The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[physicslord]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7701876#post7701876 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Criminal#58369
Maybe setting up a reef tank is taking away from the oceans, and the capture of fish may be throwing off the balance.

Actually, our hobby is doing a lot for the oceans. It is making people aware of the delicate balance of conditions that make life in the ocean thrive.

Having to maintain a reef tank teaches you a lot of chemistry and biology. The more you know and understand about reefs, the more likely you are to care about conserving them. Many island nations are not looking into protecting thier reefs from over fishing, pollution and other destructive practices.

Our collection impact is quite minimal. I can't think of a more beneficial hobby for oceans overall.

 

[scaryperson27]

definently true. It exposes the beauty of the ocean to many people infact, I never payed attention to the ocean as much as I have since putting up a reef aquarium. If more and more people were exposed to wildlife then there would probably be less of a problem. Everytime I see another H2 running around i choke. It scares me that the prediction of our furure is so artificial. America needs to invest in saving our planet for the good of the people of America and around the world.
This article makes me want to throw baking soda into my canal. Lol

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7699583#post7699583 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I am way too deep into this debate, sorry. Its Friday afternoon and I'm bored and ready to go home. Thanks all for keeping me entertained. I like intelligent conversation.

Okay, having said that. Its time for a math lesson. We debate back and forth about what data is interpreted and how, but math doesn't lie.

Anthropogenic contribution to green house effect.

First water vapor is 95% of green house effect. 99.999% of which is natural in origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Since CO2 is 99.44% of green house gas, lets stay there for easy figgurin. The baseline CO2 concentration is 288,000 ppb (parts per BILLION). That's the amount pre-inductrial age. Now its 368,400 ppb. An increase of 80,400 ppb. of this 68,520 ppb are natural additions. That leaves, 11,880 ppb that is anthropogenic.

Okay, 11,880/368,400= 3.207% of CO2 is anthropogenic.

Now if we include water vapor, then the total contribution to global warming caused by CO2 is 3.618% and of that 3.207% is man made. So the total contribution of man to the green house effect by CO2 emmissions is 0.112%.

Adding other green house gases the total amount is 0.28% of green house effect is caused by man. Now I just need Algore to double check my figures.

Mike

Well, I looked into this a bit more. The 95% warming value you give to water vapor is simply too high. I have only found one reference to this value, and it was from this paper:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=114
This paper, interestingly enough, is taken from a pro-business website that is a sub-group of Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group whose self-described goal is this: The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. The Global Climate Coalition, a now defunct group that was massively funded by big oil and other large corporations, originally released this paper. In order to give the paper a more 'credible' look, it was written by some scientists at AccuWeather, a legit company that apparently 'rents out' scientists. Regardless of its dubious origins, the value is in stark contrast to the IPCC accepted value of 50-60%. This alone makes your final analysis of man-made contribution to global warming very different.

The other values you give, an 80,400 ppb increase of CO2, 68,520 ppb of which you attribute to natural increases is also suspect and conflicts with other credible sources. As I said in a previous post, the CO2 levels were pretty stable pre-industrialization, then there was a large increase. To attribute almost 90% of that increase to natural causes is absurd.

Anyway, my point is that your numbers are way off.

 

[physicslord]

For anyone who doubts the credibility of USA today an article on the very same problem, lowering of the oceans ph, appears on page 6 of the June/July issue of Coral Magazine. Daniel Knop and Ron Shimek are editors on this magazine, and their advisory board has Charles Delbeek and Julian Sprung.

The article makes more conservative predictions about ph levels, taken from a report by the Royal Society of Great Britain. It maintains that ph on reefs is still around 8.2.

 

[physicslord]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7691960#post7691960 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jman77
"OMG! All this unchallenged evidence from the scientific journal USA Today. From 8.2 to 8.1 in only 206 years! What ever will we do? If someone took the time to write it down it must all be true. No use looking at any other evidence or causations.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!


Dear lord, please safegaurd our passage to the other side for we are all doomed.

Amen

MIke"


Wooohhahahahahahahhahaha

See my post above ^ .

