The Oceans pH Level Is Falling
- Thread starter RobbyG
- Start date
- Status
55semireef
Moved On
I don't believe the atmosphere is raising the temperature at all. Studies have shown that human activivty has already significantly started to melt the ice burgs away. STudies have shown that that north poles glaciers have been impacted by all the green house gasses. Other proof is that scientists look at the polar bear population. Polar bears rely on the ice to hunt seals. The more glacies melt the less poplulated they become. Studies have shown that females are weighing less and are producing less cubs since the 1980s.
If we were to turn off all factories, never run cars again and anything that puts out pollution, Earths temperature would still continue to rise another degree. Thats all it takes to melt the glaciers away completely. And yet we still continue to rely so heavily on our fuels. So basically within the next century, there will be no glaciers, the ocean level will have risen 3 feet and polar bears and penguins for that matter will cease to exist. ITs pretty sad especially when George Bush is cluless.
Many skeptics wonder how we know so much about our enviroment and our predictions. Well its all in the ice. Scientists can take ice samples and see how the weather was like, what temperature it was at the time, how much pollution there was etc. Ice takes in air. Kind of like telling how old a tree was and when it rained a lot just by looking at its rings.
And for the skeptics...answer this. When has there been so much intense hurricans? Katrina...Andrew to name a couple. Since when has our glaciers been threatened and have melted away like they are now. Since when has EArths temperature risen so drastically...? Huh?
Maybe the last time all those have happened were thousands to millions of years ago. All of a sudden in the last hundred years we are looking at all these situations...why are they happening? Whats the reason? Whats causing this? The only thing thats possible to cause all of this is human activity. Right now we are at a critical state. If we don't act now its only getting worse. Ecosytems will be destroyed, water levels will rise, more intense hurricanes, more flooding. I don't think any of us want this to happen. And yet the US puts out the most pollution. So be skeptic all you want, the only beneficial thing your doing is making our science more precise. After all, you guys do bring up some pretty interesting points after all.
If we were to turn off all factories, never run cars again and anything that puts out pollution, Earths temperature would still continue to rise another degree. Thats all it takes to melt the glaciers away completely. And yet we still continue to rely so heavily on our fuels. So basically within the next century, there will be no glaciers, the ocean level will have risen 3 feet and polar bears and penguins for that matter will cease to exist. ITs pretty sad especially when George Bush is cluless.
Many skeptics wonder how we know so much about our enviroment and our predictions. Well its all in the ice. Scientists can take ice samples and see how the weather was like, what temperature it was at the time, how much pollution there was etc. Ice takes in air. Kind of like telling how old a tree was and when it rained a lot just by looking at its rings.
And for the skeptics...answer this. When has there been so much intense hurricans? Katrina...Andrew to name a couple. Since when has our glaciers been threatened and have melted away like they are now. Since when has EArths temperature risen so drastically...? Huh?
Maybe the last time all those have happened were thousands to millions of years ago. All of a sudden in the last hundred years we are looking at all these situations...why are they happening? Whats the reason? Whats causing this? The only thing thats possible to cause all of this is human activity. Right now we are at a critical state. If we don't act now its only getting worse. Ecosytems will be destroyed, water levels will rise, more intense hurricanes, more flooding. I don't think any of us want this to happen. And yet the US puts out the most pollution. So be skeptic all you want, the only beneficial thing your doing is making our science more precise. After all, you guys do bring up some pretty interesting points after all.
justinzimm
New member
wlagarde, I'm glad to see you took the bait.
Now I know this is completely off topic but it makes my point. I can argue semantics and bring up data that shows there is a one in a million chance global warming is not occuring (just like with the aspirin). It's almost impossible to prove anything will occur 100% of the time. So lets stop using the malfunctioning satellite or too many fishermen excuse to explain this. Occam's razor = Usually the simplest explination is the right one. I'll go with the preponderance of data that is agreed upon by the vast majority of INDEPENDENT researchers.
