I sure would. I would love to only pay 20% on my income tax, especially if it meant I didn't have to spend money on software to do my taxes for me every year because the tax code keeps changing.
I run a feminist forum
- so then what is the point if the entire forum is a troll?
Sadly, I wish I had mod points for that one, in spite of my usual policy of not upmodding ACs when I do have said points.
To the point: Between housing costs, transportation (not to mention the murder of fuel and/or commute times/costs), *and* the high taxes that NY usually carries?
No effing thank you. I'll move to Silly Valley first, and only then if death were the only other option.
I don't know about the sample period, but the program itself has had to have been running for well over a year or two by now, considering that the advertisements for it on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc have been running for at least that long.
Note who gets the parts. Government, Government, Government. NSA, CIA, DEA, ATF, FAA... How long before they share? Can you say smokescreen? Appease the public. What they don't know. Works until another Snowden incident.
The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean.
'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.
Hmmm... CO2 concentrations in liquid, sure. But what does that have to do with PH? You indicate that it's self-evident, but it's not to me. Maybe you can explain that relationship in high-school sciencey language. There are actually 3 different ways to measure PH, one of which is specific to ocean chemistry (the PH Seawater Scale - sws).
I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem.
No, it's not, actually. Especially in science (not the scientific community that is awash in politic, but the work of science it certainly is).
Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry.
Nice try. See above.
What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?
I can't understand everything, certainly, but much of it is accessible to me. Much of it because I'm good at maths. And language.
Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.
I think you are misreading it. They are using the data from the lake in Japan to demonstrate specific relationships. For 280,000 years. It's no more an extrapolation than "More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect." Physical properties are physical properties.
At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.
Most of that is a review of the ONE study on ocean acidification that keeps getting quoted. And those reviews are pretty damning to that study, IMHO.
So, in your opinion the climate effects of sulfur and ash from mega volcanoes sufficiently active to cover a surface equivalent to Europe is directly equivalent to the passage of CO2 from 300ppm to 400 or even 500ppm. Care to justify what is clearly an enormous mistake?
From ad hominem to straw man, I guess. I never made any such claim - the topic is ocean acidification. I don't even know where you're getting any of this from - unless it's simply an extension of the "attack the messenger" argument that I have already ignored.
More ad hominems to ignore.
Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.
You seem to be more familiar with this aspect of the science than I am. I have not looked into those claims although I've skimmed some of the arguments on both sides.
What I found interesting was the critique of the published numbers of PH readings. There are a lot of questions in the detail of what is being measured. Most of all, the most often-quoted studies that extrapolate changes BACKWARD - to the turn of the century - using trends from only 15 - 20 years of data. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but the EPA's website only shows readings from 1980 - 1985. They don't do the backward extrapolation, though.
It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Google filters those. But peer-reviewed papers are what I look for as an ultimate source. That's the reason I posted the links above. They include many references to the peer-reviewed work.
Ph level is a sliding scale with acid on one side and alkaline on the other. If Ocean water is moves from alkaline to neutral to below 7 on the scale, which is what tehy are saying is/will happen, then it is becoming acidic. It is currently at an 8.1 out of a 14 point scale.
They are saying it, but is it true. The EPA's website only shows data from about 1985, at the earliest, but PH has been measured fairly accurately since the mid-19th century. And it doesn't match the extrapolated history.
They might do better to focus on issues like this. "You are killing the earth's food supply, including your own" probably goes farther with more people than "It will get a degree or two hotter over the next 100 years".
You're right - exaggeration works better. We call it "propaganda". Effective for making Americans afraid of terrorists, too, even though they are 10,000 times more likely to be killed by a hail storm.
No, it turns out the PH scare was false. The original study, it turns out, didn't even use real data - it extrapolated 80 years of PH levels from about 15 years of data. Lots more details.
Just ask John Galt.
Or most slash-dotters who rant about unions.
You are choosing temporary convenience over individual freedom, at the end you will have no convenience and no freedom.
Hate to say it, but Payola is still alive and well.
This time, instead of money, the record corporations 'donate' free trips, prizes, cash awards to be given as prizes, etc etc - the radio station in turn gives this stuff away in contests to listeners.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
