• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oceans losing oxygen

Grand Mal said:
Semantics. Don't like the word 'acidic', fine, 'less alkaline' works too. The Ph has dropped, that's the point. And whatever that makes happen in coral reefs in Tuvalu or Papua New Guinea is irrelevant to here, where I live, where the drop in Ph of the water has affected the shellfish industry.
Click to expand...

Maybe pollution is the main contributary factor

Waters off B.C. coast awash in plastic particles, says head of new ocean pollution program (with video)

Not good but nothing whatsoever to do with global warming

PS love Vancouver Island and BC
 
Seriously?!! That would be a big change.
 
Grand Mal said:
Semantics. Don't like the word 'acidic', fine, 'less alkaline' works too. The Ph has dropped, that's the point. And whatever that makes happen in coral reefs in Tuvalu or Papua New Guinea is irrelevant to here, where I live, where the drop in Ph of the water has affected the shellfish industry.
Click to expand...

What about the effect on natural ecosystems? Geez - it's all about business for some people. That's so shellfish!





...sorry, couldn't resist :(
 
I still can't access my three Nature dot com subscriptions. They have a notice since 2/27 that subscriber services are down and they are working on it.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Read the article I linked about nuclear power. There are VERY safe methods of generating power. Right now I see little reason to use coal over nuclear and then we can use solar and wind to fill in the gaps.
Click to expand...

Whatever "safe" methods of generating nuclear power you think are out there they are not that safe.

Also you have to figure into the mix the intentional use of radioactive crap as a weapon. This is going to happen. North Korea does not have the capacity to attack with real nuclear bombs but it can easily just spread toxic death all over the place.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Whatever "safe" methods of generating nuclear power you think are out there they are not that safe.

Also you have to figure into the mix the intentional use of radioactive crap as a weapon. This is going to happen. North Korea does not have the capacity to attack with real nuclear bombs but it can easily just spread toxic death all over the place.
Click to expand...

There are potential problems with many things we do in life. Nuclear just had harder potential problems than most. As long as we don't get arrogant about it, and realize there may always be something we forgot, it is far safer than thinking we have all bases covered.
 
[h=1]How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 2 – Bad Models[/h]Guest essay by Jim Steele Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism Are the Oceans’ Upper Layers Really Acidifying? As detailed in Part 1, NOAA’s Bednarsek, incorrectly attributed the dissolution of sea butterfly shells to anthropogenic CO2 although the evidence…

4 days ago March 2, 2017 in Ocean acidification.
[h=1]How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 – Sea Butterflies[/h]Guest essay by Jim Steele Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism If you google “ocean acidification,” the first 3 websites presented according to “Google’s truth rankings” are: 1) Wikipedia, 2) NOAA’s PMEL site featuring the graphic cartoon shown below…

6 days ago March 1, 2017 in Ocean acidification.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There are potential problems with many things we do in life. Nuclear just had harder potential problems than most. As long as we don't get arrogant about it, and realize there may always be something we forgot, it is far safer than thinking we have all bases covered.
Click to expand...

I have no need to cover all bases but having 20 gallons of petrol in your kitchen is a bad idea.

No need to use the thing that is the only one that just might kill the planet.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 2 – Bad Models[/h]Guest essay by Jim Steele Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism Are the Oceans’ Upper Layers Really Acidifying? As detailed in Part 1, NOAA’s Bednarsek, incorrectly attributed the dissolution of sea butterfly shells to anthropogenic CO2 although the evidence…

4 days ago March 2, 2017 in Ocean acidification.
[h=1]How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 – Sea Butterflies[/h]Guest essay by Jim Steele Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism If you google “ocean acidification,” the first 3 websites presented according to “Google’s truth rankings” are: 1) Wikipedia, 2) NOAA’s PMEL site featuring the graphic cartoon shown below…

6 days ago March 1, 2017 in Ocean acidification.
Click to expand...

In regions where strong upwelling of DIC from the deeper ocean overwhelms the ability of photosynthesizing organisms to sequester carbon, surface pH drops and CO2 is outgassed to the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Can we not just look at such regions and see if the plankton is indeed reduced in certain species due to the shells being dissolved? I mean there seems to be the obvious test case there for us to look at.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Read the article I linked about nuclear power. There are VERY safe methods of generating power. Right now I see little reason to use coal over nuclear and then we can use solar and wind to fill in the gaps.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how safe you make a nuclear plant in an ideal world. If a war happens anywhere near it it instantly becomes hideously unsafe and a danger to people far outwith the warzone. The aftermath of Chernobyl would be inconsequential in comparison
 
flogger said:
It doesn't matter how safe you make a nuclear plant in an ideal world. If a war happens anywhere near it it instantly becomes hideously unsafe and a danger to people far outwith the warzone. The aftermath of Chernobyl would be inconsequential in comparison
Click to expand...

Yes, they would be targets.

That's one reason for tests like this:

 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, they would be targets.

That's one reason for tests like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
Click to expand...

Impressive! I imagine creating their own dirty bomb would be easier and have much more effective deployment options than attacking a nuclear plant itself. And any government which tried either of these options would pretty much guarantee an international response and their own swift removal, unless it was one of the major powers doing it (in which case it likely is or soon to be a WW3 scenario and we're all screwed anyway).
 
Mithrae said:
Impressive! I imagine creating their own dirty bomb would be easier and have much more effective deployment options than attacking a nuclear plant itself. And any government which tried either of these options would pretty much guarantee an international response and their own swift removal, unless it was one of the major powers doing it (in which case it likely is or soon to be a WW3 scenario and we're all screwed anyway).
Click to expand...

I first saw tests like this as counterarguments to the conspiracy theory nuts of 9/11 wondering what happened to the aircraft, especially at the Pentagon.
 
As for the oceans losing oxygen, I realized in reading the paper again, that they don't account for the oxygen loss in the atmosphere. The oxygen is getting thinner and thinner, and this should be a far larger concern than greenhouse gasses. Now I don't know yet whet it is, but it would be reflected in the equilibrium between the ocean surface and atmosphere.

Still, the thermal increases of the surface will be the largest AGW factor, as a warmer ocean will absorb less oxygen.
 
Lord of Planar said:
As for the oceans losing oxygen, I realized in reading the paper again, that they don't account for the oxygen loss in the atmosphere. The oxygen is getting thinner and thinner, and this should be a far larger concern than greenhouse gasses. Now I don't know yet whet it is, but it would be reflected in the equilibrium between the ocean surface and atmosphere.

Still, the thermal increases of the surface will be the largest AGW factor, as a warmer ocean will absorb less oxygen.
Click to expand...

Interesting, though it looks like the atmospheric decline is around 0.1% over 50 years (19 millionths per year), compared with 2% over 50 years for oceanic oxygen.
 
Mithrae said:
Interesting, though it looks like the atmospheric decline is around 0.1% over 50 years (19 millionths per year), compared with 2% over 50 years for oceanic oxygen.
Click to expand...

Then that would be insignificant for the paper. I still think it should have been included, at least mentioned.
 
flogger said:
It doesn't matter how safe you make a nuclear plant in an ideal world. If a war happens anywhere near it it instantly becomes hideously unsafe and a danger to people far outwith the warzone. The aftermath of Chernobyl would be inconsequential in comparison
Click to expand...

Yes. Glad to see it's not just me seeing this.

If you have a sense of history and understand that where we see very stable safe areas of the world today there were vast total wars wandering all over the same places very recently then you stop wanting nuclear plants all over the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom