'Game Over for the Climate'

[ralis]

Dr. James Hansen comments on the exploitation of the Canadian tar sands reserve and the disastrous effects on the earth's ecosystem.

 

 

GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”

Enlarge This Image

Johnny Selman

 

 

If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.

 

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

 

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

 

If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

 

The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change.

 

We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising — and it’s because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions.

 

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

 

We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price.

 

But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world’s governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through mountaintop removal, longwall mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic drilling.

 

President Obama speaks of a “planet in peril,” but he does not provide the leadership needed to change the world’s course. Our leaders must speak candidly to the public — which yearns for open, honest discussion — explaining that our continued technological leadership and economic well-being demand a reasoned change of our energy course. History has shown that the American public can rise to the challenge, but leadership is essential.

 

The science of the situation is clear — it’s time for the politics to follow. This is a plan that can unify conservatives and liberals, environmentalists and business. Every major national science academy in the world has reported that global warming is real, caused mostly by humans, and requires urgent action. The cost of acting goes far higher the longer we wait — we can’t wait any longer to avoid the worst and be judged immoral by coming generations.

 

James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is the author of “Storms of My Grandchildren.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1

Edited May 11, 2012 by ralis

[joeblast]

It'll be a great day when Hansen gets fired from his cheeleading position and NASA can begin restoring its name after being affiliated with this modeler-in-chief. Yer models are wrong, pal, so stop telling us of new predictions they make.

 

And now the new news that any oil or energy development whatsoever is going to catastrophically kill the planet So how many incorrect predictions need to be made before it can be agreed that carbon dioxide is a benign trace gas? Hundreds? (done) Thousands? Tend of Thousands? Sooner or later people are going to realize that basically every single prediction you're making is incorrect.

[zanshin]

The argument about climate change seem superfluous to me. I know people who can now set their well water on fire due to fracking in their area. Whether there's climate change or not, pollution and tearing up the environment seems like a terrible idea. We have summer warnings not to even touch water in certain lakes due to toxicity, not a theory. PRobably not likely to stop as long as someone can make a buck. Maybe if we can get another river to burn that might get some attention.

[idquest]

I couldn't understand from the article what would be the reason for a would-be dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:

- the technology of extracting oil from the oily sands would release the CO2

- the consumption of the final product - oil and its derivatives.

 

The second reason would not give any incremental increase in the atmospheric CO2 IMO. I'm not sure about the first one. Is there anything special in that technology of extracting oil from the sands that would release huge CO2?

[joeblast]

The argument about climate change seem superfluous to me. I know of?people who can now set their well water on fire due to fracking in their area. Whether there's climate change or not, pollution and tearing up the environment seems like a terrible idea. We have summer warnings not to even touch water in certain lakes due to toxicity, not a theory. PRobably not likely to stop as long as someone can make a buck. Maybe if we can get another river to burn that might get some attention.

Yeah, when you decide to put a fracking site 50 yards from the well you drink your water from, whaddya expect?

[joeblast]

I couldn't understand from the article what would be the reason for a would-be dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:

- the technology of extracting oil from the oily sands would release the CO2

- the consumption of the final product - oil and its derivatives.

 

The second reason would not give any incremental increase in the atmospheric CO2 IMO. I'm not sure about the first one. Is there anything special in that technology of extracting oil from the sands that would release huge CO2?

If you listen to chicken little Hansen, basically any human activity whatsoever is producing carbon dioxide that will catastrophically alter the planet's balances, which are perched precariously on a knife's edge of tipping points and any little movement will overwhelm all of the mechanisms that have kept the planet within pretty strict tolerances for umpteen millions of years

 

When the problem is approached from a radiative physics standpoint and one ascertains the balance of energies, one finds there is but a teeny tiny amount of room for minute third order processes to affect the overall temperature. (Which is why every single prediction made by these climate models becomes erroneous after a very short period of time and their predictive value is on par with Zimbabwe's currency.)

