HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
You can back this up, right?
The Oceans pH Level Is Falling
- Thread starter RobbyG
- Start date
- Status
Kalkbreath
In Memoriam
The satellites have been reading lower temperatures in certain parts of the world then what being recorded by the hand measured land readings. Many propose that its due to reader error at the land based facilities.<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7880024#post7880024 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Right. What about the satellites? They aren't fooled by heat islands. Besides, didn't you read? They said it was negligible. What part of negligible don't you understand?
Its seems to make sense because the readings in America and Europe are the same between the satellites and the land readings.
Its only in remote areas of the world like in Brazil that the satellites and the ground readings are not reading the same.
Which group of people are better at taking daily readings? the tens of thousands of weather men in American and Europe or the part time third world collectors?
What makes this a big issue is that most of the global warming claim is based solely to these remote locations reporting an increase over the last hundred years
If the remote locations are inaccurate today ,( and it seems the satellites have reveiled so) then they most surely have been all along.
Which put into question the entire global warming idea.
Lastly to suggest that heat sinks dont contribute to an increase in teperature is silly.
Its five degrees hotter in down town Atlanta then just south , north , west or east of the concrete jungle>
The official Atlanta temperature is at the Atlanta Airport in the middle of three square miles of concrete.
The air port was not always there, ninty years ago the official Atlanta temperature was recorded in a grassy field.
Do you really believe your NASA freinds when they tell you its not hotter on a run way then it is in a grassy knoll?
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Dude, did you even read this article? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm
And I'll say it again, what part of 'negligible' don't you get? I'm not trying to be rude, but come on, I'm giving you info to answer your questions and you simply disregard it.
2,000 posts, woohoo! :dance:
ERICinFL
Rejisturd Mimbur
I really should have put an exclamation point after it. I don't feel it has the umff behind it that the statement should. So, I'll try it again... WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! Man, I feel better now. :lol:
Sorry, I can't. With so many different religions and fanatical groups out there, it's hard to siphon through the preachings and rhetoric. But, that's a discussion for a different forum. :thumbsup: :lol2:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7881854#post7881854 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
You can back this up, right?
Sorry, I can't. With so many different religions and fanatical groups out there, it's hard to siphon through the preachings and rhetoric. But, that's a discussion for a different forum. :thumbsup: :lol2:
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
MUCH better. lol.
Kalkbreath
In Memoriam
I beleive that if someone in China can smell my fart, That the people standing right next to me in America would smell it somewhat stonger.
likewise with my SUV. if my C02 is responsible for reading in the middle of Hawaii, then the readings twenty feet from my tail pipe should exceed that of three quarters aroud the world.
It makes sense that it wasnt my fart after all.
Kalkbreath
In Memoriam
I read it . Thats not the issue. If the satellites were out of orbit for the past thirty years then they would also be out of orbit for all the world not just America.
The reading for North America by the satilites matched the land records for the past thirty years in America.
If the satellites were off , this mens the land readings have been off all this time as well! Because they matched for three decades.
If the land records said it was 78 in Atlanta on Sepy 4 1992 and the Satellite also said 78 on that data. But now they say the Satellites were wrong and that it was 79.
Well waht about the ground reading? Was the local weather man out of orbit as well?
And whats this the satellites "were reading night time temps"
Its only one degree cooler at night?
Why do you read this stuff?
sherm71tank
Premium Member
"There's something out there, and it ain't no man, and were all gonna die"!!!!
If I remember correctly the line from this movie was also taken from a very hot year!
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Where is your evidence for the satellites being off for just the US? I've been taking it for granted that you were telling the truth, but I need to see where you're getting this info.
It's my understanding that the satellite readings were off for the lower latitudes, but the higher latitudes, which include the US, were correct.
*Sigh* Nice edit, kalk. You took out the word "increasingly" before the word "reading". Put that word back in and their conclusion makes sense.
