|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 10:29:42 GMT 1
I repeatedly point to actual empirical evidence backed up with logical argument. I have not yet seen this - could you please point out the posts that contained this information?
I have pointed to numerous scientific papers that have shown that the oceans are acidifying and the consequences of increasing acidification that you have ignored. These were not produced by Greenpeace, WWF or any other organisation so are cannot be described as propoganda (unlike your own postings as you do admit to a certain bias against all things 'green').
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 10:35:34 GMT 1
No conspiracy and no lies. Here's how it goes: Governments have an obvious agenda They put up funding for evidence to support their agenda Scientists fight for funding Scientists put up a headline grabbing scare story (with caveats in small print) Scientists get funding Scientists "prove" scare story. (with caveats in small print) Scientists need further research to monitor/clarify/quantify Scientists get more funding Scientists pay mortgage and buy Xmas presents for kids. Scientists receive good luvvin from missus scientist.
And on it goes..... Don't you think the politicisation of science is a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 10:42:21 GMT 1
From some of your other postings on this topic, I think you have misunderstood the relevance of the 30% drop in ocean acidity. I have had a rummage around and found this pretty good site that explains it all. www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/fact-files/climate-change/ocean-acidification-and-the-southern-oceanHere is a very good passage "The pH of seawater has historically remained at about 8.2, which is slightly alkaline (pure water is neutral - pH 7). However, CO2 from human activities has caused the pH of ocean surface waters to drop by 0.11 pH units. This might not sound like much, but it is equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity. Unless CO2 emissions are curbed, the pH is expected to fall by 0.5 pH units by 2100, a 320% increase in acidity." I recommend you have a read through this site so that you can discuss this subject from an informed perspective.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 10:43:11 GMT 1
You might believe that but there any many reasons why you could be wrong; your readings might be flawed, the area might be little affected currently, you method might not be accurate enough or appropriate etc. At the end of the day we have only your word that conflicts with many independent lines of research into the problems of ocean acidification. Why massive? Are you an expert and know which point massive changes will occur? The scientists are still warning us about them so you seem to be jumping the gun. lmgtfy.com/?q=Ocean+acidification
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 10:47:52 GMT 1
Not that they'd fallen for politically motivated propaganda but that they were purveyors of it. I repeatedly point to actual empirical evidence backed up with logical argument. You, however, continue to repeat well known propaganda. Glacier scare stories to name but one. We could go on like this for eve So just to clarify, you believe that the entire membership of the Geological Society are all twitchers, and being members of the RSPB are therefore purveyors of propaganda? You also truly believe you are behaving rationally about this?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 10:50:06 GMT 1
No conspiracy and no lies. Here's how it goes: Governments have an obvious agenda They put up funding for evidence to support their agenda Scientists fight for funding Scientists put up a headline grabbing scare story (with caveats in small print) Scientists get funding Scientists "prove" scare story. (with caveats in small print) Scientists need further research to monitor/clarify/quantify Scientists get more funding Scientists pay mortgage and buy Xmas presents for kids. Scientists receive good luvvin from missus scientist.
And on it goes..... Don't you think the politicisation of science is a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 10:56:28 GMT 1
From some of your other postings on this topic, I think you have misunderstood the relevance of the 30% drop in ocean acidity. I have had a rummage around and found this pretty good site that explains it all. www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/fact-files/climate-change/ocean-acidification-and-the-southern-oceanHere is a very good passage "The pH of seawater has historically remained at about 8.2, which is slightly alkaline (pure water is neutral - pH 7). However, CO2 from human activities has caused the pH of ocean surface waters to drop by 0.11 pH units. This might not sound like much, but it is equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity. Unless CO2 emissions are curbed, the pH is expected to fall by 0.5 pH units by 2100, a 320% increase in acidity." I recommend you have a read through this site so that you can discuss this subject from an informed perspective. rsmith77 - I'd appreciate any comments you have on this post that you may have missed.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 10:57:01 GMT 1
Here is a very good passage "The pH of seawater has historically remained at about 8.2, which is slightly alkaline (pure water is neutral - pH 7). However, CO2 from human activities has caused the pH of ocean surface waters to drop by 0.11 pH units. This might not sound like much, but it is equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity. Unless CO2 emissions are curbed, the pH is expected to fall by 0.5 pH units by 2100, a 320% increase in acidity." I think you have found the problem Mr Smith, not being a scientist, doesn't realise that the pH scale is not linear but logarithmic, each level being ten time that of the previous. So what ever way he tests his sea water he has not realised that a 30% change might not change his litmus paper much, or what ever he uses.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 11:03:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 7, 2010 11:04:38 GMT 1
But are the lobsters doing well? That is the important question, surely?
