Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Part of a post in the Earth's magnetic field thread where we got sidetracked, ...
    ... needs to be here; ...


    Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 doesn’t rise up, trap and retain heat
    ...
    We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect). ...

    The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

    As shown in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.

    You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:
    ...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I recall learning this back in high school chemistry, but perhaps the Periodic Table of Elements, and atomic weights have changed since @ 50 years ago ...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ...
    There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long? If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:
    “As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”


    You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long. In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption/emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ [1]

    By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:
    “Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]


    So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’! Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.

    But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.
    ....
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    So CO2 doesn't retain "heat" for long and gets rid of such almost as quickly ...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ....
    And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.

    So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.

    It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).
    ....
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    So CO2 doesn't hold "heat" for very long and sinks to lower atmosphere ...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ...
    Now back to some Geology:

    And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life. Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater. For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system. Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. [2]

    This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters. Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back … and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. [3]

    It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora. The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” [4]

    If NASA is correct, then we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less. Check the graph below and follow the blue line to see that life on earth has thrived on CO2 concentrations at 3,000 ppm, far higher than today’s levels of about 400 ppm (circled):
    ....
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    In your reply to my post above, you dodged this math related issue. Are you disputing that an optimal minimum for 99+% of life on this planet, the flora/planets should be at least 300ppm ???
    Also, if we look at the current CO2 level of 400ppm, that can also be expressed as 400/1,000,000; which reduces to 1/2,500. So one un-answered question is how can that one part CO2 transfer the heat it retains(briefly) to the other 2,499 molecules of the atmosphere?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ...
    And if you think like a geologist and not like a climate ‘scientists’ and look back in the history of time you see the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Today we have got less than 0.4%. So where did that carbon dioxide go to? It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. All land-based lifeforms have been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. And all that CO2 that is supposed to turn the oceans more acidic? Pure nonsense because even NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification. And more than 99% of earth’s FREE CO2 is already in the ocean waters.

    If only those self-absorbed climate ‘scientists’ would speak to chemical scientists. All that Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20. For example, shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells and control the conditions for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength. Shellfish are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2

    Our planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level. The dumbest thing nations can do is permit scrubbing CO2 from the air (carbon sequestration).
    ...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    So, ... no ocean acidification and possibly dangerously low levels of CO2 ...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ...
    Indeed, even with some slight cooling observed, the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is not even measurable as the content is so tiny. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled. In fact putting co2 into the air is saving the planet. If the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years, what would the co2 ppm in air be then? The danger is without humans taking steps to put more carbon dioxide into the air then life as we know it could end.
    ....
    https://principia-scientific.org/cli...p-retain-heat/

    Comment


    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      Hmmm .... What does Trump as POTUS have to do with Doc's absence, in your opinion ?
      He's not the only US "conservative" here on the ACG to have "disappeared" since the election.

      Can't be easy for true-blooded US Republicans to see their party usurped by a parvenu like Trump, and just be expected to post/speak in his defence here...

      I'd rather be silent too

      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      Given the lackluster list of Democratic contenders and Trumps popularity running about 53%, he looks viable for 2020 which means be may not "go" until about 2025.
      Surely someone on the Rep side will challenge him ? Or have they all hung up their balls up to dry ?
      High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

        He's not the only US "conservative" here on the ACG to have "disappeared" since the election.

        Can't be easy for true-blooded US Republicans to see their party usurped by a parvenu like Trump, and just be expected to post/speak in his defence here...

        I'd rather be silent too



        Surely someone on the Rep side will challenge him ? Or have they all hung up their balls up to dry ?
        We've also seen some of the Liberal/Left posters that used to be here on ACG "disappear". But that seems to have more to do with the transition of structure, server, format, etc. than events related to the election of about 2 1/2 years ago.

        As for "parvenu" you may want to reconsider your word choice. Here USA we consider our selves lacking in social class structure, especially one that should be exclusive to ruling/leading our nation and therefore Trump better represents that ideal than many others in the past. I suspect that he wasn't from the "ole boy's club" of political elitism is why he got the votes he did.

        Since your posts tend to reflect a leaning mostly towards the socialist and left side of the political spectrum, I'm not surprised you'd see reason for some not to speak in Trump's defense.

