Ok and non of that is a counter argument to what I said. (Although I'm reading from my phone here so might of missed it) Coral bleaching that is caused by temp, is caused from fast changes in temp. Global warming is not a fast change in temp, your looking at ballpark 1deg over the next 100years. That is not even close to triggering a bleaching event. And even if it was, it just means the coral is growing new algae that is better suited for the warmer water. Listen if you want to talk about problems with pollution, and fishing, and invasive species causing problems with the reefs, I'm right there with you. This is a real problem to all ecosystems here on the planet. But your talking co2, which by the way higher co2 actually increases photosynthesis and coral growth.
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this ****. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a **** about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me. The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are! We’re going away. Pack your ****, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic… *******.” - George Carlin
Do your homework. I’m not interested in doing it for you. The link is to a free book in pdf format with 602 links to scientific papers. Prove your bogus narrative to yourself.
Exactly. The “bleaching” is the result of short term water temperature changes. If it was pH caused the logic would conclude that no coral reefs would exist due to daily range of pH which could range between 7.5 and 9.2.
And still no hard data.. we are talking about one of the easiest things to test in a lab. This is just basic science here. Your hypothesis is increased co2 in the atmosphere is causing a drop in the pH. So the next phase would be to actually test to see how much increased co2 cases how much drop in PH.. People have been increasing co2 in greenhouses to increase crop growth forever. So a very basic experiment would be to set up some tanks in a greenhouse and see what happens to the pH of freshwater and saltwater once co2 levels are increased.. then you have a base to go from there.. add in typical buffering substrate found in the oceans and test some more.. compare the results.. add in livestock.. test again.. and keep testing and getting data to prove, disprove or adjust your hypothesis.. you know how science used to be done.. Or skip all those steps and go straight to the doomsday predictions and see the grant money keep flowing in!
I posted plenty of substance. For example, your claims that disasters were getting "worse" because of the dollar figure, while you completely failed for the simple answer of inflation. You claimed "it's raining more" while at the same time talking about droughts for some reason, where you completely failed to see the scope of the increase of the last 100 years was less than 2%....and that doesn't even touch on how accurately it's being measured. You haven't actually presented any evidence of AGW, nor can you. No scientist alive has enough information, or any ability to test, the geological effects of natural climate change to be able to say for certain that we are causing existing climate change.
Brought to you by the same people who told us polar bears would be dead by now. Animal species are dying because humans are taking their habitats. The only answer to that is to kill humans. How many should we kill?
Really? "Although temperature has been identified as the strongest variable to induce coral bleaching, ocean acidification is also known to drive bleaching but estimates of its impact vary widely causing high levels of uncertainty in model predictions. Ocean acidification exacerbates coral bleaching by reducing the productivity of the symbiotic association of coral and dinoflagellates, likely as a result of the pH dependent efficiency of photosynthetic water oxidation, 2H2O → O2 + 4e- + 4H+, and the pH sensitivity of the photoprotective mechanisms of photosystem proteins.4 In addition, the rate of calcium carbonate production by corals is dependent on the concentration of carbonate ions (CO32–); however, as the pH of the oceans decrease, carbonate concentrations will decrease due to a shift in the equilibrium towards the formation of bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions." https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=566 Note the references on the on the bottom of the article.
you mean like this experiment?: "Their work, published in Nature, represents the first ocean acidification experiment in which seawater was made artificially acidic by the addition of carbon dioxide and then allowed to flow across a natural coral reef community. The acidity of the seawater was increased to reflect end-of-century projections if carbon dioxide from greenhouse gas emissions are not abated. Two years ago, Caldeira and Albright, then at Carnegie, published a landmark study providing evidence that ocean acidification is already slowing coral reef growth...... ..... A chemical reaction between the seawater and these soaked-up carbon emissions produces carbonic acid, which is corrosive to coral reefs, shellfish, and other marine life. Reefs are especially vulnerable to this ocean acidification, because their skeletons are constructed by accreting calcium carbonate, a process called calcification. As the surrounding water becomes more acidic, calcification becomes more difficult. "Our findings provide strong evidence that ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide emissions will severely slow coral reef growth in the future unless we make steep and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions," said first author Albright. Furthermore, by working in controlled areas of a natural reef community, Caldeira, Albright, and their team were able to demonstrate how acidification affects coral reefs on the ecosystem scale, not just in terms of individual organisms or species, as other studies have done." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180314145016.htm Yes, by all means the world's climate scientists are colluding to mislead the public as to climate change while fossil fuel funded blogs like Curry's or WUWT are telling you the truth because they would never lie, that's about it, right?
I don't have to prove anything to myself. If you can't go to your own cite and use it to make a coherent argument then why bother even posting. I've supplied you hard scientific data to discuss and yet you still are reducing this to a political argument. There is no bogus narrative. The scientific evidence is clear not matter how hard the fossil fuel funded blogs and think tanks try to deny it.
There is no data in the above. What was the pH of the water ?? What did they assume would be the atmospheric concentration of CO2 ?? What was the water temperature ??
You've proven nothing to yourself. All your references are speculation. The fact that you refuse to challenge your false narrative is telling.
