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  
•       •       •

16108 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2012 at 3:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-26 12:21:52 PM
Leviticus says that eating shellfish is a much worse abomination than homosexuality. I can see God's fingerprints all over this one.
 
2012-11-26 12:32:55 PM
the shells of sea snails

Snells of she sells...

Schnells of sea shales...

Sell of slee...

fark it.
 
2012-11-26 12:47:58 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Leviticus says that eating shellfish is a much worse abomination than homosexuality. I can see God's fingerprints all over this one.


Clearly we've transitioned from "God would never allow climate change" to "God is causing climate change and it's a good thing".
 
2012-11-26 12:50:45 PM
Say WHAT?
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2012-11-26 01:03:00 PM
That's what HE said
 
2012-11-26 01:05:43 PM
This is your snail...

This is your snail on acid rain.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-26 01:06:32 PM
dmtshirtdesign.com
 
2012-11-26 01:13:43 PM

Richard Saunders: This is your snail...

This is your snail on acid rain.


CO2, actually, but pH don't care.
 
2012-11-26 01:41:48 PM
is that some kind of euphemism?
 
2012-11-26 01:44:50 PM
i236.photobucket.com

Does not approve.

/Meow
 
2012-11-26 02:00:39 PM

Barfmaker: the shells of sea snails

Snells of she sells...

Schnells of sea shales...

Sell of slee...

fark it.


the shells of sea snails
shall smell like the shells of snails
smell shells of sea snails
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-26 02:19:09 PM

ManateeGag: is that some kind of euphemism?


Naked snails leave snail trails.
 
2012-11-26 02:20:53 PM
The strong shall survive to rise up and kill their monkey oppressors.
i236.photobucket.com

/Ripped from the farker above
 
2012-11-26 03:24:12 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Richard Saunders: This is your snail...

This is your snail on acid rain.

CO2, actually, but pH don't care.


Yeah, I just couldn't make "acid ocean" sound right in my brane...
 
2012-11-26 03:38:43 PM
That headline would make a good bumper sticker.
 
2012-11-26 03:40:43 PM

Lumpmoose


Marcus Aurelius: Leviticus says that eating shellfish is a much worse abomination than homosexuality. I can see God's fingerprints all over this one.

Clearly we've transitioned from "God would never allow climate change" to "God is causing climate change and it's a good thing".


And we've always been at war with Eastasia.


Woohoo, the chocolate ration was increased again!
 
2012-11-26 03:40:44 PM

Richard Saunders: Marcus Aurelius: Richard Saunders: This is your snail...

This is your snail on acid rain.

CO2, actually, but pH don't care.

Yeah, I just couldn't make "acid ocean" sound right in my brane BRINE...

/snailtrailsnailtrailsnailtrailsnailtrailsnailtrailsnailtrailsnailtra i lVAGINAsnailtrailsnailtrailsnailtrailsnailtrailsnailtrailsnailtrail
 
2012-11-26 03:40:49 PM
scary sure, if you're a snail
 
2012-11-26 03:41:17 PM
They tried to warn us!

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-26 03:44:52 PM
They'll just evolve to use plastic grocery bags as their new protection.

/here's hoping they learn to evolve quickly. Like, tomorrow quickly.
 
2012-11-26 03:46:30 PM
"As well as warming the planet, the carbon dioxide we emit ...."

Well gee. Maybe we all (except you of course cuz you're so much better than us) should just stop breathing and keel over, Professor Pissypants!
 
2012-11-26 03:48:27 PM
I hate to sound like an alarmist, but this kind of thing is alarming.
 
2012-11-26 03:48:30 PM
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.
 
2012-11-26 03:49:58 PM
I blame these guys.
 
2012-11-26 03:51:21 PM
It was all fun and games WHEN my snail dissolved. I mean, my slug. A slug is just a snail without a shell, right? Mom was always pissed at me for using all the table salt dissolving slugs. The big Bananas were the best.

/tomboy
 
2012-11-26 03:51:47 PM
that's ok, just throw those dissolved snails in some tasso with crawfish
fainegreenwood.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-26 03:51:52 PM
Well, I guess we'd better de-industrialize.
 
2012-11-26 03:52:38 PM
God put them there to buffer the ocean. Let them do their job.
 
