/v/ - Video Games

>>15302983

crysis has a pretty cool backstory about what happens when a devout fanatical nation discovers important resources and cashes in on them

Oh, also Dues Ex of course.

>>15302997

was just about to post

>Politics in games

Fuck off. We don't want games being political at all.

>>15303004

>But the truth isn't politics. Such as Hitler being right or the holocaust never happening.

>>15303017

didn't mean to greentext

>>15302983

Post-Modern game message: Fuck having borders and laws and shit

>Still no game that let's be express my rights as a Sovereign citizen

The entire TES series is pretty deep.

Arena presents a world that's just a basic fantasy setting. But then Daggerfall steps in and introduces all of these politics and schemes, showing how everyone in the world lies. Then Morrowind doubles-down on this, showing the false politics of the false gods, and how even the gods themselves are lies. In Oblivion, you get the dialogue with Mankar Camoran, which shows you that even the world itself is very much a lie. And finally there's Skyrim, where you finally realize that everything is a sweet little lie.

>>15302983

Back when it came out Bioshcok provided me with endless joy by virtue of shitting on Objectivism and (((Ayn Rand))).

>>15302983

>climate change

Communist games are all about "messages".

>>15303012

It really is, I dont know how they thought it was an improvement over the original.

>>15302983

A New Beginning is stupid, though.

The game is against nuclear power despite it being one of the cleanest forms of power there is.

The older generation still get Chernobyl stuck in their heads despite how that was a steam explosion, not a nuclear one. Jill Stein is a perfect example of the ignorance and confusion.

Nuclear power plants are basically giant kettles with a wind turbine attached to the top. They use heat produced by radioactive decay to produce steam that turns a big turbine, the kinetic energy then gets converted into electrical energy.

>>15303357

>any game that i don't like is communist

fuck off kid

>>15302983

>climate change hoax

This is literally a lie propagated to weaken economies around the world.

>>15303457

All western games are communist propaganda, and thus, shit. Fuck off, impotent leftist.

>>15302983

>climate change

>real

>>15303004

>We

Go back.

>>15303317

Was Bioshock 2 any good with it's communism themes?

>>15303357

>>15303559

>>15303663

>Being so jewed you believe businesses over proven science because the jews told you it's false

Hey retards, go into a green house and raise the CO2 levels, see what happens.

I was gonna toddpost.

>>15304209

>thinking its the businesses that are lying

>not the government kikes

Fuck off you green commie faggot. Climate change is just a power grab by the left. I bet you suck off al gore too.

>>15304311

Satiric, not ironic.

Please stop raping the English language, senpai.

>>15304186

Don't know, got bored of it pretty quick.

Didn't feel like the first game.

ID Changed

>>15304209

>Not realising they two sides of the same coin and basically work together with eachother.

There's a reason the financial elite goes to the bilderberg-meetings along with the politicians anon. Your high-school education of how the earth's climate works is not going to cut it.

>>15304290

This. Facts are false when I disagree

>>15304411

>War is bad

>t. Almost the entire Ace Combat franchise

:^)

>>15304718

>>15304290

I know you two aren't the brightest anons but maybe try going into a green house and see how it feels when you increase the CO2 levels. I know Qanon told you sheep that you can't trust anyone that isn't him or Trump but scientific facts are a bit more credible than randoms online.

>>15304379

What was the message of Sanitarium? I can't remember it having one.

>>15305586

Gundam is really about two things: 'War is hell, but inevitable, so suck it up pussy' and 'All adults are lying pieces of shit.'

>>15303317

>objectivism

>bad

>>15306302

Excellent post. Saved

>>15306398

The story becomes complete shit if Walker was dead the whole time which is what the devs want you to think.

>>15306302

Fact: CO2 levels are rising. There is no denying this at all.

Fact: Co2 mixes with seawater to form carbonic acid and lower ocean PH

Fact: the mass of the greenland ice sheet is getting smaller

Please, try and refute these elements. Cause all you have is "we just don't know u guise" and an article talking about fucking psychology experiments(which shows just how disingenuous you are). And that wattsup article you linked, has "major cooling events" being less than half a degree, and with a trend of only -0.15 degrees over 30 months. Whereas as of may of this year, we reached our 400th consecutive month of record high for global temperature average.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

And sage, cause none of this is vidya.

