Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.
Blunder/old fraud,No, just can't believe you keep saying the same things and expecting a different result.
Stubborn consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Give it up, reality has whupped your skinny dumb ass.
No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.
You're wrong again.
Blunder/old fraud,No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.
You're wrong again.
Walleyed/retard,
You're always wrong.
I cite hard science and you just spew drivel that you can't support with any evidence.
CO2 might have increased by 1 part in 10,000 over the last 100 years of which some small faction is the fault of mankind and that means we're turning the oceans into gastric juices?
Actually atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 40% over the last hundred years or so due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels. Too bad you're so ignorant and clueless, CrusaderRabbit.
Once again, 100 years ago we measured out to parts per 10,000 so assuming any margin of error there may in fact be NO INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 over that time span.
Your "40% increase" sounds oh so scary until you look at the baseline and how even at a 40% increase" CO2 is still an atmospheric trace element
Actually atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 40% over the last hundred years or so due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels. Too bad you're so ignorant and clueless, CrusaderRabbit.
Once again, 100 years ago we measured out to parts per 10,000 so assuming any margin of error there may in fact be NO INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 over that time span.
Your "40% increase" sounds oh so scary until you look at the baseline and how even at a 40% increase" CO2 is still an atmospheric trace element
Once again, dumbshit, scientists can measure the CO2 levels of previous centuries using modern analytic equipment on the trapped gas in bubbles in ice cores.
Saying that CO2 is just "an atmospheric trace element" just reveals your own ignorance and lack of any scientific knowledge of this subject. Carbon Dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas and that is an observed, measured scientific fact.
Actually atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 40% over the last hundred years or so due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels. Too bad you're so ignorant and clueless, CrusaderRabbit.
Once again, 100 years ago we measured out to parts per 10,000 so assuming any margin of error there may in fact be NO INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 over that time span.
Your "40% increase" sounds oh so scary until you look at the baseline and how even at a 40% increase" CO2 is still an atmospheric trace element
Once again, dumbshit, scientists can measure the CO2 levels of previous centuries using modern analytic equipment on the trapped gas in bubbles in ice cores.
Saying that CO2 is just "an atmospheric trace element" just reveals your own ignorance and lack of any scientific knowledge of this subject. Carbon Dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas and that is an observed, measured scientific fact.
Only in the deluded imaginations of you denier cultists. In reality, none of you are smart enough to 'debunk' your way out of a wet paper bag. Ocean acidification is an observed, measured reality. Another part of reality that you are in denial of.... 'cause you're a deluded fruitcake.No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.
No EdtheCynic, Your 'science' and 'proven theory' have been debunked by 4 different people here.
That is a good description of you denier cultists, all right. Too bad you're all such pinheads.Just another political hack pretending to have a scientific basis.
Only in the deluded imaginations of you denier cultists. In reality, none of you are smart enough to 'debunk' your way out of a wet paper bag. Ocean acidification is an observed, measured reality. Another part of reality that you are in denial of.... 'cause you're a deluded fruitcake.No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.
No EdtheCynic, Your 'science' and 'proven theory' have been debunked by 4 different people here.
That is a good description of you denier cultists, all right. Too bad you're all such pinheads.Just another political hack pretending to have a scientific basis.
Blunder/old fraud,Blunder/old fraud,
You're wrong again.
Walleyed/retard,
You're always wrong.
I cite hard science and you just spew drivel that you can't support with any evidence.
Once again for the learning impaired, any study that ends with the words MIGHT, POSSIBLY, SUGGESTS, COULD, etc. etc. etc. IS NOT HARD SCIENCE. It is propaganda wrapped in scientific terminology (kind of like a science fiction movie) put out by political hacks who want to steal our money.
Hard science uses terms like WILL, WON'T, CAN'T, GENERATE THESE RESULTS etc. Do you see the difference? No, I didn't think you could.
Dude, you're so beyond the edge you're no longer cogent. I see why you lost your previous screen name, psycho.Only in the deluded imaginations of you denier cultists. In reality, none of you are smart enough to 'debunk' your way out of a wet paper bag. Ocean acidification is an observed, measured reality. Another part of reality that you are in denial of.... 'cause you're a deluded fruitcake.No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.
No EdtheCynic, Your 'science' and 'proven theory' have been debunked by 4 different people here.
That is a good description of you denier cultists, all right. Too bad you're all such pinheads.Just another political hack pretending to have a scientific basis.
