The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[Reef_bones]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888479#post7888479 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
We have data from much further back, it just doesn't have this resolution.

yes there is but its ignored, The tom Brokaw peice on the discovery channel even said sceintist reading core samples from antartic ice have seen warming spells in the past that equal the current trend. To be specific it said the climate shifted to hotter climate in the 1400's.

 

[eckrynock]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888421#post7888421 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 55semireef
If you want to talk about a living life that we should idle it is the Dinosours.

Idle? Huh?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888530#post7888530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
yes there is but its ignored, The tom Brokaw peice on the discovery channel even said sceintist reading core samples from antartic ice have seen warming spells in the past that equal the current trend. To be specific it said the climate shifted to hotter climate in the 1400's.

Again, how many times does this have to be said? We all know Earth warmed and cooled in the past.

The issue today is the observed warming along with increased CO2 from humans that may continue to drive up temps at a rate and to a level that will do irrereparable damage.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888550#post7888550 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Idle? Huh?

I think he meant "idol"

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888487#post7888487 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Here's a good example. The sun comes up and it get's warmer and light is shining on the earth. The sun goes down and it gets dark and cool. We don't need experimental controls on a proxy earth to tell us that the suns rays provide light and warm the earth, we use direct observation to tell us that. Or is there a school of thought out there that says without such a controled experiment that the whole light and warming thing during the day might just be a freak coincidence and it's really something else entirely that causes light and warming during the daytime?

Sun heat stuff? Me no buy it. Only one sun. Maybe sun weird sun. Different sun cool earth. Me no buy it.

Sorry. :lol:

 

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888487#post7888487 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Here's a good example. The sun comes up and it get's warmer and light is shining on the earth. The sun goes down and it gets dark and cool. We don't need experimental controls on a proxy earth to tell us that the suns rays provide light and warm the earth, we use direct observation to tell us that. Or is there a school of thought out there that says without such a controled experiment that the whole light and warming thing during the day might just be a freak coincidence and it's really something else entirely that causes light and warming during the daytime?

How foolish can you be? - You're argument is correct so long as we already know the sun warms up the atmosphere in the daytime. You are basing you're statement on an already proven piece of information.

If the question at hand is not yet proven, without an appropriate control group, an experiment at best can prove a correlation not causality. It appears you have had no (or poor) scientific training...

 

[dreaminmel]

Informational responses that do not intend to belittle someone would be appreciated for the benefit of people reading this.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888642#post7888642 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
How foolish can you be? - You're argument is correct so long as we already know the sun warms up the atmosphere in the daytime. You are basing you're statement on an already proven piece of information.

Come on, you're being difficult for no reason. How do we prove the sun heats the atmosphere? We measure it. How do we know that CO2 will trap more heat? We measure it. It's a known property of CO2 that can be tested and repeated in a lab. Sure, you have to show there is a correlation between global temp and CO2 levels, but that has been shown. And don't tell me that these methods aren't good enough because medical researchers use this type of method all the time.

 

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888766#post7888766 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Come on, you're being difficult for no reason. How do we prove the sun heats the atmosphere? We measure it. How do we know that CO2 will trap more heat? We measure it. It's a known property of CO2 that can be tested and repeated in a lab. Sure, you have to show there is a correlation between global temp and CO2 levels, but that has been shown. And don't tell me that these methods aren't good enough because medical researchers use this type of method all the time.

The methods for measuring CO2 and it's greenhouse effect under small scale laboratory investigation are proven. What is NOT proven is the THEORY that the small amount of change in CO2 in the atmosphere from man is the CAUSE of warming. It has only been shown to be CORRELATED.

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888831#post7888831 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
The methods for measuring CO2 and it's greenhouse effect under small scale laboratory investigation are proven. What is NOT proven is the THEORY that the small amount of change in CO2 in the atmosphere from man is the CAUSE of warming. It has only been shown to be CORRELATED.

small? changing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in less than 100 years by over 30ppm is small?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888831#post7888831 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
The methods for measuring CO2 and it's greenhouse effect under small scale laboratory investigation are proven. What is NOT proven is the THEORY that the small amount of change in CO2 in the atmosphere from man is the CAUSE of warming. It has only been shown to be CORRELATED.