[ralis]

Joeblast only obtains his information from a radio weatherman who has no academic credentials in climate science. 'Radiative physics' is a meme meant to impress the lay public to believe that 'global warming' is not caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthony Watts who owns the blog http://wattsupwiththat.com/ will entertain any fantasy that fits his world view. All articles debunking 'global warming' that Watts refers to have not been peer reviewed or published in reputable science journals. Any amateur dilettante can post anything on his site and deem it science.

 

Watts is funded by the extreme right wing http://heartland.org/. The Heartland Institute only serves corporate interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/a-reply-to-vonk-radiative-physics-simplified-ii/

 

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

 

http://wottsupwiththat.com/category/just-goofy/

Edited May 12, 2012 by ralis

[ralis]

If you listen to chicken little Hansen, basically any human activity whatsoever is producing carbon dioxide that will catastrophically alter the planet's balances, which are perched precariously on a knife's edge of tipping points and any little movement will overwhelm all of the mechanisms that have kept the planet within pretty strict tolerances for umpteen millions of years

 

When the problem is approached from a radiative physics standpoint and one ascertains the balance of energies, one finds there is but a teeny tiny amount of room for minute third order processes to affect the overall temperature. (Which is why every single prediction made by these climate models becomes erroneous after a very short period of time and their predictive value is on par with Zimbabwe's currency.)

 

Strict tolerances? That statement is contrary to the events that caused the 'five mass extinctions'. The fluctuations in environmental conditions were extreme and did not conform to human ideas of so called tolerances. However, you may believe in 'intelligent design' that created parameters in the biosphere that would never be exceeded.

 

Most readers here on this forum have no idea what 'third order processes' are. I have noticed your posts are replete with generalized terms that are never expounded on by you. Why not explain in detail what you are trying to say?

[idquest]

I have always thought that cutting trees results in more damage to the planet ecology than human-produced CO2. Greenhouse effect due to CO2 is a theory so far. But changing landscape due to human activity is harsh reality. I'd direct resources to massive planting trees/shrubs in arid areas like Sahara rather than to fight for CO2. So far Sahara has been advancing with intimidating speed and African tribes cutting trees on its periphery don't help much.

[ralis]

I have always thought that cutting trees results in more damage to the planet ecology than human-produced CO2. Greenhouse effect due to CO2 is a theory so far. But changing landscape due to human activity is harsh reality. I'd direct resources to massive planting trees/shrubs in arid areas like Sahara rather than to fight for CO2. So far Sahara has been advancing with intimidating speed and African tribes cutting trees on its periphery don't help much.

 

Theory? I assume you are referring to the secondary definition of theory which is defined as conjecture. The climate science of 'global warming'is hardly conjecture. The data that are used in climate models has set forth propositions that can be used to make explanations and predictions of the climate. Search the internet and read for yourself.

 

The radical right has politicized this problem with funding from corporate interests such as the Koch Bros.

[zanshin]

Yeah, when you decide to put a fracking site 50 yards from the well you drink your water from, whaddya expect?

 

A well is not just a well, it is connected to the whole aquifer. Is cancer prevalence in fracking areas funny to you too?

[joeblast]

Joeblast only obtains his information from a radio weatherman who has no academic credentials in climate science. 'Radiative physics' is a meme meant to impress the lay public to believe that 'global warming' is not caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthony Watts who owns the blog http://wattsupwiththat.com/ will entertain any fantasy that fits his world view. All articles debunking 'global warming' that Watts refers to have not been peer reviewed or published in reputable science journals. Any amateur dilettante can post anything on his site and deem it science.

 

Watts is funded by the extreme right wing http://heartland.org/. The Heartland Institute only serves corporate interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/a-reply-to-vonk-radiative-physics-simplified-ii/

 

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

 

http://wottsupwiththat.com/category/just-goofy/

Yeah, and a prominent climate "scientist" Peter Glieck felt it necessary to create false documents trying to attribute some sort of agenda aside from simply discovering what the scientific truth of the matter when he found none.