I like how Persona 3 has the whole self-reliance thing going on. YOU'RE the one who has to get off your ass and do stuff to better yourself and your position in life, and YOU need to make an active effort to get to know other people if you want to have friends. I've always though ATLUS might have made it as a crypto-self-help guide for NEETs. Also the girls are somewhat more realistic in their behavior in that they're all varyingly vain thots who won't give you the time of day outside of battle unless you manage to impress them first.

Then Persona 4 and 5 kinda shit on all that but they're still fun.

Also Ace Attorney has death of parents as a major theme for some reason, it seems like everyone besides Phoenix and Larry have at least one dead parent. It's not really a message so much as a weird recurring theme that's been in every game.

>>15306418

>fellating Todd this hard

>muh nihlism bro XDDD there's no point nothing matters XD

>>15306419

>global warming

>mattering

Wake me when the greenies start trying to stop heavy metal poisoning of fresh water sources and arable land or when they decide that india and china need to be nuked to stop the flood of raw sewerage and plastic into the ocean.

>>15304337

But it had a memorable quote or something so it had groundbreaking narrative. People were surprised with how bad Infinite was but the writing was already on the wall.

>>15306446

CO2 gets used by plants. Higher temperatures increase metabolic activity of plants which increases co2 intake. By itself CO2 can only absorb a certain amount of energy through and store it as heat since it only responds to a small fraction of the light spectrum. Cloud formations have a much more drastic effect on temperature, in fact climate scientists have used this to change the goalpost to CO2 affecting cloud formations which kind of displays how much these scientists like to reach.

There's calcium and magnesium in the ocean that buffers it and prevents the ph from swinging too much and the ocean has a high capacity for storage of CO2.

Record high relative to small frame of reference. Climates change drastically even without human interference and when they do there are mechanism to balance those changes out like plants consuming CO2, and we're nowhere near optimal values for plants to thrives. You should be concerned with plants consuming CO2 and having that carbon be inert and stored in deposits and not be released back into the air. Some say that were it not for the Industrial Revolution the levels could have dropped so low that it would not be able to sustain many species of plants.

>>15306419

Nah gotta impose that Carbon Tax on the US so they politicians can get rich off of Carbon Credits and running companies that import goods from China and India which have no protections. Oh and the tankers used to transport those goods are prone to spilling and use more gas that 50+ bullion cars annually.

>>15305670

I'm telling you that the green-house effect itself is not applicable on the planet itself, that´s not how our climate works and behaves, just because it's a cute easy little tale to learn to high-schoolers so they would "understand" something.

CO2 in particular actually help plants grow and it's even more ridiculous of a notion to think the minimal emission of CO2 humans produce would have any kind of worldly affect on the planet. And it´s even more ridiculous to think it would solve anything by taxing the world for living and breathing.

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

>GO OUTSIDE, LOSER!

No More Heroes

>Seriously, turn off the tv, clean yourself up, and stop wallowing in self-pity.

LISA the Painful

>Abuse begets abuse, something about masculinity and honor

The World Ends With You

>GO OUTSIDE, LOSER!

BIT.TRIP original series

>Life is fucking beautiful

Why are there so many games that want you to stop playing games?

>>15307188

>It doesn't hold a coherent political stance any more than something like Zack McCracken.

the game itself doesn't but the characters do, just like in reality. What you're seeing is a dystopia, one with powerful technology and how this effects those in the slums, those who are pretty much on high, and a lot of the people in between, government bureaucrats and spooks. In reality there is probably no right answer, no universal guiding truth or principles just a bunch of people espousing theories and reacting to the circumstances their given.

If Deus Ex does have a singular message, with I'm not 100% sure of, it's probably that in the face of a catastrophe, humans are still going to focused on argumentative and violent squabbles to try to be marginally better than their competitors and not work co-operatively for the good of the race.

>>15304209

>proven (((science)))

>>15307224

>the game itself doesn't but the characters do

That's simply good writing, something EVERY story should do.

>If Deus Ex does have a singular message, with I'm not 100% sure of

In line with its very slightly libertarian nature, it's probably that human individuals are inherently unfit to hold absolute, unquestioned power. The major question hanging off the ending and sequels seems like whether something greater than human would ever be worthy of such responsibility.

