Climate Change Politics

But there were glaciers in the south of North America 1,000 years ago too, And then global warming happened too. Why do you think that what is happening now is not part of a natural cycle?

I mentioned temperature falsification? And why is it a red herring if it happened?

Well I was hoping you'd work that out for yourself. You see if the sceptics or should I call them deniers, have this split personality. They cant really decide if they should oppose the idea of a temperature rises or if accept them but then deny the causes. You are admitting there is global warming , we now have to debate the causes .

Hee heee... split personality...if there is a falsification, then they are split because they admit there seems to be warming, and yet the analysis was wrongly done.

they're foolish for talking about the falsified parts...and the predictions from same

Well you have a choice you appear not to want to make. Its up to you, you choose. I know you find it difficult especially as your pretence at not understanding the question has been overcome. No one has had the opportunity to debate anything with you so far, you appear scared of answering, for some reason.

We used it all

They used it all !

How about offering a comment regarding correctness, on this page contents ?
Ammonia Nitrogen Fish Toxicity Surface Water

You talked about acidification of water. Let's see if you can discern anything at all about it.

That page is completely correct -- certainly the chemistry on it is.

Atmospheric CO2 will form carbonic acid when dissolved in water, which is of course a concern about the ocean being a sink for CO2 emissions.

Take a bucket of water, dump in some ammonia and bubble in some CO2, and the resultant pH depends on the proportions.

So just because alkalinization due to ammonia occurs in some contaminated environments, that does not present any sort of argument against acidification on a global scale in the oceans. And your link doesn't provide an argument as to the overall extent of alkalinization.

So what's your point?

Toxicity increases as pH decreases and as temperature decreases.

NH3 is the principal form of toxic ammonia. It has been reported toxic to fresh water organisms at concentrations ranging from 0.53 to 22.8 mg/L. Toxic levels are both pH and temperature dependent. Toxicity increases as pH decreases and as temperature decreases.

My country, only 2 m above sea level, is one of the biggest losers. I will have nothing to show my grandchildren for my absence the past two weeks, and I have failed to secure the future for my grandchildren and their future.

First you asked for, demanded, a comment on your link.

I offered the comment that it gives nothing, as to showing how ALL available surface temp meaurements were used.

A simple request for info as to how this new study uses Canadian sites info in a different way than the older study...questions arise, like "How many sites are there available in Canada, and how many were used, and which sites were not used, and why ?

but NOTHING comes from you. You know nothing, and could care less.

You, of course, go back on your bicycle proclaiming the news.

Now I've ceded to some of your demands.
How about offering a comment regarding correctness, on this page contents ?
Ammonia Nitrogen Fish Toxicity Surface Water

You talked about acidification of water. Let's see if you can discern anything at all about it.

Actually it contains a glaring error. that's my point. You guys don't know enough to tell us what's up.


yet wanna be preachers for this AGW religion.this is backwards from how it works

Well I was hoping you'd work that out for yourself. You see if the sceptics or should I call them deniers, have this split personality. They cant really decide if they should oppose the idea of a temperature rises or if accept them but then deny the causes. You are admitting there is global warming , we now have to debate the causes .

So, where is the red herring? Or, is your red herring a crimson herring?

Whatever fish your using as bait it stinks , if you would just answer direct questions this debate could be productive. like your fellow denier semantics appear your only ability.

You have done nothing but waffle, you refuse to answer the simplest of questions. Do you believe we have global warming? its a simple question. I'm not prepared to widen the debate till you answer this simple question.

But temperature decrease isn't the clear and present threat.

If it was - ammonia take up by cold water might be a more pressing problem than CO2 take up by warm water.

But what we see is a warming trend, so problems associated with a cooling trend - whilst they might be real problems - aren't relevent problems for the foreseeable future.

Actually it contains a glaring error. that's my point. You guys don't know enough to tell us what's up.

I can entirely vouch for the chemistry in that link being correct. The extent and degree of ammonia-induced alkalinization as an actual environmental problem I have no idea about. But I'm pretty good with the chemistry part, my undergraduate degree is in it.

Toxicity increases as pH decreases

Ammonia (NH3+) is a colorless gas with a strong pungent odor. Ammonia will react with water to form a weak base. The term ammonia refers to two chemical species which are in equilibrium in water (NH3, un-ionized and NH4+, ionized). Tests for ammonia usually measure total ammonia (NH3 plus NH4+).



*The toxicity to ammonia is primarily attributable to the un-ionized form (NH3), as opposed to the ionized form (NH4+)*





...In general, more NH3 and

*greater toxicity exists at higher pH*.

The proportion of unionised ammonia increases with increasing temperature and pH, but decreases with increasing salinity (Seager et al 1988). Of these three factors, salinity appears to be relatively unimportant, but at pH 8.5, the proportion of un-ionised ammonia is approximately 10 times that at pH 7.5. For every 9C increase in temperature, the proportion of unionised ammonia approximately doubles.

Paul, take your time. Look at this. Surely you cannot be suggesting that this is correct ?

... accurate or not, the takehome message is that people can pick and choose their references, and the only way to REALLY grasp an issue is to use primary sources -- which is difficult or impossible for most people outside the field.

We wonder when HE will account for his use of the local marine garbage bin to dump his own personal garbage? For emptying the raw sewage from his house into the bay adjoining his Quadra property via a discreet pipe? For buying tropical fruit from the local Heriot Bay store when he instructs Canadians to live by a "100 mile diet" that consists of products grown only within that radius? For hunting and fishing in the Queen Charlottes with native friends under the protection of their exceptional quotas despite telling us to "live within OUR limits" and even telling us to avoid fishing altogether on page 98 of his "Green Guide"? For racking up more air miles than Richard Branson...

I recently visited Cuba, a nation that has been deliberately blocked from the global economy by the U.S., and saw enough to know they have much to teach us. The Soviet collapse suddenly deprived Cuba of their main market for sugar and source of cheap oil. Pesticides, fertilizers and big farm machinery became prohibitively expensive. It was a catastrophic economic crisis which necessitated new solutions. Today, four fifths of Cuban agriculture is organic and they are working towards 100 per cent. Vacant lots, lawns and yards now grow food so today, 80 per cent of leafy (non-grain) vegetables are grown and consumed within cities and towns.

I visited an urban garden of three hectares in Havana which was started by four people in 1999 and now supports 76 paid workers who all live nearby. They grow worms to provide fertilizer for the soil, insects and bacteria to control pests, and plant species to attract pests or support insects that will prey on pests. Human muscles are the primary source of energy to tend the crops, yet yields per hectare are as high as industrial scale agriculture.
Local people buy the produce (which is fresher, varied and free of chemicals), dozens of people are fully employed, the environment is cleaner and people develop a deeper appreciation of their relationship with food. By criteria of literacy, medical care, infant mortality, extreme poverty and homelessness, the United Nations rates Cuba as a developed nation. This, from a country that is in many ways cut off from the outside world.

So... Not one will actually give an opinion that can be examined.

What we do see is the attempt at disproving these disasters are actually happening by trying to disprove the science that is either monitoring or explaining the global chemistry. I have no idea why the oceans are becoming more acidic as sea temperatures rise. Does that disprove the seas are acidic or their getting warmer? no , we just dont understand the chemistry. When we see local temperature fluctuations that dont fit or confuse the global picture, does that show temperatures are not rising, no, it only indicates mans inability to be scrupulous at gathering information.