global warming and ocean life

[Old Rocks]

February 12, 2009 11:12 PM
Ocean climate change: a really inconvenient truth
Peter Aldhous, San Francisco bureau chief

The effects of climate change may be even more devastating for marine species than for those on land. That is the message from conservation biologists gathered at the AAAS meeting in Chicago.

I'm familiar with dire predictions about the future of biodiversity in a warming world, having reported on the prospects for terrestrial ecosystems from last year's annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Still, the latest projections for the world's marine fish, revealed at the AAAS by William Cheung of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, gave me pause for thought. Ocean climate change: a really inconvenient truth - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay .. now they are certainly grasping at straws with that crap.

 

[elvis]

Okay .. now they are certainly grasping at straws with that crap.

No. St. Albert Whore has endorsed it. so they are correct for sure.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Ocean in a High CO2 World - II
The 2nd symposium on “The Ocean in a High CO2 World” was held on 6-9 October 2008 at the Oceanography Museum of Monaco under the High Patronage of His Serene Highness Prince Albert II. The meeting brought together 250 scientists from 32 countries to assess what is known about ocean acidification impacts on marine chemistry and ecosystems, with topics including future scenarios of ocean acidification, effects of changes in seawater chemistry on nutrient and metal speciation, paleo-oceanographic perspectives, mechanisms of calcification, impacts on benthic and pelagic calcifiers, physiological effects from microbes to fish, adaptation and micro-evolution, fisheries and food webs, acidification issues related to sub-seabed storage CO2, economic perspectives of ocean acidification impacts, and making the connection between science and policy. To highlight some of the significant results from the symposium, a subset of results will be published in a special issue of the journal Biogeosciences. A reseach priorities workshop report, a summary for policymakers and a conference declaration will also be published soon.
For more information: www.ocean-acidification.net

 

[Old Rocks]

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314

 

[Diuretic]

For the denialist ideologues.

1. There is climate change and its effects are apparent. We need to acknowledge it and we need to change the way we live to be able to continue to exist.

2. If it is caused by human activity then the quicker we adapt to it to slow it or at least ameliorate its effects, the better for our (and other) species.

I'm not a green ideologue, but I'm living in a country that is affected adversely by global climate change and I have had to change the way I live, along with everyone else.

It's fine to bang on about it being climate hysteria and all the rest of it, but a more prudent response would be to accept the possibility (if you are a denier) and then scrutinise policy developed to deal with it. The truth is that humans are no more entitled to exist on this planet than any other life form and the planet doesn't give a fuck who lives on it.

But the denialists refuse to accept that. I think I know why.

A. Economic ideologue denialists don't want to accept that human industrialisation has accelerated or even caused climate change. The concept of de-industrialistion frightens them, they want things to keep going.

B. Religious ideologue denialists believe that God gave the planet to humans and if the planet is fucked up by human activity then that might somehow threaten that view. I don't know why, I thought one of the main planks of a belief in the current model of God was that He lets us get on with stuff and if we fuck up then we fuck up.

Either way I have to ask denialists to examine their views and work out the real reason they spit in the face of scientific evidence about climate change.

 

[Andrew2382]

Anyone else noticed how the term went from

global warming to climate change

Because the globe isn't warming and these guys don't know what the fuck is going on so it's a much more generic term

 

[Diuretic]

That's the sort of mindless chanting I'm referring to. No real point, just a smear. If it was serious question I'd bother to answer, since it's just lazy shit no point in it.

 

[Meister]

For the denialist ideologues.

1. There is climate change and its effects are apparent. We need to acknowledge it and we need to change the way we live to be able to continue to exist.

2. If it is caused by human activity then the quicker we adapt to it to slow it or at least ameliorate its effects, the better for our (and other) species.

I'm not a green ideologue, but I'm living in a country that is affected adversely by global climate change and I have had to change the way I live, along with everyone else.

