4 ms·
Simple correlation not causation. The acidification may be causal or may not. The extinction cause may have been something else. Live Science is marginally b
by Blackstrat 3y ago
Simple correlation not causation. The acidification may be causal or may not. The extinction cause may have been something else. Live Science is marginally better than the Guardian. Further, I routinely see IPCC studies politicized or misrepresented.
- rolph 3y ago[ The oceans soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide, which turns the water more acidic, reducing the availability of calcium carbonate ions needed for organisms to build their skeletons and shells.]
- Blackstrat 3y agoAll true but still not necessarily casual.
- rolph 3y agoof course not, this is the effect.
- Blackstrat 3y agoSo where did the CO2 in the previous mass extinctions come from? No cars, no factories, no people. So a natural process? And yet today, it all comes from human sources? When I see such reasoning, I conclude politics not science.
- yellowapple 3y agoThe human sources are well-documented. Natural sources of equivalent severity/magnitude are not. That kinda narrows things down. We're doing in hundreds (tens, even!) of years what nature needed thousands or millions to do.
- Blackstrat 3y agoActually, it's not. With the focus on anthropomorphic sources, it ignores other natural processes or discounts them completely. Having watched this "campaign"unfold for nearly 60 years, and watching it morph every time the predictions proved wrong, tells me that politics trumps science. What we see today is seldom science. Science isn't spearheaded by the types of Al Gore, Bill Nye, and Greta Thurnberg. Even Obama's climate guy was more skeptical than the pablum dispensed by the Guardian, Live Science, Scientific American, et. al. Follow the money.
- rolph 3y agoyou are ignoring basic calculus, m f{x} is not politics. you are making horrible assertions, that reveal a lack of contextual cues.
- Blackstrat 3y agoNot ignoring calculus at all. But just because someone constructs an equation that correlates with results doesn’t mean a model is correct.
- rolph 3y agothat took you a while, you are however ignoring prompts that dont correlate with your model, or your output constraints. you will never be able to interpret subjective context in prompt unless you make major improvements with statistical vectoring.
- yellowapple 3y ago> With the focus on anthropomorphic sources, it ignores other natural processes or discounts them completely. The natural processes are fully accounted for. They are a tiny blip compared to manmade sources. Again: historical CO2 rises like this took thousands or even millions of years, whereas the one we're witnessing right now has taken maybe two hundred at most. The difference is from the manmade contributions. If you disagree, then you can present the sources you believe to be major contributors at your leisure. > Having watched this "campaign"unfold for nearly 60 years, and watching it morph every time the predictions proved wrong Revising hypotheses and theories with new information is literally the point of science. > Follow the money. Indeed. The fossil fuel industry peddling coal and oil has thrown around plenty of money to convince you that they're blameless. The meat industry torching the Amazon for farmland has thrown around plenty of money to convince you that they're blameless. Follow the money.