Gulf Fishermen Reel from Seafood Troubles

I have done a partial review of the first link and so far evey study that it cites is based almost solely on computer models.

What difference does whether or not the first several alphabetically ordered by the lead researcher's last name references are computer or empircal data studies? The research paper itself is an empirical data study it isn't a review or compilation analysis of the referenced material.

And, of course, none of these studies address the very real problem that the planet is not warming as you say it is. With the impending doom of Trenberths study (upon which hundreds of peer reviewed studies are based) and the recent peer reviewed studies that show water vapor to be a NEGATIVE forcer (a few listed below for you, the blue highlighted one is particularly revealing) and the whole base assumption of AGW collapses.

LOL, none of this relates in the least to the discussion of this thread or anything stated in this thread. Additionally, until you find a way to nullify the basic physics of radiation transfer and EM interaction with matter, the base assumptions of AGW are foundationally solid.

I'll indulge you this time, but there really is little sense in me addressing Jo Nova's political blog posts and references as you simply copy and paste them onto this board.

([xvi] Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35),

Completely unrelated to this thread's topic or discussion - that said:

Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333

and more specifically

Dessler, A. E., and S. M. Davis (2010), Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D19127, doi:10.1029/2010JD014192.

which addresses the problems and flaws in Paltridge et al 2009

Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2010), The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness.. Energy & Environment Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010 pp 243-263,

Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40

Seriously? you cite fairy tales from discredited pseudojournals? I would be more than happy to discuss the flaws and contradictions in these papers in an appropriate thread, though we might as well be debating the physics of a claim that a cow can jump over the moon.

Stockwell, David R. B. and Cox, A. (2009), Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650

As far as I can tell this paper despite numerous revisions still has not passed preliminary peer review for publication in the Journal of International Forecasting despite having been submitted three years ago. I find it curious that you are referencing a non-empirical computer modelling study given your apparent rejection of such, but again largely irrelevent and unrelated to this thread's topic. It doesn't look like the reviewer's comments are open for reading at this time, but as the last submission was made in July of 2009, and it has yet to be accepted for publication, the problems must be of a significant nature. Looks to me like a couple of economics statisticians ventured a bit far afield from their training and competencies, but if their paper clears at least initial peer-review, I'd be happy to llok at it in more detail and discuss any aspect of it you wish to discuss.

Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011

btw - you may want to notify JoNova that the above is an improper citation. It should list as:
Fu, Q., S. Manabe, and C. M. Johanson (2011), On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101.

Again, largely unrelated and irrelevent to the discussion of this thread, if you wish to discuss this paper and its findings, however, yada yada yada...

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E Taylor, T. M Wigley,. L. Lanzante, J. R. Solomon, M. Free, P. J Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood and F. J. Wentz (2008), Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 1703–1722. doi: 10.1002/joc.1756

Though this paper, too, is irrelevent and unrelated to the discussion of this thread it falls in the same catefory as the others. I must admit to puzzlement, however, as to why you would include a paper that refutes and repudiates a large number of the anti-AGW propositions you seem to hold in esteem. (though perhaps I should thank Jo Nova for the assist!)

from the above paper:
...Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’.
...In summary, considerable scientific progress has been made since the first report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Karl et al., 2006). There is no longer a serious and fundamental discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates, despite DCPS07’s incorrect claim to the contrary. Progress has been achieved by the development of new TSST , TL+O, and T2LT datasets, better quantification of structural
uncertainties in satellite- and radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change, and the application of rigorous statistical comparisons of modelled and observed changes.
...The lessons learned from studying this problem can and should be applied towards the improvement of existing climate monitoring systems, so that future model evaluation studies are less sensitive to observational ambiguity.
 
Last edited:
I will be happy to read, consider and respond to your follow-on issues and questions when you have answered and responded to my question and request for peer-reviewed journal citations in support of your intitial assertion.

