Climate change BS

earthnospam

Today news articles appeared telling us how the warming of the sea is reducing the oxygen in the sea and that marine life will suffer as a consequence. Well not too long ago they were telling us how the oceans are acidifying due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the oceans and increasing the amount of carbonic acid. I'm afraid you can't have both! As the temperature of water increases dissolved gasses come out of solution. So yes oxygen will come out of solution but so will dissolved CO2. You cannot have oxygen coming out of solution while carbon dioxide is going into solution.

It's also worth mentioning that there happens to be far more CO2 dissolved in the sea than there is in the atmosphere. Even if we were to remove it from the atmosphere, more would come out of solution to take its place

kingstongraham

American, right?

earthnospam

No but Al Gore is.

earthnospam

And science isn't American either.

kingstongraham

censored this censored

cruff

earthnospam said:

Today news articles appeared telling us how the warming of the sea is reducing the oxygen in the sea and that marine life will suffer as a consequence. Well not too long ago they were telling us how the oceans are acidifying due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the oceans and increasing the amount of carbonic acid. I'm afraid you can't have both! As the temperature of water increases dissolved gasses come out of solution. So yes oxygen will come out of solution but so will dissolved CO2. You cannot have oxygen coming out of solution while carbon dioxide is going into solution.

It's also worth mentioning that there happens to be far more CO2 dissolved in the sea than there is in the atmosphere. Even if we were to remove it from the atmosphere, more would come out of solution to take its place

Sigh

monkimark

I'd love to respond but I'm busy joining a flat earth forum to randomly post about gear ratios.

cruff

monkimark said:

I'd love to respond but I'm busy joining a flat earth forum to randomly post about gear ratios.

ddraver

kingstongraham said:

censored this censored

censored but I know exactly what you said... 🤣

Pross

Seems to be a spate of very poor quality trolls joining the forum in the last few days. Late contenders to try to beat Coopster for troll of the year?

joe_totale-2

It's a shame we can't dump all these climate deniers on some sealed environment somewhere where they can do whatever they want and see what happens.

mr_goo

The planet is warming up. The evidence is incontrovertible. The Earth is still coming out of an ice age but our industrial and other intensive activities are speeding the process along.

There must surely be a limit to the number of humans Earth can sustain. Has anyone done modelling on this? I'd be interested to see.

Pross

It would depend massively on how people were prepared to live. If everyone accepted existing with the bare basic to survive I suspect the number the earth could accommodate would be hugely greater than if everyone insisted on the trappings of modern life.

mr_goo

The whole world economy only grows due to trappings of modern life....tech, transport, medical, etc.

As has been said to me by others and not my view, the world needs resetting either by a massive conflict or by plague. Horrid though.

bompington

Pross said:

It would depend massively on how people were prepared to live. If everyone accepted existing with the bare basic to survive I suspect the number the earth could accommodate would be hugely greater than if everyone insisted on the trappings of modern life.

But this is the exact opposite of how it is - it is the trappings of modern life that enable us to live as something other than subsistence farmers.
If we were all living in mud huts and growing our own food then we would rapidly reach Goo's desired population reset.

veronese68

kingstongraham said:

censored this censored

I agree

rjsterry

mr_goo said:

The whole world economy only grows due to trappings of modern life....tech, transport, medical, etc.

As has been said to me by others and not my view, the world needs resetting either by a massive conflict or by plague. Horrid though.

We've tried both, repeatedly, and neither slowed us down much.

DeVlaeminck

Well a century or two is a fair whack and maybe with modern travel and higher population densities a plague could take out a bigger proportion of the population - though maybe modern medicine would mitigate against those factors - let's hope we don't find out.

rjsterry

Interesting how much quicker the 'bounce' was after the second bout of plague. Where difficult to eradicate. Then there was the Spanish Flu epidemic which killed more than WW1, which it followed.

earthnospam

Well the conversation here sums up the mentality of the climate brigade. Not interested in the glaring contradiction in the argument or the basic science that as water temperature rises, CO2 comes out of solution. So the increase in atmospheric CO2 follows temperature increase. Instead more interested in how to cull the population by means of disease and war.

cycleclinic

50 million people dies in the spannish flu out break. world population was already around 1.5 billion. So the pandemic barely dented global population.

The OP is ignornat. the solubility of different gasses changes at different rates with temperature so CO2 concentration can rises and O2 levels fall over a change of a few degrees celcius.

Global population would need to fall to 500 million and stay there but to achieve that means 7.2 billion people dying (that level of death is a extintion event and the whole eco system would be treatened with the same fate).

monkimark

Yeah, bloody climate scientists, always starting wars and spreading disease to control the population.

mr_goo

cycleclinic said:

50 million people dies in the spannish flu out break. world population was already around 1.5 billion. So the pandemic barely dented global population.

