The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[dreaminmel]

[/QUOTE]I am not intimidated by anything. "Environmentalist's" don't do things because they "care" about the environment. Otherwise they wouldn't have to talk about themselves so much. A truely charitable person doesn't brag everytime they do something good. These guys, and it sounds like your included, want to think they're better than everyone and hold judgment on the "others" who just won't "get it". They are ideologs without reason. They think that wilderness is always better than development, that oil is always bad, that business is always bad, that animals deserve more consideration than humans, that tree should never be cut down, that anything nuclear is unsafe, that all new fossil fuel exploration should be stopped. etc etc etc. Extreme positions without common sense or middle ground. And they cling to anything that supports their position without scrutiny. People to be ignored.

Mike [/B][/QUOTE]

Mike, I'm going to assume you have had a negative experience with one particular self proclaimed environmentalist because not a single one that I've spoken to or conversed with fits that description whatsoever. I've been bit by a small dog once... doesn't mean they're all the same.

And not once in this thread did I hear anyone say or imply they were better than you. I think everyone is pretty much here to argue points, not play "holier than thou".

 

[justinzimm]

"Environmentalist's" don't do things because they "care" about the environment. Otherwise they wouldn't have to talk about themselves so much.

Some might. But there are extreemists on both sides. For the most part I think true environmentalists are quiet people who drive small cars and are minimalists.

They are ideologs without reason.

Global warming/overpopulation is a good reason. But that's what this debate is all about.

They think that wilderness is always better than development, that oil is always bad, that business is always bad, that animals deserve more consideration than humans, that tree should never be cut down, that anything nuclear is unsafe, that all new fossil fuel exploration should be stopped. etc etc etc. Extreme positions without common sense or middle ground.

These are some peoples opinions. But most environmentalist probably aren't that radical. And their opinions are based on credible scientific research. Research that is the concensus of nearly 100% of independent scientists.

What exactly is the environmentalist "agenda" that people are talking about? Better life for themselves and their families? Cleaner air? Seems to me their only motive is common sense. We will have to develop renewable energy sources when fossil fuels run out. Why wait until they run out? Why keep sending $$$ to places that can cripple our entire country and economy by not selling us oil? If population continues to grow we WILL have to limit the birthrate in the US and worldwide. That means possibly setting aside wilderness and slowing development. Why wait for more famine, wars, pollution? Why not start now before these problems get worse?

It's easy to see that the "agenda" of some of people on the list provided by MCary and others. That list includes former members of the National Coal Board, British Coal. One guy does research on behalf of big oil. Another is a partner in an international business consulting group. Their agenda is $$$. These people are afraid that global warming will hurt the bottom line. To heck with the facts and consequences of a warmer climate as long as they can hold out until their stock options mature.

These ulterior motives are the reason these people are ignoring good science. The scary thing is some people are so brainwashed they follow them without asking questions or doing their homework. The president will never do anything because he is a former oil company owner and people blindly follow.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7781932#post7781932 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Irony, humor, light hearted banter. I know you don't get alot of that in Minnesota so its okay. Just slow down and don't skim the posts. Read the whole thing.

I am not intimidated by anything. "Environmentalist's" don't do things because they "care" about the environment. Otherwise they wouldn't have to talk about themselves so much. A truely charitable person doesn't brag everytime they do something good. These guys, and it sounds like your included, want to think they're better than everyone and hold judgment on the "others" who just won't "get it". They are ideologs without reason. They think that wilderness is always better than development, that oil is always bad, that business is always bad, that animals deserve more consideration than humans, that tree should never be cut down, that anything nuclear is unsafe, that all new fossil fuel exploration should be stopped. etc etc etc. Extreme positions without common sense or middle ground. And they cling to anything that supports their position without scrutiny. People to be ignored.



Mike

That post was supposed to be light-hearted banter? Normally I would think so, but not in the context you put it (i.e. after calling me a smug elitist, and after repeatedly calling me an alarmist in other posts). Regardless, like dreaminmel said, nobody fits that description. Is that your problem? You're just blindingly prejudiced against people who are concerned for the environment? Loosen up a little, you might be surprised at how likeable most 'hippies' are. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of annoying hippies, but the majority are normal people like me (seriously, grandmas love me). You may think I'm anti everything besides the environment, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I just know we are utterly dependent on Nature, and I'd hate to get on her bad side.

 

[Aj_999]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7781339#post7781339 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
Darn I cant view that video for some reason.

Do you have real player? The windows media version can be found here but the quality of the video is very bad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm
Look at the top right corner of the page.

 

[Kalkbreath]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7781560#post7781560 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Water vapor has a major impact on the globe, but here is why CO2 is so important. .

But why does their seem to be no direct connection to increases C02 and the temp?
Look at the graph.
<http://www.john-daly.com/soi-msu2.gif>
The rate of C02 increases seems to not directly effect world temps.
Even when the total C02 level in the Atmosphere dips , there is no corralation with the temperate?
Could it be that its the temperature which is increasing the C02.
Not C02 increasing the Teperature
Mankind doubled the output of fossil fuels from 1970 to 2000 yet the Co2 in the Atmosphere climbed at a pretty steady rate. (1.4)
I still say that C02 is coming from a more consistant source then Man made sources.(like the Oceans or warming in General)
The early 1980s and again in the early 1990s is a perfect example of the C02 and world temps doing the direct oposite of what they are supposed to.

 

[Kalkbreath]

*

 

[justinzimm]

Kalk,

??? That graph is not even measuring CO2! It's temp. vs. SOI (southern oscillation index) and has nothing to do with what you say.

I think this is the graph you were looking for. It matches almost perfectly...

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

Can we all check our sources and graphs a little closer before posting. This mis-infomation is getting confusing.

