Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually the Vatican has made some heavy investments in Lost Wages.....and elsewhere... Its about as much to do with real science as the Pope has to do with Las Vegas nightlife...
..
HAHAHAHAHA! I just read this and my god is it pathetic......
The 4 of you all hold hands, and chant to gaia while you try and save your azzes from embarrassment?
I find more than a little bit funny that the 4 of you come together just after the idiot showed his ignorance. Oh and I loved the show too... LOL priceless!
"i just love chemistry, especially this one ImAdUmAz3. its the sum of all our IQ's to the tenth."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic show boys.... Now want to do us a rendition of Hamlet?
You complained we didn't address anything, then when we did, this is your response. And you wonder why I wasn't even going to bother addressing our unsubstantiated bullshit, cause you are just another dumbfuck acting like a troll. Go back to elementary school kid
No you didnt address the point you came in with your pals to try and disrupt the thread and derail the topic to cover the flaw in your sides claims about ocean acidification.... Proof? You still avoided my re-posting of it....
yeah pretty telling huh dumazz.... yep, one more example of bullshit science and bullshit scientists like you, oldsocks, and chemistry boy....
If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al. Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you. By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.
Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO 2 Problem: Scientific American
The planets seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankinds CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at the oceans surface.
That careful balance has survived over time because of a near equilibrium among the acids emitted by volcanoes and the bases liberated by the weathering of rock. The pH of seawater has remained steady for millions of years. Before the industrial era began, the average pH at the ocean surface was about 8.2 (slightly basic; 7.0 is neutral). Today it is about 8.1.
Another source, from actual scientists, with actual numbers showing rising pH and reason's why the equilibrium is changing. You know, reasons educated, intelligent, trained scientists take into account, the real complexities of life.
lthough the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidification is very worrisome.
You fail to see how important pH is to animals, as it can seriously disrupt metabolic reactions, especially rapid changes that dont' allow animals to change to deal with the changing pH.
About 89 percent of the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater takes the form of bicarbonate ion,
Just because you are ignorant of how small changes can have drastic effects on the ecology of the ocean, doesn't mean that little increase isn't having an effect
If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al. Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you. By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.
Oh boy you are such an idiot. Certain sealife can, others can't. so by your theory since fish live underwater that means humans would be able to. HOly shit, its unreal how many dumbasses think they know anything about science
I've responded with scientifically supported evidence and facts, if you can't see that, go fuck yourself
If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al. Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you. By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.
No you didnt address the point you came in with your pals to try and disrupt the thread and derail the topic to cover the flaw in your sides claims about ocean acidification.... Proof? You still avoided my re-posting of it....
yeah pretty telling huh dumazz.... yep, one more example of bullshit science and bullshit scientists like you, oldsocks, and chemistry boy....
then you can't or refuse to read. The link in the OP, and mine to a scientific america article citing actually studies did in fact cover most of your bullshit spouted.
Keep trolling though, really show's your scientific acumen
If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al. Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you. By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.
I have seen life in pools in Yellowstone that were above 180 degrees F. So, by that, it would not hurt your silly ass to take a swim in said pool.
The only challenge you and gslack present is trying to guess what idiocy you are going to post next
If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al. Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you. By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.
I have seen life in pools in Yellowstone that were above 180 degrees F. So, by that, it would not hurt your silly ass to take a swim in said pool.
The only challenge you and gslack present is trying to guess what idiocy you are going to post next
If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al. Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you. By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.
Oh boy you are such an idiot. Certain sealife can, others can't. so by your theory since fish live underwater that means humans would be able to. HOly shit, its unreal how many dumbasses think they know anything about science
I've responded with scientifically supported evidence and facts, if you can't see that, go fuck yourself
I see I'm off ignore. Go run and hide behind the ignore button. Through science sources I hae demonstrated that CO2 levels in the seas have been far higher than those we curently have AND man was no influence on those rises. I have also demonstarted that marine life can and has adapted to these changes. Perhaps nature uses these cycles to create stronger species for the evolving Earth.
Seriously, you have to be a lab assistant who delivers urine samples, because your language and actions here do not support a learned scientist background.
No you didnt address the point you came in with your pals to try and disrupt the thread and derail the topic to cover the flaw in your sides claims about ocean acidification.... Proof? You still avoided my re-posting of it....
yeah pretty telling huh dumazz.... yep, one more example of bullshit science and bullshit scientists like you, oldsocks, and chemistry boy....
then you can't or refuse to read. The link in the OP, and mine to a scientific america article citing actually studies did in fact cover most of your bullshit spouted.
Keep trolling though, really show's your scientific acumen
The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...
Now if you read my post or any of the two repostings of it you would see the theory behind ocean acidification is in question. The post stated using accepted and known facts about calcium carbonites like argonite and calcite. Two primary compounds in coral. Follow me so far? Good...
