There was a time when people talked about humankind's survival being linked to the oceans. There, it was said, would be found the food source for the future.

Perhaps not.

*sputtering*
damned liberal lies. We have water to last for many, many years.

--The Right--

Oh My God Oh My God the sky is falling the sky is falling. Help Me Help Me Help Me the sky is falling. CO2 CO2 CO2 CO3 CO3 CO3 Where do We flee. Oh My God the sky is falling, ROLLS EYES

Larry Mohr

Larry: Scoff if you want, but remember, when the oceans die, we start eating "soylent green" and we'll be eating the big folk first!

we'll be eating the big folk first

And the ones with tats make excellent lampshades.

Just think NorthGuy if You eat Me I will become a part of You. NOW Do You want to eat Me??

Larry Mohr

I can see this going downhill quickly!

I see the potential for a planet-sized battery here...

Ocean life is responsible for a large portion of the world's oxygen supply. Last time I checked, civilization still depended on that. This is pretty scary.

Ocean life is responsible for a large portion of the world's oxygen supply. Last time I checked, civilization still depended on that. This is pretty scary.

That and the depletion of carbon sink. This is ugly.

This so called "CO2" is just a theory. I've never seen a "CO2". These "scientists" are just liberals trying to get government grants to waste our valuable tax money which could otherwise be going to the patriotic contractors at places like Blackwater.

Larry Mohr

It isn't the CO2 that will get us, it is the methyl hydrate. What's methyl hydrate? LOL---like you could understand it anyway.

What's methyl hydrate?

I know! I know!

It's the stuff that makes racecars go really fast.

"Larry: Scoff if you want, but remember, when the oceans die, we start eating "soylent green" and we'll be eating the big folk first!"

the oceans aren't going to die. They're just "quotes" and don't mean anything.

There are more questions than answers. People believe anything from anyone. I can come out and say the suns going to blow up in a 100 years because of carbon dioxide where the light bounces back to the sun causing interference and sunspots. What's my evidence? Well it just makes sense right. To some people that would make sense. I'm sure if you skew the science a little it would make a lot of sense.

In the end ask questions. I would start with two:

What happens after the oceans absorbs the gas?
What is your source of the evidence?

no one has any idea what's going on though. Read up on it. It's all theories, speculation, and computer models. A lot of it is crazy religion "doomsday" crap.

"Ocean life is responsible for a large portion of the world's oxygen supply. Last time I checked, civilization still depended on that. This is pretty scary."

the ocean is also responsible for life. As you know being your very own scientist life is CO2.

If we agree that water is the basic building block for life and co2 is the building block for life, we can probably conclude that oceans typical have co2 and oxygen anyway.

umm ya ... ya know i think all that's going to happen is seeing an increase in new species/life being formed. All that energy has to go somewhere.

Larry: Good point. Though, you still beat starving to death.
I think I'll start with the girls from the catholic high school near me first. They do look tasty!

What happens after the oceans absorbs the gas?

It gets more acidic. When CO2 is dissolved in water it forms carbonic acid. The sea buffers that acid with calcium carbonate. The calcium buffer is being used up. That's the point of the article.

What is your source of the evidence?

Measuring the lowered pH (increased acidity) of seawater.

This is very basic inorganic chemistry, not "climate science".

Where the climate science enters the picture is that as seawater warms, it's capacity to absorb CO2 decreases (more basic chemistry). That means it must dump the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

If the CO2 theory of global warming is correct, an escalating spiral effect may occur such as often happens when balanced natural systems lose their equilibrium.

For example, your and my death will be due to a failure of homeostasis, the finely tuned balance of competing chemical reactions in our bodies. It won't matter what causes us to die, the mechanism will be unbalanced homeostasis.

What if we just dropped 500 trillion tons of baking soda in the ocean?

I think I'll start with the girls from the catholic high school near me first. They do look tasty!

Careful, If there really is anyone missing from that school they're gonna leverage RCade for more info about you.

Actually in the "soylent green" scenario the liberal anti-gun crowd ("I'll never have a gun in my home") will be the first to go - LOL

Just as I thought. The UN is pushing this fear mongoring to push the carbon tax and setting the agenda for global governance that over rules national laws.
The New World Order pushing their slave planet agenda.

Soylent Green - Made from the best stuff on earth. People!

"the same pollution that causes global warming, the world's governments and top scientists agreed yesterday"

What is this? The Weekly World News?

Oh, wait, it's the Independent. Same cloth.

The frantic tone that the climate clowns have taken on since the Big Clown got his Nobel Prize is most revealing.

They've been screaching and screaming for years, and the only way to hold the attention of the press is to get louder and more shrill. And more dramatic.

Same bunch of fools who 30 years ago were certain that CO-2 would plunge us into a man-made ice age. By blocking the sun.

Easy Vern. Don't hold a mirror up to to their faces too close.

What is ridiculous is that, no matter what the real truth is as to what real impact humans are having, there will be no meaningful change in what we are doing anyway.

Happy extinction, Vern.
You deserve it.

Posted by Zatoichi

Are you saying Vern deserves extinction more than you?