2012-11-26 03:52:44 PM
History is going to regard global warming deniers with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers and germ theory skeptics.
 
2012-11-26 03:53:36 PM
How about giant filters that remove the CO2 from the air? Filters on factory and power plant smokestacks? Filters for sea water? It's amazing how much we talk about the problem, but not about any solutions.
 
2012-11-26 03:53:41 PM
BMOC Please, dissolved CO2 is a bulk parameter of the system.
 
2012-11-26 03:58:08 PM

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.


That's a lot of big words to say "LALALALALA I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!"
 
2012-11-26 03:59:04 PM

Wayne 985: History is going to regard global warming deniers with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers and germ theory skeptics.


In 300 million years, future species will dig up our fossils and wonder who the heck throws out a perfectly good frying pan just because the handle is a bit wobbly.
 
2012-11-26 04:00:22 PM
There are snails on her plate!

mojoimage.com 

/hotsy-totsy
 
2012-11-26 04:03:10 PM
Junk science. The published research itself shows that not only is it rife with errors but that the experiments were done in artificial conditions in an aquarium. Images provided show results.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1635.html
 
2012-11-26 04:04:39 PM

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!!!!!!
 
2012-11-26 04:07:17 PM
The pH is currently dropping at about 0.1 per century, faster than any time in the last 300 million years.

Unpossible! Everybody knows the earth is only 2012 years old.
 
2012-11-26 04:08:39 PM

Anthracite: BAN VOLCANOES!!!!!!


We produce more CO2 in a year than volcanoes do.
 
2012-11-26 04:10:24 PM

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!!!!!!


Do you seriously think that humans contribute nothing to ecological disaster, especially when there's scientific fact to back it up?

You're the equivalent of a fat person who pretends he has a slow metabolism and that it's his body's fault instead of taking even an ounce of responsibility for his carelessness.
 
2012-11-26 04:14:19 PM

Wayne 985: History is going to regard global warming deniers with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers and germ theory skeptics.


History is going to regard global warming deniers alarmists with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers Y2K and germ theory 2012 skeptics believers.

FTFY
 
2012-11-26 04:14:44 PM

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.


"People often die of natural causes, therefore unnatural causes don't happen."
 
2012-11-26 04:16:18 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about giant filters that remove the CO2 from the air? Filters on factory and power plant smokestacks? Filters for sea water? It's amazing how much we talk about the problem, but not about any solutions.


Sounds expensive.
How about putting our heads in the sand? Sand absorbs CO2 doesn't it?
 
2012-11-26 04:16:21 PM

RedVentrue: Wayne 985: History is going to regard global warming deniers with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers and germ theory skeptics.

History is going to regard global warming deniers alarmists with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers Y2K and germ theory 2012 skeptics believers.

FTFY


Except global warming has scientific evidence, while the others never did. Don't promote anti-intellectualism.
 
2012-11-26 04:17:37 PM

Wayne 985: 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.

"People often die of natural causes, therefore unnatural causes don't happen."


People sometimes die by murder therefore every death must be murder.

Works both ways, right?
 
2012-11-26 04:18:25 PM

Wayne 985: RedVentrue: Wayne 985: History is going to regard global warming deniers with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers and germ theory skeptics.

History is going to regard global warming deniers alarmists with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers Y2K and germ theory 2012 skeptics believers.

FTFY

Except global warming has scientific evidence, while the others never did. Don't promote anti-intellectualism.


Science can be wrong, and often is.
 
2012-11-26 04:21:01 PM

spentmiles: They tried to warn us!


Diffrn't strokes....

/Came for Gary, leaving satisfied
//that sounded wrong
///yay Dana Plato bonus surprise
 
2012-11-26 04:24:14 PM

RedVentrue: Wayne 985: 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.

"People often die of natural causes, therefore unnatural causes don't happen."

People sometimes die by murder therefore every death must be murder.

Works both ways, right?


When there's an oozing bullet hole and your first instinct is to say, "Heart attack.", then I question your judgment.

RedVentrue: Except global warming has scientific evidence, while the others never did. Don't promote anti-intellectualism.

Science can be wrong, and often is.


Sure. Rarely so when the evidence is agreed upon by more than 90% of experts, with growing data over several decades. Why is it that you don't trust them in this case? Because it would cost money? Rush Limbaugh told you differently? It means big government? What?
 
