Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 54516 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36465 Jun 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Ocean acidification is the reason, in addition to climate change, for reducing global CO2 emissions.
Regrets only that deniers like you are piddling away facts.
ask a scientist if they've ruled out other drivers of pH fluctuations. If so, why!?!?
Acidification in itself is misleading. The oceans are still very basic. In fact a lower pH is easier on marine life.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-oce...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36466 Jun 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>
Acidification in itself is misleading. The oceans are still very basic. In fact a lower pH is easier on marine life.
Alas, it's not up to science deniers like you to object to science terms.

Ocean acidification is a specific term. You can't kill it by denial.

It's incorrect that "a lower pH is easier on marine life." Do you care to defend your claim?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#36467 Jun 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Alas, it's not up to science deniers like you to object to science terms.
Ocean acidification is a specific term. You can't kill it by denial.
It's incorrect that "a lower pH is easier on marine life." Do you care to defend your claim?
But you can confuse it, like 'coral bleaching' and household bleach. Denialists with so little grasp on even simple terms can reach around just about any fact.. One has to wonder if he misread 'bletch' in one of his graphic novels for 'bleech'..

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36468 Jun 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>ask a scientist if they've ruled out other drivers of pH fluctuations. If so, why!?!?
Acidification in itself is misleading. The oceans are still very basic. In fact a lower pH is easier on marine life.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-oce...
What an attempt at distorting the facts. If the ocean is getting less alkaline then it is getting more acidic. Science 101, pops.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36469 Jun 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Alas, it's not up to science deniers like you to object to science terms.
Ocean acidification is a specific term. You can't kill it by denial.
It's incorrect that "a lower pH is easier on marine life." Do you care to defend your claim?
yes, it is a specific term and one that is misused in the vernacular of 'climate change.'
Water in an alkaline state, which is the case for seawater (7.8-8.4 for the most part), that has a drop in ph level is said to become more neutral pr less basic. Water doesn't become acidified until pH drops below 7. It sounds frightening....so the alarmists misuse the term for the scare factor.
With many ocean readings with pH levels over 8.6 it worries me that a spike up to 9 is a concern. A reading that high would destroy many organisms and aquatic animals. High alkalinity is just as dangerous as acidity. Anyone knows that....well almost anyone. But to your question....the ammonia toxicity is 10 higher in water that has a pH of 8.4 than a pH of 7.4, for example. Less toxicity equals less stress on marine life. That's a fact you can't deny now that you were taught a few facts.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36470 Jun 14, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
But you can confuse it, like 'coral bleaching' and household bleach. Denialists with so little grasp on even simple terms can reach around just about any fact.. One has to wonder if he misread 'bletch' in one of his graphic novels for 'bleech'..
May be you can, but I never never have confused matters of pH since elementary school.

I did see b_gone did all that confusion with pH of 13 etc. It also spelled bleach as "bleech," lol, in a clever cover up, perhaps.

Did you reply to it instead of me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36471 Jun 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>none of them agree with your conclusions either. granted, many may say "could", "might" "possibly" yadayada....but they don't know anything yet. they're looking at one driver out of many. pseudoscientists run with factoids to conclude what they want to 'discover'.
get it?
I have formed no conclusions for them to agree with. I, however am intelligent enough to understand that climate scientists have studied the data and find that CO2 is one of the drivers of the climate. They know a whole lot more than I and I am more likely to follow their conclusions than some radical RW denier blog.

Science is not absolute. It is always open to further clarification. Pseudoscience seems to be your forte. You reject the finding of scientists and hang your hat upon whatever denier blog that suits you.

