The Oceans pH Level Is Falling
- Thread starter RobbyG
- Start date
- Status
physicslord
New member
A sound scientific theory has the ability to make predictions. We base public policy on predictions all the time.
This is the whole point of the science we are discussing. You do not have to simply wait for bad things to happen to you before you react.
Also, I already answered your other question, but you refuse to accept my answer.
dreaminmel
New member
I hate to say it but a LOT of public policy is based on predictions...
Just a minor example but I can't take my akita to some places because policy predicts he is a dangerous dog and will bite someone... he may, he may not but policy errs on the side of caution to protect humanity.
There are MANY examples that could be given on this...
Just a minor example but I can't take my akita to some places because policy predicts he is a dangerous dog and will bite someone... he may, he may not but policy errs on the side of caution to protect humanity.
There are MANY examples that could be given on this...
eckrynock
Premium Member
Tuesday, May 14, 2002 A six-year-old boy was recovering in hospital after being mauled by a 70-kilogram Akita dog in Maple Ridge on the weekend, Ridge-Meadows RCMP said yesterday.
EDMONTON -- Emergency room doctors assessing the chances of a two-year-old boy's survival following a savage Akita attack advised his mother say goodbye to her two-year-old son.
Doesn't sound like Akita attacks are much of a prediction but a PROVEN fact. I'm sure you would be quite upset if the government told you computer models showed them that in the next twenty years, your dog was going to attack someone so they were going to have it put down now as a precaution.
EDMONTON -- Emergency room doctors assessing the chances of a two-year-old boy's survival following a savage Akita attack advised his mother say goodbye to her two-year-old son.
Doesn't sound like Akita attacks are much of a prediction but a PROVEN fact. I'm sure you would be quite upset if the government told you computer models showed them that in the next twenty years, your dog was going to attack someone so they were going to have it put down now as a precaution.
dreaminmel
New member
Excuse me? Had to edit my post, got a little excited there...
You basically just proved it is based on prediction and not PROOF that all akitas will bite...
You basically just proved it is based on prediction and not PROOF that all akitas will bite...
Global warming is a confusing term - what we should be saying is 'climate change'. What I mean by this is that not all the forecast effects of our polluting lead to an increase in global temperatures. There is also the concept of global dimming (where microscopic pollutant particles act as condensation nuclei for clouds to form. The increased numbers of clouds reflect more solar radiation away from the Earth, causing it to cool down), as well as the suggestion that if pollution continues then the gulf stream will shut off, causing places like Britain to freeze (incidentally, scientists have discovered that the gulf stream has decreased in strength by 30% over the last 100 years or so - this is fairly strong evidence of climate change due to human pollution).
If you're going to say it is all based on theory, then you might as well say that you don't believe in gravity - though there is overwhelmingly strong evidence that gravity exists, there is no way we can prove it (using current technology), yet I somehow doubt that you will deny the existence of it. Equally there is incredibly strong evidence for the theory of global warming, yet people still choose to ignore it.
If you're going to say it is all based on theory, then you might as well say that you don't believe in gravity - though there is overwhelmingly strong evidence that gravity exists, there is no way we can prove it (using current technology), yet I somehow doubt that you will deny the existence of it. Equally there is incredibly strong evidence for the theory of global warming, yet people still choose to ignore it.
dreaminmel
New member
Computer models cannot show that. Just a computer models cannot show that all wolves will attack a human being. If the government wants to make policy on safety based on predictions that is fine, however, mass execution of a species is not even in the same ballpark.
Nabber86
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7719712#post7719712 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dreaminmel
Computer models cannot show that. Just a computer models cannot show that all wolves will attack a human being. If the government wants to make policy on safety based on predictions that is fine, however, mass execution of a species is not even in the same ballpark.
Say whaaaat?
dreaminmel
New member
Not sure what your question is Nabber... if you ask, I will answer...
We based that Iraq had WMD's on prediction. We all see what happened there. Now we base the effects of Global Warming on predictions....I see a trend of bandwagoning without evidence. Riot Mentality is a part of human nature.
We make decisions without hard evidence and everyone gets stirred up, grabs their pitch forks, and burns the witches...
We make decisions without hard evidence and everyone gets stirred up, grabs their pitch forks, and burns the witches...
Nu2SW
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7719562#post7719562 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dreaminmel
Excuse me? Had to edit my post, got a little excited there...
