BF2S Forums The sea is turning into acid...we're all doomed!

ruisleipa wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I trust spark on this shit yo.

lol you trust someone on an internet forum, I'll trust the scientists thanks very much. Unless Spark IS a scientist???

Hey, ignore me. Just focus on the chemistry.

DrunkFace wrote:

people who just don't give a shit.

Yo!

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-10-05 06:12:03)

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

I'll leave my truck running 24/7

It's a burden being a visionary.

It truly is.

Tru dat ... it's already giving me a headache

That's because you're supposed to be running that truck not in your garage 24/7 but outside

You're doing it wrong

--

But anyway, the article says that 10% of the Arctic will be corrosive by 2010. It might have an impact on the food chain indeed... is is worrying to read that. There's more to reducing CO2/toxic gas output than simply "Global Warming" - It impacts more than just that. So I think people should take it more seriously...  It's stupid that some people don't want to become less wasteful and more energy efficient just because they don't believe that Global Warming is man made.

Chou wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Blame China and the U.S

The only thing to blame is Money, that ruins every fucking thing in this world.

Yep. Money is evil

Ehhh, supervolcano will kill us all first

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2009-10-05 07:29:30)

mcminty wrote:

I cbf to do the chemistry myself, but Spark does know his shit

Spark wrote:

Hell it'll take a fuckload of carbonic just to make the oceans "acidic" by ordinary chemical standards. So I think someone - either the paper or the researcher, and I'm  banking on the paper given that scientists are generally quite conservative and cautious with this kind of language - is getting a bit jumpy.

Yeah, especially considering the ocean is slightly basic. Wut. The actual pH is around 8.1, and even then it's predicted to be 7.824 in 2100 (ref. Review of Past IPCC Emissions Scenarios, IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (ISBN 0521804930)).

Still slightly basic.


Also, for arctic ocean to be "corrosive", in a way that the article implies, the pH would have to be below 3.5-4. That sure as hell isn't happening (Spark, you want to do the calculations to show how much CO2 would have to dissolve? ), thus..

Merely sensationalist journalism.

I don't hold the Ka's in my head dude. But a drop of 4 pts... looking at 10 000 times more hydrogen ions, so 5000 times more H+/CO3 2- i.e. H2CO3 (yeah I got that wrong earlier)... so I would think a similar amount more CO2.

Whatever happens I do not see a five-thousand fold increase in CO2. If that happens then no-one will be alive to see it because the surface of the planet will begin to approach something like Venus.

Last edited by Spark (2009-10-05 16:44:03)

Spark wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

When a weatherman can accurately predict the weekend weather... i will maybe give the carbonecotards credence.

I'm fairly sure he does.

hmmmm... dont go into aviation if you trust weathermen

Spark wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

Spark wrote:

I'm fairly sure he does.

hmmmm... dont go into aviation if you trust weathermen

Enlighten me?

kind of hard to tbh......

well, in aviation you are bound legally (as in your license and fines) by certain rules (in this case weather).  not only that, but the cost of fuel for having to list an alternate airport due to weather.  plus, having to amend the flight plan or return to the gate for more fuel because the forecast changes from awesome to shitty.  its the life of aviation.  happens everyday, all day.  some cities worse than others.  for example, i dont trust the cunts who forecast memphis or detroit since they are wrong about 50% of the time.

Spark wrote:

So how do you get reliable forecasts? Or do you just plan for mistakes?

you have "legal" weather forecasts you have to follow (like the examples i gave).  you try to plan for mistakes, but it is a balance.  more of a gamble tbh.  you simply have to say do i trust the forecaster or not.  although its not as simple as that if you are the one writing the check for the fuel.  do you risk the cost of fuel for an alternate or risk a return to gate for more fuel because the forecast changed?  of course it may seem simple to return to the gate, but maybe because of that extra time wasted your flight crew ends up being over the legal flying time.  now you have to cancel maybe and pay for hotels and food.  or if the crew is fine now you have passengers who will miss connections.  that is just one scenario.  but it happens all the time due to weathermen being dead wrong.

JohnG@lt wrote:

rammunition wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

I guess my point of pointing per capita is that per capita shows habit and lifestyle. The U.S. and China happen to have a lot of people. If you live in a western style society you contribute to China's pollution (I'm assuming you live in the UK).

compare the U.S to Indonesia. The U.S has about 208 million in population whilst Indonesia has 230 million. A Bit off but they are ranked 3rd and 4th in population.

Now the U.S produces 21.5% of the Worlds CO2 whilst Indonesia produces 1.2% at 333,483 thousand metric tonne per annual. See the big difference?

Yes, people in Indonesia live in shacks and walk everywhere. People in America live in houses and drive. We in America should lower ourselves down to the level of Indonesia and shut off our electricity, running water and should go back to riding horses for transportation.

hopefully by 2012 they said or scientists say that a huge solar flare will hit earth and potentially kill or shut down all the electricity on earth... so that could slow the pollution down a bit...

Superior Mind wrote:

Life will adapt. Probably. If not, well, look at Venus, lol.

Mars is closer, plus scientists said there is a ice sheet covering the north pole of Mars....

blademaster wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Life will adapt. Probably. If not, well, look at Venus, lol.

Mars is closer, plus scientists said there is a ice sheet covering the north pole of Mars....

There's no 'ice cheet' covering the North pole of Mars. There are miniscule traces of 'water' there. Let's not exaggerate.

Spark wrote:

Whatever happens I do not see a five-thousand fold increase in CO2. If that happens then no-one will be alive to see it because the surface of the planet will begin to approach something like Venus.

The sea isn't going to end up at pH 1.
It will just be slightly less basic than it was -> life can't survive.