Does Australia have it right????

[shinek]

This is getting fun, but for anyone with such obviously firmly held views of the world to say that somebody else is not being open minded, I find frankly amusing. I've always believed that to argue religion or politics is a pointless exercise as anyone who has strong enough views on those subjects that they are willing to argue, will not be swayed to another view point.

As for acidification, I don't claim to be the great scientist of the bunch, although I do have a degree in Marine Biology but that was 25+ years ago and so I wouldn't dream of claiming that good a memory. 25 years in technology sales has wiped most of the scientific brain cells out.

However, on a sub-oceanic scale, I have an aquarium at home and was recently reading an article about growing plants and invertebrates and the problems that can arise. One comment made was that by introducing CO2 into the tank, you will get an increase in plant growth, we all know those plants love that CO2. However, the word of caution was with regards to such things as snails. While snails do require the appropriate minerals in order to grow their shells, too much CO2 will cause acidification of the water and will actually dissolve the shells. This was used as a possible axplanation as to why someone could have a healthy plant growth in their aquarium but their snails just kept dying off despite plenty of algae for them to eat. While I don't know all the science behind it (numbers, percentages etc.)and don't have the article in front of me to reference, it did make sense at the time I read it and so, keeping an open mind, it makes sense that this is possible on the larger, oceanic level.

OK, back to you guys, I'm enjoying the discussion!

PS: Just found this, thought it might make interesting reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

[hbh2oguard]

Well I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you because I know what I feel is 100% correct and I know what you think is correct to you but not me! I might be going to a university that's known to be a little to the left but the professors are world experts in the marine field. To put it simple, they know their **** and they aren't influenced by political beliefs.

shinek- the stuff you were talking about the snails is correct on a larger scale. Pretty much it has to do primarly with zooplankton that have calcium carbonate shells/tests. Raising the CO2 will decrease the pH which makes the water more acidic (just remember tiny changes can have a huge impact). The big problem is that the CCD depth is raised shallower. Below the CCD, CaCO3 is dissolved so animals with a CaCO3 shell won't survive. Now this isn't funny science it a known fact!

[shinek]

hbh2oguard - Interesting, I knew there would be some science behind the article, thanks for adding a little chemistry to the discussion. Also, the "agree to disagree" comment, with regards to some aspects, is a sensible one given the fact that these are "beliefs" on both sides.

Moving away from the acidification chemistry, I have some more info to throw into the discussion. The comment that we have 100s of years of oil under us. Hmmmm, I've had my doubts about this for some time, although I do recognize that there is a lot more down there than we have access to right now. I also believe we should be drilling for it, but don't accept that we have some vast reserves which will see us through the next few hundred years. Whatever's down there, I believe we still need to be looking for what will replace it and doing so with some urgency.

Take a look at the following web site with regards to production, consumption and growth rates. Its a lecture given by a guy named Al Bartlett and is broken into 8 parts of about 10 minutes each. It makes for "interesting" viewing and talks about general population growth, coal production and oil etc. If you want to jump to the most pertinent bits for this discussion, I suggest you view Parts 4 and 5 and you'll see what basic mathematics says about growth and the energy reserves we have in the ground. The first part is also interesting in that it nicely introduces the concept of exponential growth, which is pretty fundamental to the discussion.

http://www.albartlett.org/presentati...gy_video1.html

[Papa Bear]

Haven't seen too many Swamps that are not Acidic! Why? Because of decaying matter that releases CO2 back to the atmosphere! Cause and effect, not effect and cause! Own a pool? As a guard you should know what causes a pool to become Acidic, organic martial, and not CO2! Why won't you address the .0046 or 46 thousands of a percent of the atmosphere from the top to the bottom of Death Valley! I don't think we have to worry about the oceans becoming Swamps anytime soon! It is a natural swing that we now can measure and 300 years ago we couldn't and didn't care! We are too young at observing, but smart enough to know where funding comes from! Don't kid yourself! Your teachers are slaves to the funding they all claimer for! Your problem is your young and easily persuaded, got to keep those grades up! So a 4 one thousands of a percent is going to kill us we are already done!

[hbh2oguard]

As a guard you should know what causes a pool to become Acidic, organic martial, and not CO2!

My pool is the OCEAN and yes I do know what causes it to become acidic. Sorry I'm not inlander so I have no clue what makes a pool acidic.

[Papa Bear]

Or much else! You never addressed the 115 record LOWS! The Sun spots! When I am dead and I will rely on your memory to say "Papa Bear you were right". You refuse to read Trashing the planet and rely on what some one is telling you based on only 100 years of knowledge on a planet that is 5 billion years old! We don't even know what we don't know and this planet will out live us by a number of years before it blows up in a ball of fire that cooks the oceans into vapor and the Hydrogen becomes part of the expanding sun! So what are you going to do about that? The only thing constant is change!

[hbh2oguard]

Like I said again we will have to agree to disagree!!!!!

[shinek]

Still think we're in one of those "religious" arguments here. One side will probably never accept what the other is saying.

I will make an attempt to read Trashing the Planet out of interest and a desire to look at all sides of the issue.

But, why should anyone accept one publication as fact and not another? I don't believe anyone who writes a book does so purely to get factual information in the hands of the public, they want to sell books and they all have an agenda, so the information held within that book needs to be viewed with that agenda in mind.

Here are a few reviews from Amazon users, you'll see the varying opinions.

1 This book is a good starting point for those who want to research environmental issues and not get distracted by the hype. It provides many resources and provides good leads. It is also an easy read for those who don't have a scientific back ground.

2 Presents an interesting look at the conservative perspective on the environmental issues of today, but if you are looking for a book with accurate data that you can quote, this is not it. After finding an error right away on page 2, I found it hard to know what was fact and what was not. It does not present the sources of the numbers it quotes, so you can't judge if the information is any more valid than the studies it criticizes. There are better books out there presenting the conservative viewpoint on environmental issues. Does have an interesting section on natural radiation sources though.

3 I keep this book handy to educate clueless people who just listen to the "news" each night.
It is loaded with earth facts, and dispells the popular myths of today, that man has the power to change the climate.
We don't.
We are arrogant for thinking we can. The environmmental movement is a home for Socialists, just follow the money.
Buy this book and prepared to be angered by how manipulated you have been. You are taxed to death for the "environmental good" that has no meaning. What dopes we all are.

4 A completely outdated, thoroughly debunked screed against the environmental movement. Contains a number of hilarious errors, including overestimating the amount of chlorine released by volcanoes by a factor of about 5,000!

[hbh2oguard]

Still think we're in one of those "religious" arguments here. One side will probably never accept what the other is saying.

I will make an attempt to read Trashing the Planet out of interest and a desire to look at all sides of the issue.

But, why should anyone accept one publication as fact and not another? I don't believe anyone who writes a book does so purely to get factual information in the hands of the public, they want to sell books and they all have an agenda, so the information held within that book needs to be viewed with that agenda in mind.

Here are a few reviews from Amazon users, you'll see the varying opinions.

1 This book is a good starting point for those who want to research environmental issues and not get distracted by the hype. It provides many resources and provides good leads. It is also an easy read for those who don't have a scientific back ground.

2 Presents an interesting look at the conservative perspective on the environmental issues of today, but if you are looking for a book with accurate data that you can quote, this is not it. After finding an error right away on page 2, I found it hard to know what was fact and what was not. It does not present the sources of the numbers it quotes, so you can't judge if the information is any more valid than the studies it criticizes. There are better books out there presenting the conservative viewpoint on environmental issues. Does have an interesting section on natural radiation sources though.

3 I keep this book handy to educate clueless people who just listen to the "news" each night.
It is loaded with earth facts, and dispells the popular myths of today, that man has the power to change the climate.
We don't.
We are arrogant for thinking we can. The environmmental movement is a home for Socialists, just follow the money.
Buy this book and prepared to be angered by how manipulated you have been. You are taxed to death for the "environmental good" that has no meaning. What dopes we all are.

4 A completely outdated, thoroughly debunked screed against the environmental movement. Contains a number of hilarious errors, including overestimating the amount of chlorine released by volcanoes by a factor of about 5,000!

Well it sounds like a real "factual" book haha NOT!! I'd have to assume Papa himself wrote the third review. I rely on peer reviewed scientific article published in well know and respected journals for my information....try the same and you might get some real facts supported by science!!! Plus books aren't normally considered good sources for scientific info because most are old and science is always advancing. As a busy student I don't think I'll have time to waste on this, maybe this summer but I highly doubt it. Oh yea one other thing I now know why papa never has an origin of the data he's always trying to pawn off on us.....nice try!

[Papa Bear]

Well anyone can review a book, but it is the must well foot noted book on the subject anywhere. I love how some people will judge a book without even opening the cover! What's to fear? the truth? Is it because the author is a well educated strong conservative WOMAN? It stands on its own merits and foot notes! I happen to agree because of my eduction and 55 years of being in the ocean and on the earth! I understand observation and theory! I also understand people are like Liming, just look at the trillion dollars mess the Liming have us in now!

Don't you just love Orwell? He predicted a society where "Books" are "Not a good source of info"! Wow O worry about our country and our world if this is the generation we are turning it over to! I don't foot note, because it is a discussion, but everything I post has been researched as to source and accuracy right here on the Internet and everyone has the same tools, just not the same brain hemisphere dealing with the info! Because it makes you "Feel Good" doesn't make it true!