3 ms·

Sure, significant and massively destructive "ocean acidification" would be really bad.

by graycat 11y ago

selimthegrim 11y ago
Not would be, is. It's happening now. http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/11/disaster-weve-wrought-worlds-oceans-may-be-irrevocable-256962.html http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/11/disaster-weve-wrought-wor...
- graycat 11y ago
  Newsweek? Gee, I remember Newsweek, 1975 and their prediction of horrible, destructive, massive, life killing, earth ruining, devastating, hideous, humongous, drum roll, please, "global cooling", with a scan of their cover story in http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Right, Newsweek, that is, newsies looking to grab people, by the heart, the gut, below the belt, always below the shoulders, never between the ears, to get eyeballs for ads and ad revenue. They are in the ad business. Their content is just smelly bait to catch eyeballs for their ad business. Their stuff is garbage, as low as it can go, no higher than necessary, for their ad revenue, in the short term. Their reputation? They assume their target audience doesn't care and, thus, they don't care. Their content is really from the literary fiction tradition of drama and art as in communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion. So, they want to concentrate on the drama of the human experiences, the horrible things that will happen to humans. They like to play on fears, the threats of both nature and society, as in E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, the main sources of human anxiety. The newsies won't do any better as long as people keep reading them and they keep getting ad revenue. You should not have taken the newsies seriously in 1975, and you should not today. Again, emphasize all the horrible things that would happen with massive global cooling. Like emphasizing all the horrible things that would happen with gigantic flocks of flying pigs over our cities dropping thousands of tons of pig poop a day. It would be really bad. There would be disease, death, gigantic economic losses. What are going to do about this gigantic pig poop problem? To see more of how this goes, watch the now classic movie The Music Man talking about the terrible threat of a pool table in town and, thus, the need for a boy's band -- that will be $19.95 import fee. For more, review some of how the old English morality plays went and how much of Christian religion went in those days and nearly to the present -- terrible threats from sin and the Devil, now we will pass the offering plate, sing the Doxology, and see the 10%. Got some spectacular stuff that way -- look up the Bishop's Residence in Munich. Build something like that for yourself and it would really set you back. The good thing about the movie was Shirley Jones -- we're talking drop dead gorgeous, just what you want next to you under piles of blankets on those long, cold nights from the "global cooling". It wasn't just Western Civilization; parts of the New World did much the same: Indeed the ancient Mayans had some such thoughts and responded by killing people and pouring their blood on a rock as at http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=Mayan+blood+sun+moving+sacrifice&source=web&ots=Do6njWN5M9&sig=FxTeclIiqggqIH5Ws_oENCek1uI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA76,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA... from page 76 of Susan Milbrath, 'Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies)', ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000. They didn't have enough solid science to know that (A) their blood would have no effect on the sun and (B) there was no danger that the sun would stop moving across the sky. Ah, where can we get some of that massive, hideous, life-ending global cooling? I was counting on it, getting under the covers with Shirley Jones! That global cooling scare was never about science, the earth, or temperature -- those were all just misdirections, as in a magic show, to hide what was really going on. E.g., standard advice: "Always look for the hidden agenda.". What was really going on? Sure, just obvious, just from common sense and People 101, the usual suspects: A flim-flam, fraud, scam to get money and power. Right, the two, usual biggies -- money and power.
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    I'm not in the business of the sky is falling, but I can happily cite peer reviewed, more respectable (in the scientific community) _observations_ and measurements on ocean acidification, as opposed to the prognostications in the seventies you are referring to. Or, for example, if you want to drill down more into this clathrates issue, I can put you in personal touch with some experts at Stony Brook and you can ask all the detailed questions you like via email.
    - graycat 11y ago