2012-11-26 04:27:39 PM
Does this mean that my hovercraft is STILL full of eels?
 
2012-11-26 04:29:09 PM
Headline: "Animals are already dissolving in Southern Ocean"
Article: "...found under an electron microscope that the outer layers of their hard shells bore signs of unusual corrosion."


EVERYBODY PANIC!!

There is a subtle, but really f'ing important, difference between "dissolving" and sub-microscopic "signs of unusual corrosion".

It's also one hell of a leap to go from, "Patches of [aragonite] undersaturation have already been seen" to, "By 2050, there will be a severe shortage of aragonite in much of the ocean."

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-26 04:29:25 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Leviticus says that eating shellfish is a much worse abomination than homosexuality. I can see God's fingerprints all over this one.


[Smart] [Funny]

Would click [Smart] [Funny] again.
 
2012-11-26 04:30:49 PM
So, if I start up Aragonite Credits, will I get the same treatment as Al?

/mostly the PROFIT part, actually
 
2012-11-26 04:31:40 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Leviticus says that eating mackerel is a much worse abomination than homosexuality. I can see God's fingerprints all over this one.


FTFY

/You have to understand , my people are getting wiped out.
 
2012-11-26 04:31:53 PM
there will be a severe shortage of aragonite in much of the ocean.

Begun the aragonite wars have.
 
2012-11-26 04:31:58 PM

spmkk: Headline: "Animals are already dissolving in Southern Ocean"
Article: "...found under an electron microscope that the outer layers of their hard shells bore signs of unusual corrosion."


EVERYBODY PANIC!!

There is a subtle, but really f'ing important, difference between "dissolving" and sub-microscopic "signs of unusual corrosion".

It's also one hell of a leap to go from, "Patches of [aragonite] undersaturation have already been seen" to, "By 2050, there will be a severe shortage of aragonite in much of the ocean."

[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]


Not if you just BELIEVE.

/solves all leap problems
 
2012-11-26 04:32:23 PM
Headline sounds like an autobiographical account of someone's sexual episode with Lindsay Lohan.
 
2012-11-26 04:33:43 PM

Wayne 985: Sure. Rarely so when the evidence is agreed upon by more than 90% of experts, with growing data over several decades. Why is it that you don't trust them in this case? Because it would cost money? Rush Limbaugh told you differently? It means big government? What?


Rush is equally full of crap, but have you seen the UN solution to AGW?
 
2012-11-26 04:35:53 PM
us.123rf.com

She sold seashells by the seashore.
 
2012-11-26 04:36:29 PM
This may yet turn into a slugfest...
 
2012-11-26 04:44:43 PM

spmkk: Headline: "Animals are already dissolving in Southern Ocean"
Article: "...found under an electron microscope that the outer layers of their hard shells bore signs of unusual corrosion."


EVERYBODY PANIC!!

There is a subtle, but really f'ing important, difference between "dissolving" and sub-microscopic "signs of unusual corrosion".

It's also one hell of a leap to go from, "Patches of [aragonite] undersaturation have already been seen" to, "By 2050, there will be a severe shortage of aragonite in much of the ocean."

[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]


"Much" and "widespread" are vague, but the dude from the British Antarctic Survey did a fair job of elaborating. An unchecked problem that continues to spread (as the acidification of the polar waters appears to be doing) will logically get much worse over the decades.

RedVentrue: Wayne 985: Sure. Rarely so when the evidence is agreed upon by more than 90% of experts, with growing data over several decades. Why is it that you don't trust them in this case? Because it would cost money? Rush Limbaugh told you differently? It means big government? What?

Rush is equally full of crap, but have you seen the UN solution to AGW?


Last I heard, China and India couldn't agree to do jack. I'm not terribly concerned with the UN anyway, as it's largely toothless. I'm concerned with our own politicians, such as the president, who are slowly moving in the right direction.
 
2012-11-26 04:46:28 PM
While macroevolution is controversial, microevolution is widely accepted. The snails will "evolve" into other forms, without becoming new species, that don't have shells, since they don't need them any more. This is more scare tactics - I'm not going to point fingers at "liberal" vs "conservative" scientists, but I don't think this is the first time we're seeing this type of propaganda from one of the sides.
 
