Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Memphis Slim]

Al Gore's New Book Assault on Reason: Two Views

By Christopher Alleva and Michael Geer

[FONT=times new roman,times]An Aptly Title Tome, by Christopher J. Alleva[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Al Gore has most assuredly secured his place in the pantheon of modern media deities, right along side Paris Hilton and Sean Penn. His legacy as a senator and later vice president may be lackluster, but he has transcended those shortcomings by pulling off one of the most successful propaganda campaigns of all time. Public relations professionals will study his global warming campaign for decades on. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]In between knocking down big paydays from investment bankers and six figure speaking fees, Gore has been the front man of this truly amazing campaign. Until he stumbled into this global warming gig, he was the Frank Burns of American Politics. The butt of all the jokes with the classic whiny demeanor. Bill Clinton was always Hawkeye Pierce to Gore's Frank Burns. Who can forget his greatest line ever? After pulling back his concession to then Governor Bush, he chortled: "you don't have to get snippy about it" But all that's behind him. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]As he was making his finale on Capital Hill back in March, wowing the media once again, Penguin Books announced plans for an encore performance. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Yet, another book tour featuring a new book written under his name aptly titled Assault on Reason. When I first heard about it I said to myself, now there's a topic this man knows all about. Arguably, his expertise is so great he scarcely needs a ghostwriter. His last book, An Inconvenient Truth, is perhaps the biggest assault on reason since the Pope went after Galileo in the 17th Century. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]The mendacity of this work was stunning. Numerous errors, misstatements and outright lies have been detailed in many rebuttals, especially by Chris Horner [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]and Marlo Lewis [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mendacious as it may be, that has not stopped a gullible media from swallowing it hook line and sinker as the metaphor goes, and foisting it on the American public. Their implacable lack of skepticism has been truly remarkable. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Audacious must be Al Gore's middle name. How else can you describe someone that would publish a book that calls for a complete reordering of the world and then follows it up with a book with the premise that if you don't buy it you're assaulting basic reason. [/FONT]



[FONT=times new roman,times]The self-important catalog description of the book reveals Gore's inherent conceit.

"A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degration of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason."​

[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]My father used to say if you point your finger at someone there are four pointed back at you. Other than Bill and Hillary Clinton, I can hardly think of anyone that has shown a greater mastery of the politics of fear. Secrecy and cronyism are literally a way of life for him.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The timing of Gore's book release is obviously designed to undercut those that disagree with his cabal. Its safe to predict that the media will all roll over again. What else would you expect, Al is a media god. Time Magazine is dutifully first out of the gate publishing a short excerpt teaser in their latest issue. To no avail, I did some research to discover who Al's ghostwriter is. So far its still a secret (at least to me). Al is kind of like the Milli Vanilli[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] of the literary and political world, lip synching his way all the way to the top. Unlike Rob and Fab, I don't think Al will be served with any class action lawuits for deceptive sales practices on "his" book. I may be wrong, but don't think we'll be unearthing anything like Reagan's "In his Own Hand" collection of personal writings from Al after he retires. Uncashed royalty checks perhaps, thoughtful prose, probably not. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Since this essay is nominally about Al Gore's new book, I guess I'll comment on the actual excerpt if I have to. The prose is downright turgid and the writing style is akin to congressional testimony. In other words, bring the No Doze. Unintended irony oozes from every paragraph. The writer vainly attempts to be profound but comes off looking trite instead. The editors at Penguin must have been pulling out their hair out; consoled only in the knowledge that no one will actually read the book. The television interviews will be carefully scripted no ad libing. Just follow the teleprompter baby. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]The media may think Al Gore is a god but I think history will judge him more harshly. The sheer audacity of his global warming campaign is stunning to behold. The blind faith of the media is far more disturbing. Hopefully, this will be his last book. [/FONT]

 

[Lord of Flies]

Its real. Didn't anyone see "An inconvient truth"?

Al Gore is a feckin' moron. Yes, "global warming" is real. No, we're not the cause of global warming, and never will be. I suppose humanity caused the last ice age, and the subsequent warming as well?

