The oceans are dying

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Kennyc, Jun 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Whats that I hear? Is that the sound of the ban hammer pounding in the distance?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    No, he quoted the relevant portion of the abstract - the paper as a whole deals with a range of scenarios, not all of which are relevant to the discussion of a catastrophic release.

    I quoted, and provided a link to the definition of cherry picking that I am using. The definition requires a contradiction, you have produced no contradiction, therefore you have failed to demonstrate that cherry picking has occured.

    No. It fails to meet the definition of cherry picking because no contradiction has been demonstrated.
    Here, again, for your convenience, is the definition I linked to Cherry Picking on Wikipedia. In this instance, a successful demonstration of cherrypicking would involve demonstrating to an audience of anglophones how the additional provided text suggests some other interpretation of the text that Arthur provided, something you have failed to do, and something that, as the moderator of the Earth Science subforum, I am asking you, for a second time to do.

    As far as Trolling goes.
    Troll on Wikipedia.
    These are your posts that you made in response to Arthur:
    Are the comments extraneous? Yes. They add nothing to the discussion, and do not go anyway toward answering the question that was put to them.
    Are they inflammatory? Certainly.
    Are they likely to provoke some sort of emotional reaction, or disrupt the discussion? Almost certainly.

    Now, in my capacity as the moderator of this subforum, I am asking you, for the second time, to stop trolling, and demonstrate how Arthurs quoted text from the abstract is contradicted by considering the abstract as a whole.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    I already did. I'm not here to argue with him or you but I will state the facts which I have done I will not be forced into an argument by you or him. You are wrong again you may be a moderator but you clearly don't deserve to be if you are as ignorant as you appear. He only wants to argue and he is the troll in my thread. Open your eyes. You've a already made up you mind you are going to ban me so go will just prove my point. I won't be back so you might as well make it permant. It's too bad really, but wtf I waste too much time dealing with idiots like yourself and this cherry picking moron anyway.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    This has been debunked before, both in its assertions ("universally" is wrong, projections of the rate of slowing and estimates of the max are quite varied) and in its implications (the idea that the first derivative "going negative" is necessarily a benign event is pollyanna) - you are quite irresponsible and unscientific to be repeating it so often. Other people have been threatened, by you as a moderator, for even being mistaken as having committed that kind of posting.
    You are contradicting yourself, there, if you noticed: if we do not develop some different economic system, the current population boom may easily bring (or have brought, actually) disaster. If we do, what will be the effects of the new form of "prosperity" on rates of population increase? Unknown.
    I've seen dozens - just in publication. Hoiw to get the benefits of agriculture without wrecking the place is one of the two or three central problems of civilization.
    You have to be a pretty good expert to tell where the American elms and Amrican chestnuts used to be, or whether the leaf litter no longer present in the woods has had any consequences in its disappearance, and that the fish you are catching are not the numerous large tasty ones taht used to live here, and so forth.

    But poor memory and lack of expertise does not mean the degradation has not happened. The ratchet has turned another notch. The green hills of Ireland and England used to be forested - the landscape would be more productive and pleasant now if some of that forest remained. The blasted landscape of Iraq used to be the Garden of Eden. If you go to where agriculature is oldest, you will find degraded landscapes no longer able to support people in their former style.
    What Arthur is doing, in continuing to post that document as support for a position in an argument it begs (the assumptions made by its author, such as lack of feedback effects and localized or current mediated water temp rises etc are exactly the matters under discussion, and that has been pointed out to him before) is quite lacking in integrity or reasonable attempt at discussion.

    Some moderator attention to that kind of intellectual dishonesty would be welcome, but don't worry - nobody expects it.
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    It's an entirley different issue to argue that the paper is wrong, but that's not the same as saying I cherry-picked a quote out of it.

    I didn't.

    As ususal, you post nothing to back up your assertions that the paper is wrong.

  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Most developed countries today are in an economic recession or even depression and if shit relly hits the fan there will be fewer countries with prosperity in the coming years.
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Only from 2.2.1 we have this:

    And from 2.4.1 we have this:
    Which would seem to precisely and explicitly address your concern - in other words, if the temperature of the water at the bottom of the arctic ocean were to suddenly rise by 10k tonight, it would still take between hundreds and thousands of years for the signal to propagate through the sediment to the clatherates.

    In 2.3.1 Archer states that the stability depth for Methane in the Arcctic ocean is 200m, implying it would take 600 years for any anthropogenic warming signal to propagate far enough through the sediment to begin to destabilize the methane clathrates - IE: If the bottom of the arctic ocean were to warm by 10k, it would take 600 years for that warming to propagate through the sediment column, and begin to destabilize the Methane.
  11. Thdaoub Guest

    it is amazing to know that : World's oceans in 'shocking' decline.
    i think we have to do something to prevent disaster from happening.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's 200 meters of water, not sediment, in Archer's discussion of the Arctic Ocean marine deposits.

    The depth of insulating sediment, if any, varies with locale, and Archer does not discuss the specifics of that. He does mention that there are significant clathrate deposits under less than 200m of sediment on land, with no water pressure at all, in permafrost zones.

