| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4164
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
mac said: | Quote: | | Techno--your take--go back and reread it--was the opposite of critical thinking, it was paranoia. Somehow scientists had developed this term because they had a political agenda and not curiousity? I laughed out loud. |
Come on mac, I have clearly stated where I stand and why. Just because I choose to stand aside a see how the saga plays out without waving one flag or another, doesn't mean I lack critical thinking. Clearly, anyone not on your side of an issue always lacks critical thinking, your standard response.
The term acidification is misleading when presented to anyone that does not know the ocean PH and how is has changed. Looking at the most common definition - "the process of becoming acid or being converted into an acid" does not lend itself to what's actually happening to the ocean water (it will be a pretty long haul before the ocean becomes an acid (PH of 6.9). Changing from a PH of 8.2 to 8.1 does not quite fit with the definition. I also find it interesting that I couldn't find a antonym for acidification. Is there a word for "the process of becoming more basic or being converted into a base"? There probably is, but I couldn't find it.
From NOAA: | Quote: | What is Ocean Acidification?
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.
|
I just find the terminology interesting. Even though 8.1 is clearly on the basic side of the PH level, it is still an "increase in acidity", even though it is still a base and not acid. I guess being a non-scientist, I just don't get the use of what seems to be illogical phrasing.
I found this from Oceanus Magazine, which confirms my confusion:
| Quote: | One of the most common negative responses Sarah Cooley gets when she speaks to community groups about ocean acidification is, “What do you mean, ocean acidification? The ocean is not acidic! Seawater is never going to get below pH 7—so you must not know what you’re talking about.”
That’s partly true, said Cooley, a postdoctoral researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The pH of seawater is near 8, which makes it mildly alkaline, or basic; but any decrease in the pH of a liquid is considered “acidification.”
“It’s a lot easier to say ‘ocean acidification’ than ‘ocean de-alkalinization,” said Cooley.
|
I also contend that it's not just easier to say, but there is an agenda attached to using the word "acid" rather than "basic" or "alkaline".
Last edited by techno900 on Tue Mar 08, 2016 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac doesn't care, those of us that don't have our feet permanently cemented into the warmers camp, are considered fools, even though it is us that can still walk around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, more rationalization from the science-lite side of the aisle. GT doesn't answer the simple question--does he understand that a 25% increase in acidity in the oceans might be something to be concerned about? Techno also punts, even acknowledging from his source it might be higher. And because there is no immigrant to attack, Malibu Bard attacks me.
Don't pay attention to the science, you might have reasons for fear. Just listen to Trump's reasons to be afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4164
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac said: | Quote: | | GT doesn't answer the simple question--does he understand that a 25% increase in acidity in the oceans might be something to be concerned about? |
I doubt anyone would believe that the acidity has increased by 25%. But we will believe that the alkalinity has been reduced by 25%.
I guess my second sentence just doesn't have the "dyer consequences" ring to it that mac's statement does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why does Techno insist on using a new term that is not used by scientists in the field to describe a significant change in ph? I guess it is entirely consistent with his original post, which again makes me laugh:
| Quote: | Why is the term "acidification" in use. If the change in ocean pH has changed from 8.2 to 8.1, the only pertinent term should be "less basic". If the pH goes below 7.0 then use "acidification".
Looks like wordsmithing for a political agenda.
|
When you guys find yourself wrong, perhaps for a simple reason like you didn't remember that the ph scale was a log scale, the hole only gets deeper if you keep digging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | | Clearly, anyone not on your side of an issue always lacks critical thinking, your standard response. |
Then according to mac, the thousands of professional meteorologists like Joe Bastardi lack critical thinking because they disagree with mac.
Gives "arrogance" a whole new plane of existence.
Maybe THIS will change mac's mind about AGWA: Bill O'Reilly believes in AGWA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have to ask, if Bill O'Reilly believes in AGWA, why don't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:32 pm Post subject: r |
|
|
Did I mention that when you are in a hole you should stop digging? Iso, not bothering to read that the thread is aboud acidification, cites a well known Faux news denier. If you want to know how bad Bastardi is, read this: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12032015/leaked-email-reveals-whos-who-list-climate-denialists-merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-fred-singer-marc-morano-steve-milloy
Techno wants to use a non-scientific term for acidification because, well a 25% increase in ocean acidifcation just sounds awful. Those scientists must have invented those terms for political reasons.
Folks, here's what critical thinking is. It is actively seeking both sides of a story, weighing the credibility of the various sources, and making up your own mind. Try it, it doesn't hurt. Just a hint--Murdoch media is not credible on climate change. One peer-reviewed paper is all I ask. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote -'Did I mention that when you are in a hole you should stop digging?'
Quite so, so please put a sock in your arrogant and patronizing insults.
The oceans are SALT water, and will forever remain so. I refer to Browman's superior understanding of reality. Just what the hell has Murdoch got to do with that! (Don't bother flogging your whipping boy. It gets tiresome!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, the ocean is salty. Still not willing to venture an opinion on a 25% increase in acidification? It must be insulting to be asked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