If you even pay attention during his moronic powerpoint tangent, you'll see that he even SHOWS the climate patterns of the Earth being Period of Warming - Period of Ice Age - Warming - Ice Age. How does that not flip a switch in his viewers brains that tells them, "Oh! Silly me, the world goes in CYCLES! Maybe there is not anything we can do to prevent it, afterall."

I mean, seriously, are people that horrified by change? The world will not always be the beautiful place it is now. You can't save it. At some point, an asteroid will hit and destroy our Earth, or the sun will implode and we'll be wiped off the map, or an Ice Age will hit and humanity will be crippled. These are the facts of life, people. Stop running scared like wild animals, and own up to the fact that the human race isn't meant to last forever. That's not how mother nature works.

 

[Blue Box Angel]

Al Gore is a feckin' moron. Yes, "global warming" is real. No, we're not the cause of global warming, and never will be. I suppose humanity caused the last ice age, and the subsequent warming as well?

If you even pay attention during his moronic powerpoint tangent, you'll see that he even SHOWS the climate patterns of the Earth being Period of Warming - Period of Ice Age - Warming - Ice Age. How does that not flip a switch in his viewers brains that tells them, "Oh! Silly me, the world goes in CYCLES!"

That's just like what I said!

 

[Lord of Flies]

That's just like what I said!

Yeah, I was merely elaborating on your original point. It is amazing, though, how few people notice this strange disconnect. The earth has been warming/cooling for billions of years, but now because it's warming during our lifetime, it's suddenly our fault?

The lack of reason in that viewpoint is astonishing.

 

[Carcharodon]

Al Gore is a feckin' moron. Yes, "global warming" is real. No, we're not the cause of global warming, and never will be. I suppose humanity caused the last ice age, and the subsequent warming as well?

If you even pay attention during his moronic powerpoint tangent, you'll see that he even SHOWS the climate patterns of the Earth being Period of Warming - Period of Ice Age - Warming - Ice Age. How does that not flip a switch in his viewers brains that tells them, "Oh! Silly me, the world goes in CYCLES! Maybe there is not anything we can do to prevent it, afterall."

I mean, seriously, are people that horrified by change? The world will not always be the beautiful place it is now. You can't save it. At some point, an asteroid will hit and destroy our Earth, or the sun will implode and we'll be wiped off the map, or an Ice Age will hit and humanity will be crippled. These are the facts of life, people. Stop running scared like wild animals, and own up to the fact that the human race isn't meant to last forever. That's not how mother nature works.

I think you missed the main point of that presentation: the levels of CO2 that corresponded to the periods of warming/cooling. Of course, that raises other debate issues altogether.

By the way, the greenhouse effect has been proven to have an effect on global scales: Venus may be the most prominent example, followed by even earth, and Mars. If you'd like more details, I'd be happy to oblige. Even the earth owes its mild climate in part to the naturally occurring greenhouse effect (were it not for our atmosphere, our average global temperature would be much, much lower).

That said: human beings are currently the #1 source of the world's Carbon emissions. That's a lot of Carbon being released into the atmosphere, no matter how you look at it. Therefore: if there is a direct correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 and temperature (again, look at Venus as an example, as well as Gore's much-debated graphs (with a grain of salt)), what makes you think we couldn't have an effect on the climate? We've already altered several basic and fundemental matter-cycles on the planet; why not the climate cycle? Do you know something that the hundreds of scientists working on the phenomenon don't? Better speak up!

Finally, I'd like to address your point regarding our inability to change anything. It seems like you're saying, "Why try? Why not just keep on living the way we are?" I've said it before and I'll say it again: even IF Global Warming turns out not to be our fault, do you really think that we're having no effect on the health of the planet? If you do, I can unequivocally, 100% prove you wrong with an argument based in extremely simple chemistry and modern data.

It's not just the human race we're affecting; it's a planet full of organisms. Of course nothing is meant to last forever, but why do you insist on trying to accelerate the process? We're on the verge of technologies that can greatly reduce our environmental impacts; why not do what we can, at least within reason, to clean up? You're selfish. That's the answer, and that's fine. It's pretty clear that you're not going to try to be a part of the solution (here's a hint: the problem isn't just global warming).

