« Back to story "How Six Degrees COULD Change the World"

Story Comments

Posted by: Eagle_Eye 1 year, 9 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

Neutral
Eagle_Eye1 year, 9 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

I just learned some thing new. I had no idea that the oceans were responsible for cleaning our air like they said! I always thought it was more the rain forests.
But their description of the small sea creatures absorbing the Co2 to form their shells was intriguing. Now with too much CO2 it is making the water acidic eating the shells away and killing these small critters that absorb the CO2.
Fascinating how the world works.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
31 Replies

loading ...
- capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user20 Replies
  - mishandledComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
    - capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
      - Neutral
        ProudBlueTexan1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "however[,] increased dissolved CO2 in the ocean eventually makes the water too acidic and not habitable for these primary producers after a certain point."
        While you're at it, why don't you agree with that part?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        vettenut1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Duh, PBT:
        "That part" is so obviously true that agreement with it is unnecessary and without meaning.....
        Of course it is theoretically possible that dissolved CO2 could reach such a high level so as to so drastically change the pH of seawater, to the point of it becoming too acidic.
        Everything, even most of the laughable of the remedies posited in the article, has its limits.
        Except, perhaps the egocentric "wisdom" of the anthrocentrists (AKA humanists) who attribute to mere humans many broad abilities to influence and counter-balance the activities of earth's systems......
        All the while, they disregard the variations of the sole source of energy that warms the earth (that's our sun, for you PolSci majors masquerading as "climatologists") as the root cause of the earth's warming and cooling cycles, which have been occurring for eons...
        Go figure.......
        LOL!!!
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        mishandledComment removed: Retracted by user
        
        Neutral
        Searchbeam1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        If I remember my chemistry right, ocean water contains a fairly large percentage of salt and other dissolved salts of many metals such as magnesium, calcium as well as iodides, chlorides and phosphates, to name a few.
        There is only a finite volume of a gas such as oxygen or carbon dioxide can be soluble in this concoction. This dissolved volume also depends upon the temperature of the sea water. The higher the temperature, the lesser the volume of dissolved gases. Massive absortion of CO2 in sea water is doubtful at best, especially with rising temperature of the oceans.
        Unless sea water acts as a conduit for carbon dioxide for consumption by something like phyto-plankton, it is extremely limited CO2 sink.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
  - Neutral
    Searchbeam1 year, 9 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    capecoralM,
    If you happen to be a research scientist, you seem to be very patronizing! That is not a good attribute for any research scientist.
    I did not notice EE claiming to be a research scientist, and I think it is snide and nasty to make such obtuse statements.
    Any research is tentative and the results are empirical unless they are tested and verified by independent researchers and validated by peer review.
    Your comments above do not show proof of any such steps taken by the climate scientist. Perhaps, if this data is available, it would shed more light than heat on the current discussion thread.
    One more thing:
    The decision to post a story rests with the person who wishes to post the story, and not with any other person - biased, or otherwise! This is a forum for members and they have a right to post what they think is relevant. If you do not like it, you have the freedom of choice not to read it or post comments.
    A little civility to the community here goes a long way.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    12 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user11 Replies
      - Neutral
        Eagle_Eye1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        CC, you are arrogant, rude, snide, argumentive, think you know it all and not worth my effort to have a conversation with.
        This is my last post directed to you:
        I am a research scientist that has studied land wildlife, the environment they live in, effects of Chemical contamination, bio-accumulation, etc. for over 30 years. I am NOT an Oceanographer......
        SB, EXCELLENT comment, TY friend for addressing this persons rude attempts at twisting the story to suit them. The whole purpose of this post was to discuss the issues the program presented, not to nit pick as CC likes to do along with the boring cut and paste.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        10 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user9 Replies
        
        Neutral
        Eagle_Eye1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        You are really good at twisting my comments and taking them out of context. PLEASE don't help me I don't want your help, your contradictions are nothing but BS that turn to the solar system, planets, sun, etc., nothing to do with what is happening on our planet influenced by humans.
        I don't see many requests for you to cut and past, in fact I don't see any where that your input has been requested. I see you as being nothing but a troll that finds enjoyment belittling people while being argumentive. You are one of those people that would make an excellent government, industrial employee, or spin doctor.
        It is quite evident that you never took the time to read my profile so that you became aware of my area of expertise. Instead you seem to find great joy at back stabbing, humiliation, belitteling, etc. and that is very sad that you can't be a respectful poster. Spin, Spin, Spin....
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
        
        Neutral
        Eagle_Eye1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        You are nothing more than a Sock Puppet Troll that popped in a year ago...same old dribble, different user name.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
        