The theory claims that rising CO2 makes the ocean waters more acidic. And acidic conditions do not allow for coral to thrive because their very compounds dissolve in acidic water. Even a small change in PH overall can have drastic effects on coral due to their clacium carbonite makeup. Got it so far? Calcium carbonites+acidic water= dead coral. Clear?
So, the fact we had 20x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago and coral thrived and even evolved at that time, puts the entire hypothesis in question. How could they have thrived and evolved in such acidic conditions if the theory on CO2 and ocean acidification were correct as they present it? Well they couldn't have, plain and simple.
So either the theory is incorrect altogether, or the claimed level of impact on the oceans is incorrect. So then in some way or another the contentions are inaccurate or the theory itself is inaccurate.
And this my dear watson is deductive reasoning 101. Which brings us back to your post and its irrelevance to it all. If the theory or the contentions made based on that theory are incorrect, as the evidence would lead us to believe, than the article you posted is meaningless in reality.
Your article runs on the assumption the theory of CO2 ocean acidification is sound. Well its got some real holes in it that cannot be excused or dismissed, making it suspect to say the least. So in the end your article is as useless as lips on a chicken...
Got it DR? LOL, doctor of what? Freaking idiot!
Now, go fuck off you piece of shit troll, you are out of your league here
then you can't or refuse to read. The link in the OP, and mine to a scientific america article citing actually studies did in fact cover most of your bullshit spouted.
Keep trolling though, really show's your scientific acumen
The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...
Now if you read my post or any of the two repostings of it you would see the theory behind ocean acidification is in question. The post stated using accepted and known facts about calcium carbonites like argonite and calcite. Two primary compounds in coral. Follow me so far? Good...
The theory claims that rising CO2 makes the ocean waters more acidic. And acidic conditions do not allow for coral to thrive because their very compounds dissolve in acidic water. Even a small change in PH overall can have drastic effects on coral due to their clacium carbonite makeup. Got it so far? Calcium carbonites+acidic water= dead coral. Clear?
So, the fact we had 20x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago and coral thrived and even evolved at that time, puts the entire hypothesis in question. How could they have thrived and evolved in such acidic conditions if the theory on CO2 and ocean acidification were correct as they present it? Well they couldn't have, plain and simple.
So either the theory is incorrect altogether, or the claimed level of impact on the oceans is incorrect. So then in some way or another the contentions are inaccurate or the theory itself is inaccurate.
And this my dear watson is deductive reasoning 101. Which brings us back to your post and its irrelevance to it all. If the theory or the contentions made based on that theory are incorrect, as the evidence would lead us to believe, than the article you posted is meaningless in reality.
Your article runs on the assumption the theory of CO2 ocean acidification is sound. Well its got some real holes in it that cannot be excused or dismissed, making it suspect to say the least. So in the end your article is as useless as lips on a chicken...
Got it DR? LOL, doctor of what? Freaking idiot!
way to ignore my post which tells you why the acidity is rising. You just keep repeating the same bullshit, nothing supported by actual peer reviewed science.
The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...
Now if you read my post or any of the two repostings of it you would see the theory behind ocean acidification is in question. The post stated using accepted and known facts about calcium carbonites like argonite and calcite. Two primary compounds in coral. Follow me so far? Good...
The theory claims that rising CO2 makes the ocean waters more acidic. And acidic conditions do not allow for coral to thrive because their very compounds dissolve in acidic water. Even a small change in PH overall can have drastic effects on coral due to their clacium carbonite makeup. Got it so far? Calcium carbonites+acidic water= dead coral. Clear?
So, the fact we had 20x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago and coral thrived and even evolved at that time, puts the entire hypothesis in question. How could they have thrived and evolved in such acidic conditions if the theory on CO2 and ocean acidification were correct as they present it? Well they couldn't have, plain and simple.
So either the theory is incorrect altogether, or the claimed level of impact on the oceans is incorrect. So then in some way or another the contentions are inaccurate or the theory itself is inaccurate.
And this my dear watson is deductive reasoning 101. Which brings us back to your post and its irrelevance to it all. If the theory or the contentions made based on that theory are incorrect, as the evidence would lead us to believe, than the article you posted is meaningless in reality.
Your article runs on the assumption the theory of CO2 ocean acidification is sound. Well its got some real holes in it that cannot be excused or dismissed, making it suspect to say the least. So in the end your article is as useless as lips on a chicken...
Got it DR? LOL, doctor of what? Freaking idiot!
way to ignore my post which tells you why the acidity is rising. You just keep repeating the same bullshit, nothing supported by actual peer reviewed science.
Oh so now you going to try and lie about what your other links were about?
Good lets address that now shall we?
Your other links.. One was to an article on a site with the word "blog" in the title.... Yeah, blog... LOL, okay okay moving on.... 3 others were to sciencedaily so lets just stick with the sciencedaily links and forgo the blog one....
