Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-22-2022, 10:00 AM
 
572 posts, read 275,867 times
Reputation: 618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Sigh. I know it's a diversion - it's a really old and often used diversion that gets brought out a lot.... for years and years. And it's not that I'm unconcerned about CO2, believe me when I say I have close up and personal experience with what kinds of harms too much of it is capable of.

It's just that I'm not interested in hearing more of the same old, same old stand-by diversion refrain repeated over and over and over again about CO2 and how many ppm are in the atmosphere today compared to times in the past thousands or millions of years ago when there was so much more of it in the atmosphere and the planet was warmer and yada yada yada ........ but there was not an over-population of 8 BILLION people on the planet then all polluting and competing for resources and exacerbating climate today, and there is so much more to consider about climate change besides only CO2.

I'm bored with CO2 and being told "it's only normal variability of weather" BS.

Frankly I'm far more interested about what's happening on and beneath the surfaces of the oceans
instead of
CO2 in the atmosphere because it's the oceans that are the engines that drive the world, they are what create the changes in climates and have the most influence on what's happening in the atmosphere and on all life on Earth.

.
Understood, but CO2 has a huge impact on the oceans. New report this week from the World Meteorological Organization.

Quote:
26,000 years ago
The last time the Earth's oceans were as acidic as they were in 2021. Last year, the oceans became more acidic as waters absorbed more carbon dioxide, according to an annual report from the World Meteorological Organization. "Ocean acidification threatens organisms and ecosystem services, and hence food security, tourism and coastal protection," the WMO said in the report.
https://mcusercontent.com/e35fa2254c...NXCMFwTc2L2ySR
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2022, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Canada
14,696 posts, read 14,843,088 times
Reputation: 34718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan View Post
Understood, but CO2 has a huge impact on the oceans. New report this week from the World Meteorological Organization.
Quote:
26,000 years ago
The last time the Earth's oceans were as acidic as they were in 2021. Last year, the oceans became more acidic as waters absorbed more carbon dioxide, according to an annual report from the World Meteorological Organization. "Ocean acidification threatens organisms and ecosystem services, and hence food security, tourism and coastal protection," the WMO said in the report.
https://mcusercontent.com/e35fa2254c...NXCMFwTc2L2ySR
There you go, that's exactly my point. Thanks for posting the link to that. Now we've known about the acidification of the oceans for several years already but not enough people are paying attention to it, too many people are still too focused on only what's happening with the atmosphere and its impact on temperatures without actually understanding what's happening.

Where I live we've been seeing first hand for at least the past 10 years the effects of acidification on the Pacific and the marine life. News articles and reports in environmental journals have been getting released about it, but guess what. Most of the public don't want to know about it, they don't want to even think about or comprehend it because what it may mean for their future and what conveniences and luxuries and especially the sea foods they will have to sacrifice and give up on is too frightening to bear thinking about, so they only want to concern themselves with global temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere.

That report from the World Meteorological Organization needs more attention from more people. It deserves to have a thread of it's own so that more people will see the thread title and read it, instead of it being buried here in the middle of this soon to be forgotten "What Climate Change?" thread, the title of which doesn't capture enough interest because it's just another same old, same old climate change pros and cons debate that goes nowhere, the same as all the others. It's not really saying anything important or new. But that WMO report is more comprehensive and informative in scope, it's more up to date and it needs more exposure with its own title here for exposure and for easier retrieval for reference purposes.

.

Last edited by Zoisite; 05-22-2022 at 11:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2022, 01:53 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,157 posts, read 5,011,652 times
Reputation: 17525
Thanks for bringing up sea water pH.

It looks like changes correlate poorly with average global temps and are due mostly to natural oceanic & bioligical factors, not atmospheric factors. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2015JC011066

It's another case where natural, daily variations in pH far exceed the trend in averages over extended periods of time. http://iocwestpac.org/OA1/14%20Malay...ar%20Yasin.pdf
Just because a trend can be observed in some metric doesn't necessarily mean the trend is meaningful in real world consequences.

Sterile ocean water is slighly alkaline, and biologic factors produce acidity--> ergo, increasing acidity of sea water means increasing biologic activity....That's good, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2022, 06:38 AM
 
9,803 posts, read 7,611,368 times
Reputation: 24387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
There you go, that's exactly my point. Thanks for posting the link to that. Now we've known about the acidification of the oceans for several years already but not enough people are paying attention to it, too many people are still too focused on only what's happening with the atmosphere and its impact on temperatures without actually understanding what's happening.

Where I live we've been seeing first hand for at least the past 10 years the effects of acidification on the Pacific and the marine life. News articles and reports in environmental journals have been getting released about it, but guess what. Most of the public don't want to know about it, they don't want to even think about or comprehend it because what it may mean for their future and what conveniences and luxuries and especially the sea foods they will have to sacrifice and give up on is too frightening to bear thinking about, so they only want to concern themselves with global temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere.

That report from the World Meteorological Organization needs more attention from more people. It deserves to have a thread of it's own so that more people will see the thread title and read it, instead of it being buried here in the middle of this soon to be forgotten "What Climate Change?" thread, the title of which doesn't capture enough interest because it's just another same old, same old climate change pros and cons debate that goes nowhere, the same as all the others. It's not really saying anything important or new. But that WMO report is more comprehensive and informative in scope, it's more up to date and it needs more exposure with its own title here for exposure and for easier retrieval for reference purposes.

