers too...
Just remember that we are all affected by our presuppositions, so it is important to look at the data and try and figure out whats happening.
Just by chance, does anybody know if any research has been done to see if the pH change has affected the ecosystem?
Tim
Nabber86
New member
OK, I will stick to the original point of this thread: pH levels in the oceans.
I am very familiar with pH measuring. One thing that I do know is that it's pretty hard to get a decent set of pH readings that are accurate, precise, and repeatable. It is also very hard to extract samples of the earth's material (ice in the case of the report that started this thread) that are representative of the conditions that are being studied.
That said, I for one would like to see the actual data points, make my own assessment, and draw my own conclusions. How many ice cores were sampled? Were they taken from the North and South poles. What about spacial variation? Inter-coring and intra-coring variation. How was the data analyzed? ANOVA analysis?
Anyone can take a few ice samples, check the pH, do a statistical analysis and conclude, "the results of this study indicate a lowering in the pH of ice core samples with respect to time". Now from that, can we conclude that the pH of the worlds oceans are lowering? I think not. The results have to be repeated until a population of data is gathered that is big enough to truely represent the pH of the worlds oceans over time. That would take a lot of ice cores.
I am very familiar with pH measuring. One thing that I do know is that it's pretty hard to get a decent set of pH readings that are accurate, precise, and repeatable. It is also very hard to extract samples of the earth's material (ice in the case of the report that started this thread) that are representative of the conditions that are being studied.
That said, I for one would like to see the actual data points, make my own assessment, and draw my own conclusions. How many ice cores were sampled? Were they taken from the North and South poles. What about spacial variation? Inter-coring and intra-coring variation. How was the data analyzed? ANOVA analysis?
Anyone can take a few ice samples, check the pH, do a statistical analysis and conclude, "the results of this study indicate a lowering in the pH of ice core samples with respect to time". Now from that, can we conclude that the pH of the worlds oceans are lowering? I think not. The results have to be repeated until a population of data is gathered that is big enough to truely represent the pH of the worlds oceans over time. That would take a lot of ice cores.
dreaminmel
New member
Randy, A reply along those lines at the beginning of this thread may have deterred the direction taken. I believe the first few replies set the mood of this conversation. Thank you for sharing information that applies to the topic. Hopefully this will get us back on track. 
I am just representing the alternative point of view. My actual beliefs are in the middle. I believe the scientific data to be mostly accurate but question the predictions. My agenda when I participate in these threads is to get people to explain, understand, and consider their own opinions on this subject. Most people's knowledge bank in this area is hearsay. Its science and its complicated. I challenge them to understand what they believe in.
I also think people need to understand the consequences of the remedies they forward. What it would mean to move from fossil fuel based energies. What kind of environmental destruction would result from failed economies of the industrial world. Environmental protection is a luxury of the rich nations. A look at the impact of mining, logging, and oil extraction in third world countries will bring this statement home.
Mike
Nabber86
New member
The problem is that once you take the ice core out of the surrounding ice that has incased it for a bizillion years, you expose it to current atmospheric conditions. Unless of course, you take precautions.
Remember the aluminum scare an Alzheimers a few years back? It seems that they were taking thin sections of frozen dieseased brain tissue with an aluminum cutting blade (easier to cut the tissue and keep ot frozen with a chilled aluminum blade). Anyway, some of the aluminum contaminated the tissue samples during the cutting and we ended up with a real mess...
geekreef_05
New member
*Takes a deep breathe*
Ok, so Ive been amongst the scientific community of geographical and geological scientists who deal with Global Warming for about 5 years now.
Alot of you have shown 'scientific evidence' to show or prove that global warming is either happening or not. Unfortunately all of your data is flawed in one way or another. Let me explain...
The quick facts:
- we do NOT know if global warming is actually occuring
- we DO know the earth has become MARGINALLY warmer over the last 100 years
- just because the earth has gotten slightly warmer over the last 100 years doesnt nessicarily mean anything
The biggest problem is that people look at this issue on a small scale. One has to realize the earth is 4.6 billions years old. Therefore looking at a data record of the last million years is useless. We need to see the whole picture to actually figure out the problem. Using current scientific methods we cannot look farther back than 100-200 millions years (This involves using ice, rock and fossil records).
(If anyone wants more exact info, I can give you that too, I happen to be a geology major and have the info handy).