 

[Lord of Flies]

I think you missed the main point of that presentation: the levels of CO2 that corresponded to the periods of warming/cooling. Of course, that raises other debate issues altogether.

CO2 only consists of about .036 % of our atmosphere's gaseous make-up. So when you see an alarming number like: "Our planet's CO2 levels have increased 12% since 1960!" - know that the increase accounts for only .00432 % more of the atmosphere's air. A mere fraction of a percent. The problems we should really be concerned about here are methane, chlorine, and carbon monoxide. All of these have much more of an effect on the ozone and global climate than carbon dioxide does.

It seems Al Gore didn't brush up on his meteorology before going on a completely misinformed/misguided rant.

By the way, the greenhouse effect has been proven to have an effect on global scales: Venus may be the most prominent example, followed by even earth, and Mars. If you'd like more details, I'd be happy to oblige. Even the earth owes its mild climate in part to the naturally occurring greenhouse effect (were it not for our atmosphere, our average global temperature would be much, much lower).

I know this. Why are you telling me this? I didn't try to contest that it didn't, I just don't believe that we are causing this. Which we aren't, unless you're saying that this rather routine occurrence suddenly became our own machination by default. The earth goes in cycles, we cannot control what it does, it is free from our meddling in the sense that it will do whatever it needs to do to maintain itself. It's been doing the same thing for millions, billions of years.

That said: human beings are currently the #1 source of the world's Carbon emissions. That's a lot of Carbon being released into the atmosphere, no matter how you look at it. Therefore: if there is a direct correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 and temperature (again, look at Venus as an example, as well as Gore's much-debated graphs (with a grain of salt)), what makes you think we couldn't have an effect on the climate?

We could, but it is miniscule as compared to the effect that natural phenomenons will have on the earth.

We've already altered several basic and fundemental matter-cycles on the planet; why not the climate cycle? Do you know something that the hundreds of scientists working on the phenomenon don't? Better speak up!

What exactly have we affected, exactly? I can understand that we have ruined ecosystems, but I don't see how we have effected the climate on a global scale, at least not significantly. There has yet to be evidence that we have a powerful sway over the Earth's processes.

Finally, I'd like to address your point regarding our inability to change anything. It seems like you're saying, "Why try? Why not just keep on living the way we are?" I've said it before and I'll say it again: even IF Global Warming turns out not to be our fault, do you really think that we're having no effect on the health of the planet? If you do, I can unequivocally, 100% prove you wrong with an argument based in extremely simple chemistry and modern data.

Oh, I'm not saying that at all. I don't think we should pollute because it creates nasty scenarios like L.A. and many large cities were the air is impure and hurts our surrounding ecosystems. This said, I don't think that "global warming" should be seen as something preventable. You can't just stop mother nature taking its course.

It's not just the human race we're affecting; it's a planet full of organisms. Of course nothing is meant to last forever, but why do you insist on trying to accelerate the process? We're on the verge of technologies that can greatly reduce our environmental impacts; why not do what we can, at least within reason, to clean up? You're selfish. That's the answer, and that's fine. It's pretty clear that you're not going to try to be a part of the solution (here's a hint: the problem isn't just global warming).

I don't insist on accelerating. I insist upon not misrepresenting the issue to mass amounts of people and telling them it's their fault that the earth is warming, cooling, whatever. I think the world should be clean; I love my forests, my lakes, my oceans. However, trying to mislead people into thinking that they're wholly responsible for the state of the global climate is a rather dirty trick. I am not selfish, I just realize that we're not meant to last. Neither is this earth. We should treat it well while we walk upon it, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into a sense that the earth will always be the same as it is now. That is a fool's prospect.

 

[Carcharodon]

CO2 only consists of about .036 % of our atmosphere's gaseous make-up. So when you see an alarming number like: "Our planet's CO2 levels have increased 12% since 1960!" - know that the increase accounts for only .00432 % more of the atmosphere's air. A mere fraction of a percent. The problems we should really be concerned about here are methane, chlorine, and carbon monoxide. All of these have much more of an effect on the ozone and global climate than carbon dioxide does.

It seems Al Gore didn't brush up on his meteorology before going on a completely misinformed/misguided rant.