        If you refresh on our Constitution, the Executive Branch and the office of POTUS is not intended to be a popularity contest, even though it has morphed in that direction ever since the JKF/Nixon race of 1960. It's meant to be more of a CEO sort of job and after eight years of a forked-tongue, slick talking, "used car salesmen"/community organizer with limited business background~acumen but a lot of OPM scamming, Trump should be an expected polar counter-point.

        So far, anyone in the GOP that could be a viable(electable) contender took their shot back in 2016 and hasn't shown enough improvement or traction so far to replace Trump. Not a matter of "balls", more one of probabilities for success versus what is still the clear front runner.

        Speaking of "balls", as someone whom provides little in his(her?) profile here other than a claim to be from/in Gent, Belgium you might examine your own pair since you can't be more forthcoming and public on whom and what you are.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

          So I did, how time flies..tnx.

          As usual, I did a quick and correct assessment, and made an accurate prediction

          Seems DOD promptly realized it would turn into a US politics fest too, and in post #27 he said this,



          I suspect that is when the thread moved to the NA section.

          https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...32#post3908932

          I kind of miss Doc though - I suspect he'll be back when Trump goes...
          You are a role model to us all.....

          re eight years of a forked-tongue, slick talking, "used car salesmen"/community organizer with limited business background~acumen but a lot of OPM scamming, Trump should be an expected polar counter-point.

          Actually, g David, das Trumper was a game show host.

          Still is , p'raps...
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

            So I did, how time flies..tnx.

            As usual, I did a quick and correct assessment, and made an accurate prediction

            Seems DOD promptly realized it would turn into a US politics fest too, and in post #27 he said this,



            I suspect that is when the thread moved to the NA section.

            https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...32#post3908932

            I kind of miss Doc though - I suspect he'll be back when Trump goes...
            You are a role model to us all.....

            re eight years of a forked-tongue, slick talking, "used car salesmen"/community organizer with limited business background~acumen but a lot of OPM scamming, Trump should be an expected polar counter-point.

            Actually, g David, das Trumper was a game show host.

            Still is , p'raps...
            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

            Comment


            • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

              You are a role model to us all.....

              re eight years of a forked-tongue, slick talking, "used car salesmen"/community organizer with limited business background~acumen but a lot of OPM scamming, Trump should be an expected polar counter-point.

              Actually, g David, das Trumper was a game show host.

              Still is , p'raps...
              "Game show host " one of many items on his resume', which for most part is in the private sector, business world, where wealth is created.

              Obama spent about 99% in public and "non-profit" sector, a.k.a. redistributed wealth taking and little of diversity in his executive credentials. BTW, try reading his first two books and you gain better insight into his "character" and "values".

              Comment


              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                Since your posts tend to reflect a leaning mostly towards the socialist and left side of the political spectrum, I'm not surprised you'd see reason for some not to speak in Trump's defense.
                I suggest you read them again.

                Whoever subscribes to the US Constitution, your Bill of Rights, and the New Testament, is per definition to the "left" of me.

                That includes the entire US, and Trump, as far as I can see.

                Equal rights, people created equal, redemption, forgive trespassers, love your enemy, don't closet thy neighbour's wife, what leftist claptrap is that ?

                Doc understood, that's why I miss him …

                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                As for "parvenu" you may want to reconsider your word choice.
                OK - how about a baboon in a suit ?
                Last edited by Snowygerry; 17 Apr 19, 03:23.
                High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

                Comment


                • mr Bock
                  I read the link you posted, one of things that it stated and i quote.

                  NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification.

                  you see this it a real falsehood. i watch a program on the great barrier reef .and it is affected by ocean acidification. I am including a link , please dispute it validity.

                  https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-barrier-reef/
                  The largest coral reef system in the world—and the biggest sign of life on Earth, visible from space—is not growing like it used to. A sampling of 328 massive Porites coral (large structures resembling brains that are formed by tiny polyps) from across the 133,000-square-mile (344,000-square-kilometer) reef reveals that growth of these colonies has slowed by roughly 13 percent since 1990.

                  so in conclusion i question the validity of your posted article.