    Meanwhile, Archer apparently (a bit vague, actually) assumes that the water column over significant clathrate deposits will warm more or less evenly, from the top down, until the warming reaches the clathrate stability zone - this reasoning is visible in the sections immediately after 2.3.1.

  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Even if you are right, he still explicitly states that it would take 1000 years for a temperature signal to propogate through 180m of sediment - irrespective of how rapidly you warm up the water column (2.4.1 Deap Ocean Temperature Change).

    To the best of my... Recollection, Clathrates and Sulfates are mutually exclusive, so there is a minimum depth of sediment required before methane can exist in pore fluid (bacteria that anerobicaly metabolize methane do so using Sulfate). There are, of course a few exceptions to this - for example when you have an input of methan from a natural gas resivoire.

    Remember - last time this topic came up, I argued that enhanced Methane release was occuring, so this doesn't contradict what I have said - which is that while chronic methane release from the arctic is plausible, catastrophic release does not seem to be.

    Anyway, I'm stepping back out of this thread, and this debate. At this point it's not one that I'm terribly interested in having, as I have more pressing issues to look into.
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Allow me to elaborate further.

    My sole intention was to provide a modicum of illumination - in short, at this point I don't agree with some aspects of your interpretation of Archer's paper, and some of those are salient to Arthur's use of the paper in this discussion.

    Your beef is with Arthur's use of the paper. If you want to debate Arthur's use of the paper, debate it with Arthur, not me. If you want to persuade me that Arthur's use of the paper was intellectually dishonest, and banworthy, demonstrate it by debating with him, not with me.
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    As to this hypothetical model Ice linked to, while they found that the freshened polar surface waters act as a barrier to atmospheric transfer, diverting products into the deep return flow, but what is more important, is the work is based on the IMPROBALE Case III from Reagan and George J. Moridis, but Case III is based on a minimum of 1 degree C rise of temperatures at a depth of 320 meters over a 100 year period.

    Case III: Cold, Shallow Hydrate Deposits
    [21] Profiles of T, SH, and SG for case III undergoing a DT = 3C/100
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    ? I'm not following that confusion.
    Which begs the question of what can happen to the large supply of clathrates not so well buried in sediment under the ocean - or on land vulnerable to things like meltwater intrusion, etc, under vanishing permafrost.
    And I pointed out that 1) the distinction was meaningless, question-begging - even deceptive: that sufficiently high levels of "chronic" release (as Archer employed the term) would be catastrophic in any ordinary sense of the term by those considering possible climate changes,

    and 2) such release levels were apparently possible, not dismissed by Archer's actual evidence and reasoning, although unlikely: and "unlikely" is not nearly good enough to reassure anyone in the face of a threat of that magnitude.
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Allow me to reiterate.
    If you want to debate Arthurs assertions regarding the paper, debate them with Arthur, not me.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Fair enough.

    And if I want to point out your inconsistent standards for ban threats and so forth, as in this thread above, I'll continue to direct the observations to you, not Arthur.

    And if I want to reply to your assertions regarding the paper Arthur linked, or any other matter actually, rather than Arthur's, I will continue to reply to you, not Arthur.

    And so forth.

    The link establishes the relevance of this methane stuff to this thread - it shows that there seems to be a reasonable possibility that realistic rates of clathrate release - such as we are now risking - can saturate the degradation capability of the shallower ocean, with a variety of effects mostly unfortunate from a human civilization pov.
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Debating disciplinary issues in this thread is off topic. The topic of this thread is not my decision to ban KennyC for trolling (among other things).

    In most other subfora continuing to debate moderation decisions would be classed as trolling, and warrant a ban. If you want to debate my decision, take it to SFOG, this is not the place for it.

    Allow me to restate, for the third, and hopefully final time:
    At the core of your dispute with, and allegations regarding Arthur, is the fact that you disagree with Arthur over his assessment of Archer's paper, because you seem to be of the opnion that Archer glossed over some points, that he should have covered in greater depth, that had he done so would (more or less) negate Arthurs interpretation of Arthurs paper.

    By suggesting that you take it up with Arthur, rather than me, I am inviting you to prove your case and demonstrate your point.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2011
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That matter is long settled, several times over.

    The issue of your allowing such posting by Arthur in this thread, while intervening in this thread between him and other posters in much less consequential matters generally tolerated here (such as the technical definition of "cherrypicking") with ban threats and so forth, is or was the matter at hand in this thread.
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Heaven forbid...

    I'm done with this conversation with you.
    KennyC accused Arthur of Cherry picking.
    Arthur demonstrated that it wasn't cherry picking.
    KennyC continued to assert it was.
    I challenged him to demonstrate that it was. He chose not to meet that challenge, and instead evaded giving a straight answer.
    I asked in the back room whether or not his posts met a reasonable thresh hold for banning for trolling and/or intellectual dishonesty.
    I was told they did, and then I issued him with a ban.
    Case closed.

    You came in, after the fact, and started making allegations about bias on my part.

    I have invited you to sunstantiate those claims, and/or to deal with it in the SFOG sub-forum, generally considered the best place for airing such claims. I have invited you to demonstrate dishonesty on Arthurs part, and so far you have declined all offers.

    I have been more than fair and reasonable in this matter, and as you seem unwilling, or unable to offer anything further, I'm closing it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page