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.
In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
Quote:
Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.
The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem.
I guess that theory went down the crapper, along with another one just recently exposed as a hoax.
I wonder if they've always done this, when in the past Co2 was much higher than it is today. What a novel thought.
Did you even read your own article? As usual, you cherry pick and then submit it as concrete evidence. I guess you're a graduate of the school of Karl Rove? Repeat the lie until it becomes the truth. Tisk tisk.
Quote:
“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”
Quote:
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”
Translation; We were completely surprised by this development and since we are believers and believe Co2 is harmful, even though our little experiment blew that to smithereens, we must now try and scuttle our own findings in order to continue the Co2 scam.
Quote:
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
Wow...an opinion, based on...manufactured data. Impressive.
Translation; We were completely surprised by this development and since we are believers and believe Co2 is harmful, even though our little experiment blew that to smithereens, we must now try and scuttle our own findings in order to continue the Co2 scam.
Wow...an opinion, based on...manufactured data. Impressive.
Translation...I know nothing about science and I will automatically go against anything that might do any good for the planet. I don't recycle. I drive a gas guzzler. I support industries that pollute the air, water and soil. I will never convert any part of my lifestyle that will ever be taken for going "green" (God forbid). I have no respect for eco systems as I have no clue as to what they are. I have more right to live on this planet than any other form of wildlife does. To hell with future generations and the mess that we leave for them. I read and buy into all propaganda that is opposed to the stewardship of the planet and good old fashioned common sense. I'd rather take the word of "big oil" than marine biologists the world over, that are in agreement that our oceans are going acidic. That's just the type pf person I am.
Translation; We were completely surprised by this development and since we are believers and believe Co2 is harmful, even though our little experiment blew that to smithereens, we must now try and scuttle our own findings in order to continue the Co2 scam.
Wow...an opinion, based on...manufactured data. Impressive.
So in other words, you didn't read the entire article. That's what I thought.
Because they say more study is needed, that somehow negates the findings in your mind?
The article clearly states that the findings, while surprising, are nothing to draw a conclusion on. Which ironically you clearly are. Somehow I am not surprised that you are having a difficult time understanding the connection here.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
by using the gas to build better, harder, bigger shells. OMfG! How can this be? I've also heard trees are partial to it as well.
So, you'll be happy to leave the earth oysters and oaks?
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.
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.
