Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

[Mark Pawelek]

After stating "these creatures breathe water, not air", it's pretty difficult to take any of the scientific positions you subsequently take seriously. Literally no animals breathe water.

Good point. I meant breathe in water. They breathe gases dissolved in water; which don't have the same composition as air because carbon dioxide is more soluble in water than oxygen.

Corals actually get oxygen from zooxanthellae symbiotic algae growing inside of them which use CO2 dissolved in oceans for food and excrete oxygen, which the coral 'breathe'.

 

[2ndTouch]

Good point. I meant breathe in water. They breathe gases dissolved in water; which don't have the same composition as air because carbon dioxide is more soluble in water than oxygen.

Yeah, and it has the habit of facilitating a thing called ocean acidification...

 

[Mark Pawelek]

Take it to another thread.

I'm happy to stop it here. But if people insist on quoting me, I'll reply to an unfair quote.

I didn't begin posting climate stuff in this thread.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

Yeah, and it has the habit of facilitating a thing called ocean acidification...

Another myth. Oceans are alkaline not acidic. There are about 100 times as many alkaline [OH-] ions in oceans as there are acidic [H+] ions. Making oceans 100 times more alkaline than acidic.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Another myth. Oceans are alkaline not acidic. There are about 100 times as many alkaline [OH-] ions in oceans as there are acidic [H+] ions. Making oceans 100 times more alkaline than acidic.

Acidification means a decrease in the PH, not that the ocean is acidic. This is not hard.

 

[Snowjoe]

Another myth. Oceans are alkaline not acidic. There are about 100 times as many alkaline [OH-] ions in oceans as there are acidic [H+] ions. Making oceans 100 times more alkaline than acidic.

I thought you just said you’d stop.

 

[2ndTouch]

Another myth. Oceans are alkaline not acidic. There are about 100 times as many alkaline [OH-] ions in oceans as there are acidic [H+] ions. Making oceans 100 times more alkaline than acidic.

And what exactly happens if you start injecting growing amounts of CO2 into the ocean water?

 

[Snowjoe]

@EVERYONE

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/climate-change.446642/page-4

 

[berbatrick]

Another myth. Oceans are alkaline not acidic. There are about 100 times as many alkaline [OH-] ions in oceans as there are acidic [H+] ions. Making oceans 100 times more alkaline than acidic.

This is amazing science. Water has an equal number of hydroxide ions and protons. It literally cannot be acidified. You can pump CO2 into a water bottle you can pour litres of HCl into water, but it will not be acidic because uhhh it is neutral.

 

[Skills]

 

[Mark Pawelek]

And what exactly happens if you start injecting growing amounts of CO2 into the ocean water?

No one is injecting large amounts of CO2 into ocean water.

Pre-industrial carbon content of oceans was 27 ppm. In contrast sodium chloride in oceans, today is, like, 20,000 ppm. If we incinerated all the fossil fuel on earth, and if all the CO2 made by burning it dissolved into oceans, the carbon content would increase to 31 ppm. No big deal. You must study science if you want to debate science with me.

 

[nimic]

No one is injecting large amounts of CO2 into ocean water.

Pre-industrial carbon content of oceans was 27 ppm. In contrast sodium chloride in oceans, today is, like, 20,000 ppm. If we incinerated all the fossil fuel on earth, and if all the CO2 made by burning it dissolved into oceans, the carbon content would increase to 31 ppm. No big deal. You must study science if you want to debate science with me.

What are your science qualifications?

 

[Kentonio]

No one is injecting large amounts of CO2 into ocean water.

Pre-industrial carbon content of oceans was 27 ppm. In contrast sodium chloride in oceans, today is, like, 20,000 ppm. If we incinerated all the fossil fuel on earth, and if all the CO2 made by burning it dissolved into oceans, the carbon content would increase to 31 ppm. No big deal. You must study science if you want to debate science with me.

What’s your scientific explanation for the mass bleaching of the corals? Too many liberal tears in the ocean?

