3 ms·

Solar variation and ocean effects are known cyclicals while man made CO2 is monotonically increasing. So the worst case scenario will arise when cyclicals get i

by prat 17y ago

Solar variation and ocean effects are known cyclicals while man made CO2 is monotonically increasing. So the worst case scenario will arise when cyclicals get in phase with the CO2 effect, i.e. all cyclicals get in heat phase. It is premature to discard the constantly increasing CO2 levels just because the ocean cycles are scheduled to cause cooling in the next decade or two.

JCThoughtscream 17y ago
Not to mention that increased ocean acidity via carbonic acid - ie: the introduction of C02 into ocean water - is its own little nightmare, given its catastrophic effects on coral reef reliant systems.
- silentOpen 17y ago
  How greatly does atmospheric CO2 dissolve into ocean water? What's the effective volume of water that CO2 will dissolve into? I assume that surface water will have more carbonic acid than deep water. What's the CO2 capacity function of water? As more CO2 goes into solution, it will get harder to put more into solution at the same temperature and pressure. And then: what is the change in atmospheric CO2 levels in the past several centuries? In all, I'm having a hard time believing that man-made atmospheric CO2 is creating biologically significant carbonic acid concentrations in ocean water near reefs. [citation needed]
  - JCThoughtscream 17y ago
    Citation requested; citation given: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
That's all fine and dandy, but that wasn't the story just a few years ago. Back then there were some Russians scientists, as I recall, that predicted the solar cycle would prevail over anything else. They were called "deniers"
- prat 17y ago
  "stories" are the tragedy with science. I don't care who was called what and who changed stance. All I need to know is both sides of the argument and the strengths of their respective evidences.
  - rgrieselhuber 17y ago
    Exactly. Unlike with any particular dogma, science, by definition is supposed to change its "stance" as new evidence becomes available.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      Yes, but science is supposed to rest on falsifiability. The "story" is supposed to change because the hypotheses are supposed to become more refined. A previous hypothesis was tested and found wrong, and a new one is now put forward. Without falsifiability there is no science. This same situation -- making the narrative fit the data instead of changing hypotheses -- is what led to Karl Popper's beautiful critique of Marxism (which also claimed to be scientific and also just changed the narrative once facts didn't match up with original forecasts) Scientific-sounding speculation or scientific consensus is not the same as science. If all you have is speculation, you can change that willy-nilly, whereas if you had a hypothesis, a change would require a truly new way of looking at things. Without falsifiability, you're never wrong -- you just keep changing your story. And if you're never wrong because you creatively adapt your story to meet changing conditions, you don't have science, you have religion.

by prat 17y ago

JCThoughtscream 17y ago

Not to mention that increased ocean acidity via carbonic acid - ie: the introduction of C02 into ocean water - is its own little nightmare, given its catastrophic effects on coral reef reliant systems.

silentOpen 17y ago
How greatly does atmospheric CO2 dissolve into ocean water? What's the effective volume of water that CO2 will dissolve into? I assume that surface water will have more carbonic acid than deep water. What's the CO2 capacity function of water? As more CO2 goes into solution, it will get harder to put more into solution at the same temperature and pressure. And then: what is the change in atmospheric CO2 levels in the past several centuries? In all, I'm having a hard time believing that man-made atmospheric CO2 is creating biologically significant carbonic acid concentrations in ocean water near reefs. [citation needed]
- JCThoughtscream 17y ago
  Citation requested; citation given: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

That's all fine and dandy, but that wasn't the story just a few years ago. Back then there were some Russians scientists, as I recall, that predicted the solar cycle would prevail over anything else. They were called "deniers"

prat 17y ago
"stories" are the tragedy with science. I don't care who was called what and who changed stance. All I need to know is both sides of the argument and the strengths of their respective evidences.
- rgrieselhuber 17y ago
  Exactly. Unlike with any particular dogma, science, by definition is supposed to change its "stance" as new evidence becomes available.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Yes, but science is supposed to rest on falsifiability. The "story" is supposed to change because the hypotheses are supposed to become more refined. A previous hypothesis was tested and found wrong, and a new one is now put forward. Without falsifiability there is no science. This same situation -- making the narrative fit the data instead of changing hypotheses -- is what led to Karl Popper's beautiful critique of Marxism (which also claimed to be scientific and also just changed the narrative once facts didn't match up with original forecasts) Scientific-sounding speculation or scientific consensus is not the same as science. If all you have is speculation, you can change that willy-nilly, whereas if you had a hypothesis, a change would require a truly new way of looking at things. Without falsifiability, you're never wrong -- you just keep changing your story. And if you're never wrong because you creatively adapt your story to meet changing conditions, you don't have science, you have religion.