It's usually not referred to that way because the chemistry works differently at pH below 7 than it does above.
Complex chemistry works differently at any pH level. There's no magic threshold. It's a complex dynamic balance, and by changing the pH, different kinds of reactions get shifted.
Whether somebody's concerns about nuclear are rational or not has nothing to do with their desire to reduce CO2 emissions, even though they may be a correlation between the two in the general public.
If a low resolution proxy only shows a gradual change, it's unlikely that fast changes were common. In theory, you could have a short and steep excursion, and then revert back to the exact same original value before the proxy picks anything up, but in practice this is unlikely.
Also, fast and big swings would most likely show up in other records, such as fossils.
There are already parts of the ocean where the pH is much lower than 8.1 and life continues to thrive in those parts of the ocean, and parts of the ocean where the pH is much higher as well.
But it's not the same life. Oceans vary in temperature, pH, salinity and water pressure, and different species thrive in different environments.
"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Which probably means no major extinction event in the near future....
I think the extinctions are more related to the rate of change than to absolute numbers. Absolute numbers for CO2 have been much higher, and there was plenty of life at those times. The problem is that it takes a different form of life, adapted to the different environment. Quick changes could possibly overwhelm the rate in which species can adapt.
While wikipedia is generally reliable, I wouldn't trust it as an authority against fresh research. It's the new research that determines what people will write in wikipedia, not the other way around.
If nobody needs the government, the government doesn't need people working for them, so the problem solves itself. Of course, we're nowhere near the point that we can 3D print our own stuff. We can't even 3D print a functional lego brick, let alone a working cell phone.
Even if a lathe is affordable, it's still not very widespread. And there's more skill involved in using it, plus you need the right materials, design and tools to make a useful gun.
With a 3D printer, any moron can download a design, and hit the big print button.
Slashdot Mirror
It's usually not referred to that way because the chemistry works differently at pH below 7 than it does above.
Complex chemistry works differently at any pH level. There's no magic threshold. It's a complex dynamic balance, and by changing the pH, different kinds of reactions get shifted.
This is nothing new... cops have used lots of tactics to scare kids, throwing them in jail or stuff like that. Its a very effective approach.
Not nearly as effective as a few bullets in the back, though.
The teacher got a warning too, but didn't feel like changing the password.
This has nothing to do with the wallpaper. The student leveraged unauthorized access to a system to do something.
Yes, the student leveraged unauthorized access to change the wallpaper.
Glad to hear that the kid wasn't shot in the back 8 times while trying to get away.
How does "The temperature in Phoenix, AZ could become closer to freezing from August to September." sound ?
That sounds dorky. But "Winters in Alaska are getting warmer" sounds perfectly normal, even though temperatures are still below freezing.
According to the author, it's the rate of change that is worrying, not the absolute levels.
Whether somebody's concerns about nuclear are rational or not has nothing to do with their desire to reduce CO2 emissions, even though they may be a correlation between the two in the general public.
no that's not the same as cranking the prices so high no one does any of those things any more.
Is anybody doing that, or even advocating that we do ?
Make no mistake, 'more acidic' instead of 'less alkaline' is a sure indicator of alarmist intent.
No, it's simply a desire to use a single, simple word "acidification", instead of "becoming less alkaline".
one may even suppose that the writer doesn't even know that seawater is alkaline.
I'm pretty sure that scientists who are researching ocean pH know that seawater is alkaline, and they still use "acidification" in all their papers.
More like your DNA is modified by what you eat
That's not how it works.
If a low resolution proxy only shows a gradual change, it's unlikely that fast changes were common. In theory, you could have a short and steep excursion, and then revert back to the exact same original value before the proxy picks anything up, but in practice this is unlikely.
Also, fast and big swings would most likely show up in other records, such as fossils.
Low resolution proxies can still help to rule out rapid changes.
There are already parts of the ocean where the pH is much lower than 8.1 and life continues to thrive in those parts of the ocean, and parts of the ocean where the pH is much higher as well.
But it's not the same life. Oceans vary in temperature, pH, salinity and water pressure, and different species thrive in different environments.
"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersi...
Just bring a ruler, and take the thinnest one. Or the shiniest, depending on your preferences.
The article doesn't claim that the rates of acidification are the same, just that we are releasing carbon at a similar rate.
The actual research that the article was based on is a pH reconstruction, not carbon concentration.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
You, sir, are what is referred to as a "denier".
Your sarcasm detector needs recalibrating.
Obviously a import component of acidification was ignored to push an agenda.
As long as we're just comparing the acidification and the rate of acidification, does it really matter if it was caused by different mechanisms ?
Which probably means no major extinction event in the near future....
I think the extinctions are more related to the rate of change than to absolute numbers. Absolute numbers for CO2 have been much higher, and there was plenty of life at those times. The problem is that it takes a different form of life, adapted to the different environment. Quick changes could possibly overwhelm the rate in which species can adapt.
While wikipedia is generally reliable, I wouldn't trust it as an authority against fresh research. It's the new research that determines what people will write in wikipedia, not the other way around.
they're not becoming acidic, they're becoming less alkaline
More acidic is the same as less alkaline. It's an increase in protons.
If nobody needs the government, the government doesn't need people working for them, so the problem solves itself. Of course, we're nowhere near the point that we can 3D print our own stuff. We can't even 3D print a functional lego brick, let alone a working cell phone.
Even if a lathe is affordable, it's still not very widespread. And there's more skill involved in using it, plus you need the right materials, design and tools to make a useful gun.
With a 3D printer, any moron can download a design, and hit the big print button.
Why would you think that's a problem for the government ?