Blunder/old fraud,Walleyed/retard,
You're always wrong.
I cite hard science and you just spew drivel that you can't support with any evidence.
Once again for the learning impaired, any study that ends with the words MIGHT, POSSIBLY, SUGGESTS, COULD, etc. etc. etc. IS NOT HARD SCIENCE. It is propaganda wrapped in scientific terminology (kind of like a science fiction movie) put out by political hacks who want to steal our money.
Hard science uses terms like WILL, WON'T, CAN'T, GENERATE THESE RESULTS etc. Do you see the difference? No, I didn't think you could.
Walleyed/retard
You are such a fraud and a science poseur, it is very hilarious watching you make such a fool out of yourself. Your little rant here just reveals that you are totally ignorant about how science actually works, something that has been obvious from your posts for a long time. You want language indicating absolute certainty but modern science acknowledges that there is seldom any absolute certainty and so it uses language based on probabilities based on the best evidence to date. I know this will be over your head but here is a good explanation of this from the scientists at the UCS.
Certainty vs. Uncertainty
Understanding Scientific Terms About Climate Change
Uncertainty is ubiquitous in our daily lives. We are uncertain about where to go to college, when and if to get married, who will play in the World Series, and so on.
To most of us, uncertainty means not knowing. To scientists, however, uncertainty is how well something is known. And, therein lies an important difference, especially when trying to understand what is known about climate change.
In science, there's often not absolute certainty. But, research reduces uncertainty. In many cases, theories have been tested and analyzed and examined so thoroughly that their chance of being wrong is infinitesimal. Other times, uncertainties linger despite lengthy research. In those cases, scientists make it their job to explain how well something is known. When gaps in knowledge exist, scientists qualify the evidence to ensure others don't form conclusions that go beyond what is known.
Even though it may seem counterintuitive, scientists like to point out the level of uncertainty. Why? Because they want to be as transparent as possible and it shows how well certain phenomena are understood.
Decision makers in our society use scientific input all the time. But they could make a critically wrong choice if the unknowns aren't taken into account. For instance, city planners could build a levee too low or not evacuate enough coastal communities along an expected landfall zone of a hurricane if uncertainty is understated. For these reasons, uncertainty plays a key role in informing public policy.
Taking into account the many sources of scientific understanding, climate scientists have sought to provide decision-makers with careful language regarding uncertainty. A "very likely" outcome, for example, is one that has a greater than 90 percent chance of occurring. Climate data or model projections in which we have "very high confidence" have at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.
However, in this culture of transparency where climate scientists describe degrees of certainty and confidence in their findings, climate change deniers have linked less than complete certainty with not knowing anything. The truth is, scientists know a great deal about climate change. We have learned, for example, that the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. There is no uncertainty about this. We have learned that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat through the greenhouse effect. Again, there is no uncertainty about this. Earth is warming because these gasses are being released faster than they can be absorbed by natural processes. It is very likely (greater than 90 percent probability) that human activities are the main reason for the world's temperature increase in the past 50 years.
Scientists know with very high confidence, or even greater certainty, that:
* Human-induced warming influences physical and biological systems throughout the world
* Sea levels are rising
* Glaciers and permafrost are shrinking
* Oceans are becoming more acidic
* Ranges of plants and animals are shifting
Scientists are uncertain, however, about how much global warming will occur in the future (between 2.1 degrees and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100). They are also uncertain how soon the summer sea ice habitat where the ringed seal lives will disappear. Curiously, much of this uncertainty has to do withare you ready?humans. The choices we make in the next decade, or so, to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gasses could prevent catastrophic climate change.
So, what's the bottom line? Science has learned much about climate change. Science tells us what is more or less likely to be true. We know that acting now to deeply reduce heat-trapping emissions will limit the scope and severity of further impacts and that is virtually certain.
Learn more about how scientists define certainty and uncertainty.
©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Please give the percentage of CO2 that is in our atmosphere. Is it more than .038%?
In case you missed it here is the graph of a kilometer of atmosphere, please show me how CO2 is NOT A TRACE element.
Dude, you're so beyond the edge you're no longer cogent. I see why you lost your previous screen name, psycho.Only in the deluded imaginations of you denier cultists. In reality, none of you are smart enough to 'debunk' your way out of a wet paper bag. Ocean acidification is an observed, measured reality. Another part of reality that you are in denial of.... 'cause you're a deluded fruitcake.No EdtheCynic, Your 'science' and 'proven theory' have been debunked by 4 different people here.