                  Comment


                  • So mr Shack,

                    When you were in school and one day you took a test with 20 questions and as the teacher came across the first question where you got a wrong answer, did that teacher say; "Sorry, Bill, but since you got one wrong answer, your whole test is invalidated and you get an F."?

                    This is the first of a few indications you may not have all your mental gears properly meshed.

                    The statement you present is a link and did you read that embedded link?
                    So here's an excerpt from that link, which is from 2015, about 6 years newer than the SA one you provide;
                    ...
                    Tony Thomas writes that Dr Shallin Busch, who works for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program discussed the draft of the article with fellow scientist Ms Applebaum. She warns that they can’t say that OA (Ocean Acidification) was definitely a problem anywhere at the moment:

                    Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of OA or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!

                    Busch admits that ocean acidification studies are immature, and the evidence is not there “yet”:

                    2) I think it is really important to resist the NYT editor’s impulse to say that OA is wreaking all sorts of havoc RIGHT NOW, because for ecological systems, we don’t yet have the evidence to say that. OA is a problem today because it is changing ocean chemistry so quickly. The vast majority of the biological impacts of OA will only occur under projected future chemistry conditions. Also, the study of the biological impacts of OA is so young that we don’t have any data sets that show a direct effect of OA on population health or trajectory. Best, Shallin..[4]

                    It’s good that Busch is trying to make the article more accurate, but when she does public Q and A’s on ocean acidification she doesn’t say things quite the same way:
                    ....

                    Now inside that link are a few others and from the first one we get this;
                    ...
                    Meanwhile, a trans-Atlantic team of top “ocean acidification scientists” has published a scary op-ed in the New York Times. Congrats to skeptic blogger Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com for successfully obtaining under FOI the emails among them collaborating over the op-ed draft. This material runs to 440 admittedly repetitious pages.[3] The named authors were Richard W. Spinrad, chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Ian Boyd, chief scientific adviser to UK’s Department of Environment.

                    The trove of FOI emails include some beauties. Here’s what NOAA’s Dr Shallin Busch had to say, privately, to her NOAA colleague Madelyn Applebaum on September 30 about the draft. They had been asked by the New York Times to sex it up with some specific hurts allegedly being caused by all this acidification. The editor asked,

                    It’s very interesting, but in order to work for us it needs to be geared more toward the general reader. Can the authors give us more specific, descriptive images about how acidification has already affected the oceans? Is the situation akin to the acid rain phenomenon that hit North America? What can be done to counteract the problem?

                    Dr Busch, who works for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program and Northwest Fisheries
                    Science Center at Seattle, responded to Ms Applebaum:

                    Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of OA or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!

                    Dr Busch had the integrity to admit that science can cite “NO” significant ocean “acidification” impacts. But she was nonetheless happy for the article to include, as agitprop, the effects of natural CO2 venting through the ocean floor, as though this somehow corroborated the “acidification” story.

                    Dr Busch, in the course of vetting many drafts, also wrote to Applebaum:

                    Thanks for letting me chime in on this piece. My two general impressions are the following:

                    1) This article is mostly gloom and doom, which research has shown that people don’t respond to well. In fact, people just stop reading gloom and doom environmental stories. It could be good to highlight ways we can and are dealing with OA [Ocean Acidification] now and that we have an opportunity to prevent the major predicted impacts of OA by stopping carbon emissions before larger chemistry changes happen…

                    2) I think it is really important to resist the NYT editor’s impulse to say that OA is wreaking all sorts of havoc RIGHT NOW, because for ecological systems, we don’t yet have the evidence to say that. OA is a problem today because it is changing ocean chemistry so quickly. The vast majority of the biological impacts of OA will only occur under projected future chemistry conditions. Also, the study of the biological impacts of OA is so young that we don’t have any data sets that show a direct effect of OA on population health or trajectory. Best, Shallin. [My bolding].[4]

                    And here’s Dr Busch on the Great Barrier Reef. The “Chris” she refers to is Chris Sabine, director of the NOAAPacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.
                    ....
                    In the long piece about the global oceans by the top dogs of US/UK climate science, we learn:

                    We cannot yet predict exactly how ocean acidification will affect connections among the world’s many different marine organisms, but we do know the consequences will be profound. [i.e. we don’t know but we do know. Send more grant funding immediately.] Research already points to the unnatural behavior of coral clownfish in an acidified environment. These fish wander farther from their natural protection, making them more vulnerable to predators.