Re:

Peer review of what prey tell? It doesn't take a peer reviewed paper to read a temperature record.

So your response is:
that the support is not included in the information you provided as support,
that you know of no support for your assertions,
and that I'm foolish for not taking your word on the matter?

Is this seriously how you are seeking to discuss issues?




No, my response is "why do you need to have a high priest tell you what the temperature is?" Are you incapable of reading a thermometer yourself?
 
I have done a partial review of the first link and so far evey study that it cites is based almost solely on computer models.

What difference does whether or not the first several alphabetically ordered by the lead researcher's last name references are computer or empircal data studies? The research paper itself is an empirical data study it isn't a review or compilation analysis of the referenced material.

And, of course, none of these studies address the very real problem that the planet is not warming as you say it is. With the impending doom of Trenberths study (upon which hundreds of peer reviewed studies are based) and the recent peer reviewed studies that show water vapor to be a NEGATIVE forcer (a few listed below for you, the blue highlighted one is particularly revealing) and the whole base assumption of AGW collapses.

LOL, none of this relates in the least to the discussion of this thread or anything stated in this thread. Additionally, until you find a way to nullify the basic physics of radiation transfer and EM interaction with matter, the base assumptions of AGW are foundationally solid.

I'll indulge you this time, but there really is little sense in me addressing Jo Nova's political blog posts and references as you simply copy and paste them onto this board.



Completely unrelated to this thread's topic or discussion - that said:

Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333

and more specifically

Dessler, A. E., and S. M. Davis (2010), Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D19127, doi:10.1029/2010JD014192.

which addresses the problems and flaws in Paltridge et al 2009



Seriously? you cite fairy tales from discredited pseudojournals? I would be more than happy to discuss the flaws and contradictions in these papers in an appropriate thread, though we might as well be debating the physics of a claim that a cow can jump over the moon.



As far as I can tell this paper despite numerous revisions still has not passed preliminary peer review for publication in the Journal of International Forecasting despite having been submitted three years ago. I find it curious that you are referencing a non-empirical computer modelling study given your apparent rejection of such, but again largely irrelevent and unrelated to this thread's topic. It doesn't look like the reviewer's comments are open for reading at this time, but as the last submission was made in July of 2009, and it has yet to be accepted for publication, the problems must be of a significant nature. Looks to me like a couple of economics statisticians ventured a bit far afield from their training and competencies, but if their paper clears at least initial peer-review, I'd be happy to llok at it in more detail and discuss any aspect of it you wish to discuss.



btw - you may want to notify JoNova that the above is an improper citation. It should list as:
Fu, Q., S. Manabe, and C. M. Johanson (2011), On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101.

Again, largely unrelated and irrelevent to the discussion of this thread, if you wish to discuss this paper and its findings, however, yada yada yada...

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E Taylor, T. M Wigley,. L. Lanzante, J. R. Solomon, M. Free, P. J Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood and F. J. Wentz (2008), Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 1703–1722. doi: 10.1002/joc.1756

Though this paper, too, is irrelevent and unrelated to the discussion of this thread it falls in the same catefory as the others. I must admit to puzzlement, however, as to why you would include a paper that refutes and repudiates a large number of the anti-AGW propositions you seem to hold in esteem. (though perhaps I should thank Jo Nova for the assist!)

from the above paper:
...Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’.
...In summary, considerable scientific progress has been made since the first report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Karl et al., 2006). There is no longer a serious and fundamental discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates, despite DCPS07’s incorrect claim to the contrary. Progress has been achieved by the development of new TSST , TL+O, and T2LT datasets, better quantification of structural
uncertainties in satellite- and radiosonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change, and the application of rigorous statistical comparisons of modelled and observed changes.
...The lessons learned from studying this problem can and should be applied towards the improvement of existing climate monitoring systems, so that future model evaluation studies are less sensitive to observational ambiguity.




