Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[MORAY37]

at the current trend of pH changes in the ocean (based on data from the last 240 years or so according to them) if you base is strictly on the data and not emotional response with a skewed view toward proving a point........ it would be over 1000 years before getting close to a danger point of acidification

Try a few decades, unless you base your response on your specific inclination to deny scientific data.  Corals are already in danger of losing the ability to make calcium carbonate skeletons.  Lowering the pH makes it impossible.  

http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2009/11/

[batch]

"In contrast, some researchers have concluded that, despite a decrease in ocean pH and aragonite saturation, calcification in corals may increase, owing to an increased metabolic response driven by warming associated with increased anthropogenic CO2. Although such findings remain controversial, they emphasize the fact that critical gaps exist in our knowledge of how coastal tropical-marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, will respond to global changes brought about by increased atmospheric CO2."

This taken from the link you provided

as I stated if you look at data without your purse strings attached........ at a minimum it will take centuries and in all probability at least a millenium or more before "acidification" (a GW scare word) will even bring the oceans to a neutral pH level

the level was approx 8.179 in the 1750s...... 8.104 in 1994 a .075 drop in 250 years....... the last 50 at the very minimum of heavy industrialization........ neutral is 7.0 even if  you consider a slight rise of decrease  (which isnt probable) and say it will decrease at .1 every 250 years that would approximate 2750 years before reaching a neutral pH level

nature has a funny way of running its course despite what some biased scientist writes as a theory..... which is why the facts just dont support the scientists

[MORAY37]

"In contrast, some researchers have concluded that, despite a decrease in ocean pH and aragonite saturation, calcification in corals may increase, owing to an increased metabolic response driven by warming associated with increased anthropogenic CO2. Although such findings remain controversial, they emphasize the fact that critical gaps exist in our knowledge of how coastal tropical-marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, will respond to global changes brought about by increased atmospheric CO2."

This taken from the link you provided

as I stated if you look at data without your purse strings attached........ at a minimum it will take centuries and in all probability at least a millenium or more before "acidification" (a GW scare word) will even bring the oceans to a neutral pH level

the level was approx 8.179 in the 1750s...... 8.104 in 1994 a .075 drop in 250 years....... the last 50 at the very minimum of heavy industrialization........ neutral is 7.0 even if  you consider a slight rise of decrease  (which isnt probable) and say it will decrease at .1 every 250 years that would approximate 2750 years before reaching a neutral pH level

nature has a funny way of running its course despite what some biased scientist writes as a theory..... which is why the facts just dont support the scientists

You show how little you know about the marine environment.  Try keeping a marine fish alive at less than 7.8 pH or so.  Any salt water  aquarist will laugh at you.

Hint:  They die, under long term exposure.

And that bit about it "increasing calcification in corals"  was not written by a coral biologist.  It was forced into the USGS by pseudo science studies by some of your cohorts.

Kinda like they're attempting with "intelligent design".  Forcing it, against the evidence.

[bj229r]

Bronk, you do realize that's the equivalent of "Lalalala, I can't hear you!"

Three points are clear to me:

1. Human activities contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other source.  You can refute claims that other things, like e.g. volcanoes, contribute more CO2 with some basic stoichiometry and volcanology data.

2. CO2 levels are rising.

3. CO2 reflects thermal radiation.

Draw your own conclusions from these points.

CO2 does NOT reflect thermal radiation, give it up http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

[MORAY37]

CO2 does NOT reflect thermal radiation, give it up http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

I'm really sorry that you think a wordpress blogger is a citeable source.  

I had to make one of those blogs in undergraduate school, in a technical writing class.

[bj229r]

I'm really sorry that you think a wordpress blogger is a citeable source.  

I had to make one of those blogs in undergraduate school, in a technical writing class.

Mayhap you would at least click on the link before dissing it...an MIT prof who has testified before the Senate is a bit more than a blogger

Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[Anaxogoras]

FYI, I already corrected point 1, which should have said "the burning of fossil fuels contributes more CO2 than other human activities.  As for thermal radiation, I'll have to defer to my old chemistry professor and leave it at that.  What really scares me is the certitude with which you deniers attack science, when what you are attacking has never claimed certitude, only reason for caution.  Even worse is that when scientists do voice questions or debate their data, you guys go "Aha! Gotcha!"  It's pretty clear to me who the real demagogues are.

[bj229r]

When someone in whom you place boundless trust turns out to be a liar(s), everything they've ever stated comes into question. Such things go far beyond scientists

[Anaxogoras]

There is no field in science where someone has notbeen caught fudging their data.  Sometimes there has been outright fraud.  But it's a rare thing for a whole field of research to be discredited because of a few bad apples.  So, yes, I will continue to place some confidence in the overall body of research.

FYI, the field where the most fraud occurs is medical science, but that hardly means we stop going to the doctor.

[Donzo]

There is no field in science where someone has notbeen caught fudging their data.  Sometimes there has been outright fraud.  But it's a rare thing for a whole field of research to be discredited because of a few bad apples.  So, yes, I will continue to place some confidence in the overall body of research.

FYI, the field where the most fraud occurs is medical science, but that hardly means we stop going to the doctor.

Going to the doctor is a choice.
Being hoodwinked into granting a few power over the masses is not a choice.

[batch]

There is no field in science where someone has notbeen caught fudging their data.  Sometimes there has been outright fraud.  But it's a rare thing for a whole field of research to be discredited because of a few bad apples.  So, yes, I will continue to place some confidence in the overall body of research.

the problem here is that the overall body or research is based on the data fudged by these liars......... they have conspired as a whole to hide the truth

I find it interesting that you tag right along with the models they give you............ when they run the models beginning in the past with known data the model is inaccurate 99% of the time up to present ......... it cant even predict the past and its supposed to be believed on the future

as far as marine life and 7.8pH  Ill be the first to admit Im not a marine biologist so I dont know what the exact pH needs to be........ but using your value of 7.8 and historical data then that gives us what 1000 years before marine life is effected (current trend is .075 decrease every  250 years) ....... my mistake

as far as increased calcification being forced into the report...... the report is non factual to begin with........ it clearly states that they "believe" (before testing) that acidification is the cause for decreased calcification....... it states they have taken samples for further study....... it says nothing about results from those studies because they have no results yet...... theyre simply telling you its fact because they say it is and they know some sucker will hinge on their every word...... because they say so

if you choose to buy into the hoax thats just fine for you ......... but dont try to force your religion on others

[CAP1]

FYI, I already corrected point 1, which should have said "the burning of fossil fuels contributes more CO2 than other human activities.  As for thermal radiation, I'll have to defer to my old chemistry professor and leave it at that.  What really scares me is the certitude with which you deniers attack science, when what you are attacking has never claimed certitude, only reason for caution.  Even worse is that when scientists do voice questions or debate their data, you guys go "Aha! Gotcha!"  It's pretty clear to me who the real demagogues are.

they're not fossil fuels.

http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

[Chalenge]

Moray I have to ask how much you know about the marine environment? You have studied it for how long? You do realize that the marine environment has changed over the millenia? It has to be time for the next change in the environment and maybe that means man is doomed and maybe not but I know one thing... Earth will survive.

[CAP1]

Moray I have to ask how much you know about the marine environment? You have studied it for how long? You do realize that the marine environment has changed over the millenia? It has to be time for the next change in the environment and maybe that means man is doomed and maybe not but I know one thing... Earth will survive.

unless some love muffin pushes the RED button

[Strip]

There  is no red button.....only whopper.....or was it BigMac?