 

[MCary]

Anyway, my point is that your numbers are way off.

No my numbers are different than your's. You, just like me, are arguing the credibility of someone elses research and someone elses data. You did not help collect or analyze the data and neither did I. Neither of us has the credibilty to say the other is wrong.

That's my point. Differing data exists. Enough for each of us to have a credible opinion without getting skewered.

Mike

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7706698#post7706698 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
That's my point. Differing data exists. Enough for each of us to have a credible opinion without getting skewered.

not to be rude, but there is a large difference between the data collected by scientists at reputable organizations (real labs, gov agencys like NASA, universities...etc) and the data that is collected at think tanks (liberal or conservative) and then cited over and over to create the appearance of fact.

 

[Aj_999]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7706768#post7706768 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by poedag
not to be rude, but there is a large difference between the data collected by scientists at reputable organizations (real labs, gov agencys like NASA, universities...etc) and the data that is collected at think tanks (liberal or conservative) and then cited over and over to create the appearance of fact.

Good point. But then again these reputable sources probably won't convince anyone who have there mind set that global warming is a myth, because these people will likely try to dismiss that these sources show bias anyways.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7706698#post7706698 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
No my numbers are different than your's. You, just like me, are arguing the credibility of someone elses research and someone elses data. You did not help collect or analyze the data and neither did I. Neither of us has the credibilty to say the other is wrong.

That's my point. Differing data exists. Enough for each of us to have a credible opinion without getting skewered.

Mike

What poedag said ^^

 

[physicslord]

Rent - A - Lab

 

[MCary]

Sorry, that's a poor argument and an even poorer justification. I have read posts from at least four people who attack the source of the data, but not the data itself. That is just weak debating and insulting tactics. It also show a lack of open mindedness and clearly defines your own dogma. For you can see the agenda behind the consevative position, big business and big oil etc, but are unable to see the agenda of the other side.

NASA faces huge budget cuts. Many feel space exploration is no longer worth the money. So they make a presentation saying that they are needed to investigate the biggest looming crisis of all time. They get their funding.

IPCC and Climatologists. Where would they get their grocery money from if global warming wasn't a "looming crisis"

How will Algore sell books, movies, and stay viable in the politically arena without an issue. Global Climate change, hmmmmmm, an agenda maybe?

Why are those people who make their living sucking blood out of the global warming crisis suddenly so reputable, yet those with opposing views are in the pocket of big business. Quite rediculous.

Mike

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7708930#post7708930 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Sorry, that's a poor argument and an even poorer justification. I have read posts from at least four people who attack the source of the data, but not the data itself. That is just weak debating and insulting tactics. It also show a lack of open mindedness and clearly defines your own dogma. For you can see the agenda behind the consevative position, big business and big oil etc, but are unable to see the agenda of the other side.

NASA faces huge budget cuts. Many feel space exploration is no longer worth the money. So they make a presentation saying that they are needed to investigate the biggest looming crisis of all time. They get their funding.

IPCC and Climatologists. Where would they get their grocery money from if global warming wasn't a "looming crisis"

How will Algore sell books, movies, and stay viable in the politically arena without an issue. Global Climate change, hmmmmmm, an agenda maybe?

Why are those people who make their living sucking blood out of the global warming crisis suddenly so reputable, yet those with opposing views are in the pocket of big business. Quite rediculous.

Mike

wow, i guess that shows your dogma then, eigh?

just to get back to the original subject, check this out:
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf

tell me if you think those organizations that published the study are reputable or not? i'm just curious.

 

[blufish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7708930#post7708930 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary


How will Algore sell books, movies, and stay viable in the politically arena without an issue. Global Climate change, hmmmmmm, an agenda maybe?

Why are those people who make their living sucking blood out of the global warming crisis suddenly so reputable, yet those with opposing views are in the pocket of big business. Quite rediculous.

Mike

There is one big difference that you are ignoring: where are the published, peer-reviewed, scientific articles denying that global climate change is related to human activities?

The "debate" about global warming exists only in the public and political arena. In the real scientific community there is massive agreement - just as there is massive agreement on evolution, gravity, a round earth, and the absence of flying saucers.