 

Its pretty pathetic, ralis - attack the credentials and stay away from the science, for when we get down to it you cant back up what you support but via vague generalizations and speaking of "well, we got data" (that is often skewed and is so twisted by normalization processes that for a good percentage of it "they cant even find the original raw data" so good luck with that!) and "well, we have very powerful computers" (that simply give the GIGO result a little more quickly than a slower computer, nevermind that its the model and its assumptions which are giving the bad results that cannot be forecast nor hindcast accurately...what's that say when your model has zero predictive ability? It simply says your model is garbage.) and then when that line runs its course and can no longer support pseudoscience, why then its right on to insulting the person it came from, why a weather man who has been in the business for 30, 40 years and is green and solar power happy and helped launch the weather channel...oh yeah, and forget about the ton of other people that contribute there from all sorts of disciplines.

 

It was a statistician that showed what a farce the hockey stick was. I dont understand how you can willingly dismiss other mathematical disciplines simply because they have looked at things and dont see anywhere near the solid evidence than those who created the models do.

 

 

Strict tolerances? That statement is contrary to the events that caused the 'five mass extinctions'. The fluctuations in environmental conditions were extreme and did not conform to human ideas of so called tolerances. However, you may believe in 'intelligent design' that created parameters in the biosphere that would never be exceeded.

 

Most readers here on this forum have no idea what 'third order processes' are. I have noticed your posts are replete with generalized terms that are never expounded on by you. Why not explain in detail what you are trying to say?

Yes, and if you took that in context you'd realize that "strict tolerances" well allow for much variability. Of course mass extinctions came from aberrations - simply because the planet has many negative feedback mechanisms that tend to keep things in the relatively hospitable range doesnt mean that other forces cannot perturb them to significant extent. Asteroid impacts, supernovae, sunspot funks, are all relatively outside those "strict tolerances."

 

Since you have a problem with order, I'll reiterate it again for you. First order processes are the major processes that have an immediate impact - the sun's rays, ya know the very beginning of where you begin to assess the situation from the standpoint of radiative physics. It gets pretty cold at night, no? Second order are lesser, have less impact, like the El nino phenomenon that can distribute heat over the course of weeks, months. Third order processes are ones that have barely any effect in comparison, like the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - the effect is so slight that a change in concentration takes quite a while for the effects to be noticed, huge concentrations lag temperature by decades if not centuries depending on the context.

 

So basically one can ask - how quickly does the process in question produce effects on the subject we are studying?

 

Saying that somehow more CO2 is going to make water vapor's warming coefficient go through the roof (that would be required for these 3-6 degree attributions we see people try to assign to a relative doubling of CO2) is just plain false. Look at the absorption bands and you can see pretty plainly that watter vapor and CO2 overlap in a couple key areas, and water vapor can hold a lot more heat than CO2 (and thus breaks entirely apart in places where it has absorbed so much that the molecular bonds release, think Venusian atmosphere...where you find that when the atmospheric pressure equals that of earth's...why is it that the temperature is the same?) and that is a big reason for the logarithmic progression of CO2's absorption potential - so we may see .6 per doubling or so realistically in the range we are right now, but slide us way down the CO2 PPM scale and then it'll go up to a degree or three...but slide us up the scale and watch the absorption coefficient get smaller and smaller and practically go asymptotic.

 

I have always thought that cutting trees results in more damage to the planet ecology than human-produced CO2. Greenhouse effect due to CO2 is a theory so far. But changing landscape due to human activity is harsh reality. I'd direct resources to massive planting trees/shrubs in arid areas like Sahara rather than to fight for CO2. So far Sahara has been advancing with intimidating speed and African tribes cutting trees on its periphery don't help much.

It does, but so long as more are planted, they recover pretty quickly. Sure we can cut the amazon down faster than it can grow for a time, but leave those cut down areas be and it isnt very long before life asserts itself significantly once again.

 

Trees in the sahara is an exercise in futility...if you dont have the resources, fuhgeddaboutit. No water, no trees. Tough to keep back desert creep when the local climate isnt being friendly to green growth.

 

 

Theory? I assume you are referring to the secondary definition of theory which is defined as conjecture. The climate science of 'global warming'is hardly conjecture. The data that are used in climate models has set forth propositions that can be used to make explanations and predictions of the climate. Search the internet and read for yourself.

 

The radical right has politicized this problem with funding from corporate interests such as the Koch Bros.

