I'm happy to stop it here. But if people insist on quoting me, I'll reply to an unfair quote.
I didn't begin posting climate stuff in this thread.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
I didn't begin posting climate stuff in this thread.
Another myth. Oceans are alkaline not acidic. There are about 100 times as many alkaline [OH-] ions in oceans as there are acidic [H+] ions. Making oceans 100 times more alkaline than acidic.
Acidification means a decrease in the PH, not that the ocean is acidic. This is not hard.
I thought you just said you’d stop.
And what exactly happens if you start injecting growing amounts of CO2 into the ocean water?
This is amazing science. Water has an equal number of hydroxide ions and protons. It literally cannot be acidified. You can pump CO2 into a water bottle you can pour litres of HCl into water, but it will not be acidic because uhhh it is neutral.
No one is injecting large amounts of CO2 into ocean water.
Pre-industrial carbon content of oceans was 27 ppm. In contrast sodium chloride in oceans, today is, like, 20,000 ppm. If we incinerated all the fossil fuel on earth, and if all the CO2 made by burning it dissolved into oceans, the carbon content would increase to 31 ppm. No big deal. You must study science if you want to debate science with me.
What are your science qualifications?
What’s your scientific explanation for the mass bleaching of the corals? Too many liberal tears in the ocean?
This isn't about my science qualifications. It about "Wokes" posting climate scare stories here and expecting us to swallow their myths, propaganda, and misrepresentations. Dressing their end-of-the world doom up in sciency language and expecting they can bluff, shame, BS and bully people into accepting whatever they say.
Jesus. We are fecked, aren't we?
You didn't actually answer my question. Does that mean you don't have any science qualifications? I'm just asking, since you said that people shouldn't discuss science with you unless they have studied science, and I can only assume that means you've done so yourself.
Citizen science man to the rescue
So, Mark, are you arguing that the scientific community in general are exaggerating the velocity, severity and extent of man made climate change? There will not be many of this forum (although I bet there are some) with sufficient scientific clout to argue the minutia of each aspect of this issue. Are you of a scientific background and you disagree with your peers broad consensus? If so, I'd genuinely be interested in hearing why.
From what I've read and seen the data seems pretty close to irrefutable, but I cannot claim to be an expert in any relevant field. I'd be interested to see an educated position that disagrees with the consensus sufficiently to invalidate the theory (and, as it seems is the position, it is seen to be a theory and not a hypothesis).
From what I've read and seen the data seems pretty close to irrefutable, but I cannot claim to be an expert in any relevant field. I'd be interested to see an educated position that disagrees with the consensus sufficiently to invalidate the theory (and, as it seems is the position, it is seen to be a theory and not a hypothesis).
Indeed. And those Algae are expelled and die if the water temperature gets too high. Which is bad because the coral then asphyxiate. Which is a consequence of rising sea temperatures. Which is a product of climate change. I assume that's not controversial.
There are 60 recorded episodes of coral bleaching since 1979. It's claimed, at Wikipedia, that "Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming is the leading cause of coral bleaching".
How likely is that? That's a senseless statement because oceans are, at most, a few tenths of a degree warmer now than in the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. The average ocean temperature today is far lower than in the past (by as much as 16C). Why didn't corals all die off 55 million years ago?, when it was up to 16C warmer, on average than today. Or die off a few ten thousand years ago when oceans were about 6C colder than now?
During the deep glaciations, lasting most of the last 2.45 million years of Ice Age, ocean temperatures fell about 6C below today's. In the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, around 55 million years ago, a warm period lasted for about 200,000 years when average global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. When that began, temperatures were 8C warmer than now. So we're looking at peak warming 55 million years ago vs worst of the last glaciation. It shows average ocean temperature differences of 19 to 22 C warmer (at peak Eocene) than during the worst glaciation during the current Ice Age. Would you have me believe that massive temperature swings do not make corals extinct, but tiny swings less than a tenth of a degree do?
Problem with climate scare stories and propaganda is the science is never explained.
this is both the funniest post on the caf and the exact reason humanity is sprinting to extinction
Just to clarify.
Climate change has been happening throughout the history of our planet.
What we are talking about as part of this issue is Man Made Climate Change.
If any sane person really thinks that all of the damage that 7 billion humans are collectively doing to this small planet is not contributing to the rate of climate change then I am sorry for you.
All of the denying and burying your heads in the sand isn't going to alter the rise in global temperature or the melting of the polar ice.
It is happening. Just open your eyes and open your minds to the facts.
It is the truth - inconvenient as it is.
Climate change has been happening throughout the history of our planet.
What we are talking about as part of this issue is Man Made Climate Change.
