The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[RobbyG]

These things don't equate! All the medical advances you talk about have nothing to do with people Driving Gas Hog Vehicles or Governments investing in Coal burning power plants. We could have easily had all of what you described as well as clean air. Which Ironically also would have cut down on respiratory health problems around he world.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7759070#post7759070 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
I think if we put things in perspective it may help a bit. Imagine a world several hundred years ago in terms of human plight...i.e. lack of polio vaccine (or any vaccine for that matter), no antibiotics, no clean water (cholera), no anesthetics, to sterile ability, no surgery available, no power, no machines to do work/plow fields/assist in food production, no or at best poor roads with limited or no distribution ability, etc, etc, etc. This of course resulted in a very poor life expantancy of ~30 years (if lucky) not to mention poor quality of life. Now with all of the technology we have developed life is FAR better than in the past and life expectancy is also far better (~75+ years now). Don't beleive me? Go visit a third world country (I have and given medical care there). However, all of these devlopments come at a price. I just happen to beleive this price is worth it. For example, people quote soaring cancer rates...yet we in spite of this have such a high life expectancy. I'll take the cancer risk in exchange for an extra 40 years thank you.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7760639#post7760639 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Bill,

You could be right. It still reads like an editorial review to me. The editors send it a group of 4 experts and say "What do you think?" whereas the peer review process I'm used to as a scientist involves a review panel, usually by an organization of your specialty and duplication of all experiments by another lab or research team which must match your results perfectly (independent verification). But that was just my interpretation. I could be wrong as always.

Mike

As a Marine Biologist, I've never heard of peer review involving duplication of the research presented for publication. Often the research being peer reviewed before publication takes several years and many dollars of grant money. Something no scientific publication is going duplicate for the sake of peer review. The only time duplication is done is when another researcher reads the published, already peer reviewed, research paper in a journal and decides to try duplicating it. Such attempts of duplicating research are often done, and a valuable part of the scientific process, but not a part of the peer review process for publication.

Now as the politics of the peer review process, yes they can happen and are the week link in the process. However, it's still stronger than a completely un peer reviewed article with no references to actual published scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature.

 

[physicslord]

Not to mention, if what MCary was talking about was the real peer review process you would be spending 80% of your time in your own lab duplicating other people's life's work. I know how much time I have to put in to get 1 experiment to work. Sometimes it takes 6 months.

It would be an incredible drag on scientific productivity to have a whole community of scientists constantly duplicating work.

I realize this may be how it works at many companies. That's probably a good thing for a company to do. They need to duplicate things a few times before they sink a bunch of money into a new product.

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761340#post7761340 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
As a Marine Biologist, I've never heard of peer review involving duplication of the research presented for publication. Often the research being peer reviewed before publication takes several years and many dollars of grant money. Something no scientific publication is going duplicate for the sake of peer review. The only time duplication is done is when another researcher reads the published, already peer reviewed, research paper in a journal and decides to try duplicating it. Such attempts of duplicating research are often done, and a valuable part of the scientific process, but not a part of the peer review process for publication.

Now as the politics of the peer review process, yes they can happen and are the week link in the process. However, it's still stronger than a completely un peer reviewed article with no references to actual published scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature.

very well put, i agree completely. as for the politics of the process, it's an unfortunate side effect of some peoples egos.

 

[eckrynock]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761047#post7761047 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
I try to do whatever I can to help, Electricity here costs about 3 times what it does in the USA so things like Energy saver bulbs etc are used by more people than regular bulbs, we buy every product with power consumption in mind, Solar Hot water heaters are used by many people. Most likely this is what the future holds for the USA, soon electricity will sky rocket like Gas and people will be forced to become conservative.

Robby,

I drive a tiny little mazda that gets 35 mpg 10 miles to work everyday. I have compact fluorescent bulbs in my house. I have my windows open most of the way through June while everyone else started running air in May. I save every watt of energy I can and every drop of water. So, what makes your conservation better than mine? See, we're all environmentalists at heart, some just don't worry about what they can't control.