Well, what about those gasses? You talk about the miniscule increase of CO2, but go on to say that there are other gasses we should be more concerned about (and you're probably right).

I know this. Why are you telling me this? I didn't try to contest that it didn't, I just don't believe that we are causing this. Which we aren't, unless you're saying that this rather routine occurrence suddenly became our own machination by default. The earth goes in cycles, we cannot control what it does, it is free from our meddling in the sense that it will do whatever it needs to do to maintain itself. It's been doing the same thing for millions, billions of years.

In those millions, billions of years of cycles, how many times have the vast stores of Carbon locked away in the form of fossil fuels been burned en masse nearly to depletion? There's a new factor in play: us.

What exactly have we affected, exactly? I can understand that we have ruined ecosystems, but I don't see how we have effected the climate on a global scale, at least not significantly. There has yet to be evidence that we have a powerful sway over the Earth's processes.

Two words: matter cycling. Carbon, Nitrogen, etc.

Aside from climate, the biggest thing to worry about (something that's never really publicized) is ocean acidification. The ocean itself acts as a buffer of sorts, absorbing CO2, but it's reaching a point of saturation such that the pH is starting to drop pretty quickly (in relative terms).

Oh, I'm not saying that at all. I don't think we should pollute because it creates nasty scenarios like L.A. and many large cities were the air is impure and hurts our surrounding ecosystems. This said, I don't think that "global warming" should be seen as something preventable. You can't just stop mother nature taking its course.

Should we (potentially) exacerbate it?

I don't insist on accelerating. I insist upon not misrepresenting the issue to mass amounts of people and telling them it's their fault that the earth is warming, cooling, whatever. I think the world should be clean; I love my forests, my lakes, my oceans. However, trying to mislead people into thinking that they're wholly responsible for the state of the global climate is a rather dirty trick. I am not selfish, I just realize that we're not meant to last. Neither is this earth. We should treat it well while we walk upon it, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into a sense that the earth will always be the same as it is now. That is a fool's prospect.

That's about 300% more reasonable than what I interpreted that you'd said before. 'Nuff said. Makes sense in that light.

I agree. I totally see what you're saying now, and it's a completely valid point. There IS embellishment going on. I think we do play a role (and on that I suppose we'd have to simply disagree), and I don't think most of the exaggeration is coming from the scientists...but the media certainly isn't doing the situation justice.


EDIT: By the way, good post. It's pretty clear that you know your stuff, and you present your argument really well. That's already more than can be said for certain common posters in this thread, who shall remain nameless....(not you, SupermanBeyond).

 

[Obi-Ron]

I mean, seriously, are people that horrified by change? The world will not always be the beautiful place it is now. You can't save it. At some point, an asteroid will hit and destroy our Earth, or the sun will implode and we'll be wiped off the map, or an Ice Age will hit and humanity will be crippled. These are the facts of life, people. Stop running scared like wild animals, and own up to the fact that the human race isn't meant to last forever. That's not how mother nature works.

What we need to do is stop our petty squabbling over money and power (be it political or religious) and start working together towards colonizing space. :gray:

 

[Lord of Flies]

Well, what about those gasses? You talk about the miniscule increase of CO2, but go on to say that there are other gasses we should be more concerned about (and you're probably right).

Personally, people just blow the CO2 increase out of proportion. It's not the most dangerous thing around, especially since it's not the main perpetrator behind the acid rain that destroys our lakes and ocean (Sulfur Dioxide is, SO2). This doesn't mean we shouldn't cut down on it. We certainly should. But methane, chlorine, and carbon monoxide are even more troublesome. They destroy the ozone that our planet needs to shield the biosphere from UV rays and interplanetary debris.


Don't misunderstand what I'm getting at. I think we should cut down CO2 emissions, but the focus should be primarily on cutting down on monoxide emissions as well. As well as completely removing CFCs, and cutting down on HCFCs which break down into gaseous chlorine; replacing them with HFCs (Hydrofluorocarbons, as opposed to Hydrochlorofluoro or plain Chlorofluoro) which do not release chlorine when subjected to the sun's ultraviolet rays. As well as reduce the prevalency of sulfur dioxide in industrial emissions.