      Okay, from your urging, I looked up ocean acidification and found http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=165564&pt=2&p=150429 http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=165564&pt=2&p=150429 with Ocean Acidification. They have a lot of seemingly serious organizations with their logos at the bottom, e.g., NOAA. Of course, nearly all those organizations (the IAEA is there and I can't guess why) are in the business of screaming about CO2 from humans -- so objectivity is in question. They had their chance, and they blew it; they just didn't make a convincing case at all. About all they really said was that if I go swimming in the ocean and exhale into the water, then my CO2 will make the water more acidic. I agree. Obviously both true and trivial. But that's also right where they blew it: They never got to how much CO2 and how much more acidic. So, in principle nearly everything they said would also hold for my case of blowing bubbles at the beach -- literally. They had a chance -- they blew it. Why? Incompetence or just covering up that so far the CO2 is nowhere nearly enough to do much to the oceans anytime soon, and I don't know which, but in either case they didn't turn me into a CO2 and ocean acidification alarmist. Early on they said that the atmospheric CO2 makes the surface water more acidic. I thought, "Sure, but so darned what?" It's just the surface water, and there's a lot more water out there and a lot of mixing. So, now, the whole ocean, human CO2 is going to make the whole ocean a lot more acidic? When? How? Via how darned much CO2 and how much more acidic? No answer. The whole ocean? In another context, I'd take that as a thigh slapping joke from Donald Duck or Bugs Bunny. Next I think, significantly harmful CO2 in the ocean? Gotta be kidding because of sea floor smokers, volcanoes, e.g., think Hawaii, and sea floor spreading and associated volcanic activity from plate tectonics, e.g., the line from Iceland south through the central Atlantic and around much of the planet. Next, especially in the top layers of the ocean are Phytoplankton, that is plankton that are plants and, thus, suck up CO2. They mentioned some means of the oceans getting rid of the CO2 but didn't mention plants. Gads. My objections are not solid science, but their PDF didn't address even my simple, obvious, first-cut points. So, their PDF fails both the sniff test and the giggle test. Maybe their worst was their "16 Full recovery of the oceans will require tens to hundreds of millennia. Over decades to centuries, neither weathering of continental rocks, deep ocean mixing, or dissolution of calcium carbonate minerals in marine sediments can occur fast enough to reverse OA over the next two centuries." The first problem, grade F on the giggle test, is "hundreds of millennia". That's hundreds of thousands of years, just to do something about CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution? This is from Bugs Bunny? In hundreds of thousands of years the oceans would routinely handle the CO2 from hundreds of thousands of years of volcanic activity but would struggle with the industrial output of CO2 from, say, 200 years? Grade F on the sniff test. This statement needs at least some support from actual numerical estimates of the quantities involved; just that statement in that PDF document is at least incompetent as writing if not science. Yes, they did mention pH: "4 Average global surface ocean pH has already fallen from a pre-industrial value of 8.2 to 8.1, corresponding to an increase in acidity of about 30%." Boy, does that scream out for a reference, some supporting arguments (e.g., just how much CO2 would that take, even if none of it was taken up by plants), and the significance of that much change in pH. Without getting out a chemistry book, maybe I see how their change from pH 8.2 to 8.1 is "an increase in acidity of about 30%." Gee, 30%; that sounds big, dangerous, etc. Wow! 30%! Gads. So, 8.2 is not acidic but basic. pH is essentially hydrogen ion concentration. So, in a basic solution, expect nearly no hydrogen ions. So, if pH 8.2 has nearly no hydrogen ions, then 30% more hydrogen ions to pH 8.1 is 30% of nearly nothing and, thus, nearly no change. Sorry, I have to get up and turn off my screaming, loud BS meter that just went off .... They blew it. This PDF is from Donald Duck, Bugs Bunny, Goofy, The Three Stooges, Groucho Marx, George Carlin, NOAA, or all of those? It that's even roughly the best argument they can make, then they added evidence of no serious problem from "ocean acidification". Tell you what: Next time to the beach, I'll bring a roll of Tums and drop a few into the ocean. For what's in the PDF, that should solve any problem. For that PDF, there's a much better explanation than a significant threat to the oceans: They want to fit in with the CO2 alarmists and, thus, get grant money. I'm all for good research, but first they need to learn how to write. I would not approve their grant request. Gotta quit reading this stuff or unplug my BS meter ....

