Is Climate Change a real issue?

[Sandy Braille]

Well, is it?

 

[babe]

Climate has always been changing in earth history.

We have coal deposits and oil deposits in the Arctic and probably in the Antarctic because we used to have lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. No ice age or polar ice cap back then at all. Carbon dioxide and warmth make stuff grow in the sunlight.

We ought to study all the impacts of what we do on nature, on our little blue and white ball, and do lots of scientific measurements of things. But we ought to put people in prison who try to bamboozle us into economic hardship while setting up worldwide cartels controlling every resource we have. .

More Science. No more Fascists.

 

[TroutBum]

Climate has always been changing in earth history.

We have coal deposits and oil deposits in the Arctic and probably in the Antarctic because we used to have lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. No ice age or polar ice cap back then at all. Carbon dioxide and warmth make stuff grow in the sunlight.

We ought to study all the impacts of what we do on nature, on our little blue and white ball, and do lots of scientific measurements of things. But we ought to put people in prison who try to bamboozle us into economic hardship while setting up worldwide cartels controlling every resource we have. .

More Science. No more Fascists.

Sometimes I wish I knew what the **** you were talking about. Seriously, I can't tell if you are for it or against it. I don't think it's because I'm dumb, either -- English, mother ****er, do you speak it?

As to the OP, yes it is a real issue. All you need know do in order to find out the truth is listen to Rush Limbaugh talk about how it is not true.

 

[Sandy Braille]

The oceans might be acidifying faster today than they did in the last 300 million years, according to scientists publishing a paper in the journal Science in March 2012.


The common sea fan is but one of the species being affected by acidifying oceans. Image Credit: NOAA
Scientists say that too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making the oceans more acidic and imperiling key parts of the marine food chain.

As the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, more of it is absorbed by the world’s oceans. Carbon dioxide and water bind together to create carbonic acid, which is used to make soft drinks bubbly – but also makes water more acidic.

Earth scientists representing 18 institutions worldwide have united to examine the geologic record of the past 300 million years for clues about what the future holds if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase.

Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said:


Marine scientists study how corals and other species respond to more acid seas. Image Credit: NSF Moorea Coral Reef Long-Term Ecological Research Site
We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped out–new species evolved to replace those that died off. But if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about–coral reefs, oysters, salmon.

The oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air. The gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor.

If too much carbon dioxide enters the ocean too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shell-building.

In a review of hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, the researchers found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans changed as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM.

About 56 million years ago, a mysterious surge of carbon into the atmosphere warmed the planet and turned the oceans corrosive. In about 5,000 years, atmospheric carbon doubled to 1,800 parts per million (ppm), and average global temperatures rose by about 6 degrees Celsius.

The carbonate plankton shells littering the seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown clay layer that scientists see in sediment cores today.


Corals form the backbone of a reef ecosystem that supports many other creatures.. Image Credit: NSF Moorea Coral Reef Long-Term Ecological Research Site
As many as half of all species of benthic foraminifera, a group of one-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went extinct, suggesting that deep-sea organisms higher on the food chain may have also disappeared, said paper co-author Ellen Thomas, a paleoceanographer at Yale University. She said:

It’s really unusual that you lose more than 5 to 10 percent of species.

Scientists estimate that ocean acidity–its pH–may have fallen as much as 0.45 units as the planet vented stores of carbon into the air.

Candace Major is program officer in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research. She said:

The ocean acidification we’re seeing today is unprecedented, even when viewed through the lens of the past 300 million years, a result of the very fast rates at which we’re changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans.

In the last hundred years, rising carbon dioxide from human activities has lowered ocean pH by 0.1 unit, an acidification rate at least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago, says Hönisch.


Oceans may be acidifying faster today than in the last 300 million years. Image Credit: NOAA
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that pH will fall another 0.2 units by 2100, raising the possibility that we may soon see ocean changes similar to those observed during the PETM.

In lab experiments, scientists have tried to simulate modern ocean acidification, but the number of variables currently at play–high carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures, and reduced ocean pH and dissolved oxygen levels–make predictions difficult.

An alternative to investigating the paleo-record has been to study natural carbon seeps from offshore volcanoes that are producing the acidification levels expected by the year 2100.

In a recent study of coral reefs off Papua New Guinea, scientists found that during long-term exposure to high carbon dioxide and pH 0.2 units lower than today–at a pH of 7.8 (the IPCC projection for 2100)–reef biodiversity and regeneration suffered.

