Rocky Road Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate not seen in last 300 million years In a new study marine scientists have warn that the rate of ocean acidification presently occurring is unprecedented in the last 300 million years. This is due to dissolving carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, much of which human activity has contributed over the last 200 years through the use of fossil fuels. The extent and rate of acidification enhances the prospect for a mass marine extinction event this century. Research in paleoclimatology and oceanography has revealed that anthropogenic climate change is driving Ocean Acidification threatening marine ecosystems. Ocean acidification has been called the 'evil twin' of climate change with marine scientists warning climate negotiators in Durban of the necessity for climate mitigation action in December 2011, along with a statement on the IUCN website urging action to cut carbon emissions. New research in November 2011 from Australia's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre showed the Southern ocean is warming and freshening. Marine scientists warn ocean acidification is already impacting marine food webs which will lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening protein supply and food security for millions of people. The Northwest Oyster Die-off from 2006-2008 in the USA highlights the growing impact on commercial fisheries. The United Nations Environment Program estimates that 3 billion people use fish protein in their diet, with one billion people dependent on subsistence fishing as a primary food source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 How long before someone says "the sun did it!"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 So much bad news. Probably it's too late now to do anything, if we ever really could. Might as well party on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 I never knew that there were scientists 300 million years ago. Personaly I am very cautious about scientific claims going back in time more than a few thousand years ago. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 I never knew that there were scientists 300 million years ago. Personaly I am very cautious about scientific claims going back in time more than a few thousand years ago. WWWTT Wow, seriously? You do know that they can get water samples from different time periods right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Wow, seriously? You do know that they can get water samples from different time periods right? And how do they "date" those water samples? This should be good,I'm all freekin ears! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 And how do they "date" those water samples? Have you heard of carbon dating ? Do you trust science ? Do you trust your doctor ? Do you make sure to at least have an annual visit with your astrologist ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Have you heard of carbon dating ? Do you trust science ? Do you trust your doctor ? Do you make sure to at least have an annual visit with your astrologist ? Ok I'm going to assume that carbon dating requires carbon,or specifically the decomposition of a carbon based life form such as plant or animal(organic). So where in H2O is organic forms of C? Theres a difference between trust and blind faith. Do you trust what politicians tell you? Do you sincerely believe that there is a complete disconect between the scientific communty(dependant on government funding) and politics? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Ok I'm going to assume that carbon dating requires carbon,or specifically the decomposition of a carbon based life form such as plant or animal(organic). No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Theres a difference between trust and blind faith.Do you trust what politicians tell you? Somewhat. I don't have blind faith in them, but I also don't have time to verify every fact with first-hand evidence. Do you sincerely believe that there is a complete disconect between the scientific communty(dependant on government funding) and politics? Don't forget business too. As for politics, it's actually a pretty difficult sell to restructure how the energy supply chain works, as we have seen. Politicians are likely more interested in easy and quick fixes that will get them votes, and re-election without so much strife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) Do you trust science?Yes. But I don't trust scientific institutions. There is a huge difference.Do you trust your doctor ?I usually Google anything my doctor tells me and go back with questions if necessary. Trust but verify.Do you make sure to at least have an annual visit with your astrologist ?I do not see much difference between a paleo-climatologist and astrologist. Both look for patterns in what is essentially random data and attempt to draw conclusions.How about this: do you have any evidence that the claims of paleo-climatologists are any more accurate than the claims of astrologists? I am asking for evidence not blind assertions of faith. Edited April 1, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Why did you say no? The site you provided backs up what I said! Radiocarbon dating(or something like that) works upon the decomposition of organic material that is carbon based.And as a side note this does have a limited accuracy and I have heard of past procedures bein wildly inacurate.But I believe this method has bein refined and is somewhat more accurate.Aswell this method is only good on organic material dating back 50 000-60 000yrs.I believe the further back in time you go the less accurate. H2O is not an organic material(plant,animal,fish,fungus,bacteria,etc,etc) WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Why did you say no? The site you provided backs up what I said! Sorry - I misunderstood the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Yes. But I don't trust scientific institutions. There is a huge difference. I usually Google anything my doctor tells me and go back with questions if necessary. Trust but verify. I do not see much difference between a paleo-climatologist and astrologist. Both look for patterns in what is essentially random data and attempt to draw conclusions. How about this: do you have any evidence that the claims of paleo-climatologists are any more accurate than the claims of astrologists? I am asking for evidence not blind assertions of faith. If you say you trust science, but not scientists then you're no better off than someone who doesn't trust science are you ? The only evidence I have that claims of scientists are better than astrology is that