 

[Mark Pawelek]

What are your science qualifications?

This isn't about my science qualifications. It about "Wokes" posting climate scare stories here and expecting us to swallow their myths, propaganda, and misrepresentations. Dressing their end-of-the world doom up in sciency language and expecting they can bluff, shame, BS and bully people into accepting whatever they say.

 

[RedChip]

Technically untrue. Earth's atmosphere does not act to store any significant heat. Our oceans do. Because:
1. The heat capacity, per kg, of water is 4 times that of air. Meaning: it takes 4 times more heat to raise 1 kg of water from 0 to 100C than it takes for air.
2. The mass of earth's oceans is 272 times the mass of our atmosphere.
3. Sunlight warms the oceans because it penetrates fairly deeply (up to 100 metres down)
4. Infrared does not warm the oceans because it all is absorbed in the first few micrometres. That means IR energy can only warm the surface skin of oceans. In theory. In practice no one ever measured significant ocean surface warming due to IR from CO2.

Those feedback loops are in your imagination, or should I say, only in your climate models. They have never been scientifically demonstrated. Not from observation, nor by experiment. In fact positive feedback loops are ridiculously rare in nature. Only climate catastrophists have them.

Methane is not a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, or water vapour. Methane is an insignificant greenhouse gas. Nearly all IR absorption done by methane overlaps that done by water vapour. Our atmosphere has anything from 100 times to 10,000 times more water in it than methane. Any absorption methane can do is already done by water. Water is outstandingly, the most important greenhouse gas. We know this from experience. A clear night cools quickly (like those in the Sahara). A moist, muggy, cloudy night cools far more slowly.

Jesus. We are fecked, aren't we?

 

[nimic]

This isn't about my science qualifications. It about "Wokes" posting climate scare stories here and expecting us to swallow their myths, propaganda, and misrepresentations. Dressing their end-of-the world doom up in sciency language and expecting they can bluff, shame, BS and bully people into accepting whatever they say.

You didn't actually answer my question. Does that mean you don't have any science qualifications? I'm just asking, since you said that people shouldn't discuss science with you unless they have studied science, and I can only assume that means you've done so yourself.

 

[Drainy]

Citizen science man to the rescue

 

[Fingeredmouse]

So, Mark, are you arguing that the scientific community in general are exaggerating the velocity, severity and extent of man made climate change? There will not be many of this forum (although I bet there are some) with sufficient scientific clout to argue the minutia of each aspect of this issue. Are you of a scientific background and you disagree with your peers broad consensus? If so, I'd genuinely be interested in hearing why.
From what I've read and seen the data seems pretty close to irrefutable, but I cannot claim to be an expert in any relevant field. I'd be interested to see an educated position that disagrees with the consensus sufficiently to invalidate the theory (and, as it seems is the position, it is seen to be a theory and not a hypothesis).

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Good point. I meant breathe in water. They breathe gases dissolved in water; which don't have the same composition as air because carbon dioxide is more soluble in water than oxygen.

Corals actually get oxygen from zooxanthellae symbiotic algae growing inside of them which use CO2 dissolved in oceans for food and excrete oxygen, which the coral 'breathe'.

Indeed. And those Algae are expelled and die if the water temperature gets too high. Which is bad because the coral then asphyxiate. Which is a consequence of rising sea temperatures. Which is a product of climate change. I assume that's not controversial.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

What’s your scientific explanation for the mass bleaching of the corals? Too many liberal tears in the ocean?

There are 60 recorded episodes of coral bleaching since 1979. It's claimed, at Wikipedia, that "Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming is the leading cause of coral bleaching".

How likely is that? That's a senseless statement because oceans are, at most, a few tenths of a degree warmer now than in the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. The average ocean temperature today is far lower than in the past (by as much as 16C). Why didn't corals all die off 55 million years ago?, when it was up to 16C warmer, on average than today. Or die off a few ten thousand years ago when oceans were about 6C colder than now?