Sure, significant and massively destructive "ocean acidification" would be really bad.

by graycat 11y ago

Sure, significant and massively destructive "ocean acidification" would be really bad.

Not would be, is. It's happening now. http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/11/disaster-weve-wrought-worlds-oceans-may-be-irrevocable-256962.html http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/11/disaster-weve-wrought-wor...

graycat 11y ago
Newsweek? Gee, I remember Newsweek, 1975 and their prediction of horrible, destructive, massive, life killing, earth ruining, devastating, hideous, humongous, drum roll, please, "global cooling", with a scan of their cover story in http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Right, Newsweek, that is, newsies looking to grab people, by the heart, the gut, below the belt, always below the shoulders, never between the ears, to get eyeballs for ads and ad revenue. They are in the ad business. Their content is just smelly bait to catch eyeballs for their ad business. Their stuff is garbage, as low as it can go, no higher than necessary, for their ad revenue, in the short term. Their reputation? They assume their target audience doesn't care and, thus, they don't care. Their content is really from the literary fiction tradition of drama and art as in communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion. So, they want to concentrate on the drama of the human experiences, the horrible things that will happen to humans. They like to play on fears, the threats of both nature and society, as in E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, the main sources of human anxiety. The newsies won't do any better as long as people keep reading them and they keep getting ad revenue. You should not have taken the newsies seriously in 1975, and you should not today. Again, emphasize all the horrible things that would happen with massive global cooling. Like emphasizing all the horrible things that would happen with gigantic flocks of flying pigs over our cities dropping thousands of tons of pig poop a day. It would be really bad. There would be disease, death, gigantic economic losses. What are going to do about this gigantic pig poop problem? To see more of how this goes, watch the now classic movie The Music Man talking about the terrible threat of a pool table in town and, thus, the need for a boy's band -- that will be $19.95 import fee. For more, review some of how the old English morality plays went and how much of Christian religion went in those days and nearly to the present -- terrible threats from sin and the Devil, now we will pass the offering plate, sing the Doxology, and see the 10%. Got some spectacular stuff that way -- look up the Bishop's Residence in Munich. Build something like that for yourself and it would really set you back. The good thing about the movie was Shirley Jones -- we're talking drop dead gorgeous, just what you want next to you under piles of blankets on those long, cold nights from the "global cooling". It wasn't just Western Civilization; parts of the New World did much the same: Indeed the ancient Mayans had some such thoughts and responded by killing people and pouring their blood on a rock as at http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=Mayan+blood+sun+moving+sacrifice&source=web&ots=Do6njWN5M9&sig=FxTeclIiqggqIH5Ws_oENCek1uI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA76,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA... from page 76 of Susan Milbrath, 'Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies)', ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000. They didn't have enough solid science to know that (A) their blood would have no effect on the sun and (B) there was no danger that the sun would stop moving across the sky. Ah, where can we get some of that massive, hideous, life-ending global cooling? I was counting on it, getting under the covers with Shirley Jones! That global cooling scare was never about science, the earth, or temperature -- those were all just misdirections, as in a magic show, to hide what was really going on. E.g., standard advice: "Always look for the hidden agenda.". What was really going on? Sure, just obvious, just from common sense and People 101, the usual suspects: A flim-flam, fraud, scam to get money and power. Right, the two, usual biggies -- money and power.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  I'm not in the business of the sky is falling, but I can happily cite peer reviewed, more respectable (in the scientific community) _observations_ and measurements on ocean acidification, as opposed to the prognostications in the seventies you are referring to. Or, for example, if you want to drill down more into this clathrates issue, I can put you in personal touch with some experts at Stony Brook and you can ask all the detailed questions you like via email.
  - graycat 11y ago
