The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

Status
Not open for further replies.
*steps on soapbox*

Ok, I've been following this thread, and I'm going to speak up and just make a general, philisophical comment.

I'm no scientist, but common sense tells me that we, humans, put billions of tons of pollutants into the environment. I consider all those cars that I see on the freeway every day going to work in the morning burning a gallon of fuel every 20 or so miles, and then multiply them by the millions. When I push my trash out to the curb, I think about the other billions of people who push their trash out to the curb every week. I think, gosh, that's a lot of trash, where does it all go????? How long does that peice of wrapper from the Taco Bell last night take to degrade/breakdown? Is it even biodegradable?
We live in such a disposable society. Sad.

We can argue all we want, and believe whatever scientists/studies we choose, as to the extent and what effect pollution created by humans has on global environmental conditions. But the fact is, that, to some extent, we know we are polluting the earth. My commonsense tells me this. I worry about my kid, and my eventual grandchildren, growing up in a world that is damaged.

Some of you say it may take decades, centuries, 100's, 1,000 or 10,000's of years, but I will always have a memory of my grandfather (who has since deceased) in the Black Forrest of Southwestern Germany taking me to a ridge as a small child and pointing out a row of beautiful trees along the ridge, saying how he could tell that they were damaged by the air pollution from Eastern European contries' factories that flowed to the west with the wind current. (He was a quite a gardener) I didn't believe him at the time. Heck, I was a kid, they looked like normal old trees to me. But guess what, 30 years later I went back and he was right. They are gone. Destroyed. And yes, from the air pollution.

That was over a 30 year period. Healthy, strong trees that had probably been there and thriving for centuries. I don't have an appocolyptic view on this, but that illustrates that yes, dramatic changes can happen quickly. And guess what? My daughter will never get to see those trees.

Do I drive a car? Yes.
Do I run extra electricity for my selfish pleasure of having a pool and fish tanks? Yes.

But, I also vote, carpool every chance I get, go out of my way to seperate my recyclables from the regular trash, turn off unneeded lights, buy captive-bred/aquacultured livestock when possible, etc. etc. Should I do more? Yes, absolutely. But at least I recognize that there is a problem and I can/should do more.

It's about living a lifestyle, and teaching our kids, and teaching our kids to teach their kids, to live a lifestyle that is at least conscious of our impact on our environment. These kids, afterall, will be the politicians and people making decisions one day. It is scary to see the lack of these teachings and utter disregard of the environment. I have a 16 year old, and I see how the majority of her friends and their families have a total disregard for their environment. It's scary.

People that spend so much time and energy trying to prove how little impact we have, or say "well, the earth just goes through these cycles and there's nothing we can do about it" or spend so much time and energy disproving studies/scientists that show otherwise, or at least show that pollution caused by humans have SOME negative impact, are in denial.

Do you believe that pollution caused by humans has some negative impact on the world we live in?

If the answer is "yes", then I guess that is the first step....
by admitting that there is problem.

If the answer is "no", well, then that's sad.

*steps off soapbox*

flame away...
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7878467#post7878467 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
We did already. Basically we said no more think tanks, politically motivated commentary, or lone wolf 'scientists' who don't subject themselves to peer review. Those things aren't science, it's confusion.



Ohh... when you say "we" you mean the people you are debating? If so, then perhaps you should direct them back to the agreement. You aren't getting anywhere otherwise.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Then I guess, land clearing and concrete dont effect global warming.
I guess we need to lessen up on building restrictions.(where"s my backhoe)
What the author is forgetting is that the reason north America hasnt warmed even with all the additional concrete.....is that we have actually been experiencing global cooling.
The heat islands have been off setting this global cooling.
Thats the only explanation.
The scientist in your liknk agree that the Heat islands should be increasing the temps , but they cant explain why its not.
Well I just saved them a lot of difficult thinking.
Remember, Atlanta July 30 1997 .(the coldest 7/30 in 120 years)
 
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315skintemp.html
The issue with Satilite data verses ground readings is that they dont match.
not that they dont both show warming in the psat twenty years.
The satilites match ground reading in the USA and Europe.
They dont match in BRazil and China. How can the satilites only be off in certain locations of the world? is it ground reading error?
Gee how nice of them to exclude the data from 1972-82 ( the time the satilites first started collecting Data)
By not including the coldest decade in 100 years(72-82) .....and limiting the study to only the warmest decade in 100 years is kinda sneaky.

