If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   It's all fun and games until your snail dissolves   (newscientist.com) divider line 125
    More: Scary, Southern Ocean, ocean acidification, South Georgia, surface waters, Nature Geoscience  
•       •       •

16113 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2012 at 3:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-26 07:43:40 PM  
To salt
 
2012-11-26 07:45:47 PM  
This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.
 
2012-11-26 07:46:49 PM  

Animatronik: This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.


Apostrophes and Republicans; what is it?
 
2012-11-26 07:59:39 PM  

Indubitably: Animatronik: This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.

Apostrophes and Republicans; what is it?


Good on you, stick with what you know really well. You wouldnt want to appear mentally challenged by entering a debate with either abstract concepts or hard science.
 
2012-11-26 08:02:14 PM  

viscountalpha: What proof do you have to substantiate your claim? Oh that's right. You have farking NOTHING.


Basic math? Basic science? I'm not here to do your homework for you.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html (Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html (The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.)

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php (Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.)



fark off. If that's not good enough for you you can hunt down the rest yourself.
 
2012-11-26 08:05:57 PM  

Indubitably: Animatronik: This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.

Apostrophes and Republicans; what is it?


1 out of 2 ain't bad. Most of my Republican friends would've used at least three unnecessary apostrophes and used "its" instead of "it's."
 
2012-11-26 08:23:08 PM  

Animatronik: Indubitably: Animatronik: This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.

Apostrophes and Republicans; what is it?

Good on you, stick with what you know really well. You wouldnt want to appear mentally challenged by entering a debate with either abstract concepts or hard science.


Who's currently mentally challenged, sir?
 
2012-11-26 08:23:48 PM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: Indubitably: Animatronik: This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.

Apostrophes and Republicans; what is it?

1 out of 2 ain't bad. Most of my Republican friends would've used at least three unnecessary apostrophes and used "its" instead of "it's."


Theory.
 
2012-11-26 08:32:07 PM  

Indubitably: Animatronik: Indubitably: Animatronik: This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.

Apostrophes and Republicans; what is it?

Good on you, stick with what you know really well. You wouldnt want to appear mentally challenged by entering a debate with either abstract concepts or hard science.

Who's currently mentally challenged, sir?


Its impressive if were in a thread where were discussing what were properly punctuated sentences; here youre merely breaking your wind, and loudly.

/chew on that, you fat-sounding person. And your theory sucks since theres a more proximate cause: typing on a phone...
 
2012-11-26 08:43:25 PM  

Animatronik: Indubitably: Animatronik: Indubitably: Animatronik: This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.

Apostrophes and Republicans; what is it?

Good on you, stick with what you know really well. You wouldnt want to appear mentally challenged by entering a debate with either abstract concepts or hard science.

Who's currently mentally challenged, sir?

Its impressive if were in a thread where were discussing what were properly punctuated sentences; here youre merely breaking your wind, and loudly.

/chew on that, you fat-sounding person. And your theory sucks since theres a more proximate cause: typing on a phone...


Yeah, you win.

*)
 
2012-11-26 08:50:16 PM  
From my basic chemistry course I remember that gases dissolve more in cold water... so are the oceans getting colder?

This all goes to Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures.

/yeah, I geek.
 
2012-11-26 08:55:01 PM  

Gawdzila: Anthracite: Big Man On Campus: It's funny how in a multivariate nonlinear dynamic system complicated by countless living organisms is never expected to change in front of our very eyes.

THIS...

Plus we were at fault for the Dinosaurs dying off and the polar caps melting the last time as well. BAN VOLCANOES!!!!!!

It's cute that you're using scientific terminology and everything, but just because a system is complex and non-linear doesn't mean that it becomes impossible to make predictions or conduct useful analysis. This idea that "it's not us because *handwaving* it's a complex system" is just an argument from ignorance.


So, by the way, is saying "It's changing now, we can't figure out exactly why, so we'll assume it's because of mankind. That is absolutely an argument from ignorance, but somehow you seem to be thinking that I'm the one who started arguing from ignorance.

Generally well-done science doesn't leap to conclusions. This did.
 
2012-11-26 09:34:06 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Gawdzila: Anthracite: Big Man On Campus: It's funny how in a multivariate nonlinear dynamic system complicated by countless living organisms is never expected to change in front of our very eyes.

THIS...

Plus we were at fault for the Dinosaurs dying off and the polar caps melting the last time as well. BAN VOLCANOES!!!!!!

It's cute that you're using scientific terminology and everything, but just because a system is complex and non-linear doesn't mean that it becomes impossible to make predictions or conduct useful analysis. This idea that "it's not us because *handwaving* it's a complex system" is just an argument from ignorance.

So, by the way, is saying "It's changing now, we can't figure out exactly why, so we'll assume it's because of mankind. That is absolutely an argument from ignorance, but somehow you seem to be thinking that I'm the one who started arguing from ignorance.

Generally well-done science doesn't leap to conclusions. This did.


^
 
2012-11-26 09:38:58 PM  
FTA:

"The snails do not necessarily die as a result of their shells dissolving, however it may increase their vulnerability to predation and infection, consequently having an impact to other parts of the food web"

Well, that's certainly convincing
 
2012-11-26 10:52:28 PM  
Clearly the answer is to dump a bunch of basic chemicals in the ocean to balance the ph back out.
 