>>15307188 (Heil'd)

All your opinions a shit.

>Deus Ex doesn't have a message

Like >>15307224 alluded to, the reason the game has a ton of different conspiracy theories and contradicts itself is because the conspiracy theories are coming from people who have their own ideologies. There are many factions within the world and they each have their own beliefs for example: the illuminati AI is going to exude the illuminati's base beliefs and push those messages onto you. Paul, the different triads, UNATCO, Silhouette, Savage's people, Bob Page, Walton Simons, etc. all have their own angles and observations about the world, much like real life. The message of the game is to find your own way.

>Not every game has a message

That isn't true, as long as they're developed by human beings every game will have a message. Everything IS political, whether it's initially designed to be or not. A writer, artist, or developer has an outlook on life and at some point their outlook will pour through in their works.

>"Global Warming" meme

I think you mean "Climate Change" your ilk stopped using that term when they got called out for their bullshit they did in the 80's with "Global Cooling". It's all a gimmick, even if it wasn't think about what you're saying: you want us to drop everything we're doing right now and devote large amounts of time and money to transition to fossil fuel alternatives that don't have ANYWHERE NEAR the effectiveness of fossil fuels. It takes around 30-50 square miles for wind farms to be able to power a sizeable amount of land, that's ASSUMING the wind remains constant (it doesn't) and the returns don't diminish (they do). That's 30-50 square miles that could be used to actually do something productive, don't even get me started on solar, but no people like you have their heads so far up their ass trying to change something that doesn't matter because at the end of the day we aren't even the primary source of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, and 90% of the countries on that list won't even do shit to control their emissions. Based on that knowledge: what the fuck does it matter in the end? The only current real alternative to fossil fuels is hydro power, but you get activists who "don't wanna mess with the migrating patterns of the salmon, boohoo." I'm all for pursuing new technology, but don't be a dumbfuck and ask the rest of the world to stop what it's doing and immediately lose 90% of it's production power by switching to some braindead stupid alternative.

>>15306412

>which is what the devs want you to think.

They want you to create like an autist theories of what actually happened to make the game look deeper than it is.

>>15306419

>Fact: Co2 mixes with seawater to form acid and lower ocean PH

And you tested an entire ocean how exactly?

>>15307462

Scientists:

>CO2 acidizes with water in a lab environment

>therefore it is like 9 sigma certain that same happens to oceans

You:

<wtf you didn't test that you don't know that wtf global warming is hoax reeeeee

>>15306302

>Now kindly fuck off back to reddit.

I'm ready for Ice Age chan.

>>15303457

>he shills for climate change

>"lol why are u calling any game u dont like communist goy"

fuck off kike

>>15307548

>he doesn't know nazis cared about environment

>he thinks only kikes care about environment

>>15306419

>Fact: CO2 levels are rising. There is no denying this at all.

Prove this matters

>Fact: Co2 mixes with seawater to form carbonic acid and lower ocean PH

If you drop a quarter from the Empire State Building it will go straight through a person standing under it and make an impression on the concrete. (Prove it matters)

>Fact: the mass of the greenland ice sheet is getting smaller

Fact: The mass of the ice sheets in Antarctica are growing: https://archive.is/05fht

NEWSFLASH

The climate on the Earth changes! Fossil records show CO2 levels have been this high before humans even existed and it was cooler at that time than it is now. Which means A. CO2 isn't the source of the heat, and B. Climate change isn't man made. https://archive.is/NBLbA

>>15307558

You do realize that growing mass of antarctic is a bad thing right? Ice is less dense than water, if it weighs more then it means that it's melting internally.

>>15307490

>Some Scientists:

>>CO2 acidizes with water in a lab environment

>>therefore it is like 9 sigma certain that same happens to oceans

>Some other Scientists

>We are unable to recreate this experiment with the same results

>Please provide more data

>First set of Scientists

>Oh well look at these stats instead

>You:

><The Scientists paid to find something found something the rest investigating did not. Sounds like a scam.

>>15307558

To add: it's interesting that all the monitoring stations for CO2 levels, or at least the ones that are always referenced by "climate scientists", happen to be on top of or right next to active or recently active volcanoes.

>>15307552

>caring about environment = shilling for climate change

brainlet

>>15307490

>in a lab environment

>the entire ocean is just a big lab

PSSST… Hey kids… Want to buy some science?