It's fine to bang on about it being climate hysteria and all the rest of it, but a more prudent response would be to accept the possibility (if you are a denier) and then scrutinise policy developed to deal with it. The truth is that humans are no more entitled to exist on this planet than any other life form and the planet doesn't give a fuck who lives on it.

But the denialists refuse to accept that. I think I know why.

A. Economic ideologue denialists don't want to accept that human industrialisation has accelerated or even caused climate change. The concept of de-industrialistion frightens them, they want things to keep going.

B. Religious ideologue denialists believe that God gave the planet to humans and if the planet is fucked up by human activity then that might somehow threaten that view. I don't know why, I thought one of the main planks of a belief in the current model of God was that He lets us get on with stuff and if we fuck up then we fuck up.

Either way I have to ask denialists to examine their views and work out the real reason they spit in the face of scientific evidence about climate change.

D., there has been climate change for the last 5 billion years on Earth. There has been ice ages, and there has been global warming...long before Man existed. Fact of the matter is there is no "just the right temperature," it has been changes all along. There is nothing (as far as global warming) we can do to extend how long Man exists on Earth.
I do believe it is prudent to conserve energy, it is the prudent thing to do. Not because it leads to global warming, but because it is the prudent thing to do. I recycle, I have a car that gets great gas mileage. But, I do that because it's prudent.
There is a lot of science into global warming that has been "cherry picked," to attain the results they want. All the data hasn't been used, because it would lead to different results. Funds, and grants have been accepted to reach a perceived result. Those that don't will have the funds, or grants axed. This is how its weeded out to come up with the desired end. These are the ones that are published, and the alarmists run with. Why would they do that you might ask? For more money, through taxes and business. it's simple as that. Why does Gore have a energy gouging home, if he truly beleives in Man made global warming?
You talked about the economic denialists...well, there is something to be said about it. We would go back to the stone age, if it was up to rockhead, and Chris. That's not going to happen. If we did, nothing would change, the Earth would keep heating and cooling as it has since its existence. You talk about spitting in the face of scientific evidence. No their not, they are spitting in the face of faulty scientific study.
I know we will disagree on this, but that is the way it is. There are studies on this that you won't agree with. But, that's the way it is. Your passionate about your side, and I'm equally passionate on my side. I feel I'm not wrong. Just to sum it up...the consensus is not in. There are plenty of scientists that disagree with you, and Chris, and rockhead.

 

[Old Rocks]

Back to the stone age. What bullshit. We have more than enough energy to replace all the fossil fuels in the form of nuclear, wind, solar, geo-thermal, wave, and slow current. There have been SUVs that have a 120 mile range since 1994. People here in Portland, Oregon are building their own electric cars using existing technology and using them for urban transportation. To the point that PGE is actually installling charging stations.

Just by converting most of our lighting to LEDs, we would save a very substancial amount of energy. The price of thin film solar continues to plummet, and were plug-in hybrids available, would enable most people to heat and cool their homes, as well as energy for 80% of their driving.

I have repeatedly shown that the overwhelming consensus on AGW does in fact exist. I have shown, using articles from peer reviewed journals, that the problem is right now, and getting worse far faster than the scientists thought it could. The fires in Australia, the fires that we have had here in Oregon are an undeniable fact. And they will get worse. The melt of the North Polar Cap is a major event, and is having enormous feedbacks. From the absorbtion of sunlight in the open ocean, to the melting and out gassing in the permafrost, to the outgassing of clathrates in the Artic Ocean.

Add to this the increasing acidity of the ocean, endangering the very base of the food chain.

These are not events happening somewhere far, far away in the distant past or future, these are events happening right now. The fact that you wish to either ignore or deny them says much concerning your grasp on reality.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here's the thing, if we are NOT responsible for the change then by slowing or stopping it we are interfering with nature and therefore placing life in even more danger. If we are responsible we will wipe ourselves out faster by not doing anything allowing the planet to continue unhindered sooner than the previous scenario. Regardless ... doing too much is a bad thing, worse than doing nothing.