                    This published reference to clownfish was the fruit of much angst involving the UK department’s determination to shoe-horn Nemo into the PR exercise.
                    ...
                    I looked up the 2014 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Outlook Report which re-quoted a 2009 study, (p31),

                    There is little detailed information about the status and trends of many habitat types within the Great Barrier Reef … However, there is some evidence of a small decline in coral reef habitat over recent decades.


                    A “small decline”? So what’s this halving that NOAA is talking about? It seems to come from a 2012 paper by De-ath et al from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

                    By analyzing 27 years of data, the authors found that the Barrier Reef’s coral cover was down from 28% to 13.8% by area, in other words, half the initial coral cover had been lost. But why? The losses were due to cyclones (48%), crown-of-thorns starfish (42%) and coral bleaching (10%) – none of this involves the “acidification” peril. And the pristine northern Reef area showed no decline. If it wasn’t for the cyclones, starfish and bleaching, the coral overall would have grown by nearly 3% a year. Even with cyclones and bleaching, the coral would grow by nearly 1% a year if the starfish were neutralized. To stay politically correct, the authors added that climate change had to be (somehow) stabilized, otherwise there would’s be more bleaching and cyclones, they think.
                    ...
                    The NYT article made a lot of mileage out of US west-coast oyster industry problems ostensibly caused by ocean currents pushing “acidified” water towards the oyster beds, causing “baby oysters” to expire. The infant oysters had in fact been killed by a faecal organismVibrio tubiashii from sewage.) And in any event, that pesky Dr Busch throws in an email saying

                    In fact, production in the Washington oyster industry is higher now than at the start of the [supposed acidification] crisis…Just as an FYI, we can’t yet attribute any large patterns in shellfish yield to OA [ocean acidification].

                    Dr Busch also wrote, re specific fish communities, “It might be good to mention that some species will be harmed by OA, some will benefit, and some won’t respond at all!” This is complete heresy, as global warming must always be presented as a bad thing.
                    ...
                    Innocent readers might imagine NOAA embarked on this new op-ed project to educate the public about a serious scientific matter. No, the project’s prime and explicit function was to puff NOAA as a funding-worthy institution, and to add ammunition to the COP21 climate talks in Paris in December, 2015. As Dr Libby Jewett, director of NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program, briefed:

                    The article would fit well with NOAA’s resilience and observational priorities and could go an important distance in recognizing NOAA’s leadership in growing an international ocean observing system…We want visibility for NOAA’s pioneering global leadership to be prominent, too!

                    The final 250 words — 20% of the 1250-word NYT piece — are all about the need to send money to the scientists for their planet-saving endeavours,
                    ...
                    Here’s a contrary view to all that. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, run by sceptic scientists, agrees with the orthodox group that, since pre-industrial times, the oceans have become less alkaline by about 0.1 pH unit. But it considers results from modeling that posits a further pH reduction of between 0.3 units to 0.7 units by 2300 to be far-fetched. It marshaled about 1100 peer-reviewed studies on impacts of lower pH on ocean life and, after excluding those with wildly unrealistic assumptions, checked the rest in terms of five factors: calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival. It plotted the experimental results involving pH falls from 0.0 to 0.3, the latter number being what the IPCC predicts for 2100, and found that the fall in pH led to

                    an overall beneficial response of the totality of the five major life characteristics of marine sea life to ocean acidification, which result is vastly different from the negative results routinely predicted by the world’s climate alarmists.

                    It said the results would be even more positive if studies had also allowed for the ability of generations of sea life to adapt to changed conditions. The studies testing lower pH on life forms typically involved a mere four days duration and some trials lasted a mere few hours, preventing any favorable evolutions, it said.

                    Footnote: My studies in high-school chemistry ceased at age 16, but here’s my take on ocean acidification technicalities.