        Neutral
        Searchbeam1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        capecoralM,
        The issue is not of data and observations but scientifically tested and independently verified hypothesis, peer reviewed for validity. I do not see any such proof in your statements.
        There are several hypotheses on this issue, each one exciting in its own way. But until they meet the rigors of scientific inquiry, they will remain what they are: hypotheses.
        Of course, there is money to be made by promoting such hypotheses as "valid scientific proof", and claiming the share of the bounty offered by ExxonMobil and the likes. A lot of money, indeed, for a snake oil salesman.
        As far as the patronizing that I referred to, that refers to the first two sentences of your comment that I responded to.
        If you have something worthwhile to bring to this community, you are always welcome. However, if the purpose is to glorify yourself by putting others down by snide and patronizing remarks, it becomes questionable.
        A little civility goes a long way, my friend!
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Eagle_Eye1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        SB, again, another valuable observation and comment, TY
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
        
        Neutral
        Searchbeam1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        capecoralM,
        Now that you have given a reference to a peer-reviewed article, I will take a look at it.
        BTW, by no stretch of imagination have I called you a shill for ExxonMobil. They are what they are, perhaps the largest source of disinformation on environmental issues, and there are enough permissive "scientists" who need their feeding lot to exist. One such "scientist' was actually a lawyer employed by the White House, who was "editing" scientific papers prepared by scientists at Federal Agencies, and redacting and taking out any and every reference to global warming from their research papers. He was the one who instituted the "grants" of $10,000 per shill. When this racket was exposed, he quickly beamed himself to his Mother Ship ExxonMobil!
        ExxonMobil's ex-CEO retired with half a BILLION parting "Bonus" for all the hard work he did in the sleazy work he did!
        If you happen to be one of them, I have kno knowledge of it.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Searchbeam1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        capecoralM,
        I tried to look for your profile so that I could better understand your background.
        I could not find any!
        Unless, of course, I am making a mistake somewhere.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
- Neutral
  protoham1 year, 9 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  My concern is we may mess up the carbon - oxygen cycle by trying to fix it. We may find fixing the ozone hole was a mistake as it was letting out the extra heat.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  9 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - mishandledComment removed: Retracted by user8 Replies
    - Neutral
      vettenut1 year, 9 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      And it should be noted that during the time it has been regularly monitored (the past 40 years or so), the so-called "ozone hole" has fluctuated in size, as it reacts to seasonal conditions, volcanic eruptions and other significant earth events. This can be demonstrated by analyzing the effect of the Pinatubo eruption of 1991 upon the "ozone hole."
      However, there is no credible data showing that the size of the "ozone hole" has any provable linkage to human activity of any kind.
      Period!
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      7 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - Neutral
        Eagle_Eye1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        ok, I guess we should go back to using freon and aerosal spray cans.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        vettenut1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        What a novel idea!
        As for me, I hate aerosol cans and don't buy or use anything in "aerosol" packaging, except for several cans per year of spray paint. So, my CFC fingerprint is quite small. And we have good procedures for re-capturing CFC refrigerants of all kinds ("Freon" is a trademarked name).
        But that's a personal answer--here's a more general reply:
        Based upon historical data, it would make little to no difference to the "ozone hole!"
        The point is that the furor over CFC's (including Freon[tm]) as contributors to the "shrinking ozone hole" was over-hyped and based upon bad science.
        To say nothing of being politically-motivated and benefiting to several HUGE MNC's who just happened to own patents for Freon's "green" replacement.....
        Ah, yes. Those EEEEEVILLLLE corporations getting their hands on governmental policy again. Only in this case, they were undeniably on the side of the "greenies."
        Imagine that!!!!
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
      - mishandledComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
        
        Neutral
        vettenut1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        mishandled:
        Don't get me wrong--reducing emissions of all types is a good thing, but the question is: At what price, and for what result?
        If you do the math, you will see that the amount of Chlorine gas (the culprit in CFC's) spewed annually by human activity is dramatically dwarfed by Chlorine gas emissions from so-called "natural sources," which basically means VOLCANOES.
        And because this is a recent event, the data is not yet quantified, BUT:
        I would NOT be surprised if the current eruption of the Ecuadorian volcano Tungurahua has emitted more Chlorine gas already this month than we humans have managed (in all our sloppiness) to do in the past 5 years or more.....
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        mishandledComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
        
        mishandledComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
        
        Neutral
        Searchbeam1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        mishandled,
        You are right!
        The plus sign drops out when the comment gets posted. I have written to James Marcus about it on two occasions, and I am still waiting to hear from him!
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...

Post Reply

You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.

People Who Liked This Comment (12)

People Who Didn't Like This Comment (1)

Ronmelin

Submit a Story

Advertisement