 

[physicslord]

The 24 March 2006 issue of Science was entirely devoted to climate change for anyone who wants a good reference.
You might have to visit a library to see it.

It has many articles that discuss most of the issues presented in this thread and most importantly they tell you how they moniter this stuff.
(If you can read a good scientific article without getting lost, you might like it better than watching a PPT presentation on the silver screen.)

 

[physicslord]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761708#post7761708 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Robby,

I drive a tiny little mazda that gets 35 mpg 10 miles to work everyday. I have compact fluorescent bulbs in my house. I have my windows open most of the way through June while everyone else started running air in May. I save every watt of energy I can and every drop of water. So, what makes your conservation better than mine? See, we're all environmentalists at heart, some just don't worry about what they can't control.

Then why have you been so vehement about argueing with everyone over every minute detail?

For god sakes, why do people always play devil's advocate here?

If you are already conserving energy you're doing all you can.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761708#post7761708 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Robby,

I drive a tiny little mazda that gets 35 mpg 10 miles to work everyday. I have compact fluorescent bulbs in my house. I have my windows open most of the way through June while everyone else started running air in May. I save every watt of energy I can and every drop of water. So, what makes your conservation better than mine? See, we're all environmentalists at heart, some just don't worry about what they can't control.

I'm with physicslord on this one. Why do you conserve if you feel there isn't any consequence for not conserving? Money? That's fine if it is, I'm just curious.

 

[eckrynock]

The problem I have is the "projection". I think that politics has driven GW way out of proportion. Have CO2 levels risen dramatically in the last 20 years? Yes. Have temps risen? Yes. Are they going to continue to rise? Who knows. Your guess is as good as mine. Can I decrease CO2 output? Yes. Then, why not? If CO2 causes a major climate shift, I'm doing everything I can to prevent that. If it doesn't, at least I saved some money along the way. No one here disagrees with the facts of increased CO2 and temperature. The problem is in the forecast. If massive extinction, deserts, and an overall decrease in the quality of human life (or extinction all together) is not doomsday, then what is? I just have a better outlook on it than the rest of you. Doesn't mean I can't do my part to decrease CO2 emissions.

 

[physicslord]

Here is a previous post by you a few pages back:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7724413#post7724413 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Yes, but you can collect data that shows GW isn't taking place.

It sounds like you have changed your mind since you read this thread. I'm glad.
You can see I too had a change of heart from one of my earlier posts. There's a lot of real scientific data out there that I wasn't aware of or had ignored altogether.

I hope that the predicted scenarios are not actually going to take place or my kids are going to live in a messed up world.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7762421#post7762421 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
The problem I have is the "projection". I think that politics has driven GW way out of proportion. Have CO2 levels risen dramatically in the last 20 years? Yes. Have temps risen? Yes. Are they going to continue to rise? Who knows. Your guess is as good as mine. Can I decrease CO2 output? Yes. Then, why not? If CO2 causes a major climate shift, I'm doing everything I can to prevent that. If it doesn't, at least I saved some money along the way. No one here disagrees with the facts of increased CO2 and temperature. The problem is in the forecast. If massive extinction, deserts, and an overall decrease in the quality of human life (or extinction all together) is not doomsday, then what is? I just have a better outlook on it than the rest of you. Doesn't mean I can't do my part to decrease CO2 emissions.

Well, keep on keepin' on then. You should take more time to express how you feel next time you're in a discussion like this. I mean, it only took you like 500 pages this time.

 

[eckrynock]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7762798#post7762798 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by physicslord
It sounds like you have changed your mind since you read this thread.

I haven't changed my mind at all. I still believe the sentence you quoted me on. Data points both ways. That's why I think more research needs to be done in this field before more hockey stick graphs start showing up. Research that does not have a political agenda. Sadly, this won't happen. This research will get swept under the rug and turned away by the referees of Nature and the like. It doesn't fit their criteria (agenda).

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7762834#post7762834 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I mean, it only took you like 500 pages this time.

Only 16.

 

[MCary]

I've never heard of peer review involving duplication of the research presented for publication.