The OP is ignornat. the solubility of different gasses changes at different rates with temperature so CO2 concentration can rises and O2 levels fall over a change of a few degrees celcius.

Global population would need to fall to 500 million and stay there but to achieve that means 7.2 billion people dying (that level of death is a extintion event and the whole eco system would be treatened with the same fate).

Why would the eco system of the world collapse if nearly all the living creatures die. We are causing it to collapse at our current rate of population growth and the resources we are eating up.
A near extinction event seems like the only answer.
No country or corporation is that interested in just stopping or doing something pro bono for the greater good. Even the lauded Greta Thunberg has her once failing mum and dads PR company behind her along with Swedish renewable energy companies backing her in hope of picking up business. Nobody not even dear Greta is truly altruistic.
The human nature of acquisition is killing off Earth..... Don't get me started on China, the most cancerous country (not the people) on the planet and we keep feeding it.

rjsterry

mr_goo said:

cycleclinic said:

50 million people dies in the spannish flu out break. world population was already around 1.5 billion. So the pandemic barely dented global population.

The OP is ignornat. the solubility of different gasses changes at different rates with temperature so CO2 concentration can rises and O2 levels fall over a change of a few degrees celcius.

Global population would need to fall to 500 million and stay there but to achieve that means 7.2 billion people dying (that level of death is a extintion event and the whole eco system would be treatened with the same fate).

Why would the eco system of the world collapse if nearly all the living creatures die?

Errr, is that what you meant to write? What do you think an ecosystem is if not a collection of interdependent living organisms?

mr_goo

rjsterry said:

mr_goo said:

cycleclinic said:

50 million people dies in the spannish flu out break. world population was already around 1.5 billion. So the pandemic barely dented global population.

The OP is ignornat. the solubility of different gasses changes at different rates with temperature so CO2 concentration can rises and O2 levels fall over a change of a few degrees celcius.

Global population would need to fall to 500 million and stay there but to achieve that means 7.2 billion people dying (that level of death is a extintion event and the whole eco system would be treatened with the same fate).

Why would the eco system of the world collapse if nearly all the living creatures die?

Errr, is that what you meant to write? What do you think an ecosystem is if not a collection of interdependent living organisms?

I meant humans being decimated.

rjsterry

Ah, makes more sense. Although all those hedgerow and meadow species would disappear if we stopped farming. And the deer would eat everything as we've already killed off their predators. Given our durability as a species, anything that was enough to take us out would have a lot of collateral damage.

surrey_commuter

mr_goo said:

rjsterry said:

mr_goo said:

cycleclinic said:

50 million people dies in the spannish flu out break. world population was already around 1.5 billion. So the pandemic barely dented global population.

The OP is ignornat. the solubility of different gasses changes at different rates with temperature so CO2 concentration can rises and O2 levels fall over a change of a few degrees celcius.

Global population would need to fall to 500 million and stay there but to achieve that means 7.2 billion people dying (that level of death is a extintion event and the whole eco system would be treatened with the same fate).

Why would the eco system of the world collapse if nearly all the living creatures die?

Errr, is that what you meant to write? What do you think an ecosystem is if not a collection of interdependent living organisms?

I meant humans being decimated.

As previously said the human population being decimated would be a blip.

Stevo_666

mr_goo said:

rjsterry said:

mr_goo said:

cycleclinic said:

50 million people dies in the spannish flu out break. world population was already around 1.5 billion. So the pandemic barely dented global population.

The OP is ignornat. the solubility of different gasses changes at different rates with temperature so CO2 concentration can rises and O2 levels fall over a change of a few degrees celcius.

Global population would need to fall to 500 million and stay there but to achieve that means 7.2 billion people dying (that level of death is a extintion event and the whole eco system would be treatened with the same fate).

Why would the eco system of the world collapse if nearly all the living creatures die?

Errr, is that what you meant to write? What do you think an ecosystem is if not a collection of interdependent living organisms?

I meant humans being decimated.

It'll have to be the zombie apocalypse then.

orraloon

surrey_commuter said:

As previously said the human population being decimated would be a blip.

[/pedant] 😉

kingstongraham

I stand by my earlier comment on this thread.

cruff

earthnospam said:

Well the conversation here sums up the mentality of the climate brigade. Not interested in the glaring contradiction in the argument or the basic science that as water temperature rises, CO2 comes out of solution. So the increase in atmospheric CO2 follows temperature increase. Instead more interested in how to cull the population by means of disease and war.

You're an imbecile. Less than 15 seconds of Googling leads you to the 'evil twin' theory detailing how ocean acidification is related directly to global warming. Another two minutes reading the Wikipedia article gives you enough explanation of the evidence that it makes it scientifically incontrovertible that the two are related, and explains just how it is possible.

So, before you start tinfoil hatting after posting precisely one thing in this forum in the past before you start trowelling this shyite out, educate yourself.