Here's one of the Science articles mentioned in the USA Today piece. Mabe you have access to Science and you can read it for yourself.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
Kalkbreath
In Memoriam
Thats not really a report, which USAtoday quotes...
its like the Star magazine quoting the Sun magazine.
Where is the study? Where is the data?
I am well aware of certain scientists scrambling to cover their assets with regard to the cooling data.
There is more then satellite data to confront.
Balloon measurements by other countries detect the cooling trend as well.
If the Balloon data and the Satellite data are not correct, what exactly are we comparing todays data to?
If the data collected over the past sixty years is all incorrect, how do we know what the temperatures in the lower troposphere were in the past?
Its nice of them not to give out to much description about this correction process.
As it also has a direct effect on the higher then normal readings the satellites have been reading in the northern lower troposphere.
Furthermore "increasingly night time" ?
They seem to be omitting that the readings for the northern areas were also off and reading an "increasingly day time'
If you can find the full in depth explanation for the correction (and the scientists have been keeping tabs on this mystical process) then you will see that for every action there is an opposite reaction.
You will also notice a backing off of this correction idea for most of this year.
But it is nice to know that scientists can sometimes be completely off base with what they report and years later do a complete about face and tell you the direct opposite.
:rollface:
its like the Star magazine quoting the Sun magazine.
Where is the study? Where is the data?
I am well aware of certain scientists scrambling to cover their assets with regard to the cooling data.
There is more then satellite data to confront.
Balloon measurements by other countries detect the cooling trend as well.
If the Balloon data and the Satellite data are not correct, what exactly are we comparing todays data to?
If the data collected over the past sixty years is all incorrect, how do we know what the temperatures in the lower troposphere were in the past?
Its nice of them not to give out to much description about this correction process.
As it also has a direct effect on the higher then normal readings the satellites have been reading in the northern lower troposphere.
Furthermore "increasingly night time" ?
They seem to be omitting that the readings for the northern areas were also off and reading an "increasingly day time'
If you can find the full in depth explanation for the correction (and the scientists have been keeping tabs on this mystical process) then you will see that for every action there is an opposite reaction.
You will also notice a backing off of this correction idea for most of this year.
But it is nice to know that scientists can sometimes be completely off base with what they report and years later do a complete about face and tell you the direct opposite.
:rollface:
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Lol, I don't think Science magazine is comparable to Sun magazine.
Or would you rather deal with partial truths, like you seem to be fond of? You pick and choose bits of data to fit your theory, and discard the rest. Every claim you've made, I have countered and have shown EVIDENCE for it. I understand that you're privy to some special information sources that you don't want to divulge. It's understandable, you wouldn't want that amount of power falling into the wrong hands, as I'm sure it is top-notch research. But until you start showing where you are getting this info, this discussion is becoming pointless. I've been more than open with where my info is coming from, and I expect the same from you if you want this to go anywhere.
So what if they didn't come out and specifically say it? The data has been corrected across the globe, not just the tropics. It still shows an overall warming trend across the globe, and now it matches ground thermometers and climate modeling, seems pretty good to me. A correction is a correction, that's the important part.
Or would you rather deal with partial truths, like you seem to be fond of? You pick and choose bits of data to fit your theory, and discard the rest. Every claim you've made, I have countered and have shown EVIDENCE for it. I understand that you're privy to some special information sources that you don't want to divulge. It's understandable, you wouldn't want that amount of power falling into the wrong hands, as I'm sure it is top-notch research. But until you start showing where you are getting this info, this discussion is becoming pointless. I've been more than open with where my info is coming from, and I expect the same from you if you want this to go anywhere.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
You know what that is called? It's called science. Say it with me. Sii-unss. You should look into it sometime. :rollface:
Kalkbreath
In Memoriam
I have not seen that re written data or a detailed explanation of how it was fixed. (beyond some scientist telling me that they adjusted the data and evry thing is alright now) (wink)
If NASA could not tell that their Satellites were reading night time temperatures and not day time.