So, since we can only look through a limited amount of the earth's history we can use that data to tell what we may THINK can happen. This has obviously lead to enourmous debate in the scientific community.
And the truth is the scientific community is still in debate about the following:
- Is global warming real?
- If so, are human populations contributing to this trend?
- Would this trend have occured naturally if we did not exist?
- What will happen to the earth if this trend continues?
One must remember that the earth has gone through dramatic changes in its lifetime. Periods of no atmospheric O2, times of extreme cold and other times of extreme heat.
IMO, I think we're heading towards an ice age and not a global warming cycle. If you look at graphs of ice ages they are normally proceeded by periods of unusually warm weather for a couple hundred years. Then all of a sudden the temp plumits and kills everything. Why? How? ...we dont know. But we do know that this pattern exists.
And thats my two cents..
happy reefin'
Ok, so Ive been amongst the scientific community of geographical and geological scientists who deal with Global Warming for about 5 years now.
Alot of you have shown 'scientific evidence' to show or prove that global warming is either happening or not. Unfortunately all of your data is flawed in one way or another. Let me explain...
The quick facts:
- we do NOT know if global warming is actually occuring
- we DO know the earth has become MARGINALLY warmer over the last 100 years
- just because the earth has gotten slightly warmer over the last 100 years doesnt nessicarily mean anything
The biggest problem is that people look at this issue on a small scale. One has to realize the earth is 4.6 billions years old. Therefore looking at a data record of the last million years is useless. We need to see the whole picture to actually figure out the problem. Using current scientific methods we cannot look farther back than 100-200 millions years (This involves using ice, rock and fossil records).
(If anyone wants more exact info, I can give you that too, I happen to be a geology major and have the info handy).
So, since we can only look through a limited amount of the earth's history we can use that data to tell what we may THINK can happen. This has obviously lead to enourmous debate in the scientific community.
And the truth is the scientific community is still in debate about the following:
- Is global warming real?
- If so, are human populations contributing to this trend?
- Would this trend have occured naturally if we did not exist?
- What will happen to the earth if this trend continues?
One must remember that the earth has gone through dramatic changes in its lifetime. Periods of no atmospheric O2, times of extreme cold and other times of extreme heat.
IMO, I think we're heading towards an ice age and not a global warming cycle. If you look at graphs of ice ages they are normally proceeded by periods of unusually warm weather for a couple hundred years. Then all of a sudden the temp plumits and kills everything. Why? How? ...we dont know. But we do know that this pattern exists.
And thats my two cents..
happy reefin'
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Ok, that's great that you want to play Devil's Advocate, but maybe next time you should use material that isn't blatant propaganda. That is a disservice to the public you are trying to 'educate'.
If you want to talk about unfounded hysteria, economic collapse because of environment-friendly policy is a perfect example. A well managed plan to reduce emissions will not destroy us, in fact it will create other opportunities. But the powers-that-be would rather plant doubt in your head so that there is inaction. A failed environment, on the other hand, is very costly. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/benefits_conference/nature_paper.pdf
Saying that environmental protection is a rich-nation luxury is a partial truth, because as the paper above explains, nature can often supply more economic benefit if left alone than if it was 'developed'. Who do you think has the logging, mining, and oil extraction rights in developing countries? The country that the mining, logging, and oil extraction is taking place in? Nope, it's the 'developed' countries (a notable exception is oil shale mining in Canada, total mess). Globalism at its finest. All the more reason to switch to different methods.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Spoken like a true geologist,
. We don't have to look back to when the planet was a molten rock to be able to recognize a trend that is happening in the last million years. Although, I admit, it may help and be useful to some extent. The reason I don't feel the first 4 billion yrs are that important is because of ecology. Earth is no longer solely dominated by sun cycles, the revolving around the Sun, and simple chemical reactions. The environment and atmosphere is now dominated by living things and biochemistry which is infinitely more complex and flexible than early Earth dynamics. To top it all off, there is no historical precedence for what is occurring today, ie humans and industrialization.Hippiesmell, I don't know what to say. I don't want to flame you and I have a hard time ignoring you. Its like fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man. You are clueless, unable to see beyond your dogma and idealism, site liberal propaganda while at the same time calling all dissent propaganda. I guess its just best to ignore you.