During the deep glaciations, lasting most of the last 2.45 million years of Ice Age, ocean temperatures fell about 6C below today's. In the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, around 55 million years ago, a warm period lasted for about 200,000 years when average global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. When that began, temperatures were 8C warmer than now. So we're looking at peak warming 55 million years ago vs worst of the last glaciation. It shows average ocean temperature differences of 19 to 22 C warmer (at peak Eocene) than during the worst glaciation during the current Ice Age. Would you have me believe that massive temperature swings do not make corals extinct, but tiny swings less than a tenth of a degree do?

Problem with climate scare stories and propaganda is the science is never explained.

 

[Silva]

Those sea creatures breath water, not air.

this is both the funniest post on the caf and the exact reason humanity is sprinting to extinction

 

[Buster15]

Just to clarify.
Climate change has been happening throughout the history of our planet.
What we are talking about as part of this issue is Man Made Climate Change.
If any sane person really thinks that all of the damage that 7 billion humans are collectively doing to this small planet is not contributing to the rate of climate change then I am sorry for you.
All of the denying and burying your heads in the sand isn't going to alter the rise in global temperature or the melting of the polar ice.

It is happening. Just open your eyes and open your minds to the facts.
It is the truth - inconvenient as it is.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

this is both the funniest post on the caf and the exact reason humanity is sprinting to extinction

Can't Believe It's Not Tagline.

 

[nimic]

There are 60 recorded episodes of coral bleaching since 1979. It's claimed, at Wikipedia, that "Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming is the leading cause of coral bleaching".

How likely is that? That's a senseless statement because oceans are, at most, a few tenths of a degree warmer now than in the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. The average ocean temperature today is far lower than in the past (by as much as 16C). Why didn't corals all die off 55 million years ago?, when it was up to 16C warmer, on average than today. Or die off a few ten thousand years ago when oceans were about 6C colder than now?

During the deep glaciations, lasting most of the last 2.45 million years of Ice Age, ocean temperatures fell about 6C below today's. In the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, around 55 million years ago, a warm period lasted for about 200,000 years when average global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. When that began, temperatures were 8C warmer than now. So we're looking at peak warming 55 million years ago vs worst of the last glaciation. It shows average ocean temperature differences of 19 to 22 C warmer (at peak Eocene) than during the worst glaciation during the current Ice Age. Would you have me believe that massive temperature swings do not make corals extinct, but tiny swings less than a tenth of a degree do?

What you seem not to grasp is the enormous significance that comes with the speed of the change. I'm also fairly sure that answers the question of your science qualifications, since you're so hesitant to answer that question. You're very good at reproducing information, I'm just not convinced you understand much of it.

 

[RedTiger]

How exactly does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm (pre-industrial era), to 405 ppm (today) kill the great barrier reef? Those sea creatures breath water, not air.

Mate mate mate, I'm still trying to take in what you said.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

There are 60 recorded episodes of coral bleaching since 1979. It's claimed, at Wikipedia, that "Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming is the leading cause of coral bleaching".

How likely is that? That's a senseless statement because oceans are, at most, a few tenths of a degree warmer now than in the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. The average ocean temperature today is far lower than in the past (by as much as 16C). Why didn't corals all die off 55 million years ago?, when it was up to 16C warmer, on average than today. Or die off a few ten thousand years ago when oceans were about 6C colder than now?

During the deep glaciations, lasting most of the last 2.45 million years of Ice Age, ocean temperatures fell about 6C below today's. In the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, around 55 million years ago, a warm period lasted for about 200,000 years when average global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. When that began, temperatures were 8C warmer than now. So we're looking at peak warming 55 million years ago vs worst of the last glaciation. It shows average ocean temperature differences of 19 to 22 C warmer (at peak Eocene) than during the worst glaciation during the current Ice Age. Would you have me believe that massive temperature swings do not make corals extinct, but tiny swings less than a tenth of a degree do?