In those millions, billions of years of cycles, how many times have the vast stores of Carbon locked away in the form of fossil fuels been burned en masse nearly to depletion? There's a new factor in play: us.

I realize. Though, volcanic outgassing pours on the carbon dioxide just as much as we can hope to. Once again, I believe that we should use a more efficient, cleaner resource than fossil fuels. Especially seeing as how our sources of it are draining fast. But you know what they say: Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Two words: matter cycling. Carbon, Nitrogen, etc.

Please fill me in on this, I'm not familiar with this process.

Aside from climate, the biggest thing to worry about (something that's never really publicized) is ocean acidification. The ocean itself acts as a buffer of sorts, absorbing CO2, but it's reaching a point of saturation such that the pH is starting to drop pretty quickly (in relative terms).

Agreed, but CO2 actually doesn't hurt as much as SO2 which is one of the main gaseous emissions from industrial entities. Most people predominantly blame it on CO2, because it's a familiar pollutant, but there are other things that can cause much greater problems.

Should we (potentially) exacerbate it?

Definitely not.

That's about 300% more reasonable than what I interpreted that you'd said before. 'Nuff said. Makes sense in that light.

I agree. I totally see what you're saying now, and it's a completely valid point. There IS embellishment going on. I think we do play a role (and on that I suppose we'd have to simply disagree), and I don't think most of the exaggeration is coming from the scientists...but the media certainly isn't doing the situation justice.

Glad we can see eye to eye, or at least more levelly, on this issue. I don't think ignoring our pollution of the earth will help the problem, I just don't think that we are the cause of the warming. Our mistreatment of the environment won't help, but it's not the only reason like certain people (Al Gore) would have the general public believe. I still don't know how the man won a Nobel Prize when there are better candidates out there.

EDIT: By the way, good post. It's pretty clear that you know your stuff, and you present your argument really well. That's already more than can be said for certain common posters in this thread, who shall remain nameless....(not you, SupermanBeyond).

Thank you, the feeling is mutual. It is hard to come by someone who is able to calmly and easily communicate their viewpoints these days.

 

[Red Mask]

I saw this thing where someone said that the Earth goes through different periods of freezing and heating. And supposable we're over do for the poles the reverse and the Earth to freeze. The Heating we are seeing is like a little bit of a warning or something. Just throwing it out there. I saw this on the Discovery channel.

But can they prove that's what's happening now? And it doesn't answer the more disturbing point - how will this affect migration and current civilizations?

 

[Carcharodon]

Agreed, but CO2 actually doesn't hurt as much as SO2 which is one of the main gaseous emissions from industrial entities. Most people predominantly blame it on CO2, because it's a familiar pollutant, but there are other things that can cause much greater problems.

In small-scale ecosystems (lakes and the like), SO2 and even HS are bigger culprits. However, in ocean systems, CO2 has a greater cumulative effect because of the propensity to form Carbonic acid.

With SO2 and other gaseous Sulfur compounds, sulfuric acid is formed and deposited as precipitation. CO2 doesn't even have to do that. On contact with water it's able to form H2CO3. It's got a much greater propensity to form, especially given that H2CO3 doesn't dissociate nearly as easily as sulfuric acid and its varients.

Here's a pretty in-depth report on the effects of CO2 on ocean acidification:

http://www.scar.org/articles/Ocean_Acidification(1).pdf

EDIT: By the way...I'm doing a report on Ocean Acidification right now, and I can't find any good sources at all talking specifically about the effect of gaseous Sulfur compounds on ocean systems (everything is all about lakes)...if you know of anything, I'd really appreciate taking a look at it.

 

[Lord of Flies]

In small-scale ecosystems (lakes and the like), SO2 and even HS are bigger culprits. However, in ocean systems, CO2 has a greater cumulative effect because of the propensity to form Carbonic acid.

With SO2 and other gaseous Sulfur compounds, sulfuric acid is formed and deposited as precipitation. CO2 doesn't even have to do that. On contact with water it's able to form H2CO3. It's got a much greater propensity to form, especially given that H2CO3 doesn't dissociate nearly as easily as sulfuric acid and its varients.

