Ocean acidification

[gslack]

Post a source for your 'negative feedback'. Other than your ass.

Douchebag, I am very sorry I called you the puppet master.... I was wrong in that and I am sorry..... But I am quite sure you have something to do with this BS, they came to defend you and pretty much you alone to my knowledge... Seems an odd coincidence doesn't it? yeah a bit more than odd...

You are involved with those two and thats pretty clear. So you are still a documented and proven liar and propagandist. Only now you work with professional trolls as well...

 

[Big Fitz]

Now... show me where my logic is wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

 

[gslack]

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

LOL, your lying and posting propaganda non-stop like a tool, forcing me to come in and stop you is a negative feedback loop....

 

[Dr Gregg]

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

LOL, your lying and posting propaganda non-stop like a tool, forcing me to come in and stop you is a negative feedback loop....

Science vs your bullshitting.

 

[gslack]

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

LOL, your lying and posting propaganda non-stop like a tool, forcing me to come in and stop you is a negative feedback loop....

Science vs your bullshitting.

Oh good the other fake is here..... So how have you been? Tell any good lies lately? I bet you got a new degree to tell us about don't ya DR. DOuchebag....

 

[saveliberty]

I find it difficult to believe in the temperature data due to grain prices. It seems grain pricves would be quite a bit higher with all the high heat damaging crops globally.

It is amazing how easy it is to invalidate the warmers claims with a simple look at the lack of supporting results in other effected fields.

 

[Old Rocks]

Stocks of foodstuff are dangerously low

Low stocks of foodstuff make the world's falling agriculture output particularly worrisome. The combined averaged of the ending stock levels of the major trading countries of Australia, Canada, United States, and the European Union have been declining steadily in the last few years:

Catastrophic Fall in 2009 Global Food Production

2002-2005: 47.4 million tons
2007: 37.6 million tons
2008: 27.4 million tons

These inventory numbers are dangerously low, especially considering the horrifying possibility that China's 60 million tons of grain reserves doesn't actually exists .

 

[saveliberty]

Stocks of foodstuff are dangerously low

Low stocks of foodstuff make the world's falling agriculture output particularly worrisome. The combined averaged of the ending stock levels of the major trading countries of Australia, Canada, United States, and the European Union have been declining steadily in the last few years:

Catastrophic Fall in 2009 Global Food Production

2002-2005: 47.4 million tons
2007: 37.6 million tons
2008: 27.4 million tons

These inventory numbers are dangerously low, especially considering the horrifying possibility that China's 60 million tons of grain reserves doesn't actually exists .

Right, and why is this not reflected in grain prices? Because there will be a nice crop grown this season. Global warming will not effect crops, so no need to jack up the prices.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study

Real science bit #2: 175 million years ago in the Jurassic era there was also 20 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and at this time the Aragonite corals came into being. So we have two points in history which had greater CO2 in the atmosphere and at both points we find coral life forms developing rather than dying off...... So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane....

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study. It isn't the CO2 in the AIR that kills the shellfish, you do understand this, right?


Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...

You are confusing total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.

Real science bit #4: CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the oceans by volume that could in theory effect the PH balance. Meaning there are 6 other elements before CO2 which could in theory do the same to the PH. In practice this means the likelihood of CO2 actually causing oceans acidification is minuscule at best even IF the theory is correct. If you want to be real technical on it CO2 would not alter the PH at all but rather buffer other elements which could possibly make some impact on the PH balance. Those impacts are minuscule given the depth and scope of the entire thing.

Wouldn't the likelihood of CO2 causing acidification depend on factors other than its size? For instance, the amount of CO2 being added or subtracted to the system would seem important, as well.

Real science bit #5: The ocean rides over vast amounts of alkali. We are talking vast amounts of alkali stone, rock and soil which the oceans stir up and roll over 24/7... Alkali is the acid stopper in case you weren't aware.

So why does the ocean's Ph vary at all then? Can you please direct me to your calculations showing that this alkali base is sufficient?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study

Real science bit #2: 175 million years ago in the Jurassic era there was also 20 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and at this time the Aragonite corals came into being. So we have two points in history which had greater CO2 in the atmosphere and at both points we find coral life forms developing rather than dying off...... So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane....

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study. It isn't the CO2 in the AIR that kills the shellfish, you do understand this, right?


Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...

You are confusing total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.

Real science bit #4: CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the oceans by volume that could in theory effect the PH balance. Meaning there are 6 other elements before CO2 which could in theory do the same to the PH. In practice this means the likelihood of CO2 actually causing oceans acidification is minuscule at best even IF the theory is correct. If you want to be real technical on it CO2 would not alter the PH at all but rather buffer other elements which could possibly make some impact on the PH balance. Those impacts are minuscule given the depth and scope of the entire thing.

Wouldn't the likelihood of CO2 causing acidification depend on factors other than its size? For instance, the amount of CO2 being added or subtracted to the system would seem important, as well.

Real science bit #5: The ocean rides over vast amounts of alkali. We are talking vast amounts of alkali stone, rock and soil which the oceans stir up and roll over 24/7... Alkali is the acid stopper in case you weren't aware.

So why does the ocean's Ph vary at all then? Can you please direct me to your calculations showing that this alkali base is sufficient?

Don't bother, gsuck is a pathetic troll. Our links to actual science has already shown his statments and logic is flawed. He' just act like a child and rant and rave about how stupid and phony we are, all while never citing any actual science.

Just another asshole that thinks posting on a forum with no evidence to back it up can discredit research from trained professionals.

Cue gsuck's rantings and ravings in 3.....2.......1

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A computer model is not "Science" LOL

The computer model predicted Cat 5 in the Gulf the last 4 years

OOpsies

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A computer model is not "Science" LOL

The computer model predicted Cat 5 in the Gulf the last 4 years

OOpsies

That's like saying math isn't science.

 

[Meister]

A computer model is not "Science" LOL

The computer model predicted Cat 5 in the Gulf the last 4 years

OOpsies

That's like saying math isn't science.

Not at all, CrusaderFrank is saying that a computer model isn't exact science.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A computer model is not "Science" LOL

The computer model predicted Cat 5 in the Gulf the last 4 years

OOpsies

That's like saying math isn't science.

Not at all, CrusaderFrank is saying that a computer model isn't exact science.

That's like saying math isn't exact science.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's an estimation. An educated guess based off math. It cannot truly predict, because it cannot take all variables into account, let alone true random chance. it can only guess.

And don't forget, they are never better than their human programmers. Garbage in, Garbage out.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's an estimation. An educated guess based off math. It cannot truly predict, because it cannot take all variables into account, let alone true random chance. it can only guess.

And don't forget, they are never better than their human programmers. Garbage in, Garbage out.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A computer model is not "Science" LOL

The computer model predicted Cat 5 in the Gulf the last 4 years

OOpsies

That's like saying math isn't science.

I doubt you know anything about CFD at all, let alone enough to form an informed opinion.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

it can only guess.

I see we have another GCM expert.

 

[Big Fitz]

No, we have someone who can think critically, and is aware of tricks inherent in computer models.