Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is highest in 300m yrs,mass extinction almost inevitable

reply to post by VoidHawk

VoidHawk
There's been times in the past when there was much more carbon in the atmosphere and the oceans and guess what happened? Earth turned into the lovely planet we have now!

And?

If CO2 causes acidification of the oceans, why is it considered a "green" option to pump CO2 under the ocean for storage?

The enviroterrorists just can't get their story straight.

How do they explain the historically higher levels of CO2 than today, with greater biodiversity than today? Why was it not a problem then, but suddenly is now?

Where did all the trees in the Arctic come from? Where are they now? Oh yeah... they became the oil and gas that everyone is racing to extract.

How were they growing grapes in Greenland?

So... until these questions are answered, the adverse effects of MMGW/climate change is BS to me.

Worst of all, an MP here said last week that there are some good sides to climate change, to which all the "climate scientists" (sorry, you're not worthy of the title) said "how dare you suggest there is anything good about climate change". The "science" has been corrupted, and isn't science any more.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit

If CO2 causes acidification of the oceans, why is it considered a "green" option to pump CO2 under the ocean for storage?

Can you provide a source with a more detailed explanation of this "option"?

www.technologyreview.com...

www.ipcc.ch...‎

Yes... the contradiction is astounding. Seems it is only a problem when *rich countries* burn oil, coal or gas.

Coal is being phased out in the UK because (we are told) it is "dirty" (read: CO2). However, it just happens that coal is *the cheapest energy source on the planet*. I find it extremely interesting how whenever the subject of climate change appears, that it always has to mention poor countries, and money. Hmmmm..............

reply to post by Cabin


When clearly shown, Distinctly proved, then it nay be worth believing, But if the pH is tipped merely -1 or +1 in a tropical fish tank then problems - such as loss of fish - can happen, and yes 1 degree either way can give us a reason to buy new Fish, freshwater or otherwise.... Are we now saying All Oceanic waters have suddenly flipped their lid, or is this in a few small, close to land places >>>> Curious and should I be wrong, the at least return a polite reply ... Thank you

\our best Planet friend is ALGAE.

Have no fear, the population of humans will be drastically reduced shortly. I'm not sure how it is going to happen but I feel that it is in the making.

Kali74
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

the next doom report from someone under pressure to publish for Grant money and more.

Have you ever looked into what grant money goes toward and how much any individuals earn off that grant? Often times it's enough money to eat with and get to work with. Most of it goes toward lab facilities and equipment. More myth, you can do better.

C02? Not so much... Plants love it. Makes 'em grow bigger. Tell the people in South America to stop burning down the world's prime forests and c02 scrubbers tho. That may help a bit as well.

Yes, exactly Co2, it doesn't matter how much plants love it, they don't have limitless absorption capacity... neither does the ocean. At some point Wrabbitt you're going to have to realize where the conspiracy actually exists and where it doesn't.

Kali, I'm in academics right now. I'm around people 3 days a week who live and die by grant money and literally feed their families by it. Thanks for the lecture on how grant and research money works in American academia....but I am familiar with it by living it.

Myth? Opinions are like another physical feature of the human anatomy we all share and all have. Most are full of it....and in this case? Well.... Thanks again for the education on what I've been living for a couple years now. It's always appreciated from you.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Amazing.
So the solution now is NOT reducing CO2 emissions drasticly, but hide the garbage somewhere, especially in the primal human hiding place, the Oceans and earth's crust.

As for all the others that contributed to this thread. Thanks to all of you as I learned and discovered stuff I didn't even suspected and certainly not expected.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So you know that it's not a get rich quick scam. Do you find that grants are misused or unjustified? Do they come with expectations for loaded results?