Problem with climate scare stories and propaganda is the science is never explained.

The answer is that coral may adapt faster than we previously expected to sea temperature changes.

https://www.openchannels.org/sites/...coral_bleaching_over_the_past_two_decades.pdf

So ummmmmm.......

 

[Mark Pawelek]

What you seem not to grasp is the enormous significance that comes with the speed of the change. I'm also fairly sure that answers the question of your science qualifications, since you're so hesitant to answer that question. You're very good at reproducing information, I'm just not convinced you understand much of it.

The speed of change in weather out does climate change hundreds of times over. Why don't weather changes make corals extinct?

 

[Silva]

There are 60 recorded episodes of coral bleaching since 1979. It's claimed, at Wikipedia, that "Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming is the leading cause of coral bleaching".

How likely is that? That's a senseless statement because oceans are, at most, a few tenths of a degree warmer now than in the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. The average ocean temperature today is far lower than in the past (by as much as 16C). Why didn't corals all die off 55 million years ago?, when it was up to 16C warmer, on average than today. Or die off a few ten thousand years ago when oceans were about 6C colder than now?

During the deep glaciations, lasting most of the last 2.45 million years of Ice Age, ocean temperatures fell about 6C below today's. In the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, around 55 million years ago, a warm period lasted for about 200,000 years when average global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. When that began, temperatures were 8C warmer than now. So we're looking at peak warming 55 million years ago vs worst of the last glaciation. It shows average ocean temperature differences of 19 to 22 C warmer (at peak Eocene) than during the worst glaciation during the current Ice Age. Would you have me believe that massive temperature swings do not make corals extinct, but tiny swings less than a tenth of a degree do?

Problem with climate scare stories and propaganda is the science is never explained.

are you really so fecking stupid that you don't understand the difference between temperatures changing suddenly over decades to temperatures changing over thousands and millions of years?

and also stupid enough to talk about the ice age, responsible for one of the mass extinction events, as a reason not to care about temperature?

holy shit dude

 

[Fingeredmouse]

There are 60 recorded episodes of coral bleaching since 1979. It's claimed, at Wikipedia, that "Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming is the leading cause of coral bleaching".

How likely is that? That's a senseless statement because oceans are, at most, a few tenths of a degree warmer now than in the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. The average ocean temperature today is far lower than in the past (by as much as 16C). Why didn't corals all die off 55 million years ago?, when it was up to 16C warmer, on average than today. Or die off a few ten thousand years ago when oceans were about 6C colder than now?

During the deep glaciations, lasting most of the last 2.45 million years of Ice Age, ocean temperatures fell about 6C below today's. In the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, around 55 million years ago, a warm period lasted for about 200,000 years when average global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. When that began, temperatures were 8C warmer than now. So we're looking at peak warming 55 million years ago vs worst of the last glaciation. It shows average ocean temperature differences of 19 to 22 C warmer (at peak Eocene) than during the worst glaciation during the current Ice Age. Would you have me believe that massive temperature swings do not make corals extinct, but tiny swings less than a tenth of a degree do?

Problem with climate scare stories and propaganda is the science is never explained.

Without even reading up on it, I would suggest because certain coral have a selective advantage in certain temperature ranges and others do not thereby some species die and others thrive. Therefore previous climate changes will have killed off species or given them a platform to survive. Just like every other group of creatures. Clearly they are adaptive or they wouldn't have survived 530 odd million years. One assumes the various species that make up tropical reefs are susceptible to temperature rises, and that rapid temperature rises consistently over relatively short periods stop the coral from having time to recover from the bleaching (which I guess also always occurred to these species but less frequently) nor time to evolve.
So, I don't think you need to believe that "massive temperature swings do not make corals extinct, but tiny swings less than a tenth of a degree do?". You'd need to believe that "certain species of coral are susceptible to relatively modest temperature changes that cause bleaching and if these temperature fluctuations occur regularly then those species of coral will fail to recover and will die". Of course, I'm just hypothesising based on my limited knowledge, but that's generally how evolution works isn't it?