                    The oceans’ alkalinity (pH) varies from place to place, in a range 7.9 to 8.3 on a logarithmic scale where 14 is most alkaline (or basic), 7.0 is neutral and below 7 to zero is acidic. The log scale means each change of one unit is ten times the value of the adjacent unit.[9]

                    The scare term “ocean acidification”[10] first popped up in Nature in 2003, followed by the Royal Society in 2005[11], and has since been seized on as a substitute frightener, given that global warming has stalled. Climate scientists now “calculate” that the average ocean alkalinity has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 on the scale since pre-industrial times, except that the measurement error margin is several times the alleged reduction (and each of the five oceans has its own pH characteristics). pH levels at given points can also swing markedly even within the 24-hour cycle.

                    In past geological ages C02 levels in the atmosphere were ten or more times what they are now (400ppm) and ocean life thrived. Indeed our current fossil fuels are the residue of vast oceanic life that thrived and died in such super-high CO2 environments.

                    In the parts of the oceans where alkalinity is low (i.e. tending towards neutral), fish, corals, and sea flora have managed and adapted perfectly well. Freshwater lakes and rivers are slightly acidic (pH of 6 to 8), as is rainwater, pH 5.6, and drinking water, 6.5 to 7.5. Life has adapted and thrives in fresh water notwithstanding the, ahem, “acidification”.

                    ...
                    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/...acidification/

                    Well this got a bit long, so pick up in another post.
                    BTW, thanks for helping me burn off a couple of my freebies with that SA link.

                    And have planned when to do your part to reduce CO2 emissions by stop your breathing?

                    Red highlight is mine.
                    Last edited by G David Bock; 17 Apr 19, 17:10.

                    Comment


                    • Some general reference links;

                      Ocean acidification
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

                      Carbonic acid
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

                      Note that this is barely acidic per the pH scale, and serves many useful purposes in life, biological processes. Also it tends to be a short lived molecule, and helps create the carbonates coral and shell fish need.

                      Here's an interesting clip, about 15 minutes long;
                      The truth about global warming
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ

                      Comment


                      • Greenland Glacier Grows, Despite Al Gore's Claims of Melting Glaciers

                        ...
                        If one were to have believed Al Gore over the past twenty years, one would think that ol’ Mother earth were like the Wicked Witch of the West in “The Wizard of Oz,” that the planet is screaming, “I’m melting! Mellllting!” and bemoaning its destruction because of man’s uncaring use of energy-packed fossil fuels.

                        But another scientific study has appeared that throws cold water on Gore’s scaremongering and makes Gore look much more like the charlatan Wizard than the Scarecrow who really had a brain.

                        As James Murphy writes for The New American, the journal Nature Geoscience just released another study showing that the “glacial melting” narrative is unsupportable. The Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland is growing not melting.
                        ...
                        https://www.mrctv.org/blog/greenland...M00yRm82In0%3D

                        Comment


                        • A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming

                          https://youtu.be/RZlICdawHRA

                          Hillsdale College
                          Published on Nov 11, 2014

                          Comment


                          • These Scientists Are Radically Changing How They Live To Cope With Climate Change

                            When the US government is doing nothing to stop climate change, do your personal choices even matter? Here’s how climate scientists are — and aren’t — changing their lives.
                            ...
                            https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...=pocket-newtab

                            Next, they will try to stop the tides from ebb and flow ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              These Scientists Are Radically Changing How They Live To Cope With Climate Change

                              When the US government is doing nothing to stop climate change, do your personal choices even matter? Here’s how climate scientists are — and aren’t — changing their lives.
                              ...
                              https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...=pocket-newtab

                              Next, they will try to stop the tides from ebb and flow ...
                              Well, they are doing one thing that's good for the future... They aren't having offspring. That means fewer crazy, insane, Progressives in the future!

                              Comment


                              • Mr bock why must you always put down and demean anyone that does not agree with you ,

                                #1014
                                17 Apr 19, 17:02
                                So mr Shack,

                                When you were in school and one day you took a test with 20 questions and as the teacher came across the first question where you got a wrong answer, did that teacher say; "Sorry, Bill, but since you got one wrong answer, your whole test is invalidated and you get an F."?

                                This is the first of a few indications you may not have all your mental gears properly meshed.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X