You basically just proved it is based on prediction and not PROOF that all akitas will bite...
People Are stupid , they are afraid of what they can not control. Akita's are great dogs, they are protective of there family and territory. My uncle had one, yes it bit a dog, but the dog came onto HIS land, into HIS backyard. So what does the akita do, Instinct It attacks. Just like all the bad press pitbulls receive. We are keeping animals at pet, that at one time were wild. So they may get a wild hair, But as an owner its your job to make sure they behave.
Its not a proven Fact, Im sure you can search the web and find many stories of dogs attacking.What you and people like you seem to forget is who is always involved, Most of the time It is a YOUNG child, and we all know that young children love to pull on dog's tails and yell at them and provoke them. A dog attacks in fear, not in blood rage. SO its BS the media paints these animals as killers And the people just go along with it. Why, because they dont have the brain capacity to think.
SO people take the fear in what they dont know, and instead of trying to figure it out or so something about it they make policies against it. It's stupid.
eckrynock
Premium Member
Obviously the sarcasm was missed in my post. The whole point is, early on in the theory of evolution, it was believed man descended from apes. Whether this was a plot by conservatives to totally rule out evolution or read into Darwin's work, I'm not sure. However, 120 years later, nobody believes we descended from apes. Why did it take 120 years to perfect the theory of evolution and only 10 or 15 for Global warming?
eckrynock
Premium Member
People are not stupid. They are fearful though. How do you stop kids from pulling on dogs tails? Dogs have minds of their own, owners can't control them all of the time. If you have a better solution than policies, let us know. Same goes for those accusing MCary of working for big oil, do you drive cars?
RichConley
New member
Can we not get into breed laws? Theyre rediculous. A doberman attacks a child, and you get a mandatory doberman muzzle law. 5 golden retrievers maul kids and you never even hear about it.
More fatal and close to fatal attacks come from Labrador Retrievers than anything else. THey just dont look mean, so nobody makes any laws.
eckrynock
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7719712#post7719712 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dreaminmel
however, mass execution of a species is not even in the same ballpark.
Neither is comparing global warming to sticking a cat in the oven and watching it suffer.
I never said all Akitas bite.
Scientists see that some glaciers have melted, temps. have slowly risen, and the pH of the ocean has dropped .1 in 200 years. They take this data and theorize that humans will cause mass extinctions etc. Humans have never tracked this data before and have never been through global warming before. Thus, PREDICTION. Akitas have bitten people in the past and it is theorized they will attack again. Thus, ASSUMPTION. There is a difference.
RichConley
New member
Nabber, during those periods, there weren't 400+ million people on the north american continent toting around weapons shooting everything they see move.
Heres what happens if glaciers move down into the northern US:
Canadians move into northern US, as well as all the large mamals in canada. That means Herds of elk moving south, packs of wolves, etc. That means wolves, elk, and bison on farmland. We're going to see massive migrations of people to the south, and massive migrations into mexico. This is going to be paired with massive migrations of large mammalian predators (wolves and bears and mountain lions). Do you really think an individual of those species is going to survive a treck through the fringe zones that are now heavily populated? I doubt it. You're going to see mass extinctions of any large animal thats close to endangered in the northern US as us gun toting americans shoot everything. All of the keystone animals for those environments will be gone.
Gravity is a law. Global Warming is a theory. Gravity experiments can be done in a controlled laboratory. Gravity experiments can be duplicated by independent researchers. Experiments have not failed. No counter evidense of gravity exists. The law of gravity was held to the scrutiny and procedures of scientifuc method.
Global warming connot be duplicted in a controlled environment. Global warming depends on linking many different experiments from multiple disaplines and computer modeling. Computer modeling is dependent on completeness and accuracy of input data. There are no experiments that prove the predicted effects of global warming. Those are all just speculation and clearly dramatized for political reasons.
Here is an example of preconceptual science taken from a Science magazine abstract:
To set this up. I have hypothesized that global warming is preconceptual science. Similiar to biblical archeology. Where the researcher preconcieves an idea and then looks for evidence supporting that idea and dismissing all evidence that disputes it or reworks the data until it fits. Now read this summary.
