Sea Life Searching for A Place With Higher Ocean Basicafication

[Bret Cahill]

> > > Your simplistic view has overlooked the fact that today's taxa are
> > > adapted to levels of around 250 - 300 ppm CO2 with an associated ocean
> > > pH of ca.8.3
>
> > > They will not easily and rapidly evolve into organisms that
> > > function100% effectively at 8.2 or 8.1 Their adaptation to 8.3 is
> > > likly to be intricately linked within their DNA, given the length of
> > > time the ocean has had that pH.
>
> > A legitimate point.
>
> > How much does pH vary across the environments that bivalves exist in?
>
> Not being an oceanographer I can't tell you off the top of my head.

Over time, since the burning of fossil fuels ocean pH has shifted down
50% of the normal range, from 8.3 - 8.1 pre industrial to 8.2 - 8.0
today.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm

Between coastal regions the range is larger but many species are
regional.

> > The more it varies, the more likely it is that the change will simply
> > consist of species shifting their range--

From shallow water to deep water?

From cold water to warm water?

> > that there will exist some
> > adapted to 8.1 because that's what the pH of their environment is, and
> > they will spread out as ocean pH declines.
>
> I agree there are likely many species pre-adapted to 8.1 pH or even
> lower somewhere in the oceans.

That'll hardly save the food web.

Try to remember any interdependency between species contradicts
looneytarianism.

All equations are always decoupled in looneytarian land where linear
algebra is considered a Marxist plot.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

[Bret Cahill]

[Bret Cahill]

[George Cornelius]

Bret Cahill wrote:

[politics now, always, and forever]

Can you take it out of sci.math? The mathematics content of
this thread is vanishingly small.

There are no mathematical issues with regard to AGW. The
issues all revolve around whether the models are correct
or the manipulation of the raw data is correct. Perhaps you
wanted us to teach you some mathematics so you could determine
that on your own?

[Bret Cahill]

> [politics now, always, and forever]

Ever wonder why the U. S. never did as well as you might expect in the
math olympics?

Math is applied logic and even basic logic / critical thinking is
constantly discouraged in the U. S.

This is a _political_ problem.

> Can you take it out of sci.math?

Everyone needs to see the Orwellian terms inspired by deniers.


Bret Cahill

[George Cornelius]

Bret Cahill wrote:

> [George Cornelius wrote]

>> Can you take it out of sci.math?
>
> Everyone needs to see the Orwellian terms inspired by deniers.

So you're telling me you're here to shove it down our throats.

It's been clear that that's the way you have worked since
you first started showing up on the groups as a political
operative.

George Cornelius

>
>
> Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >> Can you take it out of sci.math?
>
> > Everyone needs to see the Orwellian terms inspired by deniers.
>
> So you're telling me you're here to shove it down our throats.

I'll consider dropping it as I have always argued in and out of court
for the proper content in the proper forum. See Lehman v Shaker
Heights. Moreover I rely on the mathematicians here every now and
then to monkey wrench those in signal processing and other fields who
believe something is impossible when it is not. Google deconvolution
and match fliter. I'm not out to piss off a lot of mathematicians.

But the fact is Orwellian terms other demagogic politics do a lot to
damage to the study of the field of math, certainly in the U. S.
Confused wingers who cannot function when it comes to basic logic
obviously are not going to be able to do anything with math. As
Tocqueville pointed out, they aren't in the habit of obeying Reason,
just the Boss. Moreover, I get a lot of political and legal advice
from a math prof. The multidiciplinary effect is so valuable there is
a real case to be made that the distinctions between fields are more
superficial that what many might think.

In the meantime, while I make the decision, feel free to click on
other threads.


Bret Cahill


Bret: "The judge just repeated the nonsense that was just vacated by
the appeals court. To go on TV."

Math Prof with mock enthusiasm: "Bret, she wants to be your marketing
consultant."

Bret (thinking): How many connecting flights would I need to take to
get to UT. He really needs to have his smart ass kicked.

[Jesse F. Hughes]

George Cornelius <corn...@eisner.decus.org> writes:

> Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> [George Cornelius wrote]
>>> Can you take it out of sci.math?
>>
>> Everyone needs to see the Orwellian terms inspired by deniers.
>
> So you're telling me you're here to shove it down our throats.
>
> It's been clear that that's the way you have worked since
> you first started showing up on the groups as a political
> operative.

No, he's a simple troll.

Political operative? Please.

Best to use your killfile on this one and the threads he starts, rather
than pretending that he has the brain cells necessary for a nefarious
scheme.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"[I]t's the damndest thing. There's something wrong with every last
one of you, and I *never* thought that was a possibility. But now I
feel it's the only reasonable conclusion." --JSH sees some sorta light