That is a good description of you denier cultists, all right. Too bad you're all such pinheads.Just another political hack pretending to have a scientific basis.
Blunder/old fraudBlunder/old fraud,
Once again for the learning impaired, any study that ends with the words MIGHT, POSSIBLY, SUGGESTS, COULD, etc. etc. etc. IS NOT HARD SCIENCE. It is propaganda wrapped in scientific terminology (kind of like a science fiction movie) put out by political hacks who want to steal our money.
Hard science uses terms like WILL, WON'T, CAN'T, GENERATE THESE RESULTS etc. Do you see the difference? No, I didn't think you could.
Walleyed/retard
You are such a fraud and a science poseur, it is very hilarious watching you make such a fool out of yourself. Your little rant here just reveals that you are totally ignorant about how science actually works, something that has been obvious from your posts for a long time. You want language indicating absolute certainty but modern science acknowledges that there is seldom any absolute certainty and so it uses language based on probabilities based on the best evidence to date. I know this will be over your head but here is a good explanation of this from the scientists at the UCS.
Certainty vs. Uncertainty
Understanding Scientific Terms About Climate Change
Uncertainty is ubiquitous in our daily lives. We are uncertain about where to go to college, when and if to get married, who will play in the World Series, and so on.
To most of us, uncertainty means not knowing. To scientists, however, uncertainty is how well something is known. And, therein lies an important difference, especially when trying to understand what is known about climate change.
In science, there's often not absolute certainty. But, research reduces uncertainty. In many cases, theories have been tested and analyzed and examined so thoroughly that their chance of being wrong is infinitesimal. Other times, uncertainties linger despite lengthy research. In those cases, scientists make it their job to explain how well something is known. When gaps in knowledge exist, scientists qualify the evidence to ensure others don't form conclusions that go beyond what is known.
Even though it may seem counterintuitive, scientists like to point out the level of uncertainty. Why? Because they want to be as transparent as possible and it shows how well certain phenomena are understood.
Decision makers in our society use scientific input all the time. But they could make a critically wrong choice if the unknowns aren't taken into account. For instance, city planners could build a levee too low or not evacuate enough coastal communities along an expected landfall zone of a hurricane if uncertainty is understated. For these reasons, uncertainty plays a key role in informing public policy.
Taking into account the many sources of scientific understanding, climate scientists have sought to provide decision-makers with careful language regarding uncertainty. A "very likely" outcome, for example, is one that has a greater than 90 percent chance of occurring. Climate data or model projections in which we have "very high confidence" have at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.
However, in this culture of transparency where climate scientists describe degrees of certainty and confidence in their findings, climate change deniers have linked less than complete certainty with not knowing anything. The truth is, scientists know a great deal about climate change. We have learned, for example, that the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. There is no uncertainty about this. We have learned that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat through the greenhouse effect. Again, there is no uncertainty about this. Earth is warming because these gasses are being released faster than they can be absorbed by natural processes. It is very likely (greater than 90 percent probability) that human activities are the main reason for the world's temperature increase in the past 50 years.
Scientists know with very high confidence, or even greater certainty, that:
* Human-induced warming influences physical and biological systems throughout the world
* Sea levels are rising
* Glaciers and permafrost are shrinking
* Oceans are becoming more acidic
* Ranges of plants and animals are shifting
Scientists are uncertain, however, about how much global warming will occur in the future (between 2.1 degrees and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100). They are also uncertain how soon the summer sea ice habitat where the ringed seal lives will disappear. Curiously, much of this uncertainty has to do withare you ready?humans. The choices we make in the next decade, or so, to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gasses could prevent catastrophic climate change.
So, what's the bottom line? Science has learned much about climate change. Science tells us what is more or less likely to be true. We know that acting now to deeply reduce heat-trapping emissions will limit the scope and severity of further impacts and that is virtually certain.
Learn more about how scientists define certainty and uncertainty.
©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
These propagandists are unsure of where to wipe their asses. I don't think they qualify to give an opinion on ANYTHING. There is no such thing as a different scientific vocabulary for global warming as opposed to any other type of science. Get real you fool. Science is the seeking of truth. These assholes seek our money and nothing else. Your degree of blind obeyance is truly remarkable. Are you sure you're not related to Reinhard Heydrich?
konradv said: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....