2012-11-26 04:47:58 PM
And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day bringing a bag of lime to beach, and dumping it in the waves. And then my friends they may think it's a movement.
 
2012-11-26 04:47:59 PM
Puget Sound is pretty farked up too (already was without any acidification though)

Link
 
2012-11-26 04:51:26 PM

ZeroPly: While macroevolution is controversial, microevolution is widely accepted. The snails will "evolve" into other forms, without becoming new species, that don't have shells, since they don't need them any more. This is more scare tactics - I'm not going to point fingers at "liberal" vs "conservative" scientists, but I don't think this is the first time we're seeing this type of propaganda from one of the sides.


Partially. Any snails that can maintain shell integrity will eventually out breed those that cannot.

If the change happens to quickly, then they might all die off. Something else would eventually take over that ecological niche, but at that point, the food chain could be disrupted, and more than just shelled invertebrates would be affected.

//I know it's a sarcastic bit of fun up there, but I cannot help myself.
 
2012-11-26 04:54:15 PM
Snails will be here long after we're gone.
 
2012-11-26 05:07:18 PM
 
2012-11-26 05:08:40 PM

vudukungfu: SnailsSlugs will be here long after we're gone.

 

FTFwhoever
 
2012-11-26 05:17:29 PM

RedVentrue: Y2K


You know why Y2K never affected anyone? Mainly because people worked their asses of for several years before hand to prevent any problems.

There was no issue because it was prevented before it could hit. See any parallel to climate change there? Maybe if we do something to prevent it now, then in 20 years you can happily sit there and say "i don't know what all the fuss was about".

/or you know, do sod all about it.
//i know which one I'd prefer.
 
2012-11-26 05:17:54 PM

RedVentrue: Wayne 985: History is going to regard global warming deniers with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers and germ theory skeptics.

History is going to regard global warming deniers alarmists with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers Y2K and germ theory 2012 skeptics believers.

FTFY


Ummm, except there is literally mountains of scientific evidence in favor of Climate Change. Well, unless you're a believer in the largest conspiracy theory of all time being perpetrated planet wide involving 10 of thousands of intentionally dishonest and underpaid scientists who have virtually nothing to gain.

2012 is BS, Y2K wasn't exactly BS, but it certainly doesn't deserve the elevation your giving it here, plus, you didn't see a whole shiat ton of anti-science simpletons denying there was a problem. I'm an I.T. guy of 20 years, I went around, rooted out the problems and fixed them, not screaming global conspiracy while pumping a thumb up my arse.
 
2012-11-26 05:18:43 PM

Marty Devoid: There are snails on her plate!

[mojoimage.com image 435x358] 

/hotsy-totsy


I approve of Bernadette Peters

www1.pictures.zimbio.com

/Still hot at 64
 
2012-11-26 05:19:06 PM

Amos Quito: [us.123rf.com image 400x267]

She sold seashells by the seashore.


I need a job too. Of the blow variety.
 
2012-11-26 05:21:22 PM
"Dissolves?"

"Patrick, your snail is a rock."

25.media.tumblr.com

"Yeah, thanks, I know. He's got nerves of steel."
 
2012-11-26 05:21:27 PM
Ok, deniers. Step right up: What, exactly, would it take to convince you that climate change is both happening and largely human caused?

Trick question! There is no amount of proof that would convince you! Bless your little hearts.
 
2012-11-26 05:26:40 PM
Farkers' snails dissolved a long, long time ago.
 
2012-11-26 05:46:36 PM

Wayne 985: History is going to regard global warming deniers with the same consideration they give to flat Earthers and germ theory skeptics.


To be fair, it's not like the non-deniers are doing anything at all about it either.
 
2012-11-26 05:49:58 PM

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. The envelope of behavior for even complex systems are dictated by its largest inputs; the idea that we can shovel unprecedentedly gigantic amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and then absolve ourselves of responsibility because "the Earth is a multivariate system" is just completely preposterous.

Aside from the fact that comparing climate during the Jurassic to now is ridiculous because of the difference in land mass distribution...

www.skepticalscience.com
(Data by U.S. Energy Information Administration)
 
2012-11-26 05:51:49 PM
Ok, members of the climate change religion. Step right up: What, exactly, would it take to convince you that nuclear power is both good for the environment and largely safe?
 