The vast amount of your links is likewise irrelevant to the original post and question. A tremendous amount of appealing to authority which is logical fallacy. The fact remains that the VAST majority of AGW "science" is based entirely on computer models. Models that are so poorly written they can't recreate the weather that occured yeaterday with perfect knowledge of the variables on that particular day.

Empirical data has REPEATEDLY shown the models to be in error. The models in fact have yet to be accurate. Hansen predicted a "hot spot" over the equator at altitude but the reality is the area is cooling slightly.

You are either invested heavily in the fraud or a true believer, I find it laughable that you post on james Randi's site and claim to be sceptical when you are nothing of the sort. You advocate NO dialogue at all. That's not scepticism that's religious dogma.

You have no empirical data to support anything you claim other than that which has been falsified by Hansen and Jones. Now that the FOIA request is FINALLY going to be forced down the CRU's throat we are finally going to get to see what they have been hiding all this time.

You see dear person, the scientific method DEMANDS the open exchange of information so that others can check your work. Climatology is the ONLY scientific specialty that refuses to do so. That speaks volumes of its credibility.

Every time one of the AGW supporters claims is actually tested it fails the test, every single time so far.

So, have fun. You won't convince me of anything. The science will. So far the science is all on the side of the sceptics. I will likewise not convince you of anything either. You are too heavily invested either because of money or dogma. Either way your mind is closed and will remain so till the end of time.

That's the difference between you and me. I believe in the scientific method and you don't.
 
Peer review of what prey tell? It doesn't take a peer reviewed paper to read a temperature record.

So your response is:
that the support is not included in the information you provided as support,
that you know of no support for your assertions,
and that I'm foolish for not taking your word on the matter?

Is this seriously how you are seeking to discuss issues?


No, my response is "why do you need to have a high priest tell you what the temperature is?" Are you incapable of reading a thermometer yourself?

This response differs from "I have no compelling reference or support for my assertions, I simply try to judge global climate by looking at my window thermometer," how?
 
The vast amount of your links is likewise irrelevant to the original post and question. A tremendous amount of appealing to authority which is logical fallacy.

We can add this to the growing list of areas where your understanding and competencies are obviously lacking. Citing reference and acknowledged expert support for one's understandings is not a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam. It is the accepted method of providing evidenciary support for one's beliefs and considerations.

The fact remains that the VAST majority of AGW "science" is based entirely on computer models. Models that are so poorly written they can't recreate the weather that occured yeaterday with perfect knowledge of the variables on that particular day.

This is entirely incorrect according to my understandings of AGW theories and Climate Science in general (which trace their root understandings to a century or more before computers even existed). Modelling is certainly a tool used in many aspects of all science but there are very few to no areas of study (to include the vast majority of computer science itself) which depend solely or entirely upon computer models. Like all science, observations and experimentation are the core methodologies utilized in exploring, categorizing and understanding the universe around us.

Empirical data has REPEATEDLY shown the models to be in error. The models in fact have yet to be accurate. Hansen predicted a "hot spot" over the equator at altitude but the reality is the area is cooling slightly.

False, which you would have understood, if you actually examined the references already provided.

You are either invested heavily in the fraud or a true believer, I find it laughable that you post on james Randi's site and claim to be sceptical when you are nothing of the sort.

Yet another area where you seemingly display ignorance both science and skepticism.


You advocate NO dialogue at all. That's not scepticism that's religious dogma.

Again you choose to mischaracterize and misportray my position while attempting personal attacks rather than supporting or proofing (present participle) your assertions. That reflects upon you, not me.

You have no empirical data to support anything you claim other than that which has been falsified by Hansen and Jones.

Hand-waving does not refute or negate the references or the evidences I present in support of my statements. There is no compelling evidence that Hansen of Jones have ever falsified anything. Even if one completely removes all of Hansen's and Jone's work, it does not alter or change the body of climate science nor substantively diminish the volume of compelling supportive evidence for AGW (much of which was accomplished long before either of these researchers were born).

