Ocean Acidification -- can you see it happening?

[lexvil]

I've been hearing this for at least 20 years. Name one coastline that has disappeared. Ice levels are INCREASING, not decreasing. at least try to get your facts straight.

Eleven Years Of Arctic Sea Ice Thickening | Real Climate Science

Sea Level Rise Swallows 5 Whole Pacific Islands

 

[Diver below 83]

Sea Level Rise Swallows 5 Whole Pacific Islands

it’s not just about islands or coastal cities anything either. People don’t understand that sea levels rising also means major waterways flood more as well which include rivers. Case in point. This is lakeside speedway. They never had major flooding like this until more recent times. The Missouri River has rose multiple times to the point that the Barriers were breached in multiple points. Which causes this type of flooding.

 

[RIHappyDiver]

And by the way, if you kool-ade drinkers are going to associate us with Holocaust Deniers by calling us 'Deniers', which was done earlier in this thread, we are going to start calling you 'Cultists'.

Sorry if we pass on the grape Kool-Ade there Rev. Jones.

I am fine with keep things civil but I am not going to let snarky insults go unchallenged.

I’m just an impartial observer on this one but I wanted to point out that the “cult” word was tossed into the ring back on page 1 of this thread. Also, the word “denier” has been associated with many things in recent years, including climate change, and not by any means exclusively to the Holocaust, so it seems quite the leap to make that connection.

As for the rest of this, it’s obviously a fascinating thread for me to have read through 11 pages.

Erik

 

[tursiops]

I’m just an impartial observer on this one but I wanted to point out that the “cult” word was tossed into the ring back on page 1 of this thread. Also, the word “denier” has been associated with many things in recent years, including climate change, and not by any means exclusively to the Holocaust, so it seems quite the leap to make that connection.

As for the rest of this, it’s obviously a fascinating thread for me to have read through 11 pages.

Erik

It doesn't seem that "denier" and "cult" are really semantic opposites. If one denies the reality/fact of climate change, then the adjective "denier" seems appropriate. That person might take offense, of course, but the word is fairly accurate. The word "cult," however, is a direct attempt to denigrate, to lump those who accept the science into the category of those who follow (usually) religious leaders without thinking and without skepticism. Calling those who accept the overwhelming science of climate change members of a cult is not at all accurate, is quite offensive, and is typical of deniers. Climate change deniers are right up there with anti-vaccine folks.....basing their statements on unsubstantiated (or just plain wrong) opinion and belief rather than dispassionate science and facts.

 

[greeniguana]

I've been diving for 33 years. I've been working as a professional ecologist for more than 20 years. Probably 50/50 public and private sector.

The whole notion of "belief" when it comes to clear science one can observe with their own eyes is nonsensical.

I worked in the marshes of LA evaluating site conditions after the oil spill for 2 years. Southern LA marshes are disappearing at an incredible rate. 300yds of marsh there one day, but gone the next time we go to monitor.

Cabbage palm islands in the FL panhandle I used to visit as a kid are now needle rush marshes. Palms started dying 20 years ago. Now even higher live oak coastal islands are starting to get converted into marsh.

More and more local govt agencies in coastal areas are starting to ask state level agencies for help with their stormwater systems. They no longer function during high tides and people are complaining about flooding. Places like Miami, Siesta Key, Marco island, Crystal River.... I worked on a massive $$$$ pump system in Miami.

I've been monitoring groundwater at some coastal mines sites for 15 years. Chloride levels (salt water) in surficial wells are going up because storm surges are occurring with increased regularity and fresh water just can't displace it quick enough. In some cases this is also causing vegetative community structure changes inland (see above).

Reefs I dove in SFL are decimated today compared to what they looked like in the 1980s.

Mangrove trees are present further north along the Florida coast than they have ever been.

So I'm not a researcher, or academic, I just have eyeballs.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I’m just an impartial observer on this one but I wanted to point out that the “cult” word was tossed into the ring back on page 1 of this thread. Also, the word “denier” has been associated with many things in recent years, including climate change, and not by any means exclusively to the Holocaust, so it seems quite the leap to make that connection.

As for the rest of this, it’s obviously a fascinating thread for me to have read through 11 pages.

Erik

It was started with Global Warming now Climate Change and it was a deliberate attempt to paint the critics with a broad brush and link them to Holocaust Deniers.

Climate Craziness of the Week: Economist Tom Schelling makes NYT's Paul Krugman look rational

It doesn't seem that "denier" and "cult" are really semantic opposites. If one denies the reality/fact of climate change, then the adjective "denier" seems appropriate. That person might take offense, of course, but the word is fairly accurate. The word "cult," however, is a direct attempt to denigrate, to lump those who accept the science into the category of those who follow (usually) religious leaders without thinking and without skepticism. Calling those who accept the overwhelming science of climate change members of a cult is not at all accurate, is quite offensive, and is typical of deniers. Climate change deniers are right up there with anti-vaccine folks.....basing their statements on unsubstantiated (or just plain wrong) opinion and belief rather than dispassionate science and facts.

Ok Mr. Marine Scientist, I am going to ask you a question regarding the definition of a valid hypothesis or theory. One of those conditions is a concept known as 'falsifiability'. Tell me what condition would prove climate change false?

It seems that the climate cultists assert that warmer winters prove climate change, colder winters prove climate change, wetter winters prove climate change, more rain proves climate change, more snow proves climate change, less snow proves climate change, etc. Heads I win, tails you lose....

Tell me what condition would disprove the hypothesis. I have yet to see a convincing argument to that effect.

It's all Deniers, but the models and handwavium. Not to mention cooking the data aka hiding the decline and adjusting past temp data down. If Climate change was a solid theory, it could stand on it's own without all this hocus-pocus to cook the books. And lets not even mention the hokey stick graph of Mann's and how he switched his datasets mid-graph. Real theories don't require such manipulation.

 

[DBPacific]

Ok Mr. Marine Scientist, I am going to ask you a question regarding the definition of a valid hypothesis or theory. One of those conditions is a concept known as 'falsifiability'. Tell me what condition would prove climate change false?

It seems that the climate cultists assert that warmer winters prove climate change, colder winters prove climate change, wetter winters prove climate change, more rain proves climate change, more snow proves climate change, less snow proves climate change, etc. Heads I win, tails you lose....

Tell me what condition would disprove the hypothesis. I have yet to see a convincing argument to that effect.

Simple. There being no change. No difference in climate from what we have in our long-term records, at least none that couldn't be explained away by normal seasonal changes and planetary cycles. If there is no change outside of that, then the climate is stable and there is no human-driven climate change.

However, every single study I've seen trying to disprove or find out if there is any change has shown that there is significant climate change. By and large, this means that the globe in general will warm, but as it warms, extreme weather becomes much more common - that means droughts, floods, extreme winters and storms, more and more intense hurricanes and tornados, and extreme summers. Some areas will see more extreme summers than other places and some areas will be more impacted by floods than they will by drought. That's what change means. The globe as a whole is changing, but there's so much variance in every area that the exact nature of that change is different.

Science is built on trying to disprove yourself and others. For climate change, there is overwhelming evidence that it is making a significant impact on the world - so much evidence that it can't be disproven. And right now in climate change, we are all losing. The fight for humans now is to get everyone on board so maybe we don't lose as badly.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

And yet, in some ways, the weather has become less extreme. The number of hurricanes has fallen for example. Droughts were worse in the 1800's and the 1930's.

And expecting the climate to remain in some state of homeostasis is far too simplistic. It has never been that way in the past, it's always been warming or cooling, up or down.

 

[DBPacific]

And yet, in some ways, the weather has become less extreme. The number of hurricanes has fallen for example. Droughts were worse in the 1800's and the 1930's.

And expecting the climate to remain in some state of homeostasis is far too simplistic. It has never been that way in the past, it's always been warming or cooling, up or down.

Like I said, without climate change, the variance in climate would be able to be explained by normal planetary cycles and seasonal changes. Please read what people say before commenting.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Like I said, without climate change, the variance in climate would be able to be explained by normal planetary cycles and seasonal changes. Please read what people say before commenting.

Like I said, without climate change, the variance in climate would be able to be explained by normal planetary cycles and seasonal changes. Please read what people say before commenting.

Planetary cycles? Are you wanting to discuss Milankovitch cycles and the next Ice Age? Perhaps we could talk Solar Maxima and Minimums as well as the significance of C3 photosynthesis and the optimal amount of atmospheric CO2 to support the healthy growth of terrestrial plants?