The Oceans pH Level Is Falling
- Thread starter RobbyG
- Start date
- Status
RichConley
New member
We're definitely having hotter summers, colder winters, and worse storms up here in New England.
Im pretty sure that by the time its 130 degrees here they will have fried by then. SO to say they will be the only inhabitants is far fetched since the desert dwellers are allready topping over 120 degrees. BTW if we make it 50 years without pollution, or trading Nukes with each other we will be lucky.
MacnReef
Active member
Yeah, but all you Yankees are the problem anyway. I am sure once God wipes you off the planet, he will let everything else go back to normal and the Ocean's pH will go back up....lol J/K of course
But to say that temps will reach 130 in 20 years, is rediculous. Now, I am speaking for most of the world...not AZ. lol
Mike
But to say that temps will reach 130 in 20 years, is rediculous. Now, I am speaking for most of the world...not AZ. lol
Mike
Robby, you seem awfully concerned about the Ozone depletion. Maybe I can ease your anx a little.
Depletion of the ozone layer has no effect on the risk of deadly skin cancers. The ozone layer blocks UV-B radiation, but it does not block UV-A radiation. UV-A radiation has been linked to malignant melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. UV-B has been linked to only two types of skin cancer, neither of which is life-threatening.
Source:
"Myths and Facts About the Environment -- Part II: The Hole in the Ozone Layer," The National Center for Public Policy Research, Contact: David Ridenour @ 202/543-4110, e-mail: EarthDay@nationalcenter.org, Web:
I hope that makes you feel better.
Mike
Depletion of the ozone layer has no effect on the risk of deadly skin cancers. The ozone layer blocks UV-B radiation, but it does not block UV-A radiation. UV-A radiation has been linked to malignant melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. UV-B has been linked to only two types of skin cancer, neither of which is life-threatening.
Source:
"Myths and Facts About the Environment -- Part II: The Hole in the Ozone Layer," The National Center for Public Policy Research, Contact: David Ridenour @ 202/543-4110, e-mail: EarthDay@nationalcenter.org, Web:
I hope that makes you feel better.
Mike
I am sure that most of you have heard of global warming, but what about global dimming - there is a theory (with some strong evidence behind it) that the increase in pollution not only increases the greenhouse gas layer in the atmosphere, thus trapping heat, but produces more airborne particulate material, which act as condensation nuclei for clouds to form. The increased numbers of clouds (containing reflective water droplets) reflect away solar radiation, causing the Earth to cool down. The trouble is, by cutting pollution we may reduce global dimming at a greater rate than global warming, thus causing the Earth to heat up even further...
... 'so what does this have to do with the pH of the oceans?' you may ask. All I'm saying is that our understanding of the planet we live on and the impact we have upon it is so limited that to change our lifestyles completely because the pH of the ocean has changed a bit is absurd and illogical. We don't fully understand what effects the changes we make will have (if indeed they have any major effects at all), and by reacting rashly, even though it is done with the best intentions, we may be causing more harm than good.
That doesn't mean to say that the environmentalists are wrong though - I think the worst attitude to have is to say 'I don't care,' since these issues do affect us. I just think that people should be more conservative and careful in their arguments and their actions, rather than blazing ahead and ridiculing others for their views.
... 'so what does this have to do with the pH of the oceans?' you may ask. All I'm saying is that our understanding of the planet we live on and the impact we have upon it is so limited that to change our lifestyles completely because the pH of the ocean has changed a bit is absurd and illogical. We don't fully understand what effects the changes we make will have (if indeed they have any major effects at all), and by reacting rashly, even though it is done with the best intentions, we may be causing more harm than good.
That doesn't mean to say that the environmentalists are wrong though - I think the worst attitude to have is to say 'I don't care,' since these issues do affect us. I just think that people should be more conservative and careful in their arguments and their actions, rather than blazing ahead and ridiculing others for their views.
It is perfectly acceptable to care about something. It is not however acceptable to attact, belittle or place your self above someone else who doesn't care about the same issues as you.
Skeptism is healthy. It is normal. You should question and challenge.
There is plenty of conflicting evidense that global warming is either/or:
not real
not anthropologic
not detrimental
not reversable
not preventable
for someone to have a legitamate opposing opinion. There is not any reason that person should be ridiculed, blamed, or shamed. He is not adding to the problem any more than you just because he doesn't care. The scope of this thing is too big for individual effects.
Mike
Skeptism is healthy. It is normal. You should question and challenge.
There is plenty of conflicting evidense that global warming is either/or:
not real
not anthropologic
not detrimental
not reversable
not preventable
for someone to have a legitamate opposing opinion. There is not any reason that person should be ridiculed, blamed, or shamed. He is not adding to the problem any more than you just because he doesn't care. The scope of this thing is too big for individual effects.
Mike
dreaminmel
New member
I forsee this thread "moving on" relatively soon... 
Here’s a good link I found on climate change:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/
And some good information IMO found on the site:
As seen by the carbon dioxide graph, the amount of CO2 really started to rise between the years 1950 and 2000, which, I’m guessing, would mean that the pH levels really started to drop between the years 1950 and 2000. I could be wrong, however.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/
And some good information IMO found on the site:
As seen by the carbon dioxide graph, the amount of CO2 really started to rise between the years 1950 and 2000, which, I’m guessing, would mean that the pH levels really started to drop between the years 1950 and 2000. I could be wrong, however.
dreaminmel
New member
Mmmm, post count... remind me again why the count seems to be important for some reason? Last time I paid attention to mine it was half the current number... guess I voice opinions more than I thought. I shall go back to lurking for at least 24 hours. Promise...
- Status
Similar threads