2012-11-26 06:00:34 PM

Wayne 985: spmkk: Headline: "Animals are already dissolving in Southern Ocean"
Article: "...found under an electron microscope that the outer layers of their hard shells bore signs of unusual corrosion."


EVERYBODY PANIC!!

There is a subtle, but really f'ing important, difference between "dissolving" and sub-microscopic "signs of unusual corrosion".

It's also one hell of a leap to go from, "Patches of [aragonite] undersaturation have already been seen" to, "By 2050, there will be a severe shortage of aragonite in much of the ocean."

[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]

"Much" and "widespread" are vague, but the dude from the British Antarctic Survey did a fair job of elaborating. An unchecked problem that continues to spread (as the acidification of the polar waters appears to be doing) will logically get much worse over the decades.

RedVentrue: Wayne 985: Sure. Rarely so when the evidence is agreed upon by more than 90% of experts, with growing data over several decades. Why is it that you don't trust them in this case? Because it would cost money? Rush Limbaugh told you differently? It means big government? What?

Rush is equally full of crap, but have you seen the UN solution to AGW?

Last I heard, China and India couldn't agree to do jack. I'm not terribly concerned with the UN anyway, as it's largely toothless. I'm concerned with our own politicians, such as the president, who are slowly moving in the right direction.


The right direction as in killing off 90% of the population through starvation? That right direction?
 
2012-11-26 06:01:18 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Richard Saunders: This is your snail...

This is your snail on acid rain.

CO2, actually, but pH don't care.


If you're having pH problems I feel bad for you son
I got 99 problems but a base ain't one
 
2012-11-26 06:01:51 PM

chi_tino: Ok, members of the climate change religion. Step right up: What, exactly, would it take to convince you that nuclear power is both good for the environment and largely safe?


I guess trusted testimony from the leading scientists in that field. Anything around 90% consensus, and I'd be all in. Fair enough?
 
2012-11-26 06:03:32 PM

Evil High Priest: chi_tino: Ok, members of the climate change religion. Step right up: What, exactly, would it take to convince you that nuclear power is both good for the environment and largely safe?

I guess trusted testimony from the leading scientists in that field. Anything around 90% consensus, and I'd be all in. Fair enough?


Chernobyl is a great paradigm of your cause.
 
2012-11-26 06:03:42 PM

Wayne 985: 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!!!!!!

Do you seriously think that humans contribute nothing to ecological disaster, especially when there's scientific fact to back it up?

You're the equivalent of a fat person who pretends he has a slow metabolism and that it's his body's fault instead of taking even an ounce of responsibility for his carelessness.


This is CHANGE. Remember CHANGE? CHANGE is good. Clinton told me so. Obama told me so.
I'm all for change. Why do you so fear CHANGE? The universe is not steady-state, so just get with it and embrance tomorrow today with the rest of us. 

/Tomorrow's project? Embracing HOPE.
 
2012-11-26 06:13:33 PM

Feral_and_Preposterous: vudukungfu: SnailsSlugs will be here long after we're gone. 

FTFwhoever


Not so!
1. Snails die in salt.
2. Some snails live in the ocean.
3. The ocean water contains a lot of salt.
ERGO: Snails in the oclean are as good as dead anyway.

/Oh yes... 4. Sea slugs? Dead dead dead. 
//And that's all the science we need for one day. Move along.
 
2012-11-26 06:13:51 PM

Wayne 985: Anthracite: Big Man On Campus: ***snip***

Do you seriously think that humans contribute nothing to ecological disaster, especially when there's scientific fact to back it up?

You're the equivalent of a fat person who pretends he has a slow metabolism and that it's his body's fault instead of taking even an ounce of responsibility for his carelessness.


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:

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these farking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the farking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shiat. Tired of that shiat. I'm tired of farking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shiat about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are farked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shiat, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.
 
2012-11-26 06:22:39 PM

chi_tino: Ok, members of the climate change religion. Step right up: What, exactly, would it take to convince you that nuclear power is both good for the environment and largely safe?


You to take a vacation to Chernobyl and snort some dirt like cocaine then catch a connecting flight to Fukushima and eat a bunch of fresh produce and feral cat meat.
 
2012-11-26 06:24:08 PM

Pinko_Commie: RedVentrue: Y2K

You know why Y2K never affected anyone? Mainly because people worked their asses of for several years before hand to prevent any problems.