Bottom line: According to a March 2012 paper in the journal Science, Earth’s oceans might be acidifying faster today than they did in the last 300 million years. Scientists say that too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making the oceans more acidic and imperils key parts of the marine food chain.

I trust Science, the journal, more than I trust babes

 

[TroutBum]

I trust Science, the journal, more than I trust babes

I remember when I started college years ago, I got a subscription to that magazine. Wow, how humbled was I to find out that I couldn't get past the first three pages before realizing that I was a dumb ****? Very.

Google Bill Nye Climate Change and watch the debate he has with babe's twin brother -- it's amazing.

 

[Sandy Braille]

I remember when I started college years ago, I got a subscription to that magazine. Wow, how humbled was I to find out that I couldn't get past the first three pages before realizing that I was a dumb ****? Very.

Google Bill Nye Climate Change and watch the debate he has with babe's twin brother -- it's amazing.

After however many years of reading these things, it still often takes me a full day to go through a scientific paper-- don't sweat it.

 

[babe]

After however many years of reading these things, it still often takes me a full day to go through a scientific paper-- don't sweat it.

It takes me about fifteen minutes to get the drift. I read the abstract twice, and look at the tables and graphs. Then I read the concluding paragraph. By then I know pretty much what the point is.

I might think about it for a while, maybe take a walk in the sunshine or something. If I really want to find out if it's valid work, I'll go back and take a really close look at a section called "Materials and Methods" where the equipment used is listed, and maybe the suppliers of a bunch of stuff needed to do the work. It pays to know whether the equipment used is "state of the art" or "old junk". Every piece of equipment has a priniciple and a design,and measurements always have two mathematical factors. . .. an "extensive" factor and an "intensive" factor. The first refers to the operating range and proper operation of the equipment. The second refers to the "scale" of it's measurement, which I suppose could be termed a range of measurements it is capable of.

The next issue will be the concept involved in the experiment. . . . . the hypothesis being examined somehow. Sometimes they don't even make sense at first blush, but I'm willing to assume others know more than I do until I can see some pretty good reasons to conclude I've placed too much confidence in people who don't deserve it. I might look around at other research papers on the topic, and see how others are approaching it.

After a day or two, I'll read the article again, maybe take about two hours on it, and pay attention to the details. I always find that I missed something on the first look, but at least I get an overview the first time, rather than just getting swamped with the details. Third and fourth reading a week or two later will bring me up to speed on the article, but in order to make any judgment I need to do the same with several related articles just to get a feel for the context.

Pretty much the process any good reviewer will do on evaluating any article. Peer or serious investigator.

 

[babe]

I trust Science, the journal, more than I trust babes

you seem like a pretty smart guy. Did you even understand what I said?

A lot of scientists are what I term "trendy", all in a rush to be in the "leading edge" of their field. There's always a lot of hogwash being dumped at the leading edge, and it truly does take some time for the good work to prevail.

Let's take one of the statements you listed, just as an example. . . . .

n the last hundred years, rising carbon dioxide from human activities has lowered ocean pH by 0.1 unit, an acidification rate at least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago, says Hönisch.

I won't bother to rehash basic chemistry here, but I would frankly say this sentence contains a lot of hogwash. Oh, the pH has dropped in the past hundred years, and I'm sure there have been continual changes following carbon dioxide pressures over the water across all time. And like I said, we should study these things and what is happening with all life on our earth. Maybe even improve the way we do things to minimize impacts on nature. Probably we should look at the load of hype in our rhetoric, though. This guy is phrasing the facts in alarmist garb.

The level of CO2 was, at 270 ppm, near the lowest in all of earth history. Sea pH had been declining for millions of years, and the oceans have been getting saltier. There were lots of things happening then that had never happened before, probably a lot of sea life dying off and going extinct. We are returning towards the "normal" which existed a hundred million years ago.

Like I said, we should be more concerned about the politicization of science, and the effects of propaganda on the public mind. Fascism depends on having a willing mass of idiots reacting on cue.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIXsxA3zRY4

Ron Paul discusses Global Warming about halfway though the video. I think he does a good job. Unfortunately you have to listen to Bill Maher's stupidity to get through it. BTW if Bill Maher is libertarian (as he claims to be) I am the pope.

