|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 8:45:36 GMT 1
Lazarus, Yep, the net is flooded, repeat, flooded with propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 8:50:04 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. If you had heard that somebody had been doing experiments that suggest that a very large object moving at high speed took a long time to stop, would you wait until the train had hit you before doing something about it?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 8:54:14 GMT 1
Yes, but you wouldn't buy the whole planet's transport infrastructure to help you move.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 8, 2010 8:54:22 GMT 1
I'm not susceptible to alarmist predictions for which there is zero evidence, havelock, are you? I'd want someone like Steve McIntyre to "audit" the purported research for me before I gave it any credence at all.
Seems all YOU require to swallow a scare-mongering report whole is a friendly pal-review in a journal!
That's not science, that's propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 8:58:21 GMT 1
I'm not susceptible to alarmist predictions for which there is zero evidence, havelock, are you? I'd want someone like Steve McIntyre to "audit" the purported research for me before I gave it any credence at all. Seems all YOU require to swallow a scare-mongering report whole is a friendly pal-review in a journal! That's not science, that's propaganda. I'm not quite sure why you have to introduce such bile into your postings - we're trying to discuss science here. The science: We (humans) are emitting a lot of CO2 - more than any time in the past CO2 is absorbed by the oceans This acidifies the oceans This harms marine life Which of these statements do you take issue with and perhaps we can discuss that without resorting to ad hominem attacks?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 8, 2010 12:14:30 GMT 1
I'd want someone like Steve McIntyre to "audit" the purported research for me before I gave it any credence at all. Why do you need an ex-mining economist to 'audit' environmental science before you believe it? Why not just ask your dentist or the paper boy?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 8, 2010 16:40:24 GMT 1
We (humans) are emitting a lot of CO2 - more than any time in the past CO2 is absorbed by the oceans This acidifies the oceans This harms marine life
Which of these statements do you take issue with and perhaps we can discuss that without resorting to ad hominem attacks?
----------
The last two. There is a slight reduction in alkalinity not "acidification". There is no evidence of harm to marine creatures.
I trust Steve McIntyre to audit climatic research papers because he is a highly competent statistician and climatology is 99% number crunching. The Wegman and North Congressional Committees did not invite a paper boy to give evidence before them. They invited Steve McIntyre because he probably knows more about the the statistics of multi-proxy historical temperature reconstructions than anyone else on earth.
If you don't know about him why am I not in the least surprised?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 16:59:03 GMT 1
We've been this way before, and discussion of a paper not generally available is not very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 17:02:36 GMT 1
I believe the fact that the oceans absorb CO2 and that this effects pH is a matter of pure chemistry and is not in doubt by anyone (scientist, blogger, sceptic, media) that I can find on the internet. I agree that the amount of harm this may do is not fully understood. The worry is that, although the pH of the oceans has changed in the past and marine life has adapted to that change, the rate of change this time might be too much for some, most, or (possibly) all marine life to cope with. Interestingly, it is recognised that the pH is not uniformly affected and that is one of the studies being done. " 'Acidification' of ocean waters is a consequence of the rising concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. It is calculated that surface ocean pH has decreased on average by about 0.1 units since pre-industrial times due to the ocean’s uptake of CO2. By 2100 this decrease may reach 0.3 units, with potentially serious consequences for some marine ecosystems. However, acidification is not occurring uniformly everywhere; evidence from the scattered measurements available suggests that surface pH varies substantially. Variations are from place to place, season to season, year to year and decade to decade. These natural variations form a scale against which human-caused changes may be measured. Acidification that moves the natural system beyond the natural variations is likely to be more damaging than changes that remain within natural bounds. It is important therefore to establish this natural variability, by increasing systematic measurements" www.oceanacidification.org.uk/research_programme/co2_uptake.aspx
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 17:26:39 GMT 1
havelock, After the willfull lack of understanding you displayed regarding wind energy, I'm surprised at your verbosity and apparent focus on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 20:33:31 GMT 1
havelock, After the willfull lack of understanding you displayed regarding wind energy, I'm surprised at your verbosity and apparent focus on this subject. So nothing to add to contribute to the science in this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 20:37:33 GMT 1
You don't have the tools to understand old chap - as you perfectly demonstrated on the energy thread.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 20:59:45 GMT 1
You don't have the tools to understand old chap - as you perfectly demonstrated on the energy thread. Yet another post with no science but containing a personal attack. I'm not going to respond in kind but I do wish you would address the science so that we can have an open debate. I linked to some research that suggest pH could vary - don't you think it's interesting and wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 21:13:52 GMT 1
I'm sorry, I read that it was done by the "UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme" and lost interest. I'm sure they'd publish "the ocean isn't acidifying significantly" and go home and tell their wives they'd talked themselves out of a job. Can't you recognise politicised science?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 21:15:33 GMT 1
I'll pre-empt your next post: "Where's your evidence the UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme is politicised"
Yawn
|
|