 

[Drainy]

All the lefties live on the coastlines.

Flood the Libs. Own the Libs.

 

[Silva]

 

[Mark Pawelek]

The answer is that coral may adapt faster than we previously expected to sea temperature changes.

https://www.openchannels.org/sites/...coral_bleaching_over_the_past_two_decades.pdf

So ummmmmm.......

Unconvincing. You told me I'm causing corals to go extinct. Now you say "Wait a minute on that, we're not sure". Once you use hyperbolē to support your argument, and the other sees through it you've lost all credibility, forever.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Unconvincing. You told me I'm causing corals to go extinct. Now you say "Wait a minute on that, we're not sure". Once you use hyperbolē to support your argument, and the other sees through it you've lost all credibility, forever.

Point of order, I didn't tell you anything. See that name in the box on the left? Not the one you've been arguing with.

Once you say fish breath water, do you also lose credibility, forever?

 

[Silva]

Unconvincing. You told me I'm causing corals to go extinct. Now you say "Wait a minute on that, we're not sure". Once you use hyperbolē to support your argument, and the other sees through it you've lost all credibility, forever.

that's not what he or the article said

corals are going extinct, several have in your lifetime

from that study:

Together, these studies show that the relationship between anomalously high SSTs and coral bleaching varies over space and time. Compared with coarse-grained global models that predict minimal coral survival in the tropical oceans within the next 100 years, recent field work shows considerable geographic variability in both temperature stress and coral survival

it's the same story as the rest of biological life - a lot of them will die and go extinct and some of them won't. this is not a good thing, biodiversity is important for all life and we've already caused enough damage that it will take millions of years for the world to be as diverse as it was just a few hundred years ago

 

[nimic]

The speed of change in weather out does climate change hundreds of times over. Why don't weather changes make corals extinct?

What?! Do I really need to start explaining the difference between weather and climate?

 

[Silva]

What?! Do I really need to start explaining the difference between weather and climate?

best of starting with the difference between liquids and gasses

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Unconvincing. You told me I'm causing corals to go extinct. Now you say "Wait a minute on that, we're not sure". Once you use hyperbolē to support your argument, and the other sees through it you've lost all credibility, forever.

If you see this as a sixth form debating class we'll get nowhere and everyone else would have stopped talking to you with your series of error strewn posts above. I thought perhaps you had a valid argument to make.
It seems not. Science is not, ever, absolute. But it trends in a generally correct direction. The evidence that the globe is warming is irrefutable. The probability that it is man made is extremely high. The exact adaption and extinction rates of coral species is not definitively known, but we can state with certainty coral bleaching is increasing both in frequency and severity. Can you not see that doesn't undermine the credibility of the scientific conclusions, especially when you're debating with a layman on a football subforum?

 

[0le]

Problem with climate scare stories and propaganda is the science is never explained.

The general public often want a quick yes/no answer and a simple explanation. Also, its not always possible to explain things, let alone explain them to a layman and anyway, if everything was understood, there would be no reason to do any research! As a result, I don't believe there is anything wrong with news articles which just present the facts and don't bother trying to give a full explanation.

 

[Silva]

The general public often want a quick yes/no answer and a simple explanation. Also, its not always possible to explain things, let alone explain them to a layman and anyway, if everything was understood, there would be no reason to do any research! As a result, I don't believe there is anything wrong with news articles which just present the facts and don't bother trying to give a full explanation.

nah, the main problem is anti intellectual propaganda that convinces stupid people that fish breathe water

for all "we're screwed" articles that are 100% on point and every groundbreaking Attenborough documentary there's billions of propaganda dollars from oil companies and nation states that have decided making a buck is more important that the rest of living things

 

[nimic]

Spoiler: big enough to be a yo mama joke

I love that graph Silva, but put a spoiler on it or something