they profess to use a method that is based on evidence. If they're all lying to me then I guess I'm just out of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) If you say you trust science, but not scientistsI did not say that. I said I don't trust scientific *institutions*. Why do you think scientific *institutions* are essential to science?The only evidence I have that claims of scientists are better than astrology is that they profess to use a method that is based on evidence.What evidence do paleo-climatologists have other than correlation? All they do is hunt around for stuff that seems to correlate with stuff they want to measure and invent some pseudo scientific reason to explain that correlation and then use it to make claims about the past. This is basically all that astrologers do.If they're all lying to me then I guess I'm just out of luck.Paleo-climatologists and astrologists do not lie. The are simply doing what humans do very well: create meaning from random noise. Edited April 1, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 If they're all lying to me then I guess I'm just out of luck. I believe I have an explanation. We all depend on scientific research for our quality of life.When we fly in a plane or drive a car or take medicine when we feel ill etc etc.Many of this is from the fruit of scientific research. However we can not distinguish between different forms of science or studies and the relevance or impact on us.In other words many people do not understand the importance or impact from the research being done by say an anthropologist or a physicist so everything is lumped together. So basicly because science has created flying planes and tv or computers we think that all scientists know everything and that we can safely put faith in their words. And in my opinion this is dangerous.Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 I did not say that. I said I don't trust scientific *institutions*. Why do you think scientific *institutions* are deserving of trust? Because they're collections of scientists ? What evidence do paleo-climatologists have other than correlation? Correlation is exactly the same evidence that astrologers claim to have. You can verify the claims, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 And in my opinion this is dangerous.Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. So what is the difference then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. WWWTT No, but if the assumptions people come up with instead are just plain bonehead stupid, what's the point? I believe I have an explanation. I wouldn't want to assume anything at this point. Edited April 1, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 So what is the difference then ? What we are being told from the scientific community about the Earths past and how it is different now always has a common theme and I find it hard to believe. An excellent case point would be the anthropological study of humans and similar species. Back 15-20 years ago many scoffed at the idea that homosapiens and neanderthall inter-bread.But now it is proven that all humans today carry DNA or the genetics from both.When neanderthall was first discovered it was assumed that they were less advanced/intelligent because their skulls have a sloping forehead(as many people have now because they inherited that trait from them)despite later research that found their skulls to have a greater volume capacity therefore a greater size.Many anthropologists fought tooth and nail to deny the mountain of evidence and when DNA research put the final nail in the coffin about the debate there was not even a peep about it. Ok maybe I am not being very clear and articulate,but as far as I am concerned,if you can not see for yourself then beware! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 maybe I am not being very clear and articulate You think? The only thing that's clear is that you just cited science studying the past to drive the point home that you don't trust science that studies the past. Many anthropologists fought tooth and nail to deny the mountain of evidence and when DNA research put the final nail in the coffin about the debate there was not even a peep about it. Clearly because anthropologists trust science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 No, but if the assumptions people come up with instead are just plain bonehead stupid, what's the point? I wouldn't want to assume anything at this point. The only ones that are doing the assumptions are the scientists releasing their so called research that always has the conclusion that we are causing death from fossil fuels. I have always found this real hard to believe because life on Earth is carbon based and the most common form of carbon available to the bottom of the food chain(plants,plankton,algae,etc) is carbon dioxide. Take the carbon dioxide away or seriously reduce it and there will be mass extinction around the world.Actually it can be successfully argued that more CO2 is better and less CO2 may be disasterous. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 The only thing that's clear is that you just cited science studying the past to drive the point home that you don't trust science that studies the past. Good then I made my point! This thread is partially about scientific research about Earths history going back 300 million yrs(in regards to atmospheric and ocean make-up) WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 Clearly because anthropologists trust science. What are you talking about? Advanced DNA research finally proved that humans today share the genetic material from both neanderthall and homesapiens. Many anthropologists hated this fact and there was countless of other evidence that they ignored for freekin decades! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) Advanced DNA research finally proved that humans today share the genetic material from both neanderthall and homesapiens. Many anthropologists hated this fact WWWTT So why did they learn to love the fact again? What are you talking about? What the rest of this thread is partially about. Edited April 2, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) Because they're collections of scientists?So? Bureaucracies rarely represent the individuals that work for them.You can verify the claims, though.In most cases the claims cannot be verified. The ONLY evidence offered by paleo-climatologists is faith based correlation - i.e. a process is sort of correlated today so they assume that the correlation holds for all time and all conditions. e.g. EXACTLY the same as the argument used by astrologers. Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.