Barbara Ettinger & Sven Huseby on "A Sea Change."

[hyzercreek]

The other thing he does to mislead us is tell us how many "millions and millions of tons" on CO2 that is going in the ocean, thinking we would be impressed by the sound of the words. Do you know how many tons of water are in the ocean? Not millions, not billions, not trillions, not even quadrillions. There are quintillions of tons of water in the oceans. But most people don't know the difference, the average person thinks zillion is a number. So Sven scares people and makes money with his films.

[hyzercreek]

dot and com

[hyzercreek]

A change in pH from 8.179 to 8.104 in 200 years is not rapid acidification. The oceans are heavily buffered and strongly resist changes in pH. Sven Huseby put human teeth in seltzer water, which has a pH of 2, to show how carbonic acid dissolves calcium compounds, and then implied that the ocean is doing this to coral. This is a deliberate attempt to insult our intelligence.

[hyzercreek]

My chart should scare you the opposite way. You see that CO2 levels when man appeared on earth were the lowest in the history of the planet and if they went to zero all life on earth would disappear, since life cannot exist without it. Starting at 250 m. years ago, extrapolate the line downward. It crosses zero 50 m. years from now, the point when life on earth will vanish if we let it. Putting CO2 back in the air is the best thing we have ever done to the planet. Burn as much coal as u can!!

[polemius01]

Pt 1: What I "should" feel about the chart is irrelevant. The possibility that CO2 would totally disappear from the planet, as slim as that might be, is also irrelevant.

What is relevant to this video is the impact of rapidly rising levels of CO2, and the corresponding lowering pH in coral reefs, on corals. The point has been made that the corals of today are exactly the same species as those that existed millions of years ago.

There is still no response to either point.

[hyzercreek]

It's not a "possibility" that CO2 is disappearing from the planet. It is a concrete fact, and the chart makes it perfectly clear. I can tell you where the CO2 is going but I'm not in the mood. You will just argue anyway, put quotes around my words, write "sic" after an abbreviation, or other signs of a losing argument, so it would be a waste of energy. But you do need to look up the word provenance. It means proof, not motivation. Using big words without knowing what they mean....points off

[polemius01]

"Provenance" means "origin." The financial origin of your enthusiastic call for burning more coal is suspect. is that better?

You speak of an argument. There is no argument, merely a refusal to respond to my questions.

Calling attention to grammar is not the sign of being on the losing side of an argument, but it does make some people uncomfortable, therefore I will try to stop doing it (occupational hazard).

Again, insults to me without any response to my questions concerning coral species.

[hyzercreek]

Let me teach you how science works. You start with a hypothesis: Tiny changes in the pH from CO2 (for example 8.179 to 8.104) kills coral. You can test it by putting coral in a carefully controlled marine aquarium and adjust the pH, quickly or slowly, over short or long time periods, at various temperatures, etc, etc. You just bubble CO2 into the tank. Then do the math. ONLY THEN will you be able to tell me that CO2 is killing the corals. Until then, you are just making hand-waving guesses.

[polemius01]

Pt 1: Ah, after insults we now see condescension. Reading any good marine aquarium guide will offer the conclusions about quick pH and CO2 changes.

Let's recap hyzercreek's comments:

1. "You are made of carbon dioxide" is clearly a reductio (close to ad absurdum), as CO2 is but one of many compounds in a body.

2. Denial of evolution in coral species with no proof offered.

3. "Let me teach you how science works." One experiment is not all of science. Condescension and another reductio.

[polemius01]

Pt2: Hyzercreek ("hc") recap (cont'd):

4. A hypothesis carries the danger of being "a priori." In hc's case, with his claim that disagreement with his hypothesis is a result of listening to "hype," we suspect, not a scientific hypothesis that has been tested, but a politically motivated position.

5. The idea that "u" is an acceptable abbreviation for "you" and his incorrect definition of "provenance" axiomatically places hyzercreek out of the running in a serious discussion of this topic.

[polemius01]

Pt3: in science, as in any other serious discipline, clear and concise language is a necessity.

When questions are posed, the interlocutor ought to answer the question, or humbly admit that the question is outside of his field. Ignoring a question or using a condescending suggestion as to a costly and dangerous (to the coral0 experiment does not cut it (points off).

Finally, while typing at a keyborad, making "hand-waving guesses" (no guesswork; see a good aquarium book) is rather difficult.

[polemius01]

Pt 2: As to burning "as much coal as u (sic) can," the "benefits" of that practice are not clear, given that there is no indication that CO2 is disappearing. The side effects of coal burning: atmospheric pollution, soot, and respiratory ailments also need to be addressed.

This enthusiastic call to burn more coal makes me suspicious, to say the least, about the financial provenance of the commenter.