If any sane person really thinks that all of the damage that 7 billion humans are collectively doing to this small planet is not contributing to the rate of climate change then I am sorry for you.
All of the denying and burying your heads in the sand isn't going to alter the rise in global temperature or the melting of the polar ice.
It is happening. Just open your eyes and open your minds to the facts.
It is the truth - inconvenient as it is.
Can't Believe It's Not Tagline.
What you seem not to grasp is the enormous significance that comes with the speed of the change. I'm also fairly sure that answers the question of your science qualifications, since you're so hesitant to answer that question. You're very good at reproducing information, I'm just not convinced you understand much of it.
Mate mate mate, I'm still trying to take in what you said.
The answer is that coral may adapt faster than we previously expected to sea temperature changes.
https://www.openchannels.org/sites/...coral_bleaching_over_the_past_two_decades.pdf
So ummmmmm.......
The speed of change in weather out does climate change hundreds of times over. Why don't weather changes make corals extinct?
are you really so fecking stupid that you don't understand the difference between temperatures changing suddenly over decades to temperatures changing over thousands and millions of years?
and also stupid enough to talk about the ice age, responsible for one of the mass extinction events, as a reason not to care about temperature?
holy shit dude
Without even reading up on it, I would suggest because certain coral have a selective advantage in certain temperature ranges and others do not thereby some species die and others thrive. Therefore previous climate changes will have killed off species or given them a platform to survive. Just like every other group of creatures. Clearly they are adaptive or they wouldn't have survived 530 odd million years. One assumes the various species that make up tropical reefs are susceptible to temperature rises, and that rapid temperature rises consistently over relatively short periods stop the coral from having time to recover from the bleaching (which I guess also always occurred to these species but less frequently) nor time to evolve.
So, I don't think you need to believe that "massive temperature swings do not make corals extinct, but tiny swings less than a tenth of a degree do?". You'd need to believe that "certain species of coral are susceptible to relatively modest temperature changes that cause bleaching and if these temperature fluctuations occur regularly then those species of coral will fail to recover and will die". Of course, I'm just hypothesising based on my limited knowledge, but that's generally how evolution works isn't it?
All the lefties live on the coastlines.
Flood the Libs. Own the Libs.
Flood the Libs. Own the Libs.
Unconvincing. You told me I'm causing corals to go extinct. Now you say "Wait a minute on that, we're not sure". Once you use hyperbolē to support your argument, and the other sees through it you've lost all credibility, forever.
Point of order, I didn't tell you anything. See that name in the box on the left? Not the one you've been arguing with.
Once you say fish breath water, do you also lose credibility, forever?
that's not what he or the article said
corals are going extinct, several have in your lifetime
from that study:
it's the same story as the rest of biological life - a lot of them will die and go extinct and some of them won't. this is not a good thing, biodiversity is important for all life and we've already caused enough damage that it will take millions of years for the world to be as diverse as it was just a few hundred years ago
What?! Do I really need to start explaining the difference between weather and climate?
best of starting with the difference between liquids and gasses
If you see this as a sixth form debating class we'll get nowhere and everyone else would have stopped talking to you with your series of error strewn posts above. I thought perhaps you had a valid argument to make.
It seems not. Science is not, ever, absolute. But it trends in a generally correct direction. The evidence that the globe is warming is irrefutable. The probability that it is man made is extremely high. The exact adaption and extinction rates of coral species is not definitively known, but we can state with certainty coral bleaching is increasing both in frequency and severity. Can you not see that doesn't undermine the credibility of the scientific conclusions, especially when you're debating with a layman on a football subforum?
The general public often want a quick yes/no answer and a simple explanation. Also, its not always possible to explain things, let alone explain them to a layman and anyway, if everything was understood, there would be no reason to do any research! As a result, I don't believe there is anything wrong with news articles which just present the facts and don't bother trying to give a full explanation.
nah, the main problem is anti intellectual propaganda that convinces stupid people that fish breathe water
for all "we're screwed" articles that are 100% on point and every groundbreaking Attenborough documentary there's billions of propaganda dollars from oil companies and nation states that have decided making a buck is more important that the rest of living things
Indeed, it's often a good thing as objectivity is important, especially regarding this subject which is politically charged. However, I do think we need proper communicators who understand this subject prominently discussing this matter everywhere to combat the deliberate misinformation being spread. This is an inherently difficult and complex matter but it is also highly important. People need to be informed with the facts presented as simply as they possibly can be, but no simpler to paraphrase that Einstein bloke.
climate change is already easily demonstrable to the layman and it's been done a hundred thousand times, that's not a problem, the problem is these fecking vultures who are plundering the planet and destroying its resources so they can buy a third megayacht