This was the sum of your argument: No, I think I accepted your claim that inflation played a factor. O think my claim was that insurance costs were rising do to increasing costs of climate driven disasters as is stated in this article: https://www.popularmechanics.com/sc...ting-the-insurance-industry-historic-amounts/ I was talking about extreme weather events. Are you trying to say that the fact there are droughts in some areas and increasing rainfall in others means there is no climate change happening. I think I went into your own cite and showed you how the author actually contradicted whatever claim you were making. Of course they do. The body of scientific evidence is clear and the measurement techniques are actually pretty robust. Just because you deny it all with statements like the one in the first quote does not mean it is not happening or that science can't show human activity is causing it.
Yeah. You stated insurance costs were rising and made the basic mistake of accounting for inflation. That's what I said. No, you didn't contradict anything. You claimed that rainfall was increasing. I then broke your claim down by determining the increase based on mm per day, to show the ACTUAL impact of about an inch of rainfall per year, then calculated it being less than a 2% increase. What you do is engage in diversionary science. You claim disasters are more frequent because of dollars. I show you that inflation answers that. You claim disasters are worse and suggest that weather events are much worse. I show you a minor increase in total rainfall per year. You claim the Houston hurricane dropped more water than any other typhoon. I ask about the 1700 typhoon and a list of others which you have no answer for. You have taken a tiny set of data from the last 100 years, and you're trying to convince us that this is somehow majorly different than the last 1.5 million years....for which you have no actual data and the data that does exist refutes you. At that point, you reverted to telling us we're all gonna die again.
All my references are backed by hard scientific data and have been all through this thread. I don't have a narrative. I have a scientific background so I know how to judge the accuracy of scientific evidence. And I challenge myself all the time. What you don't understand is that I've seen all the kinds of arguments you are trying to make before and discussed them in detail so you are presenting nothing new. I mean George Carlin videos to prove there in no such thing as ACC??? Here is what happens. The big fossil fuel companies like Exxon-Mobile among others spend massive amounts of money through anonymous shell companies like Donor's Trust. This money in turn goes out to the hard right-wing and libertarian think tanks like Heartland Institute or Cato Institute. These in turn finance all manor of right-wing media; blogs like Anthony's website or work of people like Roy Spencer or Judith Curry who are in the business of trying to sow doubt and confuse the public as to what is happening with our climate due to CO2 emissions. Then people like you, who are really just useful, tools to spread the disinformation go to these websites and think what you are reading is bias free evidence that there is no such as global warming and that you are discovering something new and fantastic that proves just how stoopid all those dumb scientists are. Then you come rushing to forums like this and if anyone tries to have an honest discussion about climate change or dares to suggest any of those stoopid scientists might have a point, they get swarmed by a bunch of right-wing addled people who think what they got from blog posts and the odd contrarian scientists who, like Willie Soon, often has it come out that their work is almost wholly funded by fossil fuel industry money, is the most brilliant thing on earth and proves just how stoopid those scientists all colluding to deceive the public for grant money are And on it goes. It was the same tactic used by the tobacco companies to try and confuse the public over the harm of smoking and is wholly about delaying any kind of regulation of the industry for as long as possible no matter the costs to health and society. Not only was it just like the tobacco industry delay tactics, in many cases both industries use the same people ands the same think tanks to achieve the same end as Naomi Oreskes found out when she came under attack by the fossil fuel industry. Here's some homework for you to try and understand your own narrative and where it comes from:
There is no causation in any of your references. Only speculation paid for at tax payer expense. You claim to challenge yourself but refuse to read a free book that does just that. That’s tragically funny.
well at lest it was an experiment. But this has nothing to do with what I was asking for. And realistically this is completely garbage of an experiment anyway on many levels. They artificially made the water acidic ok im fine with that. But then they wanted to drop the PH based on what they think it COULD BE in 100 years. What do they think the PH will be in 100 years and what experiments have they done to back that up? and right there thats the problem. If your not going to have any real world data saying that x amount of CO2 = y amount of PH drop then you are just doing a wild ass guess and its junk science. A real scientist would of listed out his estimation of what the CO2 level will be in a 100 years. He would then take that CO2 level and do experiments with it to find out how much of an actual change would happen. So say in 100 years the estimated atmospheric CO2 will be 600ppm. So in his actual lab tests he has found that 600ppm of CO2 will drop the PH down to 8.0 for example. You then can move on to the effect of what could happen based on 8.0 water interaction with coral.. And last the PH changing over a 100 year time frame has no real comparison to a PH that drops instantly like there experiment
How do you explain that there is no correlation of CO2 and temperature I’m the natural history of the earth ???
Exactly. There is no data nor could our friend answer my questions similar to yours. The “acidification of the oceans” is scientific pHraud.
did you quote the wrong post maybe? I said this.. "Coral bleaching that is caused by temp, is caused from fast changes in temp. Global warming is not a fast change in temp, your looking at ballpark 1deg over the next 100years. That is not even close to triggering a bleaching event. And even if it was, it just means the coral is growing new algae that is better suited for the warmer water." I was talking about the fast temp change and coral bleaching. You replied with acidification. so that has nothing to do with a quick temperature change
He reminds me of people who publish stuff like this, and think we're too stupid to ask basic questions they can't answer. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/ Here, we're told that: "Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries." Well, genius author, what was the maximum CO2 concentration in the last 300 million years? Answer: 3000 PPM. Yet, this article wants to claim that the oceans will melt our feet off when CO2 hits 400 PPM.