[hyzercreek]

There are hundreds of species of coral and they all evolved 500 million years ago when CO2 levels were vastly higher than today. There are no new species of coral adapted to today's low CO2 levels. They are the same. It is foolish to say coral can't stand high CO2 when we know they lived under much higher CO2 levels for half a billion years. This is something a 3rd grader can understand.

[polemius01]

Pt 1: Ah, now that the comments have descended into the realm of insult, the true nature of the one making the comments is becoming clear.

Just because a 3rd grader can understand the words of a comment doesn't make them an accurate representation of the facts.

The comments have offered no proof of their statements concerning non-evolution of coral species. If there is proof that they are exactly the same, kindly provide it.

[polemius01]

Pt 2: seeing that the previous comment by hyzercreek was not made as a reply, apparently to avoid rebuttals, I shall keep monitoring this video's comments in order to encourage some factual presentation.

[hyzercreek]

It was made as a reply but didn't thread that way. I want to link to a pic for you to see but this doesn't allow links. Go to hyzercreek dote come slashe co2 dote jpge and take the silent e's off the dote and jpge etc. Sorry I had to write it this way but youtube won't even allow three w's together.

[polemius01]

The CO2 level changes is not the issue. The claimed absolute sameness of corals from earlier times until now is the issue, as well as their ability to adapt to quickly rising CO2 levels.

Is there proof that there has been no evolution of coral species? If, amazingly, there is such proof, is there proof that these unchanged coral species can adapt to a rapid rise in CO2. The chart on your site clearly indicates that rises and drops in levels took place over millennia.

[hyzercreek]

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH has decreased from 8.179 to 8.104. That is negligible. The pH in my marine aquarium goes to 7.5 all the time. 8.1 is fine. No problem.

[sysFail81]

@hyzercreek I guess you haven't got a Coral riff in your aquarium?? 8.1 is fine but not 7.8 as it is projected, you can play with your Marine Aquarium but DO NOT break the Oceans if you can't fix it!

[hyzercreek]

Who "projected" 7.8? Anybody can "project" things. I project that Brooklyn will sell you a bridge for $100. I just told you the pH went from 8.104 in 150 years, how the heck can you believe it will go to 7.8? You have to be a fool to believe it. Oh no, you will probably say a "scientist" projected it and it was "peer reviewed." Go home, please, just go home.

[sysFail81]

Of course I did not. You can google and read "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms" and check who actually did it. 7.8 is the projection for 2100 done following IS92a IPCC scenario. Well, I guess that's way more accurate that your arguments based on your home marine aquarium, not sure who is the fool here.

[paulineprojectlove]

We evolved from the sea, our bodies are mostly water, we develop as fetuses in a marine environment, we cry tears of salt, we can survive several days without food, but not without water; I mean, it's a no brainer...

We must save our oceans if we want to save our selves. We ARE the oceans...

We need to rethink our values and change our ways.

If we want to survive.

[polemius01]

The growing acidification of the oceans is horrendous, and no one seems to care about this beyond a few select people.

I guess people who are neither scientists nor aquarists don't know the importance of water chemistry. Especially in the reefs, where the environment has been uniquely stable foe eons, an acid turn will be devestating beyond belief.

[hyzercreek]

Earth's CO2 levels were many times higher than they are today, during most of earths history, and there was plenty of healthy coral back then. The increase in CO2 cause by humans (50%) is tiny compared to the 500% during the dinosaur days and 1700% during the trilobite days.

[polemius01]

The fact that the increase of CO2 is not as large now than it was "during the dinosaur days" and "during the trilobite days" does not address the question about the changes within a stable ecosystem that has neither dinosaurs nor trilobites.

If there is some information contrary to this video's about what is going on NOW, then that would be useful.

[hyzercreek]

It PRECISELY addresses the issue of what happens to the earth when the CO2 level is 5 or 10 or 17 times higher than it is now. It shows that with huge increases in CO2 the acidification is not a problem to coral which flourished during the trilobite days. It shows this unequivocally, without "projecting" and without guessing and without media hype and alarmism. Coral loves CO2 because life is made of carbon dioxide. YOU ARE MADE OF CARBON DIOXIDE!!!

[polemius01]

Pt 1: Once again, the comment makes no delineation between the species of coral living "during the trilobite days" and those living now.

If the commenter believes in "intelligent design" and rejects the possibility that corals have evolved to inhabit the stable system of the reef, then there is no discussion.

If evolution is accepted, then offer evidence that the corals that lived in "trilobite days" are the exact same organisms with the same ability to withstand pH changes in their environment.

[polemius01]

Pt 2: I am not "made of carbon dioxide." CO2 is but one of the compounds that make up an organism.

While it serves its purpose, too much of it can be harmful, as I believe science has proven. To be "made of" oxygen would be just as incorrect a statement.