The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct

I am not a salt water hobbyist but I have raised fresh water fish for years and the same thing applies. Small changes over time will do little harm to your little ecosystem but small quick changes result in fish kills. I just purchased 300 channel catfish fingerlings this spring and am going to get some coppernose bluegill as soon as I get my next pond (large tank) running.

The problem with the Oceans is simple....we are taking all the life out of it to feed our bellies and all we put back in is garbage.

 

Science can't beat nature. The best we can do is work with nature so it will work with us.

 

...using the current crop of failed models.

BFD.

 

Google it. You can pick your own source.

My conclusion has been reached based on my research. I know better than to debate religion with proselytizing missionaries.

 

A normal human, when he see the whole world disagrees with him, will consider it to be very probable that he himself has made a mistake.

Those consumed with narcissism, however, believe themselves to be incapable of error, and instead will proclaim that the entire world is obviously engaged in a conspiracy against them.

Deniers fall into the latter category. The whole planet says the oceans are acidifying, but the deniers say they know the RealStory. Which has something to do with a VastSocialistConspiracy. Their loopy fringe political cult fed them that conspiracy theory, so they believe it without question, and no dirty liberal tricks like "facts" and "evidence" are going to fool them, nosirree, because they know it's all fake.

Literally, denialism is just a conspiracy cult now, the same as birtherism or antivaxxism. And since deniers weren't reasoned into their positions, they can't be reasoned out of them.

 

This is Denierspeak for, "I don't have one shred of evidence to support my position, and I couldn't even find any on google."

Pathetic denier FAIL.

Your own "research" for which you cannot provide even a single link? I guess that's what happens when you consider "listening to Rush Limbaugh" to be the same thing as "research".

Go then, with your tail between your legs. You will not be missed.

 

Enjoy your religion. Come back with a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

So what cult crank told you AGW theory wasn't falsifiable? And why did you believe such an absurd claim?

Here are some things that would falsify AGW theory:

1. A long term lack of warming

2. A warming upper stratosphere.

3. Falling sea levels

4. A decrease in backradiation

5. An increase in outgoing OLR in the greenhouse gas bands

6. Decreasing levels of CO2

7. Isotope ratios showing the CO2 increase is not from fossil fuels

Shall I keep going?

Now, your turn. Tell us what your theory of denialism is, and what could falsify it. If you can't, that means, by your own definition, you're a religious cultist.

 

It's on you to construct the falsifiable experiment, not me.

Until you do all you have is a show of hands, like kindergartners voting on a snack.

 

He just gave you a whole list of falsifiable experiments.

 

Hmmm...sounds like someone has already started name calling and they haven't even hit 500 posts yet. I think a better course of action would be to learn how to avoid the inevitable. Regardless of where a person stands on man made climate change, it is a fact. Just because you do not accept the truth does not make it untrue.

Instead of trying to convince internet geniuses of the fact...yes fact...that climate change is happening their time would be better served trying to come up with some solutions to the problems that will plague mankind in the near future and hunger is one of them....climate change or not.

My experiment (at the moment) is to raise 600 pounds of fish and as many tomatoes as I can in an area 20ft. long. 7 ft. wide, and 3 ft. deep.
It should support 30 tomato plants. That's about 6meters long, 2 meters wide, and one meter deep.

The reason I started this little project? Because every year we get more and more rain. We have not had three days of dry since February and I can not get my ground worked. So I got fish. The tomatoes are actually growing in water. I didn't think I could do it.

 

It's on the AGW co-religionists to conduct them to prove their god.

Trust me here. A list is a lifetime away from any hypothesis testing. The methodology is well known. The reason your church hasn't done it is because you cannot test the hypothesis of AGW. You can only infer generally and vote. That is not rigorous science.

 

Fact: You have no idea what a fact is.

 

Man I really got to stop eating at taco bell and peeing in the gulf then. Sorry folks, my bad.

 

Falsifiable hypothesis: CO2 absorbs infrared.
Falsifiable hypothesis: CO2 is transparent to visible light.
Falsifiable hypothesis: The Sun emits primarily visible light.
Falsifiable hypothesis: The Earth emits primarily infrared.
Falsifiable hypothesis: increased atmospheric CO2 causes global warming.

That was hard.

 

Here's how REAL science works:

H naught = Man's production of CO2 is not raising the global average temperature by more than X degrees C per century (X= some very small amount).