And were talking about something not very complex like what time is it and whats the temperature,
Then why in earth should we beleive them or their computor models forecasting that the next 100 will be any different then the past 100.
You do realize that most of the 200 year warming happend from 1800 to 1900.
If NASA could not tell that their Satellites were reading night time temperatures and not day time.
And were talking about something not very complex like what time is it and whats the temperature,
Then why in earth should we beleive them or their computor models forecasting that the next 100 will be any different then the past 100.
You do realize that most of the 200 year warming happend from 1800 to 1900.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Do you have access to Science mag? Because I can give you links to articles that explain those things better than I can. Also, remember we are dealing with orbital space flight dynamics, mountains of data, and the statistics that go with them. I am not able to tell if some guy at NASA is interpreting them correctly, are you? So why do you want the raw data? You really do have to put some amount of trust in these people, that is why respected journals are so important. That is why I'm such a stickler for citing sources.
They weren't necessarily reading night time temps as daytime, it had to do with the exact time the satellite would cross the equator. Over time, this small discrepancy amounted to a long-term trend. You have to remember, they have been taking data for 30 years, a small glitch over long time periods amounts to a large impact.
Ciarán
New member
All i can say is.. Woah. I have spent the best part of 3 hrs reading this whole discussion. Anyhoo ill throw in my .02
Why ever not? IMHO reducing emissions which consist not only of CO2 but of NOx and a host of other nasties is not only a good thing but it will help air quality and a whole lot else. Why waste?
But for how long with that irresponsible attitude?
(In reference to Kyoto), yes keep on polluting, spewing gunk into the atmosphere, what a sage of a country.
Kinda sounds like the merrigoround citation rhetoric employed by the conservative think-tanks no?
Pity, subsequent generations may not.
My thoughts exactly, we are the first species with the active intelligence to self-regulate, to predict future trends and theorize problems associated with the uncontrolled procreation of what is fast becoming a plague species. The population regulation is key here IMO. Make it undesirable to have excess kids. Increase taxes for families of 3+ kids, fair trade and boost third world knowledge, they dont have to make our mistakes and splurge on unsustainabillity. It requires selflessness and economic recession for us in the West. Its worth it for the earth IMO.
At the moment it is looking like it will be just soluble Ca(HCO3)2 if the pH keeps dropping.
That is the critical key to this whole debate, the disproportionate increase over a miniscule fragment of earth's history.
Yes, we'll take you seriously when you spell the fundamental aspect of this topic like that...
I do...
Very true, irrefutably so. Tropical corals will suffer last if dissolution of CaCO3 skeletons comes to fruition.
Because, and this is just my personal opinion; driving a SUV invokes the opinion of others that the driver indeed maintains a supercillious and superior view of him/herself to other motorists and having no regard for the environmental attrocities that they are commiting, seek to promote their own vanity and personal regard above concern for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, not to mention the elevated levels of harmful byproducts they are spewing away to the detriment of communal air quality and environmental wellbeing.
You rationalise that atmospheric CO2 is c. 377ppm at present and that constitutes nothing, see it this way, if you reduced the Calcium concentration in your aquarium from the borderline concentration of 377ppm to maintain calcification to 0ppm would there be any effect? Damn right there would! Same rhetoric with CO2 IMO. The increase is all related to proportionality.
I agree, IMO hybrids are pretty rubbish anyway, their efficiency is questionable. But the same opinion should be held of those who drive other vehicles such as SUVs or 4x4s and hold a similar viewpoint.
Yet...
But a fundamental limiting factor to plant growth is nutrient input, water and sunlight. Its like saying for example, increase the oxygen content breathed in, and the human body will work more efficiently without factoring in the critical need for food and rest. Elevated CO2 will reach a threshold in its growth driving capacity of plantlife with respect to the other factors. No nutrients - No growth, No light - No growth, No water - No growth.
