Scientists are like the rest of us.
They will find finding that will agree with the thoughts of anyone willing to sign a cheque to the researcher whether the signer be a government, private organisation or individual.
Timmy is right. Take note of the scientists who do it for free. ie retired.
Actually I was going to do my bit for global warming tonight.
It's a bit chilly so I was going to light the fire but it rained and all the wood is wet.
I'll have to wear the flannelly jarmies instead.
I intend on living for-ever....so far so good
scientist one who gets paid to scare the hell out of you,don't lose any sleep mate the fish won't'.
hilly
Whale poo key to healthy oceans
ANDREW DARBY
April 23, 2010
EVERY little bit helps. Research has revealed the potential value of whale poo in mitigating climate change through its recycling of iron.
Australian Antarctic scientists looking into ways to increase the amount of CO2-absorbing algae in oceans have traced the passage of iron through whale digestive systems and have found that whales take up iron when they consume shrimp-like krill.
Before commercial whaling began early last century, whales consumed about 190 million tonnes of krill per year, converting this into about 7600 tonnes of iron-rich faeces, which encouraged the growth of carbon-absorbing algae, according to Steve Nicol, of the Australian Antarctic Division.
''This monumental fertilising effort means the whales may have been responsible for recycling about 12 per cent of the current iron content in the surface layer of the Southern Ocean,'' Dr Nicol said.
''The baleen whales' faecal iron concentration is about 10 million times that of Antarctic seawater.''
He said about 24 per cent of the total iron in the Southern Ocean surface water is currently stored within krill body tissue.
''The most recent estimates of krill biomass in the Southern Ocean is 379 million tonnes, storing about 15,000 tonnes of iron.''
The research suggests increasing populations of baleen whales and krill would have a positive effect on the Southern Ocean ecosystem and improve the ocean's ability to absorb CO2.
What could go wrong.......................
Our environment is constantly changing. Every living organism has an effect, no matter how minuscule. If we push things too far one way, nature will bight back, she will cull us at some point. As long as our world population continues to increase at it's current rate, we will continue to rapidly approach that point. There is a limit to the number of humans this planet can support.
How many of these climate change models are accurate, I wouldn't know, not many would be my guess. They can speculate all they like about the various effects of human emissions, but none of them really know how nature will respond. Every change in the chemical composition of our planet will be to the detriment of some organisms, but to the benefit of others. the same with the change in the climate. We are shifting the base of the food chain. Some animals will adapt, some won't.
Will we? I guess we will, but there will be casualties.
We can't keep raping the planet and expect nothing to change.
OK alternative headingWhales not man as once believed have now been shown as responsible for the eutrophication of oceanic surface waters!
Scientist once believed different but recent research has now shown that the great toxic blooms of cyanobacteria that exist each year in most waters frequented by whales but lays waste to trillions of marine organisms at a any time.......
Neither 'report' is I suspect the whole story just a very very very very minor portion of any whole in any sane thought process.....still 'reports' help to keep the money coming in!
My only question is, who are the leading marine biologists and from whence do they hail?Originally Posted by caliban
I saw a segment on an ABC Sunday morning news programme a few months back where they spoke to a marine scientist from James Cook Uni I think it was and he strongly refuted many of the claims by the global warming alarmists. His take on it was 99% of their data was very limited in that they only surveyed very small sections of the reef for damage. There is little evidence for saying fertilizer is doing much damage as the outer sections of the reef are actually growing. Further more, when the oceans do rise, if in fact that happens, reef growth will increase because of more protection to the reef from, yep you guessed it, more water coverage. They don't tell us these things. I'd like to be able to find this interview but my search skills are similar to the truths warmist alarmists tell, very tainted
It depends on who you speak to as to just what effect humans are having on the planet. As Carl Kryz..... said the other day, we are really just passengers and have little effect on the planet per say because it'll only take one huge eruption and we could all be ash.
