Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yep, SkepticalScience at its best

The site where it doesn't matter if the ocean is alkaline it is still acid and 3 whole species of marine life are maybe, possibly, might be at risk if we don't curb our evil ways?

I can sure see why they put the "skeptical" in the name

But hey, at least you can sign up for a free alarmist course.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The site where it doesn't matter if the ocean is alkaline it is still acid

Anyone who doesn't understand that making an alkaline solution less alkaline is correctly called 'acidification' is probably not equipped to discuss ocean chemistry.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyone who doesn't understand that making an alkaline solution less alkaline is correctly called 'acidification' is probably not equipped to discuss ocean chemistry.

Au contraire.This is basic chemistry at swimming pool maintenance grade. I guess "reduced alkilinity", "decreasing alkilinity toward pH neutral" and "moving towards an optimal pH balance" isn't scary enough. for some folks.

Edit: Case in point. The following alarmist propaganda courtesy of skepticalscience goes out of its way to imply that the ocean is turning acidic. Classic scare tactic.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...on+documentary

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyone who doesn't understand that making an alkaline solution less alkaline is correctly called 'acidification' is probably not equipped to discuss ocean chemistry.

Actually, that's called "neutralisation". Acidification is reducing the pH to less than 7.

"Acidify
acid·i·fiedacid·i·fy·ing

transitive verb
1: to make acid
2: to convert into an acid"

Just another example of alarmist abuse of language to make things seem more scary.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

Actually, that's called "neutralisation". Acidification is reducing the pH to less than 7.

"Acidify
acid·i·fiedacid·i·fy·ing

transitive verb
1: to make acid
2: to convert into an acid"

Just another example of alarmist abuse of language to make things seem more scary.

I knew there would be a single non-scary word to describe it!

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Agreed. I fear, and observe, the number of "superstitiously committed naturopaths" are on the rise. It seems that fear and ignorance are now main drivers of our politics and our public discourse.



I agree with you MF that there are many more limits that we face than simple CO2 concentrations. And some are more immediately threatening. Resource depletion, local ecosystem destruction, pollution, flooding and drought for example. But the one thing about rapid climate change is that it exacerbates or underlies many of these other challenges.

Speaking of drought, I've been travelling through California, Nevada and Arizona these last few months, and the impacts of drought are ever-present. What's really jarring on the landscape, however, are the rectangular splashes of cultivated green that I've come across as we travel through some of the most desiccated and parched desert landscapes that I've ever seen. Orchards are planted in dust, but are lush and vibrant. Open irrigation channels carry water hundreds of km so we can grow oranges and lemons in a land that is suited for prickly pear cactus or joshua trees. Los Vegas is a surreal display of our power, and our folly.

It can do for sure, but it is always cast in a negative light, which strikes me as suspicious. Change in itself is neutral. Some benefits, some debits. For example, the Sahara is actually predicted to be greening, alleviating the droughts which have stricken the populations of North Africa for many generations. This effect is already being seen.

As to the suggestion by Sail Oar that the change taking place is at an unprecedented rate which is beyond evolutionary adaptive capacity: I call BS. We are in an interglacial period, and a few thousand years ago there were glaciers covering Manhattan and most of Northern Europe… Glaciation and deglaciations are typically very rapid indeed. Species have adapted. Yes, some will be wiped out, but pretending we can prevent all change to the environment and climate is absurd. There will be winners and losers, as per usual. However if we keep hoovering up the oceans biomass with advanced technologies, there really will only be losers. What we have to do is limit our direct impact upon the world through normal and conventional means… I agree that we should diversify in terms of our energy use, and I applaud our awareness of our modulation of atmospheric composition, but it is far from the most pressing problem we currently face!

As to the increasing water shortages etc in the SW US, it is pretty clear to me that the predominant reason for this is exactly what you have indicated: human water use and wastage. The Colorado river is a prime example. And this is exactly what I have been suggesting: blaming it on climate change is actually a great cover for the more obvious and direct damage we are doing, ourselves.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Actually, that's called "neutralisation".

In neutralization, you stop at balance. Are you telling me your acidification actually knows how to stop itself?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

There ya go

And before everyone else melts down, we're just having a little fun here. Lets face it, no one is going to change their mind on anything. Doesn't really matter. The planet's ecosystem doesn't care what we think.