There is still plenty of forestry in Alaska, Canada, and Russia, plus northern Europe and Scandinavia have forests, then there are the small and large woods scattered round the planet, plankton in the worlds oceans, I bet they all love the 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere (thats less than one percent 1%).

reply to post by Cabin


It is like... we are fallowing the script... Soylent Green is people...

reply to post by Kali74


No.... It's not a get rich quick scam. You're right about that. Grant money makes research function in many key ways and without it, we'd be stagnant for new innovation in any number of fields. It's essential to progress...and thanks to all those who write the grants and make the money available to supply them, too. (A little plug for any I apply to who may ever read this..lol)

At the same time, grants come to those who show promise and show ability to best use it for whatever the purpose of that specific grant may be. Not always but, you know that too. That's for some who have had no contact with this system at all. How does one show promise and ability? Publishing ....Publishing results, papers and studies. (among other things...but no papers published makes for a broke researcher)

I'm a bit too low to honestly say how, if any quotas for production operate at the upper levels where it's life and death to the research. Ask me in a couple years on that and I'll know in more detail than I ever wanted, Id imagine. I do know from this level though, it's competetive to an extreme as one gets higher in academic study level or into the full blown professional levels of research and field development.

So..pressure to publish is real and...depending on field and degree of competition for the same dollars? Extreme. At least as this has been to my view and the bit I asked around before replying on this.

i'd love to see an actual discussion about climate change instead of the wasteful bickering. it's pointless because those who deny the climate is rapidly changing due to humans will never change their minds and those of us who side with the scientists also won't change our minds. we just go back and forth over and over.

i want to see discussions about climate change not name calling and arguments. oh well. i'm guessing that will never happen here.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm glad you understand now how ridiculous it is to say it's all about money. If you need further proof on how this applies to climate science... read the peer reviews of climate science papers, studies etc... it's not just a circle jerk of "Did they say AGW/Too much CO2 is bad? Yes? Okay then here's my seal of approval!". Everything has to bear out, if papers and studies don't pass scientific muster they don't get published, grant money goes bye-bye. I don't have any links for you as I haven't actually done this with any papers or studies on Climate. I've done it with other areas though and came out with a much stronger understanding of how this aspect of science works. It's really fascinating and eye opening. I used to not trust science, and due to a few persistent posters on ATS that I had originally thought were assholes, I got a glimpse of this process and ended up diving into it and if I could deal with the mixing of numbers and letters and using symbols for words or maths, I would probably get into the field myself. But I'm okay too with just seeing how it all works and talking about it.

A great idea would be to create giant ant-acids for the ocean. Large tablets that can be thrown in the oceans releasing oxygen and balancing the ph.

reply to post by Kali74


I think I felt a bit better about the credibility of peer reviewed and published papers before reading this:

Fake Scientific Paper Fools 157 Journals!

You'll want to read beyond the OP on that, as the problem is considerably more expansive than the area she is focusing on for the thread. She wrote a great thread, but it's worse to read the story and supporting material.

I'm both coming to support science more and being more skeptical of it at the same time as I go through the early science classes. I'll have far more later at the University, but at this point? Some methods in different areas seem more solid than I'd have thought ...and some seem more flaky and unreliable than I imagined. I guess it's a very interesting learning experience here.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I hope you can see that this sort of thing is the exception that proves the rule?

:-)

hopefully?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Absolutely.... The whole world of science would be ablaze and just shaken to pieces if it weren't the exception. It's just not necessarily rare as it once was, it seems. So, I'm a bit more skeptical than before and a lot more apt to check more sources before accepting something which doesn't necessarily sound right. Finding papers that simply have people with real degrees and good letterhead doesn't mean what it once may have, I'd think.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That sting was based on open-access journals, not the same thing.

reply to post by Kali74


Integrity, cheating results and outcomes or general plagiarism of work are all major issues in Academic, Scientific and even media circles these days.

It's not even a conspiracy to suggest but plain, obvious and almost daily fact to be reminded of. That's not to say all science or all scientists are bunk and phony. Absolutely not.

It is absolutely no stretch to say professional ethics are nothing like what they once were for a growing number of people entering professional fields, though. Sad, but how things are.

Skepticism isn't just for open journals and being snookered doesn't just happen by shysters. It's a brave new world where the 'Me' is all important....and the ends justify the means more often than many want to admit for how process is handled, IMO.