There was no issue because it was prevented before it could hit. See any parallel to climate change there? Maybe if we do something to prevent it now, then in 20 years you can happily sit there and say "i don't know what all the fuss was about".

/or you know, do sod all about it.
//i know which one I'd prefer.


Let's just say that you are right. Let's say that because of your brilliance, mankind will take corrective actions as per your suggestions. And because of your wise and always correct guidance, mankind avoids all disasters. Congratulations, the planet's population will boom. At a global population of 50 billion or so, there is no way to feed everybody, so we eat all the animals into extinction.The last snail, (with it's fully intact shell, thanks to you), will become some guy's lunch. 

/Meh. The Mayan Calendar thingee will resolve all of this. Surely.
 
2012-11-26 06:24:40 PM

Evil High Priest: I guess trusted testimony from the leading scientists in that field. Anything around 90% consensus, and I'd be all in. Fair enough?


I don't think nuclear has to be declared 100% safe (nothing is), just better than coal and other fossil fuels. A few deaths (there were very few) in Chernobyl is better than the end of all life on earth, hopefully you can at least understand that part.

I will posit some givens -
1) We need to maintain at least a substantial portion of our current power production. (The alternative is mass starvation for most of the world's population anyway. How many even hardcore AGW enthusiasts are willing to accept that alternative?)
2) Burning fossil fuels contributes greatly to AGW.
3) Nuclear power production contributes far less to AGW.

So unless you have a better idea, I don't think it is helpful to dismiss a potential part of the solution because it isn't guaranteed to only emit unicorn farts.
 
2012-11-26 06:25:11 PM

Feral_and_Preposterous: chi_tino: Ok, members of the climate change religion. Step right up: What, exactly, would it take to convince you that nuclear power is both good for the environment and largely safe?

You to take a vacation to Chernobyl and snort some dirt like cocaine then catch a connecting flight to Fukushima and eat a bunch of fresh produce and feral cat meat.


And: take pictures.
 
2012-11-26 06:31:21 PM

spmkk: Headline: "Animals are already dissolving in Southern Ocean"
Article: "...found under an electron microscope that the outer layers of their hard shells bore signs of unusual corrosion."


EVERYBODY PANIC!!

There is a subtle, but really f'ing important, difference between "dissolving" and sub-microscopic "signs of unusual corrosion".

It's also one hell of a leap to go from, "Patches of [aragonite] undersaturation have already been seen" to, "By 2050, there will be a severe shortage of aragonite in much of the ocean."

[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]


Denier.

we should clearly throw money at it and see if it goes away.
 
2012-11-26 06:32:12 PM

Skywolf Philosopher: Chernobyl is a great paradigm of your cause.


Good point. It actually is. It shows that even during an absolutely worst case catastrophic meltdown , a nuke plant caused FAR fewer deaths than a single coal mine fire.
 
2012-11-26 06:36:20 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. The envelope of behavior for even complex systems are dictated by its largest inputs; the idea that we can shovel unprecedentedly gigantic amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and then absolve ourselves of responsibility because "the Earth is a multivariate system" is just completely preposterous.

Aside from the fact that comparing climate during the Jurassic to now is ridiculous because of the difference in land mass distribution...

[www.skepticalscience.com image 400x261]
(Data by U.S. Energy Information Administration)


This kind of thing is why I have you favorited.
 
2012-11-26 06:39:37 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Isn't the ocean salty? Don't snails dissolve in salt?

/dnrtfa
 
2012-11-26 06:47:12 PM

Pinko_Commie: RedVentrue: Y2K

You know why Y2K never affected anyone? Mainly because people worked their asses of for several years before hand to prevent any problems.

There was no issue because it was prevented before it could hit. See any parallel to climate change there? Maybe if we do something to prevent it now, then in 20 years you can happily sit there and say "i don't know what all the fuss was about".

/or you know, do sod all about it.
//i know which one I'd prefer.


Right. Off ya go now, and fix climate change then. Let me know when yer done so we can stop panicking about it.
 
