I Was Wrong

[Doctorgori]

post deleted ..

 

[Lasse]

A big thanks to the actual moderator - it was fast

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Doctorgori]

A big thanks to the actual moderator - it was fast

Sincerely Lasse

I deleted my own post, although there wasn’t any blatant TOS violation; just leaving the soapbox at home….
Odds are nobody minds will be appreciably changed on what is supposed to be a aquarium forum anyway

 

[Lasse]

I deleted my own post, although there wasn’t any blatant TOS violation; just leaving the soapbox at home….
Odds are nobody minds will be appreciably changed on what is supposed to be a aquarium forum anyway

For the book - it was not @Doctorgori post I report - I did not even seen it before it was deleted

It was a forged quote of me that I reported. IMO - people can think and write what they want but I draw a line when my words are falsified in quotes

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Doctorgori]

Appreciate that @Lasse
repeating myself but “for the record” I don’t see the needle moving for anyone here…its apparent to me no amount of discourse on climate change on a reef forum will convince anyone of any opposing opinion

 

[jabberwock]

I´m sorry to say - but I think it is more worse than that. He/she knows all of this things but his/hers post is an attempt to create fog curtains around the real question - does a concentration of 420 ppm CO2 cause the damage that a largely unanimous body of active scientists claims or not?

Lasse - with respect, I am trying to slash the fog curtains that are laid out by the "largely unanimous body of active scientists". More like the widely publicized climate alarmists.

The numbers don't lie, but people can, and regularly do lie with statistics. In my line of work we call it "risk it away".

I appreciate your seniority and experience, but I do not agree from a foundationally scientific basis with anthropomorphically influenced climate change. We are NOT that big of a deal.

 

[Court_Appointed_Hypeman]

Lasse - with respect, I am trying to slash the fog curtains that are laid out by the "largely unanimous body of active scientists". More like the widely publicized climate alarmists.

The numbers don't lie, but people can, and regularly do lie with statistics. In my line of work we call it "risk it away".

I appreciate your seniority and experience, but I do not agree from a foundationally scientific basis with anthropomorphically influenced climate change. We are NOT that big of a deal.

That's certainly at least a step back from 1% for nothing. I'll take that.

 

[jabberwock]

That's certainly at least a step back from 1% for nothing. I'll take that.

Sorry, I don't get your point.

 

[Court_Appointed_Hypeman]

Sorry, I don't get your point.

That tracks

 

[jabberwock]

That tracks

Bye

 

[Lasse]

The main question is still - Is the 50% rise of the atmosphere CO2 from 1800 till now contributing to the noted rise of the average yearly temperature of the earth and to the decrease of average sea pH from 8.2 to 8.1 or not? You realize that your can´t keep up your math trick - it's exposed as a scam.

Further on

I do not either believe in an anthropomorphically influenced climate change - but I am of scientific reasons convinced that we have an anthropogenic climate change.

anthropomorphic = give animals, things, systems and so on a human form
anthropogenic = caused by human (activities)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[jabberwock]

The main question is still - Is the 50% rise of the atmosphere CO2 from 1800 till now contributing to the noted rise of the average yearly temperature of the earth and to the decrease of average sea pH from 8.2 to 8.1 or not? You realize that your can´t keep up your math trick - it's exposed as a scam.

Further on

I do not either believe in an anthropomorphically influenced climate change - but I am of scientific reasons convinced that we have an anthropogenic climate change.

anthropomorphic = give animals, things, systems and so on a human form
anthropogenic = caused by human (activities)

Sincerely Lasse

It is not a math trick Lasse. As simply as I can put it. One drop of pee in the ocean vs 2 drops of pee in the ocean.

I accept your correction of:
anthropomorphic = give animals, things, systems and so on a human form
anthropogenic = caused by human (activities)

I meant anthropogenic.

 

[Lasse]

One drop of pee in the ocean vs 2 drops of pee in the ocean

I agree because 1 or 2 rops of pee in the ocean is not harmful - its not enough concentration in order to be harmful. However - the difference between 1 drop and 2 drops in 10 ml can be important because it will differ with 100 % in NH3 concentration after a while. The main question is still if the concentration of 420 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to the green house effect or not and where it comes from? And You're still juggling the math because you're suddenly talking about quantity and not concentration.