Its hardly conjecture, I'll give you that much. Its a prime example of GIGO, groupthink, corruption, subversion/perversion of a previously good "peer review" process that eventually became "like minded pal review" where claiming the earth wasnt the center of the universe would get you ostracized.

 

Explanations, predictions... good one. So what happens when those explanations dont convince the world of mathematics, what happens when the predictions both fore and hind are wildly wrong and only hit but a few "desired" data points? Do you admit you might have been wrong on something, or do you just keep plodding along thinking "why if I only tweak this or that parameter, then I might be able to hit a few more data points" which is really all they have been doing since abandoning an interest in the science and moving on to simply wanting to prove their models correct.

 

Every doomsday prediction has come from a model...and every one has been wrong.

 

Lemme ask you something ralis, why is it that every time an AGW thread appears, I beat you down into oblivion and the threads die because nobody that supports AGW and the CO2 farce really has a leg to stand on? Every single one! I'd think if you had anything to go on there would be some real rebuttal, no? Not just "those damned Koch brothers funded this!" wtf does that have to do with anything? Its a lot less money than what's handed out in grants for scientists to "work" or supporting AGW propaganda or the umpteen billions in possible tax revenue for governments to steal (which is where the real money is anyway.)

 

A well is not just a well, it is connected to the whole aquifer. Is cancer prevalence in fracking areas funny to you too?

I thought it was wells on fire? Of course nobody mentions that the "drinking wells on fire" are from areas where the technique was performed ridiculously close to where the drinking well was. Not to mention, how old is the fracking technique? Does it take just a couple years for "cancer prevalence" or might there be some other reason? Careful of confirmation bias, its abound. When Lake Champlain was poisoned, it took a couple decades for "prevalent cancer rates" to appear up there. Of course it depends on what the contamination is.

[ralis]

@Joeblast,

 

I am not interested in you lecturing me. I know what third order processes are. Many here don't. I was speaking for them.

 

You are not a scientist or even a mathematician. So stop pretending that you are. Your post is nothing but a parroting of pseudoscience.

Edited May 13, 2012 by ralis

[joeblast]

then stop asking to be lectured!

[zanshin]

It might seem sensible to use modern "safe" techniques (like BP in the Gulf?) in a big sparsely populated area. But,

 

What happens if we all have to move North due to climate change?

 

 

 

Really, where does not "in my backyard" stop? I'm not sure if I understand whether the argument is about whether climate change is going on, or whether it's anthropogenic? It seems pretty obvious there is climate change: the deserts are expanding, polar bears are losing ice to run around on, more extreme weather, USDA revised planting zones this year. I've gone outside every day for the past 10 years, so pretty sure I don't need a study to tell me plants and birds are doing their thing about a month earlier than they used to. Even if it's not primarily anthropogenic, it seems like a really bad idea to use experimental technology to mass extract and then burn more poison for the air and water.

Edited May 14, 2012 by zanshin

[ralis]

edit

Edited May 14, 2012 by ralis

[joeblast]

It might seem sensible to use "safe" techniques (like BP in the Gulf?) in a big sparsely populated area. But,

 

What happens if we all have to move North due to climate change?

 

 

 

Really, where does not "in my backyard" stop? I'm not sure if I understand whether the argument is about whether climate change is going on, or whether it's anthropomorphic? It seems pretty obvious there is climate change: the deserts are expanding, polar bears are losing ice to run around on, more extreme weather, USDA revised planting zones this year. I've gone outside every day for the past 10 years, so pretty sure I don't need a study to tell me plants and birds are doing their thing about a month earlier than they used to. Even if it's not primarily anthropomorphic, it seems like a realy bad idea to use experimental technology to mass extract and then burn more poison for the air and water.

North? That's the direction the cheerleaders tell you you'll have to move due to climate change. If the climate changes drastically enough for you to actually have to move, its going to be south you'll have to move if the heavens and earth decide to change the equilibrium here, and you'll probably need your animal pelt to stay warm.

