global warming and ocean life

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Feb 16, 2009.

  1. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    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
     
  2. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Okay .. now they are certainly grasping at straws with that crap.
     
  3. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    No. St. Albert Whore has endorsed it. so they are correct for sure.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    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
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
  6. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Andrew2382
    Offline

    Andrew2382 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    3,994
    Thanks Received:
    530
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +537
    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
     
  8. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    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.
     
  9. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    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.
     

Share This Page