Now that the FOIA request is FINALLY going to be forced down the CRU's throat we are finally going to get to see what they have been hiding all this time.

Ah! I should have recognized the hallmarks. It isn't about climate science, this is your personal little conspiracy theory! That explains much. I suppose climatologists all travel around in black helicopters, and are creating a secret world government to benefit our butt-probing alien overlords?
(btw - the all caps thing is impressive, feel free to let yourself out more in your postings)

You see dear person, the scientific method DEMANDS the open exchange of information so that others can check your work. Climatology is the ONLY scientific specialty that refuses to do so. That speaks volumes of its credibility.

As all the data and base methodology has been available all along, in both the published papers and from the same sources that the researchers acquired it, I'm not sure what conspiracy mole-hole your pulling this out of, but it doesn't hold much water.

Every time one of the AGW supporters claims is actually tested it fails the test, every single time so far.

evidence? or am I just supposed to believe your rantings because you assert them?

So, have fun. You won't convince me of anything. The science will. So far the science is all on the side of the sceptics. I will likewise not convince you of anything either. You are too heavily invested either because of money or dogma. Either way your mind is closed and will remain so till the end of time.

That's the difference between you and me. I believe in the scientific method and you don't.

Not according to you words, but please, I am always open to where the evidence leads me, but if you are unwilling to provide compelling evidence and support (due to some mysterious belief that doing so amounts to a fallacious appeal to authority -rather a mockery of science and skepticism all on its own-) then how am I supposed to be led you the understanding you have?

In fact, as you seem to eschew evidence and reference, how did you arrive at your understandings?
 
The vast amount of your links is likewise irrelevant to the original post and question. A tremendous amount of appealing to authority which is logical fallacy.

We can add this to the growing list of areas where your understanding and competencies are obviously lacking. Citing reference and acknowledged expert support for one's understandings is not a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam. It is the accepted method of providing evidenciary support for one's beliefs and considerations.

The fact remains that the VAST majority of AGW "science" is based entirely on computer models. Models that are so poorly written they can't recreate the weather that occured yeaterday with perfect knowledge of the variables on that particular day.

This is entirely incorrect according to my understandings of AGW theories and Climate Science in general (which trace their root understandings to a century or more before computers even existed). Modelling is certainly a tool used in many aspects of all science but there are very few to no areas of study (to include the vast majority of computer science itself) which depend solely or entirely upon computer models. Like all science, observations and experimentation are the core methodologies utilized in exploring, categorizing and understanding the universe around us.



False, which you would have understood, if you actually examined the references already provided.



Yet another area where you seemingly display ignorance both science and skepticism.




Again you choose to mischaracterize and misportray my position while attempting personal attacks rather than supporting or proofing (present participle) your assertions. That reflects upon you, not me.



Hand-waving does not refute or negate the references or the evidences I present in support of my statements. There is no compelling evidence that Hansen of Jones have ever falsified anything. Even if one completely removes all of Hansen's and Jone's work, it does not alter or change the body of climate science nor substantively diminish the volume of compelling supportive evidence for AGW (much of which was accomplished long before either of these researchers were born).



Ah! I should have recognized the hallmarks. It isn't about climate science, this is your personal little conspiracy theory! That explains much. I suppose climatologists all travel around in black helicopters, and are creating a secret world government to benefit our butt-probing alien overlords?
(btw - the all caps thing is impressive, feel free to let yourself out more in your postings)



As all the data and base methodology has been available all along, in both the published papers and from the same sources that the researchers acquired it, I'm not sure what conspiracy mole-hole your pulling this out of, but it doesn't hold much water.

Every time one of the AGW supporters claims is actually tested it fails the test, every single time so far.

evidence? or am I just supposed to believe your rantings because you assert them?