 

Most everyone knows the climate changes. What some people are saying is that "we need to invent a way for humans to be responsible for this(, so that we may tax it.)" And that invention is the ridiculously high estimates of CO2 warming sensitivity. See when you abandon science and then need to lie to save face, then all of that CFC cooling you told everyone was the reason for the 70s cooling now needs to be compensated for because since it warmed after the 70s, why hey, the models arent looking good, so let's tweak them to fit more data points. Perfect thing to balance a too-high cooling coefficient from a bad assumption is a too-high warming coefficient...which is also a bad assumption. The history is right there for people to see, if you want to go and find it.

 

Some deserts are expanding - are all? Some glaciers are retreating - are all? How long do such effects keep marching forth after a warming period? The polar bear population is thriving. Sea ice extents are well within norms. Disagree on more extreme weather, in fact so does most of the data, less extreme tornadoes, hurricanes. (and of course, who's going to admit what was responsible for the polar vortex this past year that left AK, canada eurpoe rather cold and cont us rather balmy? not someone who would like to attribute it to humans.)

 

Judicious utilization is the best thing for the human race - where there is abundant energy there is prosperity. Matter of fact, if we burned every single gallon of hydrocarbons the planet has right now, it would still not be enough to "kill the atmosphere/planet" and the oceans & plants would eat the extra, the concentration of CO2 would never reach high enough to kill people, not even close. Best any honest assessment gives is that most everything will thrive with things being a little warmer and plants growing a little more rapidly. Of course that's not going to change the point of view much from the middle of the sahara. (Lubos did a pretty amusing calculation on burning all of it a couple years ago, the resultant CO2 levels would be of no concern, I dont recall what the numerical result was...a couple hundred ppm isnt going to do jack crap anyway. Of course if you believe the AGW cheerleaders, the earth will be a hundred degrees all over if that happens But anyway, that context really only considered CO2, not the rest of the byproducts.)

 

Why is it that people think because the earth can be soiled, that necessarily means the earth is this dainty, fragile little flake of real estate that's going to collapse at the drop of a hat? That doesnt mean go ahead and soil with abandon, but we all must take a dump sooner or later, and its got to go somewhere, right? So we devise ways to take a dump cleanly and not toss it on people's heads - not try and convince people that we shouldnt be hitting the shitter at all!

 

Focusing environmental efforts on the carbon farce is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. It detracts from real environmental efforts that could actually produce some measurable, positive effect. I dont see the point in spending a trillion dollars and dialing back all economic activity to the point of mere quantum fluctuations to maybe produce/'save' a "measurable" .1 degree over the next hundred or so years, or whatever preposterous notions we've seen abound.

 

That's the problem when one is trying to call a third order process a first order process. Tinker with that process all day long and it still is not going to act like a second order much less first order process. So Gore's 100+ million dollars, all of these umpteen billions that have been spent "combating" climate change...you might as well go stand in front of the glaciers and wedge your foot at the front and tell them to halt the next they decide to advance, you would accomplish just as much. (Except you wouldnt be contributing towards the riches of corrupt asswipes.)

 

funny pic

Edited May 14, 2012 by joeblast

[zanshin]

I don't completely disagree with you. You basically have a middle of the road opinion and are annoyed at the alarmists. I know I skew toward an extreme and I don't completely disagree with the alarmists either. Whether it is or it isn't, if we put even a proportion of the effort and money spent on theories and studies and summits and debates into making practical changes like better public transportation, improving bike or walkability and community gardening at least it would help the problem a bit and definitely would improve "prosperity" (my definition for that might be a little different too). Thanks for all the informative opinions on climate change.

[ralis]

 

 

 

Judicious utilization is the best thing for the human race - where there is abundant energy there is prosperity. Matter of fact, if we burned every single gallon of hydrocarbons the planet has right now, it would still not be enough to "kill the atmosphere/planet" and the oceans & plants would eat the extra, the concentration of CO2 would never reach high enough to kill people, not even close. Best any honest assessment gives is that most everything will thrive with things being a little warmer and plants growing a little more rapidly. Of course that's not going to change the point of view much from the middle of the sahara. (Lubos did a pretty amusing calculation on burning all of it a couple years ago, the resultant CO2 levels would be of no concern, I dont recall what the numerical result was...a couple hundred ppm isnt going to do jack crap anyway. Of course if you believe the AGW cheerleaders, the earth will be a hundred degrees all over if that happens But anyway, that context really only considered CO2, not the rest of the byproducts.)