Its like comparing last years hurricane season to this years.

This furture illustrates how even NASA press reports cant be believed at face value any longer.
Again look at the data, not what some press release put out.
 
Kalk,

The temps on one day do not make a trend in either direction :rolleyes:

BTW we had a record high two days ago, so by your logic that should be all the evidence needed to support global warming ;)
 
But global warming is a misleading term...Its actually Cooling the atmosphere... Global warming leads to ice ages not 200 degree summers...Got it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7879660#post7879660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
But global warming is a misleading term...Its actually Cooling the atmosphere... Global warming leads to ice ages not 200 degree summers...Got it.
:confused:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7879422#post7879422 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Earl45
Ohh... when you say "we" you mean the people you are debating? If so, then perhaps you should direct them back to the agreement. You aren't getting anywhere otherwise.
They don't listen to me. :D
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7879448#post7879448 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Then I guess, land clearing and concrete dont effect global warming.
I guess we need to lessen up on building restrictions.(where"s my backhoe)
What the author is forgetting is that the reason north America hasnt warmed even with all the additional concrete.....is that we have actually been experiencing global cooling.
The heat islands have been off setting this global cooling.
Thats the only explanation.
Right :rolleyes: . What about the satellites? They aren't fooled by heat islands. Besides, didn't you read? They said it was negligible. What part of negligible don't you understand?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7879531#post7879531 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315skintemp.html
The issue with Satilite data verses ground readings is that they dont match.
not that they dont both show warming in the psat twenty years.
The satilites match ground reading in the USA and Europe.
They dont match in BRazil and China. How can the satilites only be off in certain locations of the world? is it ground reading error?
Maybe this will help:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm
I'm sure you could find the actual Science articles as well if you don't believe this summary.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7878223#post7878223 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I figured it out. You think that CO2 released into the atmosphere will only affect the land temperatures where the CO2 was released. BUT, you also think that CO2 released into the atmosphere will affect ocean pH globally. Well, which is it? Does CO2 have a global or local effect?
Kalk,

I'm curious as to where you stand on this question I asked earlier. Care to clarify yourself?
 
Is this thread still going? I see Hippie is still up to his tricks.

From SamtheMan:

When warming's 'hockey stick' breaks
By H. Sterling Burnett
Published August 4, 2006


When is a story on global warming not worth reporting accurately....

Sam, you must put this at the end of your post I guess..

I'm sure you could find the actual Science articles as well if you don't believe this summary.

Am I assume a sensationalist rag like USA Today should be believed out of hand, and if you don't believe them you should do your own fact checking, but the National Center for Policy Analysis, who you know is facted checked seriously by the media, should be dismissed as a conservative think tank without examining the summary they bring of the facts? Hmmmm.. interesting not hypocrtical at all.

Yet even the USA article said 1 degree F. in 30 years. It is predicted to go higher. Yet so far most predictions in this field have fell short by over 400%. I think I'm going to wait on building my underground shelter.

Mike
 
MCary, they let you out already?:p

The USA Today article was a summary of a Science article, what's wrong with telling people to read the actual article if they don't believe USA Today? You obviously don't believe USA Today, so read the actual paper, tell me what they say.

That 400% junk is horse puckey. There is more than one climate model, you know that, right?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7880226#post7880226 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
IAm I assume a sensationalist rag like USA Today should be believed out of hand, and if you don't believe them you should do your own fact checking, but the National Center for Policy Analysis, who you know is facted checked seriously by the media, should be dismissed as a conservative think tank without examining the summary they bring of the facts? Hmmmm.. interesting not hypocrtical at all.
Mike

The NCPA has an agenda, you know that. It's a far cry from legit research.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7880593#post7880593 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
The NCPA has an agenda, you know that. It's a far cry from legit research.

You can back this up, right?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7880966#post7880966 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
You can back this up, right?
I consider this a laughable request, because their motivations are pretty transparent and widely available to the public, but I'll keep it simple. This is from their website:

"The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."

Seems like an agenda to me.
 
You can back this up, right?

Sure thing...

Major Funding from companies like DaimlerChrysler Corporation and a little oil company called ExxonMobil.

Most of their board members have ties to the Bush administration. One was a Republican candidate for President of the United States. Many others worked for oil companies. Pretty much all rich, ultra religious Texas business owners.

If that isn't the definition of a "conservative think tank" I don't know what is.

What they don't have is any background in science, research or anything that would give them any credentials to evaluate global warming policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top