    Okay, from your urging, I looked up ocean acidification and found http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=165564&pt=2&p=150429 http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=165564&pt=2&p=150429 with Ocean Acidification. They have a lot of seemingly serious organizations with their logos at the bottom, e.g., NOAA. Of course, nearly all those organizations (the IAEA is there and I can't guess why) are in the business of screaming about CO2 from humans -- so objectivity is in question. They had their chance, and they blew it; they just didn't make a convincing case at all. About all they really said was that if I go swimming in the ocean and exhale into the water, then my CO2 will make the water more acidic. I agree. Obviously both true and trivial. But that's also right where they blew it: They never got to how much CO2 and how much more acidic. So, in principle nearly everything they said would also hold for my case of blowing bubbles at the beach -- literally. They had a chance -- they blew it. Why? Incompetence or just covering up that so far the CO2 is nowhere nearly enough to do much to the oceans anytime soon, and I don't know which, but in either case they didn't turn me into a CO2 and ocean acidification alarmist. Early on they said that the atmospheric CO2 makes the surface water more acidic. I thought, "Sure, but so darned what?" It's just the surface water, and there's a lot more water out there and a lot of mixing. So, now, the whole ocean, human CO2 is going to make the whole ocean a lot more acidic? When? How? Via how darned much CO2 and how much more acidic? No answer. The whole ocean? In another context, I'd take that as a thigh slapping joke from Donald Duck or Bugs Bunny. Next I think, significantly harmful CO2 in the ocean? Gotta be kidding because of sea floor smokers, volcanoes, e.g., think Hawaii, and sea floor spreading and associated volcanic activity from plate tectonics, e.g., the line from Iceland south through the central Atlantic and around much of the planet. Next, especially in the top layers of the ocean are Phytoplankton, that is plankton that are plants and, thus, suck up CO2. They mentioned some means of the oceans getting rid of the CO2 but didn't mention plants. Gads. My objections are not solid science, but their PDF didn't address even my simple, obvious, first-cut points. So, their PDF fails both the sniff test and the giggle test. Maybe their worst was their "16 Full recovery of the oceans will require tens to hundreds of millennia. Over decades to centuries, neither weathering of continental rocks, deep ocean mixing, or dissolution of calcium carbonate minerals in marine sediments can occur fast enough to reverse OA over the next two centuries." The first problem, grade F on the giggle test, is "hundreds of millennia". That's hundreds of thousands of years, just to do something about CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution? This is from Bugs Bunny? In hundreds of thousands of years the oceans would routinely handle the CO2 from hundreds of thousands of years of volcanic activity but would struggle with the industrial output of CO2 from, say, 200 years? Grade F on the sniff test. This statement needs at least some support from actual numerical estimates of the quantities involved; just that statement in that PDF document is at least incompetent as writing if not science. Yes, they did mention pH: "4 Average global surface ocean pH has already fallen from a pre-industrial value of 8.2 to 8.1, corresponding to an increase in acidity of about 30%." Boy, does that scream out for a reference, some supporting arguments (e.g., just how much CO2 would that take, even if none of it was taken up by plants), and the significance of that much change in pH. Without getting out a chemistry book, maybe I see how their change from pH 8.2 to 8.1 is "an increase in acidity of about 30%." Gee, 30%; that sounds big, dangerous, etc. Wow! 30%! Gads. So, 8.2 is not acidic but basic. pH is essentially hydrogen ion concentration. So, in a basic solution, expect nearly no hydrogen ions. So, if pH 8.2 has nearly no hydrogen ions, then 30% more hydrogen ions to pH 8.1 is 30% of nearly nothing and, thus, nearly no change. Sorry, I have to get up and turn off my screaming, loud BS meter that just went off .... They blew it. This PDF is from Donald Duck, Bugs Bunny, Goofy, The Three Stooges, Groucho Marx, George Carlin, NOAA, or all of those? It that's even roughly the best argument they can make, then they added evidence of no serious problem from "ocean acidification". Tell you what: Next time to the beach, I'll bring a roll of Tums and drop a few into the ocean. For what's in the PDF, that should solve any problem. For that PDF, there's a much better explanation than a significant threat to the oceans: They want to fit in with the CO2 alarmists and, thus, get grant money. I'm all for good research, but first they need to learn how to write. I would not approve their grant request. Gotta quit reading this stuff or unplug my BS meter ....