 

[manu1959]

over the past 5 years china and inda have done more to add co2 to the environment than any other country.....their coal fired energy plants are huge offenders and yet.....the world's global warming police and americans in general believe the us can fix this through american legislation.....

 

[Meister]

Back to the stone age. What bullshit. We have more than enough energy to replace all the fossil fuels in the form of nuclear, wind, solar, geo-thermal, wave, and slow current. There have been SUVs that have a 120 mile range since 1994. People here in Portland, Oregon are building their own electric cars using existing technology and using them for urban transportation. To the point that PGE is actually installling charging stations.

Just by converting most of our lighting to LEDs, we would save a very substancial amount of energy. The price of thin film solar continues to plummet, and were plug-in hybrids available, would enable most people to heat and cool their homes, as well as energy for 80% of their driving.

I have repeatedly shown that the overwhelming consensus on AGW does in fact exist. I have shown, using articles from peer reviewed journals, that the problem is right now, and getting worse far faster than the scientists thought it could. The fires in Australia, the fires that we have had here in Oregon are an undeniable fact. And they will get worse. The melt of the North Polar Cap is a major event, and is having enormous feedbacks. From the absorbtion of sunlight in the open ocean, to the melting and out gassing in the permafrost, to the outgassing of clathrates in the Artic Ocean.

Add to this the increasing acidity of the ocean, endangering the very base of the food chain.

These are not events happening somewhere far, far away in the distant past or future, these are events happening right now. The fact that you wish to either ignore or deny them says much concerning your grasp on reality.

rockhead, we live in the real world. None of the alternatives are even close to being ready to go on line. It ain't going to happen in yours or my life time. Electric cars get around 60 miles before you need a 24 hour charge. Now don't that make sense? The rest of your energy saving items would be hung up in courts by your very own environuts. They don't want any part of it rockhead. You keep just glossing over that part. Your liberal judges will make sure that it's kept from going forward. You keep glossing over that part, too. remember the 9th Circuit Court???? You need to live in the here and now, rockhead. Not some fantasy. You are in need of grasping reality dude. So after reading this go back to your THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING senario.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh wow, I almost forgot a fun fact. The power and water saved by the new "lightbulbs" and "low flow crap" is not only lost but much worse because:

1. The new lightbulbs do not put enough power out to read by, thus causing severe damage to peoples sight unless they use a lot of them. The chemicals and energy used to make the corrective lenses causes massive amounts of pollution and uses a ton of energy.

2. Low flow requires being operates much more than the normal flow. For instance in the shower, a large amount of water washing over a body will rinse off the soap quickly, while decreasing it even a little will make it almost impossible to rinse the soap of in anything less than twice the amount of time.

Time for logic environuts, really, look into everything more before you support it. Penn and Teller did a really awesome experiment, they got a petition signed by 1000 people to ban H2O, they were all environmental activists, P&T's petitioner did not lie to them, she didn't mislead them, she told the whole truth and only the truth about H2O, she just never called it by it's laymans term ... water. 1000 people signed it, just because it "sounded bad" without even listening to her, without even thinking about what it really was. They didn't care, just like all environuts, they didn't care that we actually need water to live, they just wanted to feel like they were "caring". Oh yeah, caring so much that if passed we'd all die.

 

[JohnStOnge]

1. There is climate change and its effects are apparent. We need to acknowledge it and we need to change the way we live to be able to continue to exist.

2. If it is caused by human activity then the quicker we adapt to it to slow it or at least ameliorate its effects, the better for our (and other) species..

D, the problem is that even the IPCC has conceded that what it would take to unequivocally infer a cause and effect relationship between human activity and "climate change" is not possible. And the idea that we need to be able to change the way we live in order to "continue to exist" is very questionable.

 

[Old Rocks]

Patty’s 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV
Patricia Lakinsmith

Yes, you can drive an earth-friendly, electric car to work if you live in the mountains, and you don’t even need to be an electrician to do it. With a range of over 100 miles per charge, this car has no problem tackling my forty-mile round-trip Highway 17 commute, even with lunchtime errands or after work trips. The majority of our driving needs revolve around getting to work and back every day. Most commutes are less than forty miles round-trip, so the RAV4 EV (Electric Vehicle) can fit seamlessly into your daily life.