Not sure what you mean by protection from more water coverage, but the corals will have to grow upwards to keep pace with rising sea levels. They live in the shallows because they need to. Changes in salinity could me more of a concern, though I have no idea how much fresh water could potentially be released from frozen stores or how much of an effect it will have.
Very little in percentage terms is held in ice. No one's started up about salinity issues because it's just not even close to beginning to think about considering becoming an issue.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Probably Professor Bob Carter, famous sceptic; a marine geologist rather than a marine biologist I think.My only question is, who are the leading marine biologists and from whence do they hail?
I saw a segment on an ABC Sunday morning news programme a few months back where they spoke to a marine scientist from James Cook Uni I think it was and he strongly refuted many of the claims by the global warming alarmists. His take on it was 99% of their data was very limited in that they only surveyed very small sections of the reef for damage. There is little evidence for saying fertilizer is doing much damage as the outer sections of the reef are actually growing. Further more, when the oceans do rise, if in fact that happens, reef growth will increase because of more protection to the reef from, yep you guessed it, more water coverage. They don't tell us these things. I'd like to be able to find this interview but my search skills are similar to the truths warmist alarmists tell, very tainted
I can now add a little more. Many studies have been carried out it seems. Many have tested increased acidity using HCL (Hydrochloric acid) and this has resulted in very nasty results. Things die.
Funny thing is, while the acidification bit is the same, the chemicals aren't. Studies done by slowly bubbling CO2 through the water to try and simulate the possibility of Carbonic Acid (you know, real world) have shown Coral responding by growing faster and stronger.
FROM
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/the...v-joanne-nova/
"When a researcher recently did the hard yards of actually bubbling CO2 through corals in a tank, and also analyzing sediment cores, she and her team found that in the last 220 years as CO2 levels increased the average cocolith mass grew by 40%."
Reference (actual science here folks, not a committee...)
- Iglesias-Rodriguez, M.D., Halloran, P.R., Rickaby, R.E.M., Hall, I.R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E., Gittins, J.R., Green, D.R.H., Tyrrell, T., Gibbs, S.J., von Dassow, P., Rehm, E., Armbrust, E.V. and Boessenkool, K.P. 2008. Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO2 world. Science 320: 336-340.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Also worth a read...
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/or...testimony.html
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Shame it doesn't give many details on the experiment. The description given is way to brief to draw any conclusions as to how they came about their findings. I use co2 on my coral aquarium too, but the way it is used does not adversely affect the pH. However, if the house is closed up, the increase in atmospheric co2 inside the house DOES adversely affect the pH. Draw from that what you will.
At a pH of around 7.5 corals are unable to form their calcium skeletons, the chemical reactions required will not happen, therefore they will die, end of story.
I am no expert on the subject, but facts can be manipulated for either side of the argument. Time is the only thing that will tell us for sure what is going to happen. Only problem with that is, if things are going to go bad, it will be too late by the time we know.
Dave.
To be honest i believe its just another scare tactic to keep us all thinking global warming etc is going to kill out this planet. If they keep telling everyone the same crap day in day out, people are going to believe it and in turn no one's going to think twice about handing over there hard earned money for "carbon offsets" "going green" etc. Just for a laugh i'll put this in too.
Al gore introduced "Global Warming"
Al gore introduced "carbon offsets"
You can buy them....from his company...he profits (So i guess you could say "An Inconvenient Truth" was a pretty good commercial for al gore's company!)
Al Gore is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations!!!
NRDC made that film that you all just watched
And...ha!
NRDC's director is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations
Research for yourself members of the Council on Foreign Relations, there's a lot of dodgy important people involved with them. I can almost garuntee you there members came up with "global warming"...the same people who wanted to tax farmers because there animals are contributing to global warming????
Recent article i read...
"The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain."
Bogus film!
No bastard believes in God no more ,theese prickz need something to scare the money out of us with
Too right! You couldn't have said that any beter siegfried!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote