Global Warming Denier Gets Punked

Post Reply New Topic

I pretty much agree with everything being said here (except that first denialist comment). I admit I don't understand much about GW myself outside of the basic thermodynamics (heat in =/= heat out because CO2 is absorbing it etc) so I'm going to have to put my trust in the current consensus of the scientific community. And that seems to be that GW is occurring and that it is probably caused by humans.

But here's the thing: CO2 does capture radiation--it's a thermodynamic fact. Therefore, even if GW is being caused by natural forces, cutting down on CO2 emissions could help to mitigate it. And since GW will be bad regardless of whether it is natural or anthropogenic, I think cutting CO2 is therefore a VERY good idea.

It's interesting someone brought up climate science of the 70's. Isaac Asimov wrote an essay back in 1959 explaining how burning coal and other fossil fuels could result in global warming. There were a lot of unknowns that he addressed, but it's interesting that even 50 years ago we had some cause to start worrying.

I think there was even talk about it much earlier then Asimov.
Lately I have been focusing mostly on the effects on the oceans, where CO2 absorption is having very apparent effects. There was a period of time millions of years ago when there were higher levels of CO2 in the ocean that led to a much lower pH- this led to extinctions of marine life, but it happened over thousands of years, and the end result was adaptation by many marine organisms. Right now we're looking at the pH dropping by 2 points or more across much of the worlds oceans- in ~100 years. That is a serious cause for concern, as there has never been an equal event to that in the entire geological history of the planet.

I first read about it years ago when I heard about the 'bleaching' of coral reefs worldwide and the associated decay. I also did research into it back when I was in classes related to the subject. I can't recall all the data sources, but I also recently read this article from National Geographic:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ocean-acidification/kolbert-text/1

The article particularly outlines the effects of acidification on organism growth and other related things. The lower pH period I was referring to is called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was ~40 or 50 million years ago. The absorption of CO2 in the oceans is related to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as much of the CO2 ends up there. This has often been thought of as a good solution but the truth is much more tragic in terms of the effect it has on marine life.

*EDIT: I accidentally linked it to page 2 of the article but I fixed that, sorry mate!

Yeah you're right, that number was erroneous. I should have checked my sources first, but in any case, even a 'small' drop in pH is dangerous, as it represents orders of magnitude.
Damage to coral is really alarming, and inhibiting its growth and ecosystem stability is akin to the destruction of the rain forests; the coral reefs are something of an analog to them, containing many diverse species and micro-systems. A lot of people depend on the ocean for food... All these environmental systems are related, which is why a cascading environmental failure becomes more likely if such major ecosystems as coral reefs and rainforests suddenly disappear in such a short timescale. In time life will adapt again, but it will not happen as quickly as it took for us to change the game, and Humans everywhere will suffer the consequences