 

[Flobajob]

Blufish - the issue as you say is not whether or not human activities affect global warming - that is widely accepted as true. What is debated is the extent to which human activities are responsible for the changes in the Earth's climate, i.e. does our pollution have a major effect in contributing to global warming, or is the increase largely due to natural causes.

 

[samtheman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7709322#post7709322 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by blufish
There is one big difference that you are ignoring: where are the published, peer-reviewed, scientific articles denying that global climate change is related to human activities?

The "debate" about global warming exists only in the public and political arena. In the real scientific community there is massive agreement - just as there is massive agreement on evolution, gravity, a round earth, and the absence of flying saucers.

Except in the case of global warming the agreement is based on consensus science and unvarified model data, not real science as in the areas of gravity and your other examples. Just get the models varified and you will have some credibility. Using a voting proceedure is not the scientific method!

 

[MCary]

The "debate" about global warming exists only in the public and political arena. In the real scientific community there is massive agreement - just as there is massive agreement on evolution, gravity, a round earth, and the absence of flying saucers.

Here we go again with that old stale argument. What makes it funny is that it isn't even true. But if you repeat something enough times people believe its a fact. Then add in a vicious attack and elliminate funding for dissentors and you have a coup de gras. Then it is suddenly "the truth"

Here's 60,000 scientists that do not agree:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Here's some more:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Mike

 

[RobbyG]

MCary, just wondering, do you work for an Oil Company?
I mean even politicians are now agreeing on global warming and the Ozone Hole, it's only the Oil Execs that still equate Global warming with the Tooth Fairy.

Blufish, were have you ever seen massive agreement that UFO's don't exist? Even top Nasa People think some of the sightings are real.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7709927#post7709927 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Here we go again with that old stale argument. What makes it funny is that it isn't even true. But if you repeat something enough times people believe its a fact. Then add in a vicious attack and elliminate funding for dissentors and you have a coup de gras. Then it is suddenly "the truth"

Here's 60,000 scientists that do not agree:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Here's some more:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Mike

This is fun. Here's a little article on oism.org:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
The paper you linked isn't peer reviewed, and was circulated via email a few years ago in order to get people to sign the petition (which I'll get to in a bit). Apparently the paper was made to look like an official paper by the National Academy of Sciences. Needless to say, the paper isn't bullet proof. The paper is also linked (it's right at the top of the paper) to the George C. Marshall Institute: http://www.marshall.org/. Here's some info on them: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute
Part of the petition itself says this: "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
I can tell you that that is partially true, but is ultimately a gross distortion as increased CO2 has many negative effects on plant communities that I won't get into.

The second link you give doesn't say much. It asks the Canadian government to look at the global warming issue some more before making a decision because there isn't a 'complete consensus' on the issue. Well, what else is new? Nothing would get done if we required complete agreement.

It's still the same argument as before. Here's some info, it's not accepted by the scientific community, but it proves global warming is a hoax. The petition doesn't mean much either considering that it was essentially email spam, and most of the scientists who signed it aren't even close to being climatologists.

 

[justinzimm]

MCary,

Here is a quote from one of those sites you provied:

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people

Nobody in their right mind thinks this is true!

Here is another:

Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution

Is this a joke?

There are "scientific" papers that argue that the earth only 6000 years old, that dinosaurs didn't exist or evolution is impossible. Not everything published is true.

I went to college in the 90's before global warming was a topic like it is today. I took some meteorology classes from probably one of the top meteorology school in the world. Increasing CO2 levels and global warming (due to CO2 levels) was not even debated but taught at fact.

Even if almost every independent scientist and teacher is wrong, what's wrong with researching new technologies? Sending less money to the middle east and more to university's or for renewable resources. Oil can't last forever so save money and buy cars that get high gas mileage. Gas prices are not coming down anytime soon. People that argue against change for the better seem to have other motives.

J

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7710643#post7710643 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by justinzimm
Not everything published is true.

The paper MCary showed never WAS published. It's just another propaganda piece by big oil.