[Newsbot]

Title: Global warming turning sea into acid bath
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2008-06-09 11:23:43
Canadian

[hurley_108]

But CO2 is good for plants. And it's not a pollutant. And it's been higher in the past. It can't possibly be turning the oceans acid. It's a mythical molecule invented by Al Gore (shortly after he invented the internet) to scare us into giving him money.

[Bacardi4206]

Another crack at Al Gore with the same insult. "He invented the internet". Hahaha, OHOHOHOH, hahahaha. It just never gets old. Even after watching it be told a million times.

[hurley_108]

Bacardi4206 wrote:

Another crack at Al Gore with the same insult. "He invented the internet". Hahaha, OHOHOHOH, hahahaha. It just never gets old. Even after watching it be told a million times.

Your sarcasm generator is working fine, but your sarcasm detector is on the fritz...

[Zipperfish]

The claim that CO2 is an unmitigated good is probably one of the more outrageous ones made by the opponents of AGW. It's actually useful, because as soon as I come across a line in a glbal warming tract that reads something to the effect that "CO2 is fgood for plants" or "CO2 is non-toxic" then I know I'm dealing with someone who isn't very scientifically credible on the subject. It would be the same logic if I said that 0 degrees ambient tmeperature is too cold, and 25 is quite nice, therefore 100 degrees must be awesome!

[bootlegga]

hurley_108 wrote:

But CO2 is good for plants. And it's not a pollutant. And it's been higher in the past. It can't possibly be turning the oceans acid. It's a mythical molecule invented by Al Gore (shortly after he invented the internet) to scare us into giving him money.

[DrCaleb]

Get some lead plates . . copper leads . . Free energy!

[N_Fiddledog]

hurley_108 wrote:

But CO2 is good for plants. And it's not a pollutant. And it's been higher in the past. It can't possibly be turning the oceans acid. It's a mythical molecule invented by Al Gore (shortly after he invented the internet) to scare us into giving him money.

All absolutely true (except, of course, the molecule isn't so much mythical as myths are created concerning it, and Al Gore didn't really invent the internet). This that follows is also true...

Quote:

The bigger concern has been the possible effect of the extra CO2 on the world’s oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).

Still, the main worry has been that the extra CO2 could hurt the growth of plankton, which represents the start of the oceanic food chain. But recent research (published on April 18 in Science Express) has now shown, contrary to expectations, that one of the most common forms of plankton actually grows faster and bigger when more CO2 is pumped into the water. Like vegetation on land, it loves the extra CO2, too!

It is quite possible that the biosphere (vegetation, sea life, etc.) has been starved for atmospheric CO2. Before humans started burning fossil fuels, vegetation and ocean plankton had been gobbling up as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they could, but it was like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck through a stopped-up hose.

More Carbon Dioxide please

Here's some more on the science of it with links to studies and such...

Oceans love CO2, coccolithophores say

Acid Oceans are just more "Sky is Falling" bullshit.

[tritium]

Steps to Understanding Global Warming For the Concerned Citizen
Are scientists and environmentalists needlessly alarmist as the climate undergoes a natural shift in climate; or are our leaders dangerously dismissive of the warning signs all around us as we stand on the precipice of a human-induced tragedy the likes of which has never been experienced?

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. Perhaps we just don't know.

What is the average citizen to think about the issue of global warming and climate change?

That the earth is heating up and climate change is already underway is understood by virtually the entire scientific community. The complexities and mechanisms of our global climate make the causes and consequences less clear.

GlobalWarmingisReal.com is a clearing house of information and resources for the concerned citizen. If you are worried for the future of our planet and want to find out more about global warming, climate change, alternative energy, and sustainable human development, you are at the right place.

[ridenrain]

Well the oceans didn't warm up and the coastlines didn't flood so I guess they needed something else to happen to keep the scare-train going.
Just remember that whatever the problem is, it's all you're fault and only way you can solve it is by giving money to Al Gore and Davis Suzuki.

[ManifestDestiny]

Zipperfish wrote:

The claim that CO2 is an unmitigated good is probably one of the more outrageous ones made by the opponents of AGW. It's actually useful, because as soon as I come across a line in a glbal warming tract that reads something to the effect that "CO2 is fgood for plants" or "CO2 is non-toxic" then I know I'm dealing with someone who isn't very scientifically credible on the subject. It would be the same logic if I said that 0 degrees ambient tmeperature is too cold, and 25 is quite nice, therefore 100 degrees must be awesome!

And I guess we are supposed to beleive you right?

cause the cbc says so right?

GFYS!

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish wrote:

It's actually useful, because as soon as I come across a line in a glbal warming tract that reads something to the effect that "CO2 is fgood for plants" or "CO2 is non-toxic" then I know I'm dealing with someone who isn't very scientifically credible on the subject.

At 10,000 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere you might start to get drowsy. The current estimated level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 ppm. Let's say that doubles this century to 770 ppm it's still less than 1/10 of the amount of CO2 required just to make you dizzy. You like Wikpedia, as I recall. It tells me CO2 doesn't become clearly toxic until 50,000 ppm. that's 65 times as much as doubled current levels, or 130 times current levels. In fact the best the alarmist friendly Wikipedia can do is, "Amounts above 5,000 ppm are considered very unhealthy". That's still 13 times current levels, and myself I'm not even sure I understand what exactly they mean by that. Gigantic dinosaurs thrived at about 7 times current levels of carbon dioxide.

In other words...No. CO2 is not toxic at any sane estimate of what man might conceivably put into the atmosphere. But go ahead science boy. Prove me wrong.

As far as doubting CO2 is good for plants, you're joking right?

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

It's actually useful, because as soon as I come across a line in a glbal warming tract that reads something to the effect that "CO2 is fgood for plants" or "CO2 is non-toxic" then I know I'm dealing with someone who isn't very scientifically credible on the subject.

At 10,000 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere you might start to get drowsy. The current estimated level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 ppm. Let's say that doubles this century to 770 ppm it's still less than 1/10 of the amount of CO2 required just to make you dizzy. You like Wikpedia, as I recall. It tells me CO2 doesn't become clearly toxic until 50,000 ppm. that's 65 times as much as doubled current levels, or 130 times current levels. Gigantic dinosaurs thrived at about 7 times current levels of carbon dioxide.

In other words...No. CO2 is not toxic at any sane estimate of what man might conceivably put into the atmosphere. But go ahead science boy. Prove me wrong.

As far as doubting CO2 is good for plants, you're joking right?

You sure know how to miss a point.

[N_Fiddledog]

sandorski wrote:

You sure know how to miss a point.

Pretty good at making one too, eh? CO2 is not toxic at any sane estimate of what man can put into the atmosphere. Therefore speaking of CO2 as not being toxic is a reasonable expression of the current condition, or any conceivable man-caused future one. If you can prove that wrong, fill your boots.

[ManifestDestiny]

sandorski wrote:

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

It's actually useful, because as soon as I come across a line in a glbal warming tract that reads something to the effect that "CO2 is fgood for plants" or "CO2 is non-toxic" then I know I'm dealing with someone who isn't very scientifically credible on the subject.

At 10,000 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere you might start to get drowsy. The current estimated level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 ppm. Let's say that doubles this century to 770 ppm it's still less than 1/10 of the amount of CO2 required just to make you dizzy. You like Wikpedia, as I recall. It tells me CO2 doesn't become clearly toxic until 50,000 ppm. that's 65 times as much as doubled current levels, or 130 times current levels. Gigantic dinosaurs thrived at about 7 times current levels of carbon dioxide.

In other words...No. CO2 is not toxic at any sane estimate of what man might conceivably put into the atmosphere. But go ahead science boy. Prove me wrong.

As far as doubting CO2 is good for plants, you're joking right?

You sure know how to miss a point.

I dont see how he missed the point?
And whats the point? dont dare go against the theory of man made global warming cause you guys will scream and yelll we are all crazy and choots with bush and Harper to ruin mother Earth. GFYS