.
What are you seeing where you live?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2022, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Canada
14,696 posts, read 14,843,088 times
Reputation: 34718
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
What are you seeing where you live?
Just for a few examples: the dissolving of the shells of marine animals such as crabs, mussels, oysters, clams, abalone, snails, urchins, corals. The melting and falling apart of the living bodies of certain species of starfish. Lesions on the gills, eyes and bodies of fish and the dissolution of their bones. Lesions on the bodies and eyes and mucous membranes of sea mammals such as seals, otters, cetaceans (whales and dolphins). The dissolving of certain types of phytoplankton, marine vegetation. The corrosion of fish teeth and scales.

All of that and more can easily be verified in all manner of online news reports, science journals, etc.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2022, 12:26 PM
 
Location: New York Area
34,659 posts, read 16,697,613 times
Reputation: 29791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Warmunists? I thought this was supposed to be an adult discussion, not resorting to making up silly juvenile names.

I guess you think this video taken last week over Manitoba farmlands is evidence of normal variability of weather.
I watched the video. As far as nicknames, it's a shorthand rendition of his or her opinions. But I understand that people who believe in "climate change" cannot know a few things for sure:
  1. That they are right on the cause; and
  2. That the proposed actions will have any impact on the problem.
If we (meaning the U.S. and Canada) adopts the proposed restrictions can we be sure that North and South Dakota will never have enough snow accumulations to trigger the flooding shown in those pictures? Are you certain that such flooding did not occur before the Industrial Revolution? A reason for the "silly juvenile names" may well be the perception that those pushing the climate change agenda insist on telling others what to do and when to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2022, 03:05 PM
 
408 posts, read 288,802 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple674 View Post
The only reason that people care so much about "climate change" is because of a Swedish child named Greta Thunberg. She decided that protesting about something was a better use of her time than receiving an education. But check her age. She is still a teenager. Greta doesn't have the life experience to hold an expert view on scientific matters.

About fifteen years ago, I studied botany and oceanography. By the time Greta was legally required to attend school in Sweden (age six), I was already an award-winning physicist with decent foundations in other scientific topics.
She is not the architect of the data she is using and the presentations she’s made. But she is using data points and materials from reputable scientific experts whose views she aligned her own with. And her statements about the metrics and the impacts caused by human activity are well supported. Also she continues to study in school but with leadership focus on an important issue.

Regardless what expertise you have in science, you will find yourself at odds with other scientists who claim their expertise. Greta is simply a messenger for them and you can find a teen who might take your material and be messenger for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2022, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Canada
14,696 posts, read 14,843,088 times
Reputation: 34718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple674 View Post
The only reason that people care so much about "climate change" is because of a Swedish child named Greta Thunberg. She decided that protesting about something was a better use of her time than receiving an education. But check her age. She is still a teenager. Greta doesn't have the life experience to hold an expert view on scientific matters.

About fifteen years ago, I studied botany and oceanography. By the time Greta was legally required to attend school in Sweden (age six), I was already an award-winning physicist with decent foundations in other scientific topics.
I think you must be a relatively young person if you don't know that people started caring about climate change at least 60 years ago. That's well before Mr. Gore first dipped his global warming oar into the political climate change waters in 1976, and long before Greta Thunberg was born in 2003 (which means she is a well educated and graduated adult now, she's not a child), and presumably it was before you were born too. Otherwise I'd think you should remember the beginnings of the CC movement from well before the Greenpeace (1969) and the Sea Shepherd (1977) movements started (they were/are also active in the CC activism), and from your studies in botany and oceanography.

.

Last edited by Zoisite; 05-23-2022 at 07:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2022, 06:36 AM
 
572 posts, read 275,867 times
Reputation: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I watched the video. As far as nicknames, it's a shorthand rendition of his or her opinions. But I understand that people who believe in "climate change" cannot know a few things for sure:
  1. That they are right on the cause; and
  2. That the proposed actions will have any impact on the problem.
If we (meaning the U.S. and Canada) adopts the proposed restrictions can we be sure that North and South Dakota will never have enough snow accumulations to trigger the flooding shown in those pictures? Are you certain that such flooding did not occur before the Industrial Revolution? A reason for the "silly juvenile names" may well be the perception that those pushing the climate change agenda insist on telling others what to do and when to do it.
Similar for people who don't believe in CC.
I didn't see much "industrial revolution" in the video, unless it was all buried by the water. As a lawyer, I assume you've heard of the concept of "preponderance of evidence"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2022, 03:12 PM
 
Location: New York Area
34,659 posts, read 16,697,613 times
Reputation: 29791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan View Post
Similar for people who don't believe in CC.
I didn't see much "industrial revolution" in the video, unless it was all buried by the water. As a lawyer, I assume you've heard of the concept of "preponderance of evidence"?
I know the concept well. One doesn't take drastic measures based upon a just over 50/50 likelihood of being right. Even for certain civil lawsuits where preponderance is the quantum of proof, there are devices for amelioration such as appeals and motions to set aside or modify a judgment. See, e.g. FRCP 59(e).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top