eckrynock
Premium Member
Now, now. I was greatly enjoying the debate. I'm glad the mods have let this go on. I have learned a lot on both sides of the issue. Let's not start "flaming" each other. MCary, you have chosen your words very well in the past, let's keep that up. Please let's not get this thread closed. Hippie could say the same thing about your dogma and idealism. There are two sides to this debate. Hippie, you must see that. There is evidence on both sides. Like you stated, the earth is different now than it was 4 billion years ago. If you believe that, you must also believe that you cannot predict what will happen 50 - 100 -1000 years down the road as things will always be changing. Deserts and extinctions is one prediction, ice age is another. Is there no room for debate? MCary is not devil's advocate for he is more than arguing for arguing's sake but is simply presenting the other side of the case.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
First, thanks for not flaming me. Second, I have never cited liberal propaganda. It's called peer reviewed science. If you call that liberal propaganda, then I guess it is. My ONLY problem with your POV is the material you use to justify it (your citations, not necessarily your ideas). It's not science, yet you pass it off to be so. There is a very active element on the world stage, both sides, not just the right, that is deceiving. The only place I can turn to where I feel there is some sort of internal control is peer reviewed science. That is my dogma.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Dogma? Maybe. Idealism? Absolutely. I admit, I am a minority with my worldview. That doesn't make me wrong, however. Am I as inflexible as I seem? No, not at all, but the evidence must be shown to me, or the lies must be very clever to change how I see things.
Yes, I know things were different 4 billion years ago, but that is a far cry from being able to predict the next 1,000 years. A billion years is impossible to predict now, 1,000 years is within our capability.
And yes, there is room for debate. Don't let my stubbornness scare you away.
I apologize, obviouly some frustration expressed. There is lots of legitamate research being done on the other side of this issue. Of course those who don't believe in GW are going to pick it up and repeat it. Just as National Geographic, Time, Newsweek and Nature are going to run with the pro-GW research. Those are either liberal slanted or sensationalist publications. They are bias yes, but it doesn't make what they print false. It is a common tactic with liberal viewpoints to demonize those they disagree with rather that scientifically disputing the data. Just call it blatant propaganda. Forget that George Will is considered one of the most intelligent men in America. He's a conservative. He must have an agenda.
poedag
New member
if anyone out there has access to Science, this one from April 27 of 2001 by Zachos et. al. is very good and clears up a few misconceptions stated in this thread. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5517/686
it goes over all of the natural climactic shifts that have occured over the last 65Ma including planetary, tectonic, and biological. One must remember that when trying to piece together past climat beyond 150Ya, we only have things like ice and sediment cores to use as proxies, and we can only do so much with computer models. they are constantly being improved, but they are currently all we have to work with.
I do agree with hippiesmell though, peer-reviered lit is the only way to go.
on the other hand, eckrynock does bring up a good point. my personal believes to fall more along the lines of believing that increased anthropogenic carbon is a bad thing and global warming is happening at an increased rate due to people and our activities. am i going to search out literature to back myself up? sure, who wouldn't. but i'm certainly not opposed to good science that comes to an alternate conclusion.
it goes over all of the natural climactic shifts that have occured over the last 65Ma including planetary, tectonic, and biological. One must remember that when trying to piece together past climat beyond 150Ya, we only have things like ice and sediment cores to use as proxies, and we can only do so much with computer models. they are constantly being improved, but they are currently all we have to work with.
I do agree with hippiesmell though, peer-reviered lit is the only way to go.
on the other hand, eckrynock does bring up a good point. my personal believes to fall more along the lines of believing that increased anthropogenic carbon is a bad thing and global warming is happening at an increased rate due to people and our activities. am i going to search out literature to back myself up? sure, who wouldn't. but i'm certainly not opposed to good science that comes to an alternate conclusion.
dreaminmel
New member
Now we're getting somewhere... :thumbsup: You all are proving me wrong right now. I fully expected this thread to come to a flaming end but am actually impressed that the opposite is happening... maybe I shouldn't give up on humanity just yet. 
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
You say there is a lot of "reseach being done on the other side of this issue". There should never be a "side" to research. There should be a hypothesis, then there should be data. Whether the data matches the hypothesis or not is not determinate on expectations (at least it shouldn't be). I hope, and assume, this is known and accepted by you.
George Will is a smart guy. Does that make everything he says true? Of course not. He has some questionable behavior regarding his professional/personal activities, but it's hard for anyone to completely separate professional from personal commentary. Real science, however, is hopefully cleansed of this problem through peer review.
- Status
Similar threads