2012-11-27 12:01:48 AM  
Snails, snails, snails. What about the oysters? 

staticmass.net 

Crassus: Do you eat oysters?
Antoninus: When I have them, master.
Crassus: Do you eat snails?
Antoninus: No, master.
Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?
Antoninus: No, master.
Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?
Antoninus: Yes, master.
Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.
Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters.
 
2012-11-27 01:47:29 AM  

Barfmaker: the shells of sea snails

Snells of she sells...

Schnells of sea shales...

Sell of slee...

fark it.


CO2 shells sea snails by the sea shore.
 
2012-11-27 04:12:42 AM  
Sea snails will become sea slugs. Clams and other mollusks will become shell less which would really mess up a good tongue twister: :she sells sea shells by the sea shore". Maybe it will become "she lugs sea slugs plugged in a rug".
 
2012-11-27 05:26:04 AM  
i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-27 05:29:37 AM  
I heard recently that a balloon from some kid's party, or something like that, caused a whale to die!!

/and didn't they just catch some fat, ugly lady trying to have sex with a manatee?
 
2012-11-27 10:48:31 AM  

Wayne 985: roc6783: While I do not agree with the premise of the arguments made, I would defer to the expert humor of Dr. Carlin in framing my next point: [wall of text]

I love Carlin, but that's always been one of his stupider rants, right up there with bragging that he didn't vote.

Besides, I'm not concerned with "killing the planet" (whatever that means). I'm concerned primarily with rising, acidic sea levels that are going to make things very uncomfortable for humans.


I think that was his point. He's saying that preachy, holier than thou enviro-warriors need to shut the hell up. No one is going to save or destroy the Earth, but we sure as hell can screw ourselves.
 
2012-11-27 01:14:13 PM  

thursdaypostal: viscountalpha: What proof do you have to substantiate your claim? Oh that's right. You have farking NOTHING.

Basic math? Basic science? I'm not here to do your homework for you.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html (Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html (The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006.)

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php (Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.)



fark off. If that's not good enough for you you can hunt down the rest yourself.


Ha! Burn.

stirfrybry: FTA:

"The snails do not necessarily die as a result of their shells dissolving, however it may increase their vulnerability to predation and infection, consequently having an impact to other parts of the food web"

Well, that's certainly convincing


Really? You think dissolving shells on a species that needs them to avoid predation and infection won't hurt?
 
2012-11-27 02:38:30 PM  

Animatronik: This thread is hilarious, because it's full of left-hand wingnuts and snail haters.

The whole concept of snail shells dissolving in oceans was investigated by a biologist who did the experiment wrong and set off a chain reaction among other biologists.

The only thing you can count on is that dropping tiny snails in a low pH solution without calcium or carbon sources will accelerate their shells dissolving. In the oceans, the situation is quite different, and thats chemistry, not biology. Not that this will inhibit the snail lovers in the least.



The bit in bold isn't quite right, as there has been a body of work done on the effects of ocean acidification on the marine carbonate buffer system and resulting effects on calcifying organisms.

As for your contention about "thats chemistry, not biology", labels on disciplines don't matter much, but this subject matter would closer to biological oceanography.

Between these two gross misconceptions, may I suggest you consider the possibility you don't yet have enough knowledge to be able to make such bold statements about this subject. Some measure of uncertainty may be warranted on your part.
 
2012-11-27 02:42:43 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Gawdzila: Anthracite: Big Man On Campus: It's funny how in a multivariate nonlinear dynamic system complicated by countless living organisms is never expected to change in front of our very eyes.

THIS...

Plus we were at fault for the Dinosaurs dying off and the polar caps melting the last time as well. BAN VOLCANOES!!!!!!

It's cute that you're using scientific terminology and everything, but just because a system is complex and non-linear doesn't mean that it becomes impossible to make predictions or conduct useful analysis. This idea that "it's not us because *handwaving* it's a complex system" is just an argument from ignorance.

So, by the way, is saying "It's changing now, we can't figure out exactly why, so we'll assume it's because of mankind. That is absolutely an argument from ignorance, but somehow you seem to be thinking that I'm the one who started arguing from ignorance.

Generally well-done science doesn't leap to conclusions. This did.



Heh. Be aware that countering an accusation of arguing from ignorance by putting forth another, completely different argument from ignorance isn't as solid a line of argument as you may think.
 
2012-11-28 12:19:01 AM  

Big Man On Campus: It's changing now, we can't figure out exactly why, so we'll assume it's because of mankind.


Except that we DO know why.
You're asserting that we don't because it fits your argument, but this is something that there is a high degree of confidence on in the scientific community.


Big Man On Campus: somehow you seem to be thinking that I'm the one who started arguing from ignorance.


You did.
I made a statement that is generally supported by current data and scientific consensus.
You made the statement that "it is false because... uh.. it's complicated".


Big Man On Campus: Generally well-done science doesn't leap to conclusions. This did.


No, it didn't. It simply reiterated the conclusion that thousands of scientists who have studied the problem have come to over the past couple decades. That's "leaping to conclusions" according to you? Lol.  In fact more precisely, I showed why your handwaving dismissal of the scientific consensus is built upon bullsh*t. Which it is, no matter what I think of the causes of GW. I could agree with you and my criticism would still be accurate. But if you really believe what you say, the way to prove it is not to wave your hands and say "it's too complicated to know", because it isn't. Make your own model that takes into account the influences that you think are causing the warming trend and see if it matches up with reality.
 
Displayed 25 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report