Here's a pretty in-depth report on the effects of CO2 on ocean acidification:

http://www.scar.org/articles/Ocean_Acidification(1).pdf

Ah. I suppose it is always an eye-opening experience to learn things that you did not know before. Though, I still find it amazing that environmentalists would openly ignore SO2 and other problematic compounds when they can cause major problems in the ecosystem as well.

Thanks for the link, though. Always good to expand your knowledge.

 

[Carcharodon]

Please fill me in on this, I'm not familiar with this process.

At a very basic level, matter cycling is the process by which organic and/or inorganic matter travels through different stages, or cycles.

In the case of Nitrogen, for example, it goes through atmospheric states (N2), integration into organisms (NO3, etc.), excretion (organic wastes), and is eventually re-integrated into the global system in several ways.

With the use of fertilizers on a massive scale, we've created a shift or imbalance in this cycle such that massive blooms of life have occurred when they otherwise wouldn't have (most notorious and damaging of all are algal blooms). This is responsible for several seasonal, growing oceanic dead zones worldwide.


The Carbon cycle works in a similar fashion. A lot of Carbon is absorbed by the oceans, and a lot of it is locked away in living organisms. The amount of time it can be, "locked away," varies from just a few days (phytoplankton) to several years (about 15 years in mature trees) to several millions of years (fossil fuels).

It's the earth's natural system for balancing these different chemicals, and it's responsible for a lot of stability that we know of.

 

[Carcharodon]

Ah. I suppose it is always an eye-opening experience to learn things that you did not know before. Though, I still find it amazing that environmentalists would openly ignore SO2 and other problematic compounds when they can cause major problems in the ecosystem as well.

Thanks for the link, though. Always good to expand your knowledge.

Yeah. It's kinda funny that they never talk about the new, much lower-altitude layers of Ozone that are currently forming (which is a problem, because Ozone is toxic lol).

It might depend on where you live, too. Nationally things might not get a lot of attention, but localized effects might. You probably hear a lot more about acid rain if you live on the East coast of the U.S. than if you live in the central/Western U.S.

 

[Zero_Vault]

Yep, global warming is causing the increase of algae blooms in ocean, and even Jellyfishes, because they thrive on algae.

That's why fishes will cease to exist in the next fifty to hundred years.

 

[Zero_Vault]

The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by
making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of
the oceans). In the past 200 years the oceans have
absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by
fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations
based on measurements of the surface oceans and our
knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake
of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface
seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the
concentration of hydrogen ions.

If global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue
to rise on current trends then the average pH of the
oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold
increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the
year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been
experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, this
rate of change is probably one hundred times greater
than at any time over this period. The scale of the changes
may vary regionally, which will affect the magnitude of
the biological effects.

Ocean acidification is essentially irreversible during our
lifetimes. It will take tens of thousands of years for ocean
chemistry to return to a condition similar to that occurring
at pre-industrial times (about 200 years ago). Our ability
to reduce ocean acidification through artificial methods
such as the addition of chemicals is unproven. These
techniques will at best be effective only at a very local
scale, and could also cause damage to the marine
environment. Reducing CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere appears to be the only practical way to
minimise the risk of large-scale and long-term
changes to the oceans.

 

[Zero_Vault]

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a chemically
unreactive gas but, when dissolved in seawater, becomes
more reactive and takes part in several chemical, physical,
biological and geological reactions, many of which are
complex (Annex 1).

One of the overall effects of CO2 dissolving in seawater is
to increase the concentration of hydrogen ions, ([H+]),
within it. This is the result of an initial reaction between
water (H2O) and CO2 to form carbonic acid (H2CO3). This
weak acid readily releases the hydrogen ions to form the
other types of dissolved inorganic carbon (Annex 1).

Aswe explain in Annex 1, acidity is determined by the
concentration of hydrogen ions. This is measured on the
pH scale, with an acid having a pH of less than 7 and alkali
having a pH of greater than 7 units. The more acidic a
solution, the more hydrogen ions are present and the
lower the pH. Therefore the amount of CO2 that dissolves
in seawater has a strong influence on the resultant
acidity/alkalinity and pH of the oceans.