 

 

It is obvious you are the resident 'know it all' and fail to realize that cooperation is the real answer to solving this problem. However, your assumption have no basis in fact that burning every last drop of fossil fuels will not tip the balance to the extreme. Furthermore, you fail to include the health factor and the damage of breathing carbon based particulate matter into the human and animal organism. Given where you live in CT you are accustomed to breathing polluted air and don't notice it.

 

Your knowledge of CO2 and how it affects ph is lacking. Ph is defined as the neg. log of the hydrogen ion concentration. It is a known fact that CO2 in solution increases acidity. Increase CO2 and increase acidic conditions. Acidic conditions affect marine life negatively.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

Edited May 14, 2012 by ralis

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Global warming is good; i'm moving to Alaska.

[thelerner]

Global warming is good; i'm moving to Alaska.

bring a snorkel

[zanshin]

bring a snorkel

 

 

NO!!!!

 

It's going to be poison acid water, do not go snorkeling in it.

[zanshin]

Fish farming is banned is Alaska, Atlantic salmon is usually farmed.

[joeblast]

It is obvious you are the resident 'know it all' and fail to realize that cooperation is the real answer to solving this problem. However, your assumption have no basis in fact that burning every last drop of fossil fuels will not tip the balance to the extreme. Furthermore, you fail to include the health factor and the damage of breathing carbon based particulate matter into the human and animal organism. Given where you live in CT you are accustomed to breathing polluted air and don't notice it.

 

Your knowledge of CO2 and how it affects ph is lacking. Ph is defined as the neg. log of the hydrogen ion concentration. It is a known fact that CO2 in solution increases acidity. Increase CO2 and increase acidic conditions. Acidic conditions affect marine life negatively.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

Breathing carbon based particulate matter! ROFL oh noes!!! You mean to tell me I've breathed that stuff every day of my life and somehow I'm still functioning? Who'da thunk!?

 

If for some reason I am the resident "know it all" on crap like this it is merely because I am in dialogue with some "resident parrots" who dutifully regurgitate the garbage they find on their anti-human, anti-energy, anti-everything information feeds. But that is excluding those who read these threads and have a mind of their own that processes rational thought, zanshin included who correctly recognizes a middle of the road approach when he sees one.

 

The world's oceans are plenty alkaline, and reducing the alkalinity is neutralization, not acidification. So nice try with the misleading alarmist claptrap

 

And of course nevermind that with the "move towards acidity" (lol) the solubility of calcium carbonate in the seawater goes down so there is a bit of a mechanism that makes it easier for them to form shells - but hey, let's go by what happens in the lab petri dish where they have no means to adapt - see, look, changing the PH impacts how they form shells! See, just because the math says something exists that means we can extrapolate it to the hilt and ignore the real world. Now if we just build a model...

 

Got any other tin cans for me to shoot down, ralis? I'll shoot 99/100 prone at 50 feet alllll daaaayy loooong Because that's about the scope of the challenge you're presenting. (indoors with no wind either, in that case )

------------------------

 

 

 

It was fun visiting a salmon hatchery up in Juneau - they nurture and release millions a year and they return back to swim up the ladder to spawn - I dont really know of any "farms" up there where they dont release them, lots of square miles up there...lots...I mean, the hatcheries just have sections of open water for just before they are released into the wild and tanks of various sizes for when they are small. Once they're big enough (adolescent of some level) they're released into the ocean to go live for some years (3, 4) until they're done and they return. Around spawn time there are hundreds of fish laying dead on the side of the streams in just a relatively small area, and that's aside from all of them that never make the journey, or are consumed near or at the end of it. The bears actually get drunk off of salmon they eat so much of it before going into hibernation!

 

Of course the truly wild ones caught in glacier bay are the best tasting on the planet Its a little pricey, but if you ever want to order the best smoked salmon ever, get it from Pep's packing up in Gustavus, its a little mom & pop shop, very nice people there.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

bring a snorkel

 

 

Mountains are pretty high in AK. far enough inland, my mountain cabin will become a beach house