So, have fun. You won't convince me of anything. The science will. So far the science is all on the side of the sceptics. I will likewise not convince you of anything either. You are too heavily invested either because of money or dogma. Either way your mind is closed and will remain so till the end of time.

That's the difference between you and me. I believe in the scientific method and you don't.

Not according to you words, but please, I am always open to where the evidence leads me, but if you are unwilling to provide compelling evidence and support (due to some mysterious belief that doing so amounts to a fallacious appeal to authority -rather a mockery of science and skepticism all on its own-) then how am I supposed to be led you the understanding you have?

In fact, as you seem to eschew evidence and reference, how did you arrive at your understandings?





No, not because I assert them. Because others do. On the other hand your constant appeals to authority are the pot calling the kettle no? YOU can't have it both ways. No matter how hard you try you are stuck in a never ending logic spiral.

Present a single paper and I'll review and refute it. We can do that as many times as you wish. But to keep it simple for the others who are reading this limit your verbal diarrhea to a single paper.

Trying to bury the topic under a nonending stream of crap does no one any good.
 
Not according to you words, but please, I am always open to where the evidence leads me, but if you are unwilling to provide compelling evidence and support (due to some mysterious belief that doing so amounts to a fallacious appeal to authority -rather a mockery of science and skepticism all on its own-) then how am I supposed to be led you the understanding you have?

In fact, as you seem to eschew evidence and reference, how did you arrive at your understandings?

No, not because I assert them. Because others do. On the other hand your constant appeals to authority are the pot calling the kettle no? YOU can't have it both ways. No matter how hard you try you are stuck in a never ending logic spiral.

Present a single paper and I'll review and refute it. We can do that as many times as you wish. But to keep it simple for the others who are reading this limit your verbal diarrhea to a single paper.

Trying to bury the topic under a nonending stream of crap does no one any good.

You really shouldn't look in the mirror when you post, describing yourself while you talk about others is simply delusional.

When you are ready to discuss this thread's topic, I will be happy to join and respond to your comments. Likewise, if you feel like starting a thread that actually discusses the issued it seems you'd rather talk about, I will be happy to join you in that thread with responses and comments.
 
Last edited:
All this spanking in a circle around Wally World is not getting to the likely source of the die-off, which is the carbonic acid exchange, associated with record emissions of CO2. See YouTube, or the CO2 thread, up-top, note Old Rocks' post or my posts. Search 'oysters, die-off, reefs, acid, etc.'

The entire oceanic food chain is about to take a hit and die-off. Extinctions are 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal. Mass extinction event 6 looms. I don't know how anybody could stick head in sand, to avoid the acid exchange, for two pages, but this thread does it! Flying high, again, huh?

We re-green desertified, polluted, and acidified waters and lands, or else, we can all fight over food. Soon! Search 'Ford, Diesel, hemp,' and read up on the old tech biomass. Modern media will also include switchgrass farms. We get it, or we take a hit, in our lifetime.
 
All this spanking in a circle around Wally World is not getting to the likely source of the die-off, which is the carbonic acid exchange, associated with record emissions of CO2. See YouTube, or the CO2 thread, up-top, note Old Rocks' post or my posts. Search 'oysters, die-off, reefs, acid, etc.'

The entire oceanic food chain is about to take a hit and die-off. Extinctions are 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal. Mass extinction event 6 looms. I don't know how anybody could stick head in sand, to avoid the acid exchange, for two pages, but this thread does it! Flying high, again, huh?

We re-green desertified, polluted, and acidified waters and lands, or else, we can all fight over food. Soon! Search 'Ford, Diesel, hemp,' and read up on the old tech biomass. Modern media will also include switchgrass farms. We get it, or we take a hit, in our lifetime.





Soooo, do you know what the atmospheric content of CO2 was when these critters evolved? No? It was 20 times what it is now. 20 times. Whenever the critters are tested with acid the result is their shells thicken and they thrive. There has never been a test performed yet that showed they suffered from the increased acidity. Not one.

