Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Zzarchov is right, this shows extreme ignorance. First, acidification doesn't mean something has to already be an acid. It describes the water chemistry just fine, it is becoming more acidic. Afterall, the pH scale is measuring the H+ ions in an aqueous solution, and as the pH drops, you have more H+ ions. Of course the pH scale is logarithmic, so the difference between 8.14 and 8.25 is about 28.8% (10^8.25/10^8.14=1.28). Second, there will be huge problems before the ocean ever becomes acidic. It's an equilibrium problem. Check out this graph, and look at the CO3 ion, the carbonate ion that is so important to marine ecosystems.
At a pH of 8.14, the ocean is already low in carbonate, though the surface waters are still saturated. You add more H2CO3, that's carbonic acid, and the finely tuned balance that exists in nature between carbonate and bicarbonate (HCO3) very soon will be unbalanced, the equilibrium shifts more towards bicarbonate, and you no longer have enough carbonate, even when the surface waters are saturated with it. There will be not enough carbonate for shellfish, corals, diatoms, etc. to build/maintain their exo-skeletons. And in regards to measuring pH, how do you know what the temperature was say 500 million years ago? They use proxies. If you know how much carbon dioxide is in the air, you can use equilibrium and air-ocean exchanges to estimate. By the way, they estimate the ocean was at that pH, they didn't measure it.
Except the Ordovician era didn't build up it's concentration in the atmosphere in less than two centuries. The deep ocean has time to mix when you have a building concentration over millions of years. When the ocean is well mixed, you don't have this problem. Our oceans today are not well mixed, and certainly would take millenia to come to an equilibrium if we stopped perturbing it today.
Shallow water corals first of all evolved from deep ocean ancestors, which is inconvenient to the crap this fellow said earlier.
He isn't paying attention to empirical data. He's like a mgician, you have to watch what he does with the other hand. If you want empirical data, then all you have to do is look at what we are measuring right now. Here's a recent paper that's attracted a lot of attention.
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/faculty/Wootton/PDFs/Wootton_Pfister_Forester PNAS 2008.pdf
I'm not surprised that WUWT posters would think this is very clever.
GW True or false??
For me it doesn't really matter if GW is true or not. I've come to the conclusion that no one seems to know what they're talking about. The bottom line, for me, is if we can reduce pollution, keep our water safe, decrease harmful chemicals in our atmostphere, then we need to do it. Common sense tells me that as we evolve and have better technologies to do things better, it's logical that we would use that knowledge to better the planet as a whole.
Screaming and yelling at each other that "we're right and you're wrong" just doesn't cut it for me. If we can, let's just do it, period. Then everyone wins.
JMO
For me it doesn't really matter if GW is true or not. I've come to the conclusion that no one seems to know what they're talking about. The bottom line, for me, is if we can reduce pollution, keep our water safe, decrease harmful chemicals in our atmostphere, then we need to do it. Common sense tells me that as we evolve and have better technologies to do things better, it's logical that we would use that knowledge to better the planet as a whole.
Screaming and yelling at each other that "we're right and you're wrong" just doesn't cut it for me. If we can, let's just do it, period. Then everyone wins.
JMO
How about from a scientist, instead of a journalist?
The dark and bright sides of global warming
YouTube - The Dark and Bright Sides of Global Warming
The dark and bright sides of global warming
YouTube - The Dark and Bright Sides of Global Warming
I'm not sure if you realize this but your link isn't empirical data either.
The trouble with engaging in a shadow argument, Tonigton, is that it makes you irrational and hurts your case.
You see, I admit you could be right and thereby I would be wrong; now you need to admit you could be wrong and then (and only then) can you hope to have a rational and logical discourse whereby the truth could be discovered.
Until then you're just making noise.
Anyway, here is an interesting video on the possible mass extinction of all life on earth should the sea levels rise and become too acidic. It seems microbial life will start to produce H2S (Hydrogen sulfide) and wipe everything out. Apparently there is evidence this has happened in the past. I can see some problems with the theory and it is a slippery slope argument but worth watching anyway IMO: Peter Ward On Mass Extinction.
Last edited:
How isn't it? Do you even know what empirical data is?
From the paper:
This is not model derived data. It's measurements taken in the field over eight years.
It is, again, the inference that I am objecting to, but I will grant that, in this case, it seems a lot more compelling than the GW/carbon correlation, but that being said, it would be good to confirm the inference with an experiment just to make sure, you know, so it isn't just conjecture.
What experiment would you like Scotty? One showing an equilibrium between bicarbonate and carbonate? It's been done. One showing the solubility of carbon dioxide in water? It's been done. One showing the change in [H+] in a solution with the addition of more carbonic acid? It's been done.
Really, what experiment do you think would conclusively say that this isn't conjecture, when thousands of chemistry students over the years have done these exact types of measurements in labs around the world?
Really, what experiment do you think would conclusively say that this isn't conjecture, when thousands of chemistry students over the years have done these exact types of measurements in labs around the world?