The clean, quiet power of this car is a joy. Practical, compact SUV styling makes it a functional choice for the environmentally conscious driver.

After about four years of use in the rental and government vehicle fleets, the electric Toyota RAV4 is available for sale to the public. This is part of the company’s program to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandate. By 2003, ten percent of all new vehicles sold in California will be required to meet low emissions standards, with two percent qualified as zero emission vehicles.
On a historical note, while the appearance and capabilities of this particular car are revolutionary, electric vehicles themselves are not new. More than 8000 vehicles registered in America in 1900 were electric.1 These were known as “city” vehicles, and were considered to be less complicated and cleaner than their young internal combustion engine cousins.
Patty's 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV

 

[Old Rocks]

Want an electric car, but can't afford the pricey Tesla Roadster? Can't get your hands on the electric Mini Cooper? Having a hard time finding one of the other elusive electric cars available today? eBay has a deal for you: a 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV. It's got 45,500 miles, tops out at about 78-81 mph (depending on the weather) and can fit easily into a daily commuting lifestyle of 70 miles or so. According to the ad, "The RAV4 EV is a practical and functional SUV and the unique battery placement does not compromise the storage space. Unlike some electric vehicles, this car has room for 5 passengers, plus cargo space in the rear. The dashboard is just like a "regular car" and the amenities are similar. This car offers heat & air conditioning, power windows & door locks, Anti-Lock Brakes, Dual Front Air Bags, AM/FM/CD Player and much more!" The car has 15,500 miles left on the battery warranty, and can be yours today -- better hurry, the auction ends at 11pm today, September 1. Instant gratification will cost you, though: it's got a "buy it now" price of $62,000; maybe you can bid low and get lucky.
Toyota RAV4 EV For Sale on eBay : TreeHugger

Now that is considerably more than that vehicle cost new. Talk about holding value.

 

[Old Rocks]

A British engineering firm has put together a high-performance hybrid version of BMW's Mini Cooper. The PML Mini QED has a top speed of 150 mph, a 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds. The car uses a small gasoline engine with four 160 horsepower electric motors — one on each wheel. The car has been designed to run for four hours of combined urban/extra urban driving, powered only by a battery and bank of ultra capacitors. The QED supports an all-electric range of 200-250 miles and has a total range of about 932 miles (1,500 km). For longer journeys at higher speeds, a small conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) is used to re-charge the battery. In this hybrid mode, fuel economies of up to 80mpg can be achieved.

Electric Mini: 0-60 in 4 Seconds: It Has Motors In Its Wheels : TreeHugger

Meister, once again you are posting without the slightest research. Doesn't that get embarassing after a while?

 

[Meister]

A British engineering firm has put together a high-performance hybrid version of BMW's Mini Cooper. The PML Mini QED has a top speed of 150 mph, a 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds. The car uses a small gasoline engine with four 160 horsepower electric motors — one on each wheel. The car has been designed to run for four hours of combined urban/extra urban driving, powered only by a battery and bank of ultra capacitors. The QED supports an all-electric range of 200-250 miles and has a total range of about 932 miles (1,500 km). For longer journeys at higher speeds, a small conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) is used to re-charge the battery. In this hybrid mode, fuel economies of up to 80mpg can be achieved.

Electric Mini: 0-60 in 4 Seconds: It Has Motors In Its Wheels : TreeHugger

Meister, once again you are posting without the slightest research. Doesn't that get embarassing after a while?

rockhead, did you mention the price of this little badboy???? Both of us together couldn't afford it...so your point is????

 

[Old Rocks]

Take a blue print of a small simple 4 cylinder ICE to a machine shop. Ask them to build you one from the print. The cost will leave you stunned. The point here is that the price reduction in mass production should be no less for this type of vehicle than for that 4 cylinder engine.