In the oceans, CO2 dissolved in seawater exists in three
main inorganic forms collectively known as dissolved
inorganic carbon (DIC). These are: (i) aqueous CO2 (about
1% of the total); in this report this term also includes
carbonic acid (H2CO3), (as aqueous CO2 can be in either
form), and two electrically charged forms, (ii) bicarbonate(HCO3
–, about 91%) and (iii) carbonate ions (CO32– about 8%). Thus under current ocean conditions, bicarbonate is the most abundant form of CO2 dissolved in seawater followed by carbonate and then aqueous CO2.

There is approximately an order of magnitude difference
in abundance between each of the three forms; however,
amounts vary somewhat with seawater temperature,
salinity and pressure.

All three forms of dissolved CO2 are important for the
biological processes of marine organisms. These processes
include photosynthesis by marine algae (mostly
phytoplankton), the production of complex organic
carbon molecules from sunlight, and calcification,
providing structures such as CaCO3 shells. When these
organisms die or are consumed, most of the carbon
either stays in the surface waters or is released back into
the atmosphere. However, some of this CaCO3 and
organic material falls as particle sediments to the
deep oceans (Figure 3). The process whereby carbon
is transferred from the atmosphere to the deep ocean
waters and sediments is referred to as the ‘biological
pump’. By removing carbon from the surface waters
and taking it to greater depths, the pump increases
the capacity for the oceans to act as a sink for atmospheric
CO2. Any changes in the strength of this pump would have
significant consequences on the amount of carbon being
sequestered to the deep ocean environments and
therefore removed from the atmosphere.

 

[chaseter]

Yep, global warming is causing the increase of algae blooms in ocean, and even Jellyfishes, because they thrive on algae.

That's why fishes will cease to exist in the next fifty to hundred years.

Not that soon...and it's 'fish'(plural)BTW

 

[Red Mask]

Yep, global warming is causing the increase of algae blooms in ocean, and even Jellyfishes, because they thrive on algae.

That's why fishes will cease to exist in the next fifty to hundred years.

It's also changing the flora in the Mediterranean sea floor, affecting the fish population there.

 

[tvcrazyman]

Whatever happened to all the worries over the Ozone layer in the 70's? Did it repair itself? Did everyone stop caring?

And what about the polluted lakes? That's what I worry about. A man's got to have water to live.

 

[Dangerous]

It is real.

 

[redmarvel]

Whatever happened to all the worries over the Ozone layer in the 70's? Did it repair itself? Did everyone stop caring?

And what about the polluted lakes? That's what I worry about. A man's got to have water to live.

There are still people worried about it, it did not repair itself. Unfortunatly the solution is difficult to figure out. You can't just stop industry. Likewise with the polluted lakes, clean water is going to be more and more difficult to acquire. Here in Toronto they have asked everyone to disconnect their downspouts from the main sewer system, to prevent overflow into Lake Ontario of the effluents. However that will not solve the base problem of the pollutants that are already in there.

 

[lazur]

As I was walking out onto my balcony this evening, I was greeted with a bitter cold gust of wind. Closing the door behind me and stepping further into the wind, I looked out beyond the rail to the trees, and upward to appreciate their full blooms being violently shaken this way and that.

And the wind was roaring. I could hear a faint almost thunderous tone as it made its way around trees and buildings.

I've been in Virginia area for a cumulative total of 12 years and I've never seen weather this odd.

Here's an article from National Geographic on the 'strangeness' of our weather over the last few years. Makes you wonder how long it really takes for something catastrophic to begin, take shape, and happen.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080102-AP-ye-climate.html

 

[millennium movies]

On my side up here in Montreal, Canada we're having our share of strange weather. Like all the snow melted in middle of january, then hard rain. Next few days we had warm weather again, and really strong winds, it made cement pillars fall, that's how strong it was. Now being in februrary, we finally got more snow storms, followed by the true winter temperatures.

 

[Tempest19]

Today. It rained, it snowed, it got sunny, it snowed, it got wind, it got sunny, it snowed, it got sunny and went to night. All within a matter of under an hour and all in the same area. LONG ISLAND.