 

[Gameface]

I started typing a bunch of crap. Anyway, it was dumb, so here's this...

It's an issue, but it's not the end of the world.

The "science" has an agenda beyond truth here. Once truth is being defined according to preconceived notions of what the solution to an unproven problem is I start questioning the validity of that truth. When the highly motivated scientific community takes on a salem witch trial mentality going after anyone who dares not agree with them I get even more sceptical. Unfortunately, much of what they say is undoubtedly correct. But they won't just give me the facts, they want to tell me what the facts mean about the way I need to live me life. That's what they're leading with?

I know huge parts of our economy depend on regional weather being relatively the same from year to year. Our cities are built in places where there are water resources and places to grow food. These cities might find themselves in a place that no longer supports their populations. Huge upheaval could result, which makes for unpredictable business conditions. People (groups) who own lots of valuable real estate could find that it's no longer valuable. Ultimately, climate change is a real threat to the pocketbooks of the 1%. For the rest of us? It'll be good, it'll be bad, it'll be an adventure. Life will go one (unless you're one of the many species to go extinct in the process).

I find the notion of climate change exciting. This old world needs a little shake up, if you ask me.

 

[Stoked]

Yes climate change is real. It has always been real. What I am unsure about is how much of that affect is caused by man.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Climate change is not an issue.

Sincerely,

Triceratops


**War the climate, and War people that sell crap on jazzfanz

 

[Sandy Braille]

you seem like a pretty smart guy. Did you even understand what I said?

My post was mostly facetious. Hence why I said 'babes'. Not a great joke, don't know if you caught what I meant. Anywho.

A lot of scientists are what I term "trendy", all in a rush to be in the "leading edge" of their field. There's always a lot of hogwash being dumped at the leading edge, and it truly does take some time for the good work to prevail.

Wouldn't say its hogwash, but absolutely. Often people DO try to rush and advance their research so much, that it'll be full of loopholes. Fortunately, peer-reviewing often takes care of this-- but I suppose one could argue what the extent of this is

The level of CO2 was, at 270 ppm, near the lowest in all of earth history. Sea pH had been declining for millions of years, and the oceans have been getting saltier. There were lots of things happening then that had never happened before, probably a lot of sea life dying off and going extinct. We are returning towards the "normal" which existed a hundred million years ago.

You can't say that this study is full of hogwash, and then come up with these random sentences with no scientific support. I'll gladly join your opinion if you offer justification.

Like I said, we should be more concerned about the politicization of science, and the effects of propaganda on the public mind. Fascism depends on having a willing mass of idiots reacting on cue.

If our current definition of propaganda is legalizing same-sex marriage, and taking better care of our planet, then I do not worry for the future.

 

[Sandy Braille]

It takes me about fifteen minutes to get the drift. I read the abstract twice, and look at the tables and graphs. Then I read the concluding paragraph. By then I know pretty much what the point is.

Well duh. But actually READING a paper, being critical, trying to see if the tests they ran through are actually accurate, and don't have much room for error takes much more time. With most papers that I read being in the 10-20 page range, it takes time.

I might think about it for a while, maybe take a walk in the sunshine or something. If I really want to find out if it's valid work, I'll go back and take a really close look at a section called "Materials and Methods" where the equipment used is listed, and maybe the suppliers of a bunch of stuff needed to do the work. It pays to know whether the equipment used is "state of the art" or "old junk". Every piece of equipment has a priniciple and a design,and measurements always have two mathematical factors. . .. an "extensive" factor and an "intensive" factor. The first refers to the operating range and proper operation of the equipment. The second refers to the "scale" of it's measurement, which I suppose could be termed a range of measurements it is capable of.

Theres much more that you should look at. Maybe the intro. The justification for why they are researching things. The previous findings from previous studies that have led them here. What they are looking for, and the route they plan to take to discover it.

To me, this makes more sense than reading 3 sections, and then going for a walk. But to each his own.

The next issue will be the concept involved in the experiment. . . . . the hypothesis being examined somehow. Sometimes they don't even make sense at first blush, but I'm willing to assume others know more than I do until I can see some pretty good reasons to conclude I've placed too much confidence in people who don't deserve it. I might look around at other research papers on the topic, and see how others are approaching it.

Well yes. Which is precisely why you should read the entire paper, so you can understand their entire approach. Once doing so, it will come quite easily to determine what you liked, didn't like, and what seems 'loose'. No scientific paper is perfect.

