What Do We Think About Climate Change

i think this is interesting. Simple way to put it--> when pH drops, the solution becomes more acidic. What is amazing is how robust people think the ecosystem is. It is not robust, it is very fragile and any sudden input can potentially through the whole ecosystem out of equilibrium. A change from 8.3 to 8.0 is a huge change for organisms that usually only see changes 1/1000th in size.
Here is my question: why are scientists on the defensive? we have ample evidence. If you believe AGW is wrong, prove it with hard data.

 

its classic double speak
scientists are not on the defensive
its the deniers who are struggling to maintain the illusion of a debate when
there is no debate and for a reason
there is nothing to debate
a 97% agreement among scientists is nothing short of a miracle

Guillermo is on vacation or he would at least attempt to accommodate you
he has a knack for finding anomalous data reviewed or not, relevant or not and throwing into the fray.

but typically everyone else just denies denies denies

although Hoyt and the rare interloper does make an effort as well

whats interesting is the amount of info the deniers use tends to be from the same few sources
nearly all of which can be shown to be in the pocket of industry

arguments like the acidification one we just went over although made obvious at some point in the explanation seem to make no difference at all

its like what Jerry G said

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

clearly the chemistry is a known entity and clearly it can be found through direct observation and measurements to be occurring faster than originally predicted

but actually getting anyone here to acknowledge that is a like pulling teeth

another good example is in the temp records
some folks insist we are not warming and that what warming we are seeing is within the typical variation

obviously the data does not support that view but yet some folks cling to it with a death grip



whats really frightening is that the graph is ten years old and the most recent data puts the high far above whats depicted

obviously the graph depicts that temp even ten years ago was higher than its been in the last 130,000 years

and this next graph shows temp today higher than its been in the last 10,000 years

 

No CaCO3 will even begin to dissolve before ph drops below 7 just as no ice will melt until temp climbs to 0*C.

 

"If it's 0 degrees today, and it's going to be twice as cold tomorrow... how cold will it be ?"

 

"96.37% of the people who use statistics in arguments make them up."

 

"A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transform."

Polaroids /nm./: what polar bears get from sitting on ice caps.

 

"Why is it that if someone tells you that there are 1 billion stars in the universe you will believe them, but if they tell you a wall has wet paint you will have to touch it to be sure ?"

 

"There is no light. The Sun sucks dark. In fact it sucks dark so hard that the friction of the dark moving to the Sun causes the Sun to be very hot. The flow of dark towards the Sun interrupted by the Earth causes the side of the Earth away from the Sun to accumulate dark, thus causing Night. As the Earth rotates the dark caught on the night side can then be pulled off, this causing the absence of dark known as Day.
What we call light bulbs are truly dark suckers as well. That is why light bulbs are hot, just like the Sun. When a light bulb is full of dark and won't suck dark any more, it cools off. If you look in old light bulbs you can even seen the accumulation of dark.
Dark is also heavier than water. This can be seen in the oceans where the deeper you go the darker it gets." — The eric conspiracy.

 

AGW is the theory, it has to be proven, not the other way around. It's bad enough the AGW Clown Club and the IPCC have hijacked the peer review process, now they want to reverse the scientific method.

 

You got it, fasteddy106. They have tried to pull a fast one and got caught at it. I can't wait for all the people they swindled to come after them.

 

No, not by "observed data" as there is no measure of historical PH over even one century that is accurate to 4 significant digits, as you asserted in your original typically alarmist post on this subject. Proxies won't get you to 4 significant digits, and all you have is proxies. Without historical data, we have no meaningful reference point, and all your posts are (as usual) mere alarmist pontifications.

Jimbo

 

Hoyt the comedian have you checked out the side by side comparison of actual co2 data and PH



kinda hard to deny the near perfect correlation

and over the longer term



from Pierson and Palmer 2000

kinda startling when you see the recent changes we have wrought put into the larger perspective

a few notes
I drew in the data depicted in red from the findings of

hey Jim you might find this interesting

looks like these guys accurately measured PH back about 21 million years and did it to an accuracy of +-0.2 the present value (not bad eh) and your favorite they did it using Isotopic mas balance

there is mountains of data and published works on this
are you guys seriously suggesting that they are all somehow wrong
again

please explain your version of the chemistry involved and how it negates the findings of thousands of researchers who all agree so I can present it to the scientific community for scrutiny
should be a real hoot eh

cheers
B

 

Spearaddict, if this is your thing...can you please explain how a change from PH8.179 to 8.104 in about 200 years will "kill off almost all organisms that use shells? Please note that "organism that use shells" like you call them, live happily in water that is PH5 and also experiments done with shell fish have proven that they not only adapt to various degrees of PH but that a less alcanline medium HELPS THEM TO BUILD STRONGER SHELLS. http://www.powerboat-world.com/index.cfm?nid=64476

The ******** never stops... righ?

Hare environment, hare hare...suck the marijuana, hare hare.

I am getting rather tired of this idiocy.

 

Warning...some elemental understanding of chemistry is necessary to understand this post.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/

 

Those guys must have been paid off from the super secret slush fund at Mobil because I could not find any of them on the ad hominem hate list put out by the AGW Clown Club.

Oh geez, I forgot, an ad hominem attack doesn't disprove anything, it only serves to distract from the truth. That's ok, Boston likes to use them anyhow.