You concluded that scientists follow only one driver of the climate. Where did you obtain that misconception?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36472 Jun 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have formed no conclusions for them to agree with. I, however am intelligent enough to understand that climate scientists have studied the data and find that CO2 is one of the drivers of the climate. They know a whole lot more than I and I am more likely to follow their conclusions than some radical RW denier blog.
Science is not absolute. It is always open to further clarification. Pseudoscience seems to be your forte. You reject the finding of scientists and hang your hat upon whatever denier blog that suits you.
You concluded that scientists follow only one driver of the climate. Where did you obtain that misconception?
did you just call me a radical right wing denier?!?! Lol
There is no scientific consensus as the pseudoscientific activists want you to believe.
I don't deny the scientific studies. They offer good information, but nothing has been determined that climate is doing anything aside from what it always has... Change. Sure, people can make connections to co2 just as they can make connections to someone like me who actually is doing what the real scientist are doing......gathering more facts! Because right now we just don't know. Because we don't know we can start legislating "remedies". Don't follow the lemmings!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36473 Jun 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>yes, it is a specific term and one that is misused in the vernacular of 'climate change.'
Water in an alkaline state, which is the case for seawater (7.8-8.4 for the most part), that has a drop in ph level is said to become more neutral pr less basic. Water doesn't become acidified until pH drops below 7. It sounds frightening....so the alarmists misuse the term for the scare factor.
With many ocean readings with pH levels over 8.6 it worries me that a spike up to 9 is a concern. A reading that high would destroy many organisms and aquatic animals. High alkalinity is just as dangerous as acidity. Anyone knows that....well almost anyone. But to your question....the ammonia toxicity is 10 higher in water that has a pH of 8.4 than a pH of 7.4, for example. Less toxicity equals less stress on marine life. That's a fact you can't deny now that you were taught a few facts.
First paragraph: No, we don't say more neutral. Neutral by definition is pH=7. Read my previous replies.

Second paragraph: Nonsense makes no sense to me. Try it again. Be relevant, please.

FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

Also;

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36474 Jun 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:
..
You concluded that scientists follow only one driver of the climate. Where did you obtain that misconception?
It was their denier training that loaded them with misconceptions about science and scientists.

Deniers come in a mold. LOL.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36475 Jun 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>yes, it is a specific term and one that is misused in the vernacular of 'climate change.'
Water in an alkaline state, which is the case for seawater (7.8-8.4 for the most part), that has a drop in ph level is said to become more neutral pr less basic. Water doesn't become acidified until pH drops below 7. It sounds frightening....so the alarmists misuse the term for the scare factor.
With many ocean readings with pH levels over 8.6 it worries me that a spike up to 9 is a concern. A reading that high would destroy many organisms and aquatic animals. High alkalinity is just as dangerous as acidity. Anyone knows that....well almost anyone. But to your question....the ammonia toxicity is 10 higher in water that has a pH of 8.4 than a pH of 7.4, for example. Less toxicity equals less stress on marine life. That's a fact you can't deny now that you were taught a few facts.
Anyone can look up the definition of acids and bases. You will find that pure water is neutral with an equal number of hydronium ions (H+) and hydroxyl ions (OH-). When the number of H+ and OH- ions are equal the solution is neutral and is defined an having a pH of 7. pH =-log[H+],[H+]= hydrogen ion concentration. If the solution gains H+ ions, it becomes more acidic. If it gains OH- ions it becomes more alkaline. Of course it is not called an acid solution until the pH drops below 7 nor an alkaline solution until it increases above 7. However any time the hydronium ion concentration increases, the solution is said to become more acidic. It may still be an alkaline solution but it is more acidic or if you wish less basic. Try to understand this simple concept. It is science 101.

The ocean has maintained a very narrow pH range for tens of thousands of years. Any move from this near constant range spells catastrophic changes in the ocean ecosystem. Life is able to adjust to slow changes, but organisms are unable to adjust to abrupt changes such as seem to be occurring in the ocean pH today. One apparent change is the dissolving of calcium carbonates by lowering the pH, or if you wish, a less alkaline solution.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36476 Jun 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>did you just call me a radical right wing denier?!?! Lol
There is no scientific consensus as the pseudoscientific activists want you to believe.
I don't deny the scientific studies. They offer good information, but nothing has been determined that climate is doing anything aside from what it always has... Change. Sure, people can make connections to co2 just as they can make connections to someone like me who actually is doing what the real scientist are doing......gathering more facts! Because right now we just don't know. Because we don't know we can start legislating "remedies". Don't follow the lemmings!
Oh, do you have a blog?