Gisho, your post was everything i wish to say in a nutshell. The pH drop in the ocean that IS definitively happening at the very least in certain oceanic localities, is of concern to ALL reef hobbyists as it concerns the long-term well-being and ultimately sustainainability of our hobby not to mention the animal welfare, both directly and indirectly dependent on calcification processes. Planktonic crustaceans form an integral base of the oceanic food-chain as we all know. Long term, if they cant deposit shells, the food webs begin to implode from the lowest trophics level there are. Most of the ornamental species we collect for our own indulgence and pleasure are in the affected pH drop areas of the Pacific/Indonesian waters as conceded by MCarey and the other opponents to this most troubling hypothesis. We should care and actively do something.... or maybe im just another hippy on this forum..
Go on flame me for my beliefs :rollface:
Why ever not? IMHO reducing emissions which consist not only of CO2 but of NOx and a host of other nasties is not only a good thing but it will help air quality and a whole lot else. Why waste?
But for how long with that irresponsible attitude?
(In reference to Kyoto), yes keep on polluting, spewing gunk into the atmosphere, what a sage of a country.
Kinda sounds like the merrigoround citation rhetoric employed by the conservative think-tanks no?
Pity, subsequent generations may not.
My thoughts exactly, we are the first species with the active intelligence to self-regulate, to predict future trends and theorize problems associated with the uncontrolled procreation of what is fast becoming a plague species. The population regulation is key here IMO. Make it undesirable to have excess kids. Increase taxes for families of 3+ kids, fair trade and boost third world knowledge, they dont have to make our mistakes and splurge on unsustainabillity. It requires selflessness and economic recession for us in the West. Its worth it for the earth IMO.
At the moment it is looking like it will be just soluble Ca(HCO3)2 if the pH keeps dropping.
That is the critical key to this whole debate, the disproportionate increase over a miniscule fragment of earth's history.
Yes, we'll take you seriously when you spell the fundamental aspect of this topic like that...
I do...
Very true, irrefutably so. Tropical corals will suffer last if dissolution of CaCO3 skeletons comes to fruition.
Because, and this is just my personal opinion; driving a SUV invokes the opinion of others that the driver indeed maintains a supercillious and superior view of him/herself to other motorists and having no regard for the environmental attrocities that they are commiting, seek to promote their own vanity and personal regard above concern for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, not to mention the elevated levels of harmful byproducts they are spewing away to the detriment of communal air quality and environmental wellbeing.
You rationalise that atmospheric CO2 is c. 377ppm at present and that constitutes nothing, see it this way, if you reduced the Calcium concentration in your aquarium from the borderline concentration of 377ppm to maintain calcification to 0ppm would there be any effect? Damn right there would! Same rhetoric with CO2 IMO. The increase is all related to proportionality.
I agree, IMO hybrids are pretty rubbish anyway, their efficiency is questionable. But the same opinion should be held of those who drive other vehicles such as SUVs or 4x4s and hold a similar viewpoint.
Yet...
But a fundamental limiting factor to plant growth is nutrient input, water and sunlight. Its like saying for example, increase the oxygen content breathed in, and the human body will work more efficiently without factoring in the critical need for food and rest. Elevated CO2 will reach a threshold in its growth driving capacity of plantlife with respect to the other factors. No nutrients - No growth, No light - No growth, No water - No growth.
Gisho, your post was everything i wish to say in a nutshell. The pH drop in the ocean that IS definitively happening at the very least in certain oceanic localities, is of concern to ALL reef hobbyists as it concerns the long-term well-being and ultimately sustainainability of our hobby not to mention the animal welfare, both directly and indirectly dependent on calcification processes. Planktonic crustaceans form an integral base of the oceanic food-chain as we all know. Long term, if they cant deposit shells, the food webs begin to implode from the lowest trophics level there are. Most of the ornamental species we collect for our own indulgence and pleasure are in the affected pH drop areas of the Pacific/Indonesian waters as conceded by MCarey and the other opponents to this most troubling hypothesis. We should care and actively do something.... or maybe im just another hippy on this forum..