I think we can trust a fisherman to know the quality of the fish stock he is concerned with on a daily basis as compared to a scar-mongering scientist in a lab simply manipulating dubious statistical data and inventing baseless future "scenarios".
We know next to nothing about how the ocean bio-sytem reacts to changes in CO2 or about the carbon cycle in general. People who claim they do are politically motivated numpties.
Ignore them until they come up with some real empirical evidence of harm.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 11:06:15 GMT 1
But are the lobsters doing well? That is the important question, surely? No I actually think the important question is "Will the lobsters continue to do well?" The evidence suggests that this may not be the case.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 11:08:43 GMT 1
Here is a very good passage "The pH of seawater has historically remained at about 8.2, which is slightly alkaline (pure water is neutral - pH 7). However, CO2 from human activities has caused the pH of ocean surface waters to drop by 0.11 pH units. This might not sound like much, but it is equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity. Unless CO2 emissions are curbed, the pH is expected to fall by 0.5 pH units by 2100, a 320% increase in acidity." I think you have found the problem Mr Smith, not being a scientist, doesn't realise that the pH scale is not linear but logarithmic, each level being ten time that of the previous. So what ever way he tests his sea water he has not realised that a 30% change might not change his litmus paper much, or what ever he uses. Even using a sensitive piece of kit that showed pH to 0.1 accuracy, the recognition that this is a 30% change is not an easy conclusion to leap to (and seems to have been missed in this case).
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 11:09:25 GMT 1
No conspiracy and no lies. Here's how it goes: Governments have an obvious agenda They put up funding for evidence to support their agenda Scientists fight for funding Scientists put up a headline grabbing scare story (with caveats in small print) Scientists get funding Scientists "prove" scare story. (with caveats in small print) Scientists need further research to monitor/clarify/quantify Scientists get more funding Scientists pay mortgage and buy Xmas presents for kids. Scientists receive good luvvin from missus scientist. And on it goes..... Don't you think the politicisation of science is a bad thing? This is of course complete nonsense. You say there is no conspiracy but you have to believe that successive and differently politically motivated governments, from countries all around the world have all agreed the same 'obvious agenda'. I suppose you think they all get together behind closed doors at the UN the, Russians and the UK, the US and Iran, China and Nigeria etc and all hammer out the next agenda? How does that go? USA: We have had tobacco and cancer, what about a new ice age?
Norway: No lets pretend it's going to get warm instead this time.
India: Great, but we need something else, lets start a rumour that the sea is slowly turning to acid.
France: Good idea, I'll pay my scientists to work out a theory.
S. Korea: And I'll get my scientists to invent some science and 'evidence' hee hee.
You still adhere to your claims about actual empirical evidence backed up with logical argument?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 7, 2010 11:15:07 GMT 1
Until anyone can demonstrate harm in the ocean pH I suggest we don't panic. Let's just wait for the evicence of the "predicted' harm to present itself to those with the nous to do the empirical observations.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 8, 2010 1:26:47 GMT 1
Until anyone can demonstrate harm in the ocean pH I suggest we don't panic. Already been done. Try leaving your favourite blogs and have a look at google scholar for a time. Type in Ocean Acidification, to see how much research has been done showing the negative effects on sea life for sea water with a CO2 level that the earth will reach in the very near future - no global warming or ocean cooling required. There is absolutely no reason to think this life will react any differently in the actual ocean when such levels are reached or surpassed. Just in case you are too lazy to use google scholar or for any of the lurkers you seem to think are hanging on your every post, here are the first 3 from over 35,000 hits. www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.htmlwww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/318/5857/1737icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.abstractOf course I'm sure you can find a blog somewhere to tell you there isn't a problem.
|
|