I see, you deny the science that has determined that CO2 absorbs in discrete IR wavelengths. You deny the science that concludes that CO2 is instrumental in making our planet warmer than it would be otherwise. You deny that the man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. You deny that the ocean is absorbing more CO2 because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. You deny that the ocean is becoming more acedic (less basic in your understanding). You deny, deny, deny, deny. Why? What do you really base your denial upon? Show me the hard evidence that shows the scientists wrong. Good solid science, nor some rdical RW denier blog but real science. If you cannot, you are just a waste of time.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36477 Jun 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>First paragraph: No, we don't say more neutral. Neutral by definition is pH=7.
yes, 7 is pH neutral. Water isn't acidic unless below 7. The oceans are more basic. They aren't acidifying! Lol
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#36478 Jun 14, 2013
No, pH is not neutral. The solution whose pH is 7 is neutral by definition. Read Patriot's post also.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#36479 Jun 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>yes, 7 is pH neutral. Water isn't acidic unless below 7. The oceans are more basic. They aren't acidifying! Lol
You really are a waste of time....

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36480 Jun 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have formed no conclusions for them to agree with. I, however am intelligent enough to understand that climate scientists have studied the data and find that CO2 is one of the drivers of the climate. They know a whole lot more than I and I am more likely to follow their conclusions than some radical RW denier blog.
..........
Correct, and when the President make up his mind on causes of climate change do you really think he weighs up that decision on the basis of information from NASA and other leading agencies around the world or some deniers blog with crap on volcanoes and a temperature graph from their weather station mounted on the garage roof.

For the 5% of the science who oppose the other 95% who agree man has shifted the balance in nature. It also happens that 90% of them come from the USA, so go figure. Is it a culture or is it science.
Sandy

Minneapolis, MN

#36481 Jun 14, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>

There is no 'man made CO2'. God created all the carbon and oxygen (though he may have used supernovas to do it..) There is anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and this is a problem due to the buildup in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect increasing the global average surface temperature.
You might try some of that science, but first...
Yes, CO2 is pollution and unnecessary for life on Earth... we have heard this claim many times. There was no reason or logic to back up your pronouncements until now!

Can anyone define the following example of irrational reasoning used to debate a point of argument?

"There is no 'man made CO2'. God created all the carbon and oxygen ..."

"You might try some of that science, but first.."
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#36482 Jun 14, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The solution is simple, every time anyone, anywhere in the world goes fishing they throw a bucket of lime into the water. Problem solved!. All the coral reefs will come back to life, the fish start breeding again and we all live happily ever after.
This will be on par with most of the other denier hand book solutions to a problem when you are not having a problem.
And of course, this will be voluntary, because we wouldn't want the GOVERNMENT to be mandating that we HAVE to throw (through?) a bucket of lime. They might even mandate that everyone has to go fishing!

If the government mandated the throwing of lime-buckets and 10-pound test lines, that would be a tax.
Unless the government offered a SUBSIDY to purchase the lime. Lime producers would like that, they would produce more and that would produce PROFIT. They would bribe their Congressperson to make sure the subsidy was as beneficial as possible to their industry. Bucket manufacturers might see an initial bump up in sales but no long term increase. But the same thing would happen if the government mandated fishing and subsidized it. Sporting goods manufacturers and stores would love it. Even Mom and Pop country stores would benefit from bait sales. Everyone would be happy!

But first, everyone would have to volunteer. When's that ever happened? They would have to realize there was a problem. When's that ever happened? And when has volunteering ever made a PROFIT?

Looks like more government is the best solution, after all!

Tongue firmly in cheek.
Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#36483 Jun 14, 2013
Antarctic ice melting at highest rate in past 1,000 years:

http://www.voanews.com/content/warm-ocean-acc...
litesong

Everett, WA

#36484 Jun 14, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
Antarctic ice melting at highest rate in past 1,000 years:
http://www.voanews.com/content/warm-ocean-acc...
Well.......... that explains..........
The recently collapsed Wilkens Ice Shelf was estimated 10,000 years old.
The recently collapsed Larsen B Ice Shelf was estimated 12.000 years old.

Might as well throw this into the mix also:
In the Arctic the recently collapsed Ellesmere Island Ward Hunt Ice Shelf was estimated 4500 years old.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min John Galt 1,276,341
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 6 min boundary painter 1,721
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 min boundary painter 6,422
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 9 min boundary painter 8,134
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 15 min boundary painter 466
abby8-31-15 17 min boundary painter 6
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 23 min Jacques Ottawa 196,895
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages