Ocean acidifcation .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Per usual, no citation

Here's a "citation" for you.



Climate change affects horseshoe crab numbers

Researchers from the University of Gothenburg reveal how sensitive horseshoe crab populations are to natural climate change in a study recently published in the scientific journal Molecular Ecology.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1004101330.htm


If that doesn't make even you alarmist's cringe, then God help us all.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

how many centuries have those corals been growing in the reduced ph that is naturally there where the river enters the ocean?

They seem to be doing just fine storms and all .

If you had read and understood the article you would have noted that some coral species do tolerate lower pH levels better than other species. A big part of this discussion is NOT that the biosphere can't adapt to different conditions (it can), but that the change is happening so rapidly that many creatures cannot adapt fast enough. When that has happened in the past, even at much slower rates of change than what is currently happening, we call that an extinction event.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

If you had read and understood the article you would have noted that some coral species do tolerate lower pH levels better than other species. A big part of this discussion is NOT that the biosphere can't adapt to different conditions (it can), but that the change is happening so rapidly that many creatures cannot adapt fast enough. When that has happened in the past, even at much slower rates of change than what is currently happening, we call that an extinction event.

We keep hearing you guys parrot this "creatures can't adapt fast enough" trope. Where's the evidence for this?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

If you had read and understood the article you would have noted that some coral species do tolerate lower pH levels better than other species. A big part of this discussion is NOT that the biosphere can't adapt to different conditions (it can), but that the change is happening so rapidly that many creatures cannot adapt fast enough. When that has happened in the past, even at much slower rates of change than what is currently happening, we call that an extinction event.

except its not changing .

The amount of change claimed is well within 1) natural seasonal variability and 2) well within the margins of error for the study that cost millions that could have been much better spent actually doing something that matters to humanity like enforcement of the laws concerning shark finning.

Or I don't know how about cleaning the debris from natural disasters that make their way into the various costal areas on the planet.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Lamp post statistics. I assume you are aware of the connotation.

If all one correlates are temperature and CO2 variation, the result is meaningless. The climate and the variabilities which affect it is far more complex than the alarmists want you to think. Or more correctly stated, want to prevent you from thinking.

Somebody throws a pretty, multi-colored graphical representation on some obscure web forum as proof of their perception completely devoid of any context, basis, content or methods and others who know virtually nothing about the issue are supposed to be convinced - are people so easily mislead? (Rhetorical question).

This ain't MIT and I didn't want to be typing all day. Let me state in a more responsible way:most of us appreciate that there has been considerable effort, including multiple sources of data, and several rounds of modelling, testing the models, and refining. They've presented a pretty good case for AGW which fingers the CO2 we've added.


If someone is going to claim that yes there is warming but no, there is another significant source of warming that puts the AGW conclusion in doubt... you bloody well better be able to point to that source and show its contribution.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This ain't MIT and I didn't want to be typing all day. Let me state in a more responsible way:most of us appreciate that there has been considerable effort, including multiple sources of data, and several rounds of modelling, testing the models, and refining. They've presented a pretty good case for AGW which fingers the CO2 we've added.


If someone is going to claim that yes there is warming but no, there is another significant source of warming that puts the AGW conclusion in doubt... you bloody well better be able to point to that source and show its contribution.

Hmmmmm... reminds me of a question I asked in a recent similar thread.

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

We keep hearing you guys parrot this "creatures can't adapt fast enough" trope. Where's the evidence for this?

Dinosaurs!

I think it's pretty damn apparent the earth's climate is changing. Here are some facts to chew on....

The earth's climate has been in a constant state of flux since the origin of the planet.

There are more than 250 folktales of massive flooding that wiped out civilizations and geological evidence the water levels 20,000 years ago was much much higher than today.

Volcanic islands (notably Pacific Islands) naturally subside / erode leaving a coral atoll.

Humankind has contributed some amount of pollution that has impacted the environment.

Humankind has also made massive efforts to control pollution.