Use of anthropomorphic contra anthropogenic is important because it was a normal trick among the early denier of anthropogenic global warming to mix these two in order to confuse - See this article from 2007. Especially the update from 2010 (in the end)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Court_Appointed_Hypeman]

It is not a math trick Lasse. As simply as I can put it. One drop of pee in the ocean vs 2 drops of pee in the ocean.

I accept your correction of:
anthropomorphic = give animals, things, systems and so on a human form
anthropogenic = caused by human (activities)

I meant anthropogenic.

You have to be aware of relatively the same concentration for bare traces with dire consequences within this hobby.

You are doing what you can to arrive at the point you want. It's not even as minimal as the 2 drop to 2 drops, its literally tens tons more than that

 

[jabberwock]

I agree because 1 or 2 rops of pee in the ocean is not harmful - its not enough concentration in order to be harmful. However - the difference between 1 drop and 2 drops in 10 ml can be important because it will differ with 100 % in NH3 concentration after a while. The main question is still if the concentration of 420 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to the green house effect or not and where it comes from? And You're still juggling the math because you're suddenly talking about quantity and not concentration.

Use of anthropomorphic contra anthropogenic is important because it was a normal trick among the early denier of anthropogenic global warming to mix these two in order to confuse - See this article from 2007. Especially the update from 2010 (in the end)

Sincerely Lasse

The math is plain. Perhaps you should revisit it.
300 out of 3000 or 400 out of 3000 = an insignificant delta

I concede the latter point, again.

 

[Court_Appointed_Hypeman]

The math is plain. Perhaps you should revisit it.
300 out of 3000 or 400 out of 3000 = an insignificant delta

I concede the latter point, again.

It is strange that you don't think it's real, and spend even this effort in discussing it. While ignoring very relatable data point to reef chemistry it's like you either didn't understand it, or skipped it.

If you don't have something to personally gain from it, it can't come from a good place. It really, more so, comes off as though you're miserable.

Unless you personally disbalieve there is a difference between 278 and 417 calcium in a reef tank, your understanding of concentrations is deliberately trying to justify what you want to think.

If you really are in the camp, that truly believes your quality of life is being negatively impacted by activism for climate/environment or any action taken by nations, you have been mislead. If you don't beleive that you are personally affected negatively by any action taken... then why are you doing it on a reef forum for free?

 

[bluemon]

Lasse - with respect, I am trying to slash the fog curtains that are laid out by the "largely unanimous body of active scientists". More like the widely publicized climate alarmists.

The numbers don't lie, but people can, and regularly do lie with statistics. In my line of work we call it "risk it away".

I appreciate your seniority and experience, but I do not agree from a foundationally scientific basis with anthropomorphically influenced climate change. We are NOT that big of a deal.

It is strange that you don't think it's real, and spend even this effort in discussing it. While ignoring very relatable data point to reef chemistry it's like you either didn't understand it, or skipped it.

If you don't have something to personally gain from it, it can't come from a good place. It really, more so, comes off as though you're miserable.

Unless you personally disbalieve there is a difference between 278 and 417 calcium in a reef tank, your understanding of concentrations is deliberately trying to justify what you want to think.

If you really are in the camp, that truly believes your quality of life is being negatively impacted by activism for climate/environment or any action taken by nations, you have been mislead. If you don't beleive that you are personally affected negatively by any action taken... then why are you doing it on a reef forum for free?

I have tried to explain to them for 3 pages using various different analogies.

At this point, I think they are willfully trying to not comprehend it's impact and the math

 

[jabberwock]

I have tried to explain to them for 3 pages using various different analogies.

At this point, I think they are willfully trying to not comprehend it's impact and the math

I feel the same way.

 

[jabberwock]

Thanks Hypeman, have a good day.

 

[Iamnotyourtrigger]

you guys really dont believe that 8 billion critters screwing around can't affect an atmosphere adversely? Don't get rid of any nuisance pests you get...ever again. Sure most things will eventually die in the tank, but at some point life might come back, maybe; prolly not.