GLOBAL WARMING:
Global Climate Data and Models: A Reconciliation
James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, Jay Glascoe
The debate over the existence of global warming and climate change has been muddled because of satellite data showing a cooling trend in Earth's troposphere. This apparent cooling is in disagreement with measurements at surface stations and with climate models. In their Perspective, Hansen et al. discuss a correction to the satellite data published by Wentz and Schabel in Nature that may have profound implications for discussions of climate change. Wentz and Schabel discovered that the original satellite data, published in 1995, was not adjusted for the natural decay of spacecraft altitude caused by atmospheric drag. When this adjustment is made, the satellite data agree with both surface data and model calculations. The authors of the Perspective conclude that the question now is not whether global warming exists--it clearly does--but what should be done about it.
The data clearly did not fit the preconcieved notion so the numbers were reworked and justification was provided by coming up with "natural decay of spacecraft altitude caused by atmospheric drag". So it doesn't matter what the data says, they will fix it.
Mike
RichConley
New member
You people are sorely misunderstanding evolution. Nothing adapts. Things have mutations. Things with favorable mutations live. Those with non favorable die. This happens in small steps. Things dont change.
Things that arent suitable for the new environment simply die, and something that was more suitable prospers. Corals arent going to just change, theyre going to die. Ones that are better at living in higher temperature will survive for longer.
If animal A and B can both take 80 degrees max, and they have offspring C and D that can take 79 and 81 degrees respectively, and then the temp goes up to 80, thats evolution. Your population has changed.
Now use that and speculate that the temp goes up to 85. A,B,C,and D all die. Thats evolution too. The species went extinct, and something else will take its ecological niche.
Things dont adapt to rapid change. They die off, and something else moves in. They adapt to slow change.
RichConley
New member
MCary, I agree with your point, theres a lot of preconceptual science going on here, but I think you're a perfect example in this post. You obviously are trying to prove something, and are using specific data.
Whos to say that the data in the first place in that example was correct? Maybe the initially recorded altitude wasnt correlated with the data.
If some one collects a whole bunch of data about gravity assuming the mass of the earth is X, and then later we find out the mass of the earth is X.00000001, that doesnt make the experimental data any less useful, it changes the things derived from the data.
I'm not saying thats the case in this instance. What I am saying is that you're doing exactly the same thing you're accusing the scientists of.
This thread has drifted quite a way from the initial posts about pH dropping in seawater.
While some still argue about whether the production of CO2 by people has raised global temperature, the observed rise in CO2 itself is not a theory, but rather a measurement. Likewise with pH in the oceans.
The fact that increased CO2 lowers pH is noticed by all reefers in the diurnal pH cycle in their aquaria, and is easily demonstrated by anyone with soda water and a pH meter, should make debates about the effect of CO2 on the ocean pH much less contentious than debates about global warming.
I'm sure many folks, will still argue about what impact a pH drop in the ocean might have on the ecosystem, but that is a far cry from the politically charged debates on global temperatures and fossil fuels.
Frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that a group of people with extensive experience with pH, such as reef aquarists, would respond the way that many have in this thread.
Here's a recent study:
Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH.
Pelejero, Carles; Calvo, Eva; McCulloch, Malcolm T.; Marshall, John F.; Gagan, Michael K.; Lough, Janice M.; Opdyke, Bradley N.
Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2005), 309(5744), 2204-2207. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Abstract
The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atm. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compns. in a .apprx.300-yr-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over .apprx.50-yr cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atm. anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.
While some still argue about whether the production of CO2 by people has raised global temperature, the observed rise in CO2 itself is not a theory, but rather a measurement. Likewise with pH in the oceans.
The fact that increased CO2 lowers pH is noticed by all reefers in the diurnal pH cycle in their aquaria, and is easily demonstrated by anyone with soda water and a pH meter, should make debates about the effect of CO2 on the ocean pH much less contentious than debates about global warming.
I'm sure many folks, will still argue about what impact a pH drop in the ocean might have on the ecosystem, but that is a far cry from the politically charged debates on global temperatures and fossil fuels.
Frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that a group of people with extensive experience with pH, such as reef aquarists, would respond the way that many have in this thread.
Here's a recent study:
Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH.
Pelejero, Carles; Calvo, Eva; McCulloch, Malcolm T.; Marshall, John F.; Gagan, Michael K.; Lough, Janice M.; Opdyke, Bradley N.
Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2005), 309(5744), 2204-2207. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Abstract
The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atm. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compns. in a .apprx.300-yr-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over .apprx.50-yr cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atm. anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.
- Status
Similar threads