Human's are idiots if they think they can change the earth's climate.

Instead we should try to become good stewards of the planet and adapt with natural changes.

[thinwater]

This is like discussing evolution with a young earth creationist. Show them a fossil and they explain that it was put there 7000 years ago, just for fun I guess.


Some minds must be abandon to the ossification that possesses them.


----


I wonder what the world would be like if we hadn't started turning the train in the 60s. Really think that through. It cost money and it was worth it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This ain't MIT and I didn't want to be typing all day. Let me state in a more responsible way:most of us appreciate that there has been considerable effort, including multiple sources of data, and several rounds of modelling, testing the models, and refining. They've presented a pretty good case for AGW which fingers the CO2 we've added.


If someone is going to claim that yes there is warming but no, there is another significant source of warming that puts the AGW conclusion in doubt... you bloody well better be able to point to that source and show its contribution.

90% of the earths climate is due to the sun the other 10% is due to galactic cosmic rays . Prove me wrong
And yes that includes the percentages of carbonic acid in the oceans.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

Dinosaurs!

I think it's pretty damn apparent the earth's climate is changing. Here are some facts to chew on....

The earth's climate has been in a constant state of flux since the origin of the planet.

There are more than 250 folktales of massive flooding that wiped out civilizations and geological evidence the water levels 20,000 years ago was much much higher than today.

Volcanic islands (notably Pacific Islands) naturally subside / erode leaving a coral atoll.

Humankind has contributed some amount of pollution that has impacted the environment.

Humankind has also made massive efforts to control pollution.

Human's are idiots if they think they can change the earth's climate.

Instead we should try to become good stewards of the planet and adapt with natural changes.

Actually, although greatly hastened by an asteroid, the extinction of the dinosaurs was, in fact, a long time coming - as in millions of years - with a very plausible reason by association being the breakup of the super continent Pangea changing conditions on land and oceans.


I should add, that the extinction of the dinosaurs is also a perspective. To me, I believe they evolved into birds and are just as species diverse today, if not more so, as they were back "then".

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

We keep hearing you guys parrot this "creatures can't adapt fast enough" trope. Where's the evidence for this?

Unlike you, I can back my claims with scientific studies. Just a few posts back I tried to draw your attention to a recent study comparing past extinction events to what is going on now. Here it is again:

Breaching a “carbon threshold” could lead to mass extinction

And here is a statement from the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report:

A large fraction of both terrestrial and freshwater species faces increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors, such as habitat modification, over-exploitation, pollution, and invasive species (high confidence). Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing with both magnitude and rate of climate change. Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of climate change (i.e., RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) during the 21st century (medium confidence). Lower rates of change (i.e., RCP2.6) will pose fewer problems.
— IPCC, 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinc...global_warming

This Wikipedia article also documents other extinction studies.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Unlike you, I can back my claims with scientific studies. Just a few posts back I tried to draw your attention to a recent study comparing past extinction events to what is going on now. Here it is again:

Breaching a “carbon threshold” could lead to mass extinction

And here is a statement from the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinc...global_warming

This Wikipedia article also documents other extinction studies.

*** Squawk ***

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

*** Squawk ***

thank you two that magic COULD word that covers them when it goes down the drain as another failed prediction.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

*** Squawk ***

If you were either a scientist or a responsible journalist you would know that it is proper to not make absolute claims. You are being intellectually dishonest to make more of their proper use of terminology than is warranted.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Unlike you, I can back my claims with scientific studies. Just a few posts back I tried to draw your attention to a recent study comparing past extinction events to what is going on now. Here it is again:

Breaching a “carbon threshold” could lead to mass extinction

And here is a statement from the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinc...global_warming

This Wikipedia article also documents other extinction studies.

I really love this part

Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing with both magnitude and rate of climate change

Which is a grouping of climate models that actual real world measurements have proven the spaghetti models are wrong and estimate high by at a minimum a factor of 5 .