Your right. This is part of scientific method not peer review, my bad. All experiments are to be verified independently in a separate lab to determine reproducability, environmental variables and bias. Of course climatology usually gets a pass on scientific method. And before you argue, look up scientific method. Wikipedia is a good source.

If there were good research papers refuting man-made global warming, they would make print because it's sensational and it would sell a LOT of copies.

There are tons and tons and tons of material with evidence against anthropogenic global warming. (I am not going to use the term global warming anymore without the anthropogenic part. Obviously there has been global warming since the last ice age. There is clear evidence that glaciers have receded from Denver to the Yukon. Thank god.) There is evidence refuting AGW therories. There is disagreement within the supporters. Projections and forcasts of AGW theories have been wrong. You are right. There is no smoking gun or holy grail, but there isn't on the other side either.

Mike

 

[Kalkbreath]

These are the opinions of real C02 experts ....... Thee people have been meeting/talking about C02 long beofre C02 was "Cool".
https://www.icdc7.com/
Most seem to agree that the C02 increases are Ocean sourced not from Fossil fuel burning.
Areas on the Earth that have the most Fossil fuels burning seem not to have the associated higher Co2 levels.
Yet its remote areas of the open Sea which do measure higher Carbon Dioxide?
The fact that even people on this forum still wont let loose of the idea that their new found political weapon......."Science" might be better put to use as a method for environmental change, instead of a tool to foist ones social agenda.
Science is not pointing to SUV s as the reason the atmosphere is changing.........Why are humans still pointing?

 

[Kalkbreath]

"Global Warming" Has taken place in the last 1000 years.
But its kinda not fare to measure a point in time following a little Ice Age. (1500 to 1800 ) and claim its warmer now.
In the early 1500s,was a record warm spell.
Many tropical fruits were grown in northern parts of Europe during that period ...places where its too cold to do so there today, even at our current warming trend.
It could very well be that were about to head into another little Ice age.........
SUVs were not responsible for a few hundred year warm spell back in the Dark Ages.
and they wont be the reason for the season this time around either.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764720#post7764720 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
There are tons and tons and tons of material with evidence against anthropogenic global warming. (I am not going to use the term global warming anymore without the anthropogenic part. Obviously there has been global warming since the last ice age. There is clear evidence that glaciers have receded from Denver to the Yukon. Thank god.) There is evidence refuting AGW therories. There is disagreement within the supporters. Projections and forcasts of AGW theories have been wrong. You are right. There is no smoking gun or holy grail, but there isn't on the other side either.

Mike

Please, and I'm not trying to be a jerk, post some links or citations refuting AGW. And because I'm a close-minded snob when it comes to this, please make it peer reviewed material. I would really like to read some.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765036#post7765036 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
These are the opinions of real C02 experts ....... Thee people have been meeting/talking about C02 long beofre C02 was "Cool".
https://www.icdc7.com/
Most seem to agree that the C02 increases are Ocean sourced not from Fossil fuel burning.

I'm lazy today, can you link to specific articles regarding ocean sources of CO2? Thanks.

 

[BeltwayBandit]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765362#post7765362 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
And because I'm a close-minded snob when it comes to this, please make it peer reviewed material. I would really like to read some.

If Wegman's assertions are to be believed, you won't read any anti-AGW in the peer reviewed literature because the gatekeepers won't let any through. He is not the only one to make that assertion with regards to the climate science community.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Click the link I Posted , there you will find twenty or so listed on that main page.
"The 7th International CO2 Conference Web Site: All Stories"
Its just about everything you need to make up your on opinion."
Look at the Data itself.
The NOAA data and Mr. Keeling works on how different Stations located through out the world compare.
Its not easy reading, like a few clever sound bites from Al Gore.......
Its real data and charts .

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765739#post7765739 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
Click the link I Posted , there you will find twenty or so listed on that main page.
"The 7th International CO2 Conference Web Site: All Stories"
Its just about everything you need to make up your on opinion."
Look at the Data itself.
The NOAA data and Mr. Keeling works on how different Stations located through out the world compare.
Its not easy reading, like a few clever sound bites from Al Gore.......
Its real data and charts .

Oh, give me a break. It's not like I'm some brainless groupie.