Happily, I believe you are mistaken. This type of debate between us non-experts on non-scientific forums has been going on for a decade or more. During that time I've seen a marked drop in both the number of intellectually honest skeptics, as well as the number of mindlessly argumentative deniers. This change in numbers is also reflected in national polls in the US done by professional polling agencies. I'm also seeing changes in the rhetoric by Evangelical/Fundamentalist religious leaders, who I think were often instrumental in leading their 'flocks' down misguided paths. It is because of the 'progress' that I've seen in these discussions that has persuaded me not to give up presenting the scientific side of the argument.

As others have said, Mike, you have a remarkable talent for presenting challenging points of view in a very gracious manner. Props to you.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

As to the suggestion by Sail Oar that the change taking place is at an unprecedented rate which is beyond evolutionary adaptive capacity: I call BS. We are in an interglacial period, and a few thousand years ago there were glaciers covering Manhattan and most of Northern Europe… Glaciation and deglaciations are typically very rapid indeed. Species have adapted.

Forget about glaciations/de-glaciations. They can take quite a while because of the massive amounts of latent heat involved in converting ice to water and vice versa.

Just look at Dansgaard–Oeschger events if you want to see examples of rapid climate change.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In neutralization, you stop at balance. Are you telling me your acidification actually knows how to stop itself?

Are you telling us that you believe that ocean neutralisation is going to go as far as a pH 7 and then continue as acidification? Do you have the maths/physics to show that as remotely possible? Or even a model that suggests that it is possible? You've got to be joking!

[SausalitoDave]

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

worth a look.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Are you telling us that you believe that ocean neutralisation is going to go as far as a pH 7 and then continue as acidification? Do you have the maths/physics to show that as remotely possible? Or even a model that suggests that it is possible? You've got to be joking!

You're the one falling all over yourself to redefine what's happening to the oceans. "Neutralization" . Like there was something wrong with it before. Maybe you should help the denier PR effort. "Global comforting"? Earth is just giving us a nice warm hug.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Happily, I believe you are mistaken. This type of debate between us non-experts on non-scientific forums has been going on for a decade or more. During that time I've seen a marked drop in both the number of intellectually honest skeptics, as well as the number of mindlessly argumentative deniers. This change in numbers is also reflected in national polls in the US done by professional polling agencies.

Strange, perception is everything.

I'm seeing an ever increasing number of former alarmists coming to their senses and realising what a con it all is.

This includes a growing number of scientists and even environmentalist who "become" sceptical at the end of their careers when they no longer have to tow the party line.


And given the relentless propaganda that the US has been subjected to over the last few years, I'm surprised that there are as many doubters as the polls indicate amongst the general public, who pay little attention to anything more than the TV news headlines ,

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're the one falling all over yourself to redefine what's happening to the oceans. "Neutralization" . Like there was something wrong with it before. Maybe you should help the denier PR effort. "Global comforting"? Earth is just giving us a nice warm hug.

I take that as a No, then.

And yes, "neutralisation". It's basic high school chemistry:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...asesrev3.shtml

Neutralisation

When an alkali is added to an acid the pH of the mixture rises. This is because the alkali reacts with the acid to form neutral products. The reverse situation also happens too: when an acid is added to an alkali the pH of the mixture falls. This is because the acid reacts with the alkali to form neutral products.
A reaction in which acidity or alkalinity is removed is called neutralisation.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Happily, I believe you are mistaken. This type of debate between us non-experts on non-scientific forums has been going on for a decade or more. During that time I've seen a marked drop in both the number of intellectually honest skeptics, as well as the number of mindlessly argumentative deniers. This change in numbers is also reflected in national polls in the US done by professional polling agencies. I'm also seeing changes in the rhetoric by Evangelical/Fundamentalist religious leaders, who I think were often instrumental in leading their 'flocks' down misguided paths. It is because of the 'progress' that I've seen in these discussions that has persuaded me not to give up presenting the scientific side of the argument.

As others have said, Mike, you have a remarkable talent for presenting challenging points of view in a very gracious manner. Props to you.

Now we are 100 percent on the same page. If only those statistics about the deniers of evolution would budge a wee bit faster, eh? Ride 'em dinosaur! Now about that ark...