According to every study to date there was a "statisically extreme" correlation. (P<.00001) between aspirin and heart attack. And according to the American Medical Association. The current totality of evidence provides "strong support" that asprin reduces the risk of a heart attack. (five studdies over 14 years). But nowhere is the word "proven" used.
Now I know this is completely off topic but it makes my point. I can argue semantics and bring up data that shows there is a one in a million chance global warming is not occuring (just like with the aspirin). It's almost impossible to prove anything will occur 100% of the time. So lets stop using the malfunctioning satellite or too many fishermen excuse to explain this. Occam's razor = Usually the simplest explination is the right one. I'll go with the preponderance of data that is agreed upon by the vast majority of INDEPENDENT researchers.
eckrynock
Premium Member
Here we go with the doomsday stuff again. I asked this question a few pages back. I'm a skeptic (not that the Earth has warmed anywhere between .5 and 1 degree in the last 100 years, but skeptic of all the gloom and doom). Where are all of your hurricanes this year? Wait, nothing yet? I know it's only August but this was supposed to be a record year? http://www.noaa.gov/galveston1900/ Look, a Cat 4 hurricane before SUVs? This couldn't be. And it has been proven, while your glaciers are melting away, others have grown, so, I remain skeptic....And I am glad you took my bait: There are many randomized, placebo-CONTROLLED, trials demonstarting the effect of aspirin in the prevention of heart attack. These studies are prospective, contain control groups and compare a treatment arm to a placebo (control) arm:
Final report on the aspirin component of the ongoing Physicians' Health Study. Steering Committee of the Physicians' Health Study Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1989 Jul 20;321(3):129-35.
Abstract:
The Physicians' Health Study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to determine whether low-dose aspirin (325 mg every other day) decreases cardiovascular mortality and whether beta carotene reduces the incidence of cancer. The aspirin component was terminated earlier than scheduled, and the preliminary findings were published. We now present detailed analyses of the cardiovascular component for 22,071 participants, at an average follow-up time of 60.2 months. There was a 44 percent reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (relative risk, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.70; P less than 0.00001) in the aspirin group (254.8 per 100,000 per year as compared with 439.7 in the placebo group). A slightly increased risk of stroke among those taking aspirin was not statistically significant; this trend was observed primarily in the subgroup with hemorrhagic stroke (relative risk, 2.14; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.96 to 4.77; P = 0.06). No reduction in mortality from all cardiovascular causes was associated with aspirin (relative risk, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.54). Further analyses showed that the reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction was apparent only among those who were 50 years of age and older. The benefit was present at all levels of cholesterol, but appeared greatest at low levels. The relative risk of ulcer in the aspirin group was 1.22 (169 in the aspirin group as compared with 138 in the placebo group; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.53; P = 0.08), and the relative risk of requiring a blood transfusion was 1.71. This trial of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease demonstrates a conclusive reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction, but the evidence concerning stroke and total cardiovascular deaths remains inconclusive because of the inadequate numbers of physicians with these end points.
Finally, most trials published in the literature are poorly or improperly designed and/or carried-out. Thus one must be critical when interpreting (including peer-reviewed) published work. To that end, here is a link to an excellent resource regarding the proper design of randomized trials: www.consort-statement.org.
Hippie,
The NCPA article was not research. It was summarizing research and congressional testimony by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) just like USA Today. If you question anything he said you can read the congressional record yourself or read the papers of the scientists mentioned. Just like you asked us to do with USA Today. While it would be great if everyone could read the actual research or read and understand the articles in Science and Nature, we both know it doesn't happen that way. Most people want it to be explained to them by someone they trust. Someone on the pro side will trust the environmentalists and someone on the other side will listen to Rush. The thinking people in the middle will listen to both and try to extract some common sense truth.
You seem to dismiss the idea that there is some economic agenda from the scientific community. Having been in the scientific community for 25 years it is known to me. Putting your bias aside for a minute and using just your rational mind, what would be the motivation behind the authors of the "Hockey Stick" graph. Clearly a hoax. Clearly bad science. Clearly preconcieved outcome. They must have known. Why would they perpetrate a lie? What possibly could have driven them? What does common sense tell you about this? Does it at all make you question other things you read?
Mike
Reef Bones,
The effect of the conveyor is still a highly debated topic among climatologists. The pro global warming ones. Many do not agree on the signifigance of the conveyor on land climates. Many believe that the increase in global temps will more than make up for the decrease caused by the ocean.
I am not saying you are wrong. Just pointing out that this is just a theory that is not universally accepted. It is probably actually a minority view. While interesting, it should not be disseminated as fact.
Mike
The effect of the conveyor is still a highly debated topic among climatologists. The pro global warming ones. Many do not agree on the signifigance of the conveyor on land climates. Many believe that the increase in global temps will more than make up for the decrease caused by the ocean.
I am not saying you are wrong. Just pointing out that this is just a theory that is not universally accepted. It is probably actually a minority view. While interesting, it should not be disseminated as fact.
Mike
Reef_bones
New member
My wife (bear in mind she is alittle on the crazy side) thinks we are the result of an alien falling in love with an ape, thats putting it nicely..
LOL
justinzimm
New member
wlagrade,
The point I'm trying to get everyone to understand it that you can find 5 web sites with the terms "conclusive reduction" and I can find 5 others that say "stong support" and "statistically extreme". What we're really arguing about it the definition of the word "proven"
You say: "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." Yes, but it's a damn good correlation IMHO. Just like I found the web site correlated aspirin to a reduction in heart attacks. Im starting to worry that all the Global Warming non-believers are are using this "well it's not proven" as their end all argument. Today in science things are so hard to prove and GW caused by CO2 has so many varibles that it's impossilbe to prove 100% or without a doubt. That is until it might be too late. What statistical probablity is needed before some people change their minds?
Sorry for getting off topic with that aspirin discussion.
We'll I'm leaving tomorrow to go on a dive trip to Puerto Rico! I'll be gone for couple weeks and I fully expect for this thread to be resolved when I get back! J/K
Justin
The point I'm trying to get everyone to understand it that you can find 5 web sites with the terms "conclusive reduction" and I can find 5 others that say "stong support" and "statistically extreme". What we're really arguing about it the definition of the word "proven"
You say: "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." Yes, but it's a damn good correlation IMHO. Just like I found the web site correlated aspirin to a reduction in heart attacks. Im starting to worry that all the Global Warming non-believers are are using this "well it's not proven" as their end all argument. Today in science things are so hard to prove and GW caused by CO2 has so many varibles that it's impossilbe to prove 100% or without a doubt. That is until it might be too late. What statistical probablity is needed before some people change their minds?
Sorry for getting off topic with that aspirin discussion.
We'll I'm leaving tomorrow to go on a dive trip to Puerto Rico! I'll be gone for couple weeks and I fully expect for this thread to be resolved when I get back! J/K
Justin
In the 17th century, the French philosopher René Descartes went on a mental search for the ultimate truth. After trial and error he finally came up with math being the ultimate truth. If we understand the meaning of 2 and that is added to another 2 then the result of 4 cannot be disputed. But then he thought, what if some evil demon is controlling my thoughts and 2 and 2 is not really 4. Then he had an epiphany, if he was able to concieve all this then he must exist, "I think, therefore I am". (I had a similiar epiphany when I studied Descartes in college "I think, this guy is on drugs") So, proof. What is proof? As much as we all would like the answers, the truth is, science most often goes my overwhelming evidence and accepts that as proof. Of course a good scientist then spends his life trying to disprove himself. Even Einstein spent his life after his General Theory of Relativity trying to fix it. Even though the theory worked at the cosmic level it didn't at the atomic level.
Mike
Mike
Justin -
Your argument is not a logical one. The point I'm trying to get across to you is is this: Proper scientific method is important and a control group is a vital part of the scientific method. For example, let's say for the sake of discussion everyone in society takes aspirin daily their whole lifetime (AKA CO2 is rising in atmosphere) and everyone has a heart attack in their lifetime (AKA AVERAGE TEMPERATURES ARE RISING). Does this mean that aspirin causes heart attacks (AKA RISING CO2 IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING)? How can we know, without a comparison group of people who do not take aspirin? The answer is we can't...
While there is evidence correlating rising CO2 with global warming, the point of overwhelming evidence has not been reached. Furthermore, we can not conclusively say a warming trend will "eradicate mankind". Especially since there have been warming periods in the earth past history and the earth (and life) seems to have made it through just fine.
aclos3
New member
This is an ironic debate to have here on this type of forum. Almost all of us have fish tanks that use electricity, many of which use obscene amounts of it. Fish tanks are a hobby and a decoration, hardly a justifiable use of energy if you claim to be concerned with global warming.
Anyone who really cares about global warming needs remove their fish tanks from their wall sockets. I don't care if you are powered by solar or hydroelectric, that power could be used for more important purposes, like transportation to work, the medical field, or environmental clean up purposes, right?
While I don't agree with everything MCary has had to say here, I tend to lean more to his side of the argument. I have a friend that is very liberal, and loves to get into political debates with me. After he watched the Al Gore documentary, he was out of control. Preaching non stop to me about how we MUST change or the oceans will rise 20 feet within the next 20 years, etc, etc.
I start telling him that there is very little we can do about this even as a country and that I don't believe all his "facts." Yes, the US does produce a lot of the worlds CO2, but we also produce a lot of the worlds goods (just look at our GNP) and have the most stringent pollution controls on our cars and factories.
To this he gets angry and states that change has to start with the individual, it needs to start domestically. I look at his lifestyle and see that he drives a v8 powered car to work everyday (he has no need for a vehicle like this, it is 22 years old and gets 13mpg), frequently uses his 2-stroke (oh the horror!) jet ski for FUN. He leaves his computer running all day, everyday, and never shuts lights off when he leaves the room or even the house. He is also attending college, but has chosen to live outside of walking distance from campus and does not like to take the bus, so he drives to campus.
It blows my mind that someone like this can be so outspoken about how horrible the US is with its energy uses, how lazy Americans are for not caring about the CO2 they produce and just how zealous he gets if you don't talk his talk and vote his partyline.
So to those who claim to really care about global warming, CO2 emissions and our energy policies, take a good close look at your lives and make sure you are practicing what you preach.
After all, change starts one person at a time, and leading by example is the only way to incite change in a situation like this.
Anyone who really cares about global warming needs remove their fish tanks from their wall sockets. I don't care if you are powered by solar or hydroelectric, that power could be used for more important purposes, like transportation to work, the medical field, or environmental clean up purposes, right?
While I don't agree with everything MCary has had to say here, I tend to lean more to his side of the argument. I have a friend that is very liberal, and loves to get into political debates with me. After he watched the Al Gore documentary, he was out of control. Preaching non stop to me about how we MUST change or the oceans will rise 20 feet within the next 20 years, etc, etc.
I start telling him that there is very little we can do about this even as a country and that I don't believe all his "facts." Yes, the US does produce a lot of the worlds CO2, but we also produce a lot of the worlds goods (just look at our GNP) and have the most stringent pollution controls on our cars and factories.
To this he gets angry and states that change has to start with the individual, it needs to start domestically. I look at his lifestyle and see that he drives a v8 powered car to work everyday (he has no need for a vehicle like this, it is 22 years old and gets 13mpg), frequently uses his 2-stroke (oh the horror!) jet ski for FUN. He leaves his computer running all day, everyday, and never shuts lights off when he leaves the room or even the house. He is also attending college, but has chosen to live outside of walking distance from campus and does not like to take the bus, so he drives to campus.
It blows my mind that someone like this can be so outspoken about how horrible the US is with its energy uses, how lazy Americans are for not caring about the CO2 they produce and just how zealous he gets if you don't talk his talk and vote his partyline.
So to those who claim to really care about global warming, CO2 emissions and our energy policies, take a good close look at your lives and make sure you are practicing what you preach.
After all, change starts one person at a time, and leading by example is the only way to incite change in a situation like this.
justinzimm
New member
wlagarde,
There are things out there in science that can only be correlated to a very high percentile. They use the scientific method and do all the tests etc. As long as there is a chance of non-correlation we must say things like high correlation and aviod the word "proof". This is taught in intro. science courses.
In my oppinion and that some science textbooks it takes 100% correlation or a mathematical backing to use the word proof.
Now if it's impossible to test global warming using a control or random trials. (there's only one earth) and the computer models are very complex and are questioned by GW critics. So we will never reach "proof" of CO2 caused global warming.
You said about a zillion posts ago:
My answer is: You will never be able to "prove" the theory that a small amount of CO2 is the cause of GW. Because of the reasons listed above. You will just have to go with a correlation ( I say high correlation you say different). due to the complex dynamic and lack of controls etc.
My question is, if scientist are unable to prove CO2 driven global warming and you will not accept a correlation (your quote above) then what does it take to change your mind? Can it be changed?
If after all this discussion and talk we just seem to be starting over and restating things from the first page. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think we can change either one of our minds.
peace..
justin
Totaly agree 100%.
Right!
There are things out there in science that can only be correlated to a very high percentile. They use the scientific method and do all the tests etc. As long as there is a chance of non-correlation we must say things like high correlation and aviod the word "proof". This is taught in intro. science courses.
In my oppinion and that some science textbooks it takes 100% correlation or a mathematical backing to use the word proof.
Now if it's impossible to test global warming using a control or random trials. (there's only one earth) and the computer models are very complex and are questioned by GW critics. So we will never reach "proof" of CO2 caused global warming.
You said about a zillion posts ago:
My answer is: You will never be able to "prove" the theory that a small amount of CO2 is the cause of GW. Because of the reasons listed above. You will just have to go with a correlation ( I say high correlation you say different). due to the complex dynamic and lack of controls etc.
My question is, if scientist are unable to prove CO2 driven global warming and you will not accept a correlation (your quote above) then what does it take to change your mind? Can it be changed?
I think we're up to 28 pages of it. I've seen graphs, charts data sets and I think someone posted something about computer models.
If after all this discussion and talk we just seem to be starting over and restating things from the first page. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think we can change either one of our minds.
peace..
justin
Just wanted to say that the word correlation is probably not the right word here. A correlation is a statistical measure of how much the movement of two securities or asset classes are related. A correlation can be measured. A direct correlation would be like saying 10 ppb CO2 equals 1 degree temperature rise. An inverse would be 10 ppb increase equal a 1 degree temperature drop. There is positive, negative, and 0 correlations. A better wording would be relationship, this takes it out of statistics. Or better yet but more wordy, CO2 is a factor in temperature rise. Not a big deal, but it helps in scientific conversation if we keep our terms proper. And BTW, The conventional dictum is that "correlation does not imply causation" It is important never to use statistics as proof. Statistics are just a way to present data.
I think the thread had been enormously valuable for both sides. We have lots of people researching the heck out of this and siting studies and articles some of us would not have been exposed to without it. Education is never wasted. And even though noone's minds were changed the thinking pro side sees that its not as cut and dryed as they thought and the thinking skeptic side sees thats there's much more out there than just a couple of guys with a thermometer.
Mike
I think the thread had been enormously valuable for both sides. We have lots of people researching the heck out of this and siting studies and articles some of us would not have been exposed to without it. Education is never wasted. And even though noone's minds were changed the thinking pro side sees that its not as cut and dryed as they thought and the thinking skeptic side sees thats there's much more out there than just a couple of guys with a thermometer.
Mike
Last edited:
55semireef
Moved On
Doomsday???...alright if thats the tone you picked out in my passage fine as long as you can support your argument. I never said once that were doomed. Many habitats and animals are. Thats a fact. Your cyclones and intense hurricanes will continue thats for sure. I LIVE in Florida.<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7893069#post7893069 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Glaciers being melted away are melting regardless of what we do now. Like I said we could stop all the cars, factories etc tomorrow and the EArths temp wold continue to rise another degree. This is all it takes to fully melt away North Poles Ice. Say good bye to Greenland.
And so what if we had not one hurricane yet...they are going to happen. Just sit back and you will see.
- Status
Similar threads