How is that?

Vernon-
I'd love a link to your statement about the, "Same bunch of fools who 30 years ago were certain that CO-2 would plunge us into a man-made ice age. By blocking the sun.", as I guess I haven't heard anyone claim that. ever. until just now.

Eberly-
re: What is ridiculous is that, no matter what the real truth is as to what real impact humans are having, there will be no meaningful change in what we are doing anyway.

Thanks in some small way to you.

Eberly-
Gee, thanks. That's the article that every nutcase appeals to. The only one. When you find anything (even one Newsweek article from over thirty years ago would be fine) that claims that "CO-2 would plunge us into a man-made ice age. By blocking the sun." as Vern stated, that would be fun.

BTW, thanks for going way out of your way to ensure that "there will be no meaningful change in what we are doing anyway.", ditto-head du jour.

And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.


As to the specifics of Vern's claim, I don't know.

Oh, and GWB did put me in charge of the "Let's provide no meaningful change" department just last year.

When your mom spanks you for not cleaning up your room do you blame it on your imaginary friend?

Just what actions of MINE do you think represent "going out of my way to ensure..."??

LOL

That's the article that every nutcase appeals to. The only one. When you find anything (even one Newsweek article from over thirty years ago would be fine) that claims that "CO-2 would plunge us into a man-made ice age. By blocking the sun." as Vern stated, that would be fun.

Is it fun? Somehow I don't think you are having any.

In any case, why anyone would be naive enough to buy into one side 100% is beyond me.

Good night.

Eberly-
I wish you a long life, good health, and many children and grandchildren who will remind you in your dotage what a fool you were.

In any case, why anyone would be naive enough to buy into one side 100% is beyond me.

Right. Because as BOTH your links flatly said, a couple of Scientists that quickly refuted their own hypothesis (they underestimated aerosol counteraction to acknowledged CO2 warming) is the same as the vast majority of Climatologists and Scientists today.

Can't you see the fallacy in attempting such equivalence?

"the world's governments and top scientists"

should read

"the world's top global warming activists"


A lot of those "top scientists" aren't scientists at all, and I wish they would stop being reported as, "2,500 of the world's top scientists." It's just more of the great propaganda machine.

I last dove the Tektite II site in 1996.
The coral was mostly gone already.
Just sand and sea grass.

Then thanks for diving there and fucking it up further....fucking idiot (and hypocrite)!!!

proof of intelligence?
"Then thanks for diving there and fucking it up further....fucking idiot (and hypocrite)!!!"

an example of the logical reasoning of the deniers. Why is when you request a peer reviewed research article supporting their view, they refer you to a editorial site or keep quiet. Is there no science to support their views

table on left has stacks of scientific peer reviewed research (stacked up to celing)
table on right has one sheet of paper, an editorial

the denier says "why I believe that guy on the right!!!!!!"

if you wish your view to be taken seroiusly then present peer reviewed research, or shup up!

There is a problem....and Zat is diving in areas that are sensitive and fucking it up even more. THANKS ZAT!!! STFU ONNA.

Damn, I may have. I've certainly hopped the islands there. Some great limbo nights at beach bars.

is this a scientific issue or a political issue, kinda like Rush saying "cigarette smoking is not harmful, that's a liberal hoax"

when your grandchildren ask you what you did about gobal warming will you tell them that like the cigarette hoax it also was a hoax.

Posted by onna at 2007-11-18 08:31 PM

Onna, when did Rush ever say that "cigarette smoking" is not harmful? I think what you may be referring to is his belief that "second hand smoke" is not harmful.

At any rate, what the liberals fail to realize is that the earth is in a state of constant flux. It gets warmer, it gets cooler, then it gets warmer again. And so on and so forth. The threat of "Global Warming" is the latest scare tactic used by liberal institutions in order to increase the size of government and to control how we live.

And, the liberals have the audacity to claim that it's the conservatives who use the politics of fear, that it's the conservatives who seek to impose control. What a laugher.

The threat of "Global Warming" is the latest scare tactic used by liberal institutions in order to increase the size of government and to control how we live.

You don't need liberal institutions for that.

The GOP has done a damn good job of it.

Zat,

My post in refference to the 2,500 IPCC "scientists" said that "A lot of those "top scientists" aren't scientists at all". You've posted a reference to ten of the members of the IPCC being scientists. Are you implying that because you can prove that 0.4% of them are scientists that we must accept the rest as scientists as well?

No?
Really?
Just Checking

" Are you implying that because you can prove that 0.4% of them are scientists that we must accept the rest as scientists as well?"

No, wankstain.
You made the assertion.
You prove it.

Trees, oceans, tundra, they're all "carbon sinks." When the trees die, for example, the carbon is released. What's new?

Now there is a trial underway to "sink" carbon in rock formations deep underground, so that weather changes and the like won't release it in sht is now an accelerating and reciprocating process.

But, it's okay. We've had ice ages, almost "refrigerator earth" at one time, with what might have been an irreversible frost right up to the equator. We've had hot spells. We've experienced reconfiguration of the continents. The only problem now is that there is a "we" as an observer, who is concerned regarding the consequences of the change on him.