"Finally, when the entire temporal span of the data was considered (Fig. 1B), a general declining trend in pH became apparent."
Herein I do not see a reference to experiments or proofs, as you claim, but rather a justification for a theory based on correlation. Perhaps it is a good justification but, again, that should then be easy to prove.
I don't understand why hippie science has to be so probabilistic.
Herein I do not see a reference to experiments or proofs, as you claim, but rather a justification for a theory based on correlation. Perhaps it is a good justification but, again, that should then be easy to prove.
I don't understand why hippie science has to be so probabilistic.
There should be a model made consisting of only the forces claimed to be the causation so the process can be demonstrated.
If that was done, then I will agree.
All science is probabilistic. You can't get an advanced degree in any science without taking advanced statistics. Why? How do you know what you measured captures the nature of the system, and was not due to chance?
Do you know what a p-value is, and why it's important? Correlation has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Regressions yes, correlations, no. You can't have read the paper if these criticisms are what you came up with (non-empirical, correlations)...
Do you know what a p-value is, and why it's important? Correlation has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Regressions yes, correlations, no. You can't have read the paper if these criticisms are what you came up with (non-empirical, correlations)...
It has been done by other people Scotty, many times. That graph I linked earlier, with the concentrations of carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate, is a well known fact of nature.
You don't need to reinvent the wheel every time, that's pointless.
Ah, good.
I wanted to establish some ground rules with you and, I have noticed, that you will concede nothing unless you think you're right. Now you have conceded the need for experiment as proof. In this small argument you have stated the need for proof and that such proof is present. This is a big step in the overall argument.
It seems to me that your primary concern is to show that CO2 is the bogyman and here you have, however, for me it is that CO2 is the cause of GW; that is, not a contributer but the primary contributer as GW enthusiasts claim. This has not been demonstrated to any sensible persons satisfaction yet and, as I have pointed out before, has not been suitably supported by model or experiment.
As you also need such proof I can conclude that your stubborn insistence has been because of some unintelligible dislike for carbon; perhaps you ride a bike? I have noticed many bicycle enthusiasts don't like to share the road with cars.
I wanted to establish some ground rules with you and, I have noticed, that you will concede nothing unless you think you're right. Now you have conceded the need for experiment as proof. In this small argument you have stated the need for proof and that such proof is present. This is a big step in the overall argument.
It seems to me that your primary concern is to show that CO2 is the bogyman and here you have, however, for me it is that CO2 is the cause of GW; that is, not a contributer but the primary contributer as GW enthusiasts claim. This has not been demonstrated to any sensible persons satisfaction yet and, as I have pointed out before, has not been suitably supported by model or experiment.
As you also need such proof I can conclude that your stubborn insistence has been because of some unintelligible dislike for carbon; perhaps you ride a bike? I have noticed many bicycle enthusiasts don't like to share the road with cars.
Last edited:
Editing a post ex-facto like that is poor form Scotty, even for you.
I concede anything that is logical that I might have missed. You have yet to state anything fundamentally flawed, or missing from the linked analysis of an eight year study, with many thousands of repeated measurements.
My primary concern is that people reading the crap walter posted will be sucked in by the used car sales pitch. They prey on the ignorance of people for ideological reasons. They don't like the fix to the problem, so they throw effort at making the problem seem trivial, or the science wrong. That's it.
You're a fine example. You sit here and pontificate that in order for this study to be of any worth, they have to throw out all tacit knowledge obtained over years studying science, and they must be reduced to running all previous background knowledge as new experiments.
You sound like a creationist ridiculing the nature of probability in insertion and deletion errors in genetic code. You sound uninformed when you call an empirical study non-empirical.
In short, you're a joke, and in my eyes you have no credibility on the matters of scientific rigor. You proved that to me a while back when you couldn't even admit that +/- 100 is a range of 200, with your insistence on correlations, where in fact the authors mention none (having causation means you use a regression analysis).
I'm through wasting my time with you. Have a nice day.
I concede anything that is logical that I might have missed. You have yet to state anything fundamentally flawed, or missing from the linked analysis of an eight year study, with many thousands of repeated measurements.
My primary concern is that people reading the crap walter posted will be sucked in by the used car sales pitch. They prey on the ignorance of people for ideological reasons. They don't like the fix to the problem, so they throw effort at making the problem seem trivial, or the science wrong. That's it.
You're a fine example. You sit here and pontificate that in order for this study to be of any worth, they have to throw out all tacit knowledge obtained over years studying science, and they must be reduced to running all previous background knowledge as new experiments.
You sound like a creationist ridiculing the nature of probability in insertion and deletion errors in genetic code. You sound uninformed when you call an empirical study non-empirical.
In short, you're a joke, and in my eyes you have no credibility on the matters of scientific rigor. You proved that to me a while back when you couldn't even admit that +/- 100 is a range of 200, with your insistence on correlations, where in fact the authors mention none (having causation means you use a regression analysis).
I'm through wasting my time with you. Have a nice day.
- Status