After a day or two, I'll read the article again, maybe take about two hours on it, and pay attention to the details. I always find that I missed something on the first look, but at least I get an overview the first time, rather than just getting swamped with the details. Third and fourth reading a week or two later will bring me up to speed on the article, but in order to make any judgment I need to do the same with several related articles just to get a feel for the context.

Pretty much the process any good reviewer will do on evaluating any article. Peer or serious investigator.

What, spending only a total of 2 hours on a 16 page paper to go over ALL the details?? Including looking at the other studies that they cited to, when pulling out random factoids *determined by others*??

This paper alone for me took around 3-4 hours to go through, and its only 12 pages long.


Of course, Im younger, and I was going through the paper rather intensely.


To each their own, I guess.

 

[MoreFeasts]

Babe, so you basically are saying that the earth has changed in hundreds of years in ways that should take millions of years, and yet you think that this is perfectly normal, and has nothing to do with man's influence?
and you favor a return to a climate more suited to dinosaurs than the human race?
amiright?

 

[babe]

What, spending only a total of 2 hours on a 16 page paper to go over ALL the details?? Including looking at the other studies that they cited to, when pulling out random factoids *determined by others*??

yes, you do have some good, and some better points about how to go about evaluating a science article. And I would eventually take more time in some cases, for sure. I never just skip the parts you mention, and maybe never do it exactly the same way. I don't have infinite stamina, nor comprehension skills. As my girls' music teacher advises, don't swallow the cookie whole. Break it up into bites you can chew.

 

[CONAN]

I don't think it's as serious as it's made out to be. But I don't think we should ignore it. Would love to see a carbon tax/fee put in place.

 

[babe]

My post was mostly facetious. Hence why I said 'babes'. Not a great joke, don't know if you caught what I meant. Anywho.






Wouldn't say its hogwash, but absolutely. Often people DO try to rush and advance their research so much, that it'll be full of loopholes. Fortunately, peer-reviewing often takes care of this-- but I suppose one could argue what the extent of this is




You can't say that this study is full of hogwash, and then come up with these random sentences with no scientific support. I'll gladly join your opinion if you offer justification.



If our current definition of propaganda is legalizing same-sex marriage, and taking better care of our planet, then I do not worry for the future.

In the context of a reasonable discussion I'm willing to retract the excess baggage. "full of hogwash" was not a good choice of words. Words do matter,and the context we place them in. I should have said "there appears to be some hogwash in the way these facts are being presented". Saying "There's always a lot of hogwash being dumped at the leading edge" is insupportable. Not "always", just a possibility that is sometimes the fact.

you're right about the necessity for bringing in some scientific support for what I say. And I don't actually expect you to be bowled over by a few items on one side of the issue.

 

[babe]

Babe, so you basically are saying that the earth has changed in hundreds of years in ways that should take millions of years, and yet you think that this is perfectly normal, and has nothing to do with man's influence?
and you favor a return to a climate more suited to dinosaurs than the human race?
amiright?

There's no such thing as "ways that should take" anything. I can think of natural events that could drive changes one way or another, and I can think of explanations for whatever are the facts of history. . . . but this is not a moral issue of the kind where our ideas of what is right or acceptable should dominate the discussion.

I think we have had an impact, and I just note that volcanism has had an impact within our capacity to obtain data and make correlations in the past, and that carbon dioxide levels in the air and water have changed over time. Where we are having impacts, I might believe there are some things we should do, and have opinions about how we should go about doing that.

I think I made a mistake about the way I stated my view.

I would suspect, in my understanding of buffer capacity and ongoing increases in salinity in the oceans and the carbon dioxide data we have, that we have never been exactly where we are now. We may have had lower pH values, or higher, at some times. And it may have in either case been a challenge or threat to some existing life forms.

Pretty much, the oceans continually effect a flow of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into the limestone being formed in the oceans, and pretty much the level of salinity has been on an increasing trend as chlorides have been eroded from the land mass.

If you are going to say all the ill effects are only the result of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I think we need more scientific study and probably in the long run we'll have to start addressing other natural processes as well.

 

[Beantown]

Again, the debate should never have been about climate change. It should have been about air pollution. Air pollution is easy to see and the effects are real. Look at Utah. Every time I visit Utah in the winter I end up hacking up a black lung. It would be hard for me to ever live in SLC again because of it. The air is that bad.