On a geological scale, we've had changes of far greater magnitude within the last 10,000 years. The North American continent, including parts of the U.S., was covered with ice more than a mile in depth, and that was contemperaneous with the presence of modern man here.

What is compounding the problem is the size of the burgeoning human population, which is essentially left with "no place to hide." As the Mayan populations increased, agriculture expanded from the rich bottomlands to the hard scrabble hillsides (which were terraced to make them arable).

When there was a drastic climate change, since all of the land was being used, there was no "margin" to absorb the effect of the change, and the civilization collapsed. It still hasn't made a comeback. Visiting the former sites of their civilization is quite sobering. What is in store for us. We certainly have maximized use of our land under existing conditions. Well, the apocalypse will reduce populations to manageable size. And new technologies will also help. Who will perish? Who will live?" Wait for the next episode.

At any rate, what the liberals fail to realize is that the earth is in a state of constant flux.


Really? So liberals argue for the nothing ever changes theory now? That didn't seem to be Al Gore's message.


It gets warmer, it gets cooler, then it gets warmer again. And so on and so forth. The threat of "Global Warming" is the latest scare tactic used by liberal institutions in order to increase the size of government and to control how we live.


Since were talking conspiracy theory here at this point... How do you reconcile the idea that 9/11 truthers are full of shit on no more of a basis than not that many people could keep such a secret, but then find it no problemo when it comes to a posistion you are supportive of. Control how we live why? Increase the size of government for what purpose? Via green patriot act? Wiretaps to find out who the biggest poluters are? How about a coherent idea here eh? Whats the end-game? Takeover by alien overlords from Xerxes Prime?


And, the liberals have the audacity to claim that it's the conservatives who use the politics of fear, that it's the conservatives who seek to impose control. What a laugher.


Posted by Republican4ever at 2007-11-19 01:33 PM | Reply |

I dont see why your laughing. The conservatives have used the politics of fear time and time again. This is neither secret nor exageration. And when fear was on they're side, they sought exactly that, more control.

But you don't find this believable?

Yet when it comes to global warming, you totally buy it.

It seems you have alot of Bias on your part Republican4ever, your buying your own bullshit, and while it may smell like roses to you, its still a steaming pile of dogshit.

at least i can stop paying back my student loan

If matter cannot be created or destroyed, where was this stuff 100 years ago? We ain't making it!!!

posted by republican4ever "
Onna, when did Rush ever say that "cigarette smoking" is not harmful? I think what you may be referring to is his belief that "second hand smoke" is not harmful."

On his April 29, 1994 radio program Limbaugh stated, "There is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive...and the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease."

also read his views on global warming
anyone science supporting Rush's views

this is not a political issue

Sniper,

E = mc^2

"On his April 29, 1994 radio program Limbaugh stated, "There is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive...and the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease.""

Well, R4E, you asked for proof and were given it.

What say you?

Yet when it comes to global warming, you totally buy it.

Most conservatives I see here on the DR don't believe anybody.

It is the left who chooses to believe one side only.

That proves it is all politics.

On his April 29, 1994 radio program Limbaugh stated, "There is no conclusive proof that nicotine's addictive...and the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease."

Not that I doubt it but can you provide a link?

Limbaugh:

Thanks Danforth. I certainly don't doubt he said it. Sometimes he says things in jest but I think he was serious when he said that.

Limbaugh should be doing 7-15 like any other ordinary citizen would with the massive fraud involved in his OxyContin prescriptions.
*******

On topic, this might explain why the coral reefs are dying all over the world.

The ocean is turning Hasidic? I sure hope all that salt is Kosher then.

ZAT

That's somw sad commentary in those pics.

I remember 25-30 years ago when reefs were abundant, colorful, and full of life. Now a completely different story.

Now the only robust species you see under water are divers.""

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-11-19 05:44 PM

You and your diver friends are obviously ruining this habitat then. You deserve to be extinct Zat.

In the 1970's LA/Ca began getting acid rain. At that time residents discovered this when the rain left white stains around the perimeter of the rain drops that dried on their cars. As a result cars required painting more frequently and more time washing cars-More water wasted. There use to be a time when if your car was a little dirty and it rained, you car would look great. Now if you wash your car and it rains, you tell others that you just washed your can and the rained ruined the work you put in.

People at that time knew it was car exhaust and smoke stack emissions, but although California has lead the nation in trying to improve gas standards, reduce pollution and that it was affecting our rivers and oceans because marine life in the tide pools was dying. Now you have very different life in the tide pools.

In addition to that, we also have Mercury contamination of our fish as the federal government de-funded agencies to enforce pollution laws.

California has discovered the less pollution you have, the less money you need to spend fixing your environment.

Unfortunately, the Federal government has made it worse and compounded the problem.

Our seas have taken more abuse than our land and extinction is taking place rapidily. As any scuba diver when was the last time he encountered sharks. Those creatures use to be seen on virtually every dive 30 and 40 years ago