Go on flame me for my beliefs :rollface:
"The pH drop in the ocean that IS definitively happening at the very least in certain oceanic localities, is of concern to ALL reef hobbyists as it concerns the long-term well-being and ultimately sustainainability of our hobby not to mention the animal welfare, both directly and indirectly dependent on calcification processes."
...then all of us should simply stop keeping coral reef tanks as we use LOTS of electricity to run our tanks and this of couse produces emissions not to mention other pressures placed on reefs world wide.
...then all of us should simply stop keeping coral reef tanks as we use LOTS of electricity to run our tanks and this of couse produces emissions not to mention other pressures placed on reefs world wide.
Kalkbreath
In Memoriam
The upwellings are only areas the pH is dropping and its coming from deep down below not from the air above.
Almost every reef tank in America has pH below that of a Pacific reef.
and the corals do just fine.
Almost every reef tank in America has pH below that of a Pacific reef.
and the corals do just fine.
dreaminmel
New member
And on that note I am probably going to unsubscribe from this thread. I can't believe the utter arrogance of humanity. You're either on this side or you're on the other side... no one stands in the middle anymore? C'mon... no one is suggesting that we should completely stop using all electricity or fuels nor is anyone suggesting that we start using more. Obviously there ARE things we can change about our energy consumption. Why can't everyone agree that there is a middle ground we need to come to on this regardless of the findings of science?
Some suggestions: starting Nascar races (and other sports) earlier in the day so we don't need those huge daytime lights after dark, filling up the gas tank during the cooler hours of the day, rejeuvenating mass transit systems, so many things we can do...
We can adjust many things in our lives and yet keep the same "quality" of life that I just don't understand what the opposition is. Just to be bull headed and disagree no matter what? I'm a Taurus, severely bull headed, yet I can understand there are things I can do that WILL make a difference.
Everyone keeps referring to minor changes having a big impact on our planet. Our society is stuck on the notion that an individual action won't have any affect. Many individuals have made history. A group of people reacting positively has a profound affect on the rest of society... not all, but enough to make a difference. Ever deal with a nasty person on the road and take it out on someone else? Ever have the door opened for you and then hold it for the person behind you?
Thank you to everyone that cited data which was relevant here. I certainly did learn a lot and for the most part have enjoyed following the discussion but am pursuing changes beyond this thread now.
One final thought. Have you ever learned something about humanity's history that made you wonder "what were they thinking"? I wonder what our descendants will think when looking back at the actions of humanity during this era. Will they be proud or disgusted?
*edit* Not because of what you said Kalk...
Some suggestions: starting Nascar races (and other sports) earlier in the day so we don't need those huge daytime lights after dark, filling up the gas tank during the cooler hours of the day, rejeuvenating mass transit systems, so many things we can do...
We can adjust many things in our lives and yet keep the same "quality" of life that I just don't understand what the opposition is. Just to be bull headed and disagree no matter what? I'm a Taurus, severely bull headed, yet I can understand there are things I can do that WILL make a difference.
Everyone keeps referring to minor changes having a big impact on our planet. Our society is stuck on the notion that an individual action won't have any affect. Many individuals have made history. A group of people reacting positively has a profound affect on the rest of society... not all, but enough to make a difference. Ever deal with a nasty person on the road and take it out on someone else? Ever have the door opened for you and then hold it for the person behind you?
Thank you to everyone that cited data which was relevant here. I certainly did learn a lot and for the most part have enjoyed following the discussion but am pursuing changes beyond this thread now.
One final thought. Have you ever learned something about humanity's history that made you wonder "what were they thinking"? I wonder what our descendants will think when looking back at the actions of humanity during this era. Will they be proud or disgusted?
*edit* Not because of what you said Kalk...
And CO2 as the CAUSE of global warming can not be proven without an appropriate CONTROL - i.e. a parallel earth identical to our own in all ways except for lower CO2 in the atmosphere. Since this is not possible, the best we can say is a rise in the atmosphere's CO2 is CORRELATED with warming.
- Status
Similar threads