Futhermore, if you burned every carbon bearing rock on the planet and inserted the resultant CO2 into the oceans you would drop the pH level from 8.1 to 8.0. Last i checked that was still alkaline..or do you live on a different planet than we do?
 
One thing that one quickly learns on this board, is that the level of conversation is about that I experianced working in sawmills. And the level of intellect similiar to that one found on the green chain. Some here represent themselves to be educated in some discipline in science, then rapidly prove that they are not with their posts. All too many times they have posted articles with statements that were 180 degrees from what the article stated.
 
All this spanking in a circle around Wally World is not getting to the likely source of the die-off, which is the carbonic acid exchange, associated with record emissions of CO2. See YouTube, or the CO2 thread, up-top, note Old Rocks' post or my posts. Search 'oysters, die-off, reefs, acid, etc.'

The entire oceanic food chain is about to take a hit and die-off. Extinctions are 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal. Mass extinction event 6 looms. I don't know how anybody could stick head in sand, to avoid the acid exchange, for two pages, but this thread does it! Flying high, again, huh?

We re-green desertified, polluted, and acidified waters and lands, or else, we can all fight over food. Soon! Search 'Ford, Diesel, hemp,' and read up on the old tech biomass. Modern media will also include switchgrass farms. We get it, or we take a hit, in our lifetime.





Soooo, do you know what the atmospheric content of CO2 was when these critters evolved? No? It was 20 times what it is now. 20 times. Whenever the critters are tested with acid the result is their shells thicken and they thrive. There has never been a test performed yet that showed they suffered from the increased acidity. Not one.

Futhermore, if you burned every carbon bearing rock on the planet and inserted the resultant CO2 into the oceans you would drop the pH level from 8.1 to 8.0. Last i checked that was still alkaline..or do you live on a different planet than we do?

Idiot. Many here have read the story of the Gubbio sandstone. The rapid acidification of the upper level of the ocean left all but a few of the single celled creatures in the ocean extinct at that time. And their ancestors were tolerant of more acidic waters than they were.
 
One thing that one quickly learns on this board, is that the level of conversation is about that I experianced working in sawmills. And the level of intellect similiar to that one found on the green chain. Some here represent themselves to be educated in some discipline in science, then rapidly prove that they are not with their posts. All too many times they have posted articles with statements that were 180 degrees from what the article stated.

A bit OT but I suspect it is more persona issue than all about education or intelligence. The internet sometimes has the effect of acting as a "personality amplifier." Probably due to people being freed from many normal social inhibitions that generally dictate manner of interaction with other individuals. In real life I rarely interact with people who behave this way, regardless of how passionately we might disagree about an issue.
 
Futhermore, if you burned every carbon bearing rock on the planet and inserted the resultant CO2 into the oceans you would drop the pH level from 8.1 to 8.0. Last i checked that was still alkaline..or do you live on a different planet than we do?

Please support these assertions, preferrably with cite and reference, but I'll accept a compellingly narrative with supporting maths and realistically thorough modelling.
 
bobgnote: "Modern media will also include switchgrass farms. We get it, or we take a hit, in our lifetime."

Soooo, do you know what the atmospheric content of CO2 was when these critters evolved? No? It was 20 times what it is now. 20 times. Whenever the critters are tested with acid the result is their shells thicken and they thrive. There has never been a test performed yet that showed they suffered from the increased acidity. Not one.

Futhermore, if you burned every carbon bearing rock on the planet and inserted the resultant CO2 into the oceans you would drop the pH level from 8.1 to 8.0. Last i checked that was still alkaline..or do you live on a different planet than we do?
Yeah, those critters will get thicker shells, every critter will get a thick shell, and they will all evolve into wingnuts, eating each other.

Too bad humans won't make it through all that, efficiently. Down goes Wally World, and all the wingnuts, who are frail humans, actually.
 

Forum List

Back
Top