All 3 of them rely on the theory of CO2 ocean acidification to be correct and accurate as currently claimed by your side. And once again we see that the very theory they rely on is in question.
"knock,knock" Is this thing on? What part of any of this didn't you get DR.dumazz? Is my type too small or hard to read?
I could have swore I just pointed this all out in the last post... Yep there it is, I see it plain as day. It says basically that the coral thrived in the times where CO2 was 20 times greater than today, which given their weakness to acidification in the oceans they could not have survived if the theory you support is accurate in essence or their claimed reaction levels of that theory are indeed accurate.
So which is it? Is the theory wrong altogether or is the effect levels they claim it has on the oceans inaccurate?
LOL, you can't even keep up with the point I make here... And you claim I am out of my league? LOL please, I walk over better posters than you just to take a beating... You are nothing special azzhole. You came in here with 3 friends to shout down something you couldn't defend logically. So if there is any troll in this thread its you and or your 3 amigos.
way to ignore my post which tells you why the acidity is rising. You just keep repeating the same bullshit, nothing supported by actual peer reviewed science.
Oh so now you going to try and lie about what your other links were about?
Good lets address that now shall we?
Your other links.. One was to an article on a site with the word "blog" in the title.... Yeah, blog... LOL, okay okay moving on.... 3 others were to sciencedaily so lets just stick with the sciencedaily links and forgo the blog one....
All 3 of them rely on the theory of CO2 ocean acidification to be correct and accurate as currently claimed by your side. And once again we see that the very theory they rely on is in question.
"knock,knock" Is this thing on? What part of any of this didn't you get DR.dumazz? Is my type too small or hard to read?
I could have swore I just pointed this all out in the last post... Yep there it is, I see it plain as day. It says basically that the coral thrived in the times where CO2 was 20 times greater than today, which given their weakness to acidification in the oceans they could not have survived if the theory you support is accurate in essence or their claimed reaction levels of that theory are indeed accurate.
So which is it? Is the theory wrong altogether or is the effect levels they claim it has on the oceans inaccurate?
LOL, you can't even keep up with the point I make here... And you claim I am out of my league? LOL please, I walk over better posters than you just to take a beating... You are nothing special azzhole. You came in here with 3 friends to shout down something you couldn't defend logically. So if there is any troll in this thread its you and or your 3 amigos.
Later troll, obviously you don't want to or can't actually discuss this. I don't care what someone else posted, my post with scientifically supported evidence from actual scientists in the field explain away all you bullshit.
YOu have yet to cite one peer reviewed article supporting your claim, yet I can't keep up.
What the fuck is it with these trolls on this message board?
Oh so now you going to try and lie about what your other links were about?
Good lets address that now shall we?
Your other links.. One was to an article on a site with the word "blog" in the title.... Yeah, blog... LOL, okay okay moving on.... 3 others were to sciencedaily so lets just stick with the sciencedaily links and forgo the blog one....
All 3 of them rely on the theory of CO2 ocean acidification to be correct and accurate as currently claimed by your side. And once again we see that the very theory they rely on is in question.
"knock,knock" Is this thing on? What part of any of this didn't you get DR.dumazz? Is my type too small or hard to read?
I could have swore I just pointed this all out in the last post... Yep there it is, I see it plain as day. It says basically that the coral thrived in the times where CO2 was 20 times greater than today, which given their weakness to acidification in the oceans they could not have survived if the theory you support is accurate in essence or their claimed reaction levels of that theory are indeed accurate.
So which is it? Is the theory wrong altogether or is the effect levels they claim it has on the oceans inaccurate?
LOL, you can't even keep up with the point I make here... And you claim I am out of my league? LOL please, I walk over better posters than you just to take a beating... You are nothing special azzhole. You came in here with 3 friends to shout down something you couldn't defend logically. So if there is any troll in this thread its you and or your 3 amigos.
Later troll, obviously you don't want to or can't actually discuss this. I don't care what someone else posted, my post with scientifically supported evidence from actual scientists in the field explain away all you bullshit.
YOu have yet to cite one peer reviewed article supporting your claim, yet I can't keep up.
What the fuck is it with these trolls on this message board?
Thats it run away coward.... You came in here to be a troll and shout down truth, and when it didn't work and it became clear your ignorance was showing through your BS, you decide to run away like a punk.....
Buh Bye now.....
These trolls have a read blogs like that of Watts, and have zero scientific background. So they blindly repeat what they have read, often changing the wording, the result being either ridulous, or hilarious.
And the blog posted linked to the peer reviwed articles in Nature and Science.
These trolls are not here to impart knowledge, or learn, they are here simply to ridicule and demonstrate the depths of their willfull ignorance. They do this extremely well.