2012-11-26 06:50:45 PM
I was always amazed when looking at Foraminifera under the microscope/stereoscope.
Two types that looked the same were in the same sample. One version coiled clockwise, one version coiled counterclockwise.
Cousin critters, so to speak. These guys are barely bigger than a large grain of sand.
Then, you'd look at a sample of Forams higher in the section; younger in age rock. The one that coiled one way was gone. But not the other one.
The one coiling Foram died off. Extinctified itself. But not the other. You would think whatever affected the one, affected the other in the same fashion.
You never can tell.
 
2012-11-26 07:03:30 PM

RedVentrue: Pinko_Commie: RedVentrue:


What the hell is going on here? Is the Green Giovanni mafia up next?
 
2012-11-26 07:07:22 PM

Feral_and_Preposterous: You to take a vacation to Chernobyl and snort some dirt like cocaine then catch a connecting flight to Fukushima and eat a bunch of fresh produce and feral cat meat.


Chernobyl was caused by an inexperienced crew intentionally disabling what few safety measures were in place on an already unstable early generation graphite stack reactor, and asking "what happens if we pull this lever?". Touting it up as a demon for the entire field of nuclear power is like saying automotive transportation is a death sentence, because the Pinto would explode if you backed it into a concrete divider fast enough.

There are over 100 commercial reactors running in the US alone. Half of them have been running for more than 30 years, and only a few have experienced accidents significant enough to warrant public attention.
 
2012-11-26 07:09:13 PM

chi_tino: Ok, members of the climate change religion. Step right up: What, exactly, would it take to convince you that nuclear power is both good for the environment and largely safe?


... I already believe that*, so, um, nothing?
*If it is done right

Well, provided we A) Make sure all the reactors follow a standardized design in order to make it far easier for the inspectors, B) Do not simply have it built by the lowest bidder, and C) Do not skimp on the construction materials?

I mean, fark, coal puts out a shiat-ton more nuclear polution than a nuke plant.

RedVentrue: Pinko_Commie: RedVentrue: Y2K

You know why Y2K never affected anyone? Mainly because people worked their asses of for several years before hand to prevent any problems.

There was no issue because it was prevented before it could hit. See any parallel to climate change there? Maybe if we do something to prevent it now, then in 20 years you can happily sit there and say "i don't know what all the fuss was about".

/or you know, do sod all about it.
//i know which one I'd prefer.

Right. Off ya go now, and fix climate change then. Let me know when yer done so we can stop panicking about it.


? That wasn't your original point. Your original point was "LOL Y2K WAS NO BIG DEAL", and he responded "Well, actually, it was going to be a problem. Not world-ending, but we dealt with it before it happened, so no one noticed anything was wrong."

and now you're going "LOL Well then fix global warming, hahaha!"

... But you're in this thread earlier going "NOTHING NEEDS TO BE FIXED!" And implying it's a conspiracy of some sort (as we all know, science is TOTALLY where the big bucks are, after all). And people are discussing plans to fix it.


So do you admit it could be a problem, and some steps may need to be taken to either fix it or mitigate its effects? There are a number of "In case of global warming, break glass" type solutions, but they could also have unknown outcomes... so should probably be last resorts. And a number of them don't reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, so it doesn't really fix the oceanic acidification problem much.

And yes, the oceans will become more acidic as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. Basic friggen chemistry says more will dissolve in the ocean in such cases, in which case it will become more acidic. It's not a problem yet, but it easily could become one (Coral reefs, for instance, are reaaallllyyyy sensitive to changes in their surroundings. And having massive chunks of the ecosystem die off would probably be a bad thing.)

Should we 'panic'? No, if only because panicking doesn't solve crap. But it's something we should take seriously. We've only got one friggen earth. And no, we probably won't destroy all life on it, but we could very well make life really difficult for the rest of us. Especially if the farmlands get screwed over by changing climate patterns.
 
2012-11-26 07:11:38 PM

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.
 
2012-11-26 07:27:03 PM

spentmiles: They tried to warn us!


Is that the formerly hot but now room temperature Dana Plato?
 
2012-11-26 07:31:20 PM
obviously human caused climate stuff is a big deal, i mean northern africa used to be a jungle and now is a desert!
 
2012-11-26 07:41:09 PM

thursdaypostal: Anthracite: BAN VOLCANOES!!!!!!

We produce more CO2 in a year than volcanoes do.


What proof do you have to substantiate your claim? Oh that's right. You have farking NOTHING.
 
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 125 of 125 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report