------------------------------------
This is an example of "false choice" and a reason why taking examples from millions of years ago, isn't always the logical thing to do. The corals of the past evolved during a time of high CO2 and therefore would be able to tolerate lower pH levels. Modern corals evolved during a time of lower CO2 and don't seem to tolerate an acidic environment as well. You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.
ARAGONITE (Calcium Carbonate)
Aragonite is technically unstable at normal surface temperatures and pressures. It is stable at higher pressures, but not at higher temperatures such that in order to keep aragonite stable with increasing temperature, the pressure must also increase. If aragonite is heated to 400 degrees C, it will spontaneously convert to calcite if the pressure is not also increased. Since calcite is the more stable mineral, why does aragonite even form? Well under certain conditions of formation, the crystallization of calcite is somehow discouraged and aragonite will form instead. The magnesium and salt content of the crystallizing fluid, the turbidity of the fluid and the time of crystallization are decidedly important factors, but there are perhaps others. Such areas as sabkhas and oolitic shoals tend to allow significant amounts of aragonite to form. Also metamorphism that includes high pressures and low temperatures (relatively) can form aragonite. After burial, given enough time, the aragonite will almost certainly alter to calcite. Sedimentologists are very interested in aragonite and calcite stability fields because the conversion of aragonite to calcite after deposition has a distinct effect on the character of the sedimentary rocks.
Calcite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.
Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.
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....
------------------------------------
This is an example of "false choice" and a reason why taking examples from millions of years ago, isn't always the logical thing to do. The corals of the past evolved during a time of high CO2 and therefore would be able to tolerate lower pH levels. Modern corals evolved during a time of lower CO2 and don't seem to tolerate an acidic environment as well. You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.
Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.
[/QUOTE]
No you didnt address the point you came in with your pals to try and disrupt the thread and derail the topic to cover the flaw in your sides claims about ocean acidification.... Proof? You still avoided my re-posting of it....
yeah pretty telling huh dumazz.... yep, one more example of bullshit science and bullshit scientists like you, oldsocks, and chemistry boy....
then you can't or refuse to read. The link in the OP, and mine to a scientific america article citing actually studies did in fact cover most of your bullshit spouted.
Keep trolling though, really show's your scientific acumen
The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...
Now if you read my post or any of the two repostings of it you would see the theory behind ocean acidification is in question. The post stated using accepted and known facts about calcium carbonites like argonite and calcite. Two primary compounds in coral. Follow me so far? Good...
The theory claims that rising CO2 makes the ocean waters more acidic. And acidic conditions do not allow for coral to thrive because their very compounds dissolve in acidic water. Even a small change in PH overall can have drastic effects on coral due to their clacium carbonite makeup. Got it so far? Calcium carbonites+acidic water= dead coral. Clear?
So, the fact we had 20x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago and coral thrived and even evolved at that time, puts the entire hypothesis in question. How could they have thrived and evolved in such acidic conditions if the theory on CO2 and ocean acidification were correct as they present it? Well they couldn't have, plain and simple.
So either the theory is incorrect altogether, or the claimed level of impact on the oceans is incorrect. So then in some way or another the contentions are inaccurate or the theory itself is inaccurate.
And this my dear watson is deductive reasoning 101. Which brings us back to your post and its irrelevance to it all. If the theory or the contentions made based on that theory are incorrect, as the evidence would lead us to believe, than the article you posted is meaningless in reality.
Your article runs on the assumption the theory of CO2 ocean acidification is sound. Well its got some real holes in it that cannot be excused or dismissed, making it suspect to say the least. So in the end your article is as useless as lips on a chicken...
Got it DR? LOL, doctor of what? Freaking idiot!
way to ignore my post which tells you why the acidity is rising. You just keep repeating the same bullshit, nothing supported by actual peer reviewed science.
What's to debate?Dude, you're so beyond the edge you're no longer cogent. I see why you lost your previous screen name, psycho.Only in the deluded imaginations of you denier cultists. In reality, none of you are smart enough to 'debunk' your way out of a wet paper bag. Ocean acidification is an observed, measured reality. Another part of reality that you are in denial of.... 'cause you're a deluded fruitcake.
That is a good description of you denier cultists, all right. Too bad you're all such pinheads.
LOLOLOL....such a typical response from moronic denier cultists when they get their asses handed to them in a debate.