 

[physicslord]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7785018#post7785018 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by justinzimm
Kalk,

??? That graph is not even measuring CO2! It's temp. vs. SOI (southern oscillation index) and has nothing to do with what you say.

I think this is the graph you were looking for. It matches almost perfectly...

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

Can we all check our sources and graphs a little closer before posting. This mis-infomation is getting confusing.

Yeah, and this graph has an obvious correlation of CO2 and temp.

KALK:
If that really was the graph you intended to post, explain how it supports that there is no correlation of CO2 and temp.

 

[eckrynock]

That graph is great for showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature but please, tell me how this helps the AGW argument. Looks like we're just in another "normal" 50,000 to 100,000 year trend or cycle. There are FIVE distinct peaks in that graph. What were humans doing 350,000 years ago to release excess CO2 into the air?

 

[RichConley]

That graph has "present" as 1950, which makes it tough to judge the total scale. It would be nice if the numbers for the actual present were on there.

 

[eckrynock]

Isn't present only between 350 and 400 ppmv? Still not much further off.

 

[eckrynock]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7786626#post7786626 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
That graph has "present" as 1950, which makes it tough to judge the total scale. It would be nice if the numbers for the actual present were on there.

It's a 400,000 year graph, what's another 50 years?

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7786859#post7786859 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
It's a 400,000 year graph, what's another 50 years?

It depends on what happens in those 50 years.

If theres a major change, the graph becomes completely different.

 

[Kalkbreath]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig12.gif
http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig4.gif
Figure 4 shows the annual average temperatures of the United States as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). The most recent upward temperature fluctuation from the Little Ice Age (between 1900 and 1940), as shown in the Northern Hemisphere record of figure 3, is also evident in this record of U.S. temperatures. These temperatures are now near average for the past 103 years, with 1996 and 1997 having been the 42nd and 60th coolest years.
Especially important in considering the effect of changes in atmospheric composition upon Earth temperatures are temperatures in the lower troposphere at an altitude of roughly 4 km. In the troposphere, greenhouse-gas-induced temperature changes are expected to be at least as large as at the surface (14). Figure 5 shows global tropospheric temperatures measured by weather balloons between 1958 and 1996. They are currently near their 40-year mean (15), and have been trending slightly downward since 1979.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig6.gif

Figure 11 compares the trend in atmospheric temperatures predicted by computer models adopted by the IPCC with that actually observed during the past 19 years those years in which the highest atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have occurred.

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen.

<http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig11.gif>
from:

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

 

[eckrynock]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7787029#post7787029 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
It depends on what happens in those 50 years.

If theres a major change, the graph becomes completely different.

No it doesn't. There are five peaks on the graph already. What's one more peak? So this time it peaks at 400 instead of 300, so what. My problem comes with these computer models that project almost an 'exponential' linear increase in the next 100 years. This 400,000 year graph does not support that supposition!

 

[HippieSmell]

Ahh, the Oregon Institute of 'Science' and Medicine rears its ugly head again. Kalkbreath, do yourself a favor and never look at that website again.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788874#post7788874 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
No it doesn't. There are five peaks on the graph already. What's one more peak? So this time it peaks at 400 instead of 300, so what. My problem comes with these computer models that project almost an 'exponential' linear increase in the next 100 years. This 400,000 year graph does not support that supposition!

Uhhh...dude? It won't peak at 400, it will go much higher. What part of anthropogenic emissions don't you understand? I'm not usually a fan of citing wikipedia, but this is a nice graph showing how abnormal CO2 concentrations are today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

 

[justinzimm]

Here is some more recent data:

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig2-CO2-Temp.jpg

Sure seems that global climate change is directly correlated to CO2 levels. It would also appear that if the trend continues CO2 will rise above 400ppm. If global warming was mostly dependant on water vapor levels it's not showing it.

 

[eckrynock]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7789109#post7789109 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by justinzimm
It would also appear that if the trend continues CO2 will rise above 400ppm.

Gotta love all those words: UNCERTAINTIES, IF, APPEAR

hmmmmmm.....

Yet skeptics of AGW are crack pots.

New rule:

If you want to convince me that humans are causing an abnormal rise in CO2 and causing the Earth to heat up drastically more than it can handle and that this will continue to increase in the next 100 years until humans become extinct along with every other animal, you are not allowed to use the words IF, PROBABLE, ASSUMED, UNCERTAIN, SPECULATED, VARIABLE, LIKELY, PRESUMABLE.........

Hippie, can't find anything wrong with OISM. Just some well educated PhDs and a couple of nobel peace prize winners.... Predisposition?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7789470#post7789470 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Gotta love all those words: UNCERTAINTIES, IF, APPEAR

hmmmmmm.....

Yet skeptics of AGW are crack pots.

New rule:

If you want to convince me that humans are causing an abnormal rise in CO2 and causing the Earth to heat up drastically more than it can handle and that this will continue to increase in the next 100 years until humans become extinct along with every other animal, you are not allowed to use the words IF, PROBABLE, ASSUMED, UNCERTAIN, SPECULATED, VARIABLE, LIKELY, PRESUMABLE.........

Hippie, can't find anything wrong with OISM. Just some well educated PhDs and a couple of nobel peace prize winners.... Predisposition?

You obviously didn't read this entire thread if you can't find anything wrong with oism.

The CO2 levels and temp increases are measurements, not speculation. The amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere every year is known, it's not a guess. Do you think all that CO2 disappears? You don't find it odd that industry and the MASSIVE, unparalleled increase in CO2 happen to coincide? You are truly blind. Also, when projecting into the future, you have to use words such as if, likely, probable, etc. It's the FUTURE, it hasn't happened yet.