Then you design an experiment.

Then you conduct it.

Then you test the gathered data with statistical confidence equations.

Then you accept or reject H naught.

You haven't even come close to this. You literally have only the show of hands, the kindergartners voting on fruit snacks or cupcakes.

Then you need remediation methodology tested.

Then you need economic analysis.

But since AGW is a religion you just skip to the final step based on faith only, You steal MY LIBERTY in the name of your god.

Screw that.

 

"Real science" which you and your side steadfastly refuse to do, despite being asked to do it over and over. That's because all the data flatly contradicts your political cult.

That's been done. The rising temperatures match the models closely. Do try to familiarize yourself with the basics. Anyways, by your standards, the test has been passed. Case closed.

Of course, the models are just icing on the cake. We can measure the evidence for AGW theory directly. Even if no model existed, AGW theory would still be proven.

We measure the increasing backradiation directly.

We measure the decreasing outgoing longwave radiation directly.

We measure the stratospheric cooling directly.

Those are smoking guns for AGW theory. No "natural cycles" theory explains them. The direct evidence says any such "natural cycles" theories are wrong.

Now, let me introduce you to Mr. Occam and his razor. The simplest explanation that accounts for all the observed data is most likely to be correct. AGW theory is the simplest explanation that accounts for all the observed data.

Your theory? Your side won't even present one, being it's just a pseudoscience cult. If you've got a theory that explains all the observed data, then present it. But since you can't, the world is going with the theory that does explain the observed data.

 

Since you have not contested my previous post showing falsifiable hypotheses, it is fair to say that you were WRONG WRONG WRONG when you falsely claimed that there is no falsifiable hypothesis behind global warming, and therefore you were also WRONG WRONG WRONG when you falsely claimed that global warming is religion, not science.

Climate denier FAIL.

That's a very poorly formed null hypothesis, because you have the wrong independent variable. The basic physics of CO2 warming implies that warming is concentration-dependent, not time dependent. No real scientist would form a null hypothesis that way. But then, you're not a scientist. And I can forgive you for that. What I don't understand is why, not being a scientist yourself, you refuse to listen to people who are scientists.

Here's an experiment: take 1 spare planet, add 1.3 gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere, and see if it gets warmer.
Here are the results of that experiment going all the way back to the year 1730:



As for statistical analysis, the significance of slope in those data is well past 99.99%: in other words, temperature is indeed dependent on ln(CO2). And before you jump up to complain that correlation is not causation, you should know that there is a statistical test for causality called Granger causality, and using that test it has been shown that increased atmospheric CO2 does indeed cause higher surface temperatures:
Alessandro Attanasio, Antonello Pasini, Umberto Triacca, "Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution" Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 4, 2013, pp. 515-522. doi: 10.4236/acs.2013.34054.

You lose, cupcake.

Been there, done that too.

Sumner, Jenny, Lori Bird, and Hillary Dobos. "Carbon taxes: a review of experience and policy design considerations." Climate Policy 11.2 (2011): 922-943.
Rivers, Nicholas, and Brandon Schaufele. "Carbon tax salience and gasoline demand." Sustainable Prosperity: Ottawa, ON, Canada 23.6 (2012): 35-45.
Elgie, Stewart, and Jessica McClay. "BC’s Carbon Tax Shift After Five Years: Results." (2013).

So tell me how getting a bigger tax refund is "stealing your liberty". I'd really like to know how that logic works.

 

You are FOS.

Quote the H naught tested. You won't. It doesn't exist.

 

It's ON YOU!

I need design NOTHING. I stand pat. I tender no hypothesis to be tested.

It is an example.

 

The sum total of economic ignorance and ideological poisoning in that short quote merits you special status.

Buh bye.

 

If you're going to challenge an established scientific theory then yeah it's on you to design the hypothesis and test it yourself.

 

So...All you have is an opinion. And we all know what opinions are like.

You have nothing...zero...naught.

I have seen many smarter than you get it handed to them on this forum, and on this subject.

 

Which is exactly why your side has lost this debate. One side has science. The other side has NOTHING.

 

Listening to you accuse others of ignorance is like listening to Osama bin Laden accuse others of terrorism.

Run away, to some other forum where evidence doesn't matter. Somewhere like the religion board. Because when it comes to science, you've really been handed your head.