Not just correlated, HIGHLY correlated. What more do want? Even if the global temp increased 10 degrees and was highly correlated with CO2 the entire time, it would still not PROVE CO2 caused it, at least by your standards. Most other people and scientists would take the leap and say it was caused by CO2, but you wouldn't? And like poedag pointed out, the present (and especially future projections) CO2 increase can hardly be considered small.

 

[justinzimm]

wlagarde,

The methods for measuring CO2 and it's greenhouse effect under small scale laboratory investigation are proven. What is NOT proven is the THEORY that the small amount of change in CO2 in the atmosphere from man is the CAUSE of warming. It has only been shown to be CORRELATED.

In science showing a correlation is everything. Almost nothing in this world is "law" or proven. It's against scientific principles to declare something proven "law" without a sound mathematical base. Unfortunately with global warming and the amount of variables involved finding "proof" is almost impossible.

As a physician you should realize this. Aspirin isn't "proven" to prevent heart attacks but there is a pretty good correlation between the two. It's the same for every drug in exitstance (that I'm aware of).

If every doctor or scientist could only use things that are proven he wouldn't have much to do. If I ever have a heart attack I'll stick with a strong correlation and take the aspirin. You can wait around until there is proof and do nothing.

Same thing with global warming. If everyone is waiting for the global warming law it's not going to happen. People should stop using this as an excuse especially people of science.

 

[wlagarde]

justinzimm - Actually, aspirin IS PROVEN PREVENT HEART ATTACKS. A study with a CONTROL GROUP has proven that. And actually a large bit of what physicians use to treat patients IS PROVEN. For example, prescription drugs: All Rx drugs have been tested in the clinical arena by a LARGE-SCALE double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (i.e. - ESSENTIALLY ALL DRUGS ON THE MARKET TODAY GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS). And a company putting in a drug for approval has to show EFFICACY AND SAFETY.

Global Warming Myth - Used to push political agenda and obtain funding from NIH. In school I was taught as a scientist to be objective and unbiased. In the real world MOST scientists are not.

 

[wlagarde]

Also, in science correlation is not everything. it is just that a correlation - may be a causative relationship OR may not be causative relationship. In science, STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IS EVERYTHING in the context of a WELL-DESIGNED STUDY.

 

[wlagarde]

..."HIGHLY correlated"...again may be causal OR may not be a causal relationship. Without the control group we do not know for sure.

 

[55semireef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888550#post7888550 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Idle? Huh?

Yes idle. Its a type of termonology.

 

[bluerug]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7888421#post7888421 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 55semireef
Haha...data from the existance of man is still relatively small compared to how long Earth has been around. We think we are so superior to all living creatures and yet we destroy our Earth. If you want to talk about a living life that we should idle it is the Dinosours.

And what destroyed the last of them. I believe it was the ice age. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[55semireef]

Well technically alligators and crocodiles are the evolved decendents so the ice age didn't really kill them all.

 

[aragongod]

none of us are going to be around when these devastating consequences result in the death of the world so why are we bothering to get into a heated debate on it???

the earth is overcrowded.

Live life to the full while you yourself have it.

Don't worry about things that are inevitable.

we're born, we die. same old same old.

tony.

 

[Kalkbreath]

A warming trend since the late 1970s, Yes
A high SOI and elNino since the 1970s, Yes
Higher then the 1000 year average for sunspots, Yes

Direct relation ship to man made C02 , not hardly.

But those upwellings in the Pacific are directly result in higher temps and C02 emmissions.

No the upwellings are not new ,
Three hundred years ago the oceans were teeming with life
currently there is little to stop the C02 from being released into the air( thats why C02 levels are Higher over the Pacific ocean then over America.)
The record low plankton levels are not there to absorb the Carbon like they did in the past 10,000 years.(thats whats different)

Nor are the giant schools of anchovies that once swarmed that ocean locking up these C02 releases.(by eating the Plankton.)
Remember that during WW II commercial fishing stopped out on the open seas for ten years.
Fish stocks rebounded and the C02 levels on earth DECREASED!
Its all about the ocean.
Every single time the El Ninio upwellings restart, the earth warms and the C02 level rise. (even in the face of a volcano cooling the earth) like in 1983 and 1991.

But what fun is blaming the fishemen?