>>15307564

>He thinks something can cause ice to melt internally before melting on the outside

Explain the physics of that please.

If what you say is true then his point about Greenland is baseless as well. My original point still stands that even though mass is decreasing in one area, it's increasing in another meaning the earth climate is simply changing as it has since it first formed.

>>15307597

>But muh cult is right

>>15307615

I like how you completely ignored my point about everything being political and just threw a meme at me in rebuttal.

>Who cares? If it became an issue, we could just issue an ultimatum to switch to sustainables or fuck off tariff'd, and they couldn't do shit about it, since their fake economies are entirely dependent on ours. Plus the little fact that if we stopped using fossil fuel equipment and infrastructure in favor of equipment and infrastructure for sustainables, they would be forced to follow in our lead due to simple economies of scale.

I read that as "Let's just start World War III!"

>>15307624

>I like how you completely ignored my point about everything being political and just threw a meme at me in rebuttal.

My point is that not everything IS political. Even with a highly charitable reading of your position, most things (especially in vidya. I mean, really!?) that happen to have an incidental message of some kind, don't actually have any authorial intent behind that, instead merely being innocuous cultural osmosis from the dominant zeitgeist, filtered through the author's careless hands. Analyzing that kind of memetic junk DNA is masturbatory at best, fraudulent at worst.

>I read that as "Let's just start World War III!"

World wars can't happen, atomic age, y'know. Plus the great military powers have all been on the same side for decades, with the closest things to an exception being the offshoring client state whoredom of China, and the tottering smaller-GDP-than-Italy-and-smaller-military-budget-than-India petrostate of Russia.

>>15302983

But global warming doesn't real, if you say it is you're a commie.

ITT: pretentious trash

Go watch a movie.

>>15307597

>brainlet wojak meme

Who would have guessed greenfag is from cuckchan?

>>15306424

REMOVE USTIO. REMOVE USTIO.

>>15307669

Most games can have some form of politics read into them, obviously with various forms of mental gymnastics. Obviously there is very little "politics" in sports games, but games like Bioshock, nuDeus Ex, Mafia III, Watch_Dogs 2, Asscreed Oranges, and BattleTech have politics in them there is no denying it. The purpose of these political messages in games is to push a narrative and to normalize a viewpoint.

>>15307558

>If you drop a quarter from the Empire State Building it will go straight through a person standing under it and make an impression on the concrete. (Prove it matters)

This is not a fact. You don't even know about terminal velocity. This further shows how scientifically ignorant you are. Any high-school student knows this, which means you aren't in any position to interpret science.

>>15307558

>>15307731

>Of course you have 'models' like pic related that extrapolate too far into the future with too many assumptions,

This is the trick. The Earth has proven extremely resilient against the worst effects presented by doomsayers, and a lot of the warnings presented during the global warming push never came to fruition. But there's obviously changes going on, just at a much slower rate.

>climate change

>commie propaganda

>implying those two are not mutually exclusive

>>15307835

I agree with you. The main reason many oceanographers predict larger climate change and ocean acidification than what has been observed is due to the potential for the climate system to experience positive feedback loops that could potentially accelerate change exponentially, not because they're all commies who want to brainwash western civilization into becoming less advanced. It's the media, governmental organizations, universities, and some select few scientists who intentionally exaggerate real science to cause a public scare, and get people to support Marxism. There are even a few faculty in my department who do that. But the vast majority of us are just studying the ocean without a political agenda.

>>15307835

>The Earth has proven extremely resilient against the worst effects presented by doomsayers

Nobody is worried about the Earth being destroyed. They're worried about many places becoming uninhabitable, and resource wars, as well as extinction of many species. I'm sure the Earth will be fine even if we nuke ourselves out of existence, but again, nobody is worried about the Earth.

>>15307669

>My point is that not everything IS political.

Your point is objectively wrong.

>>15307731

Educate yourself. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Ocean

>>15307787

>Targets a single sentence in my post.

>Links science video from some bloviating entitled nobody.

>Doesn't disprove anything I said.

>>15307884

>Educate yourself. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Ocean

>my source is a blog ran by non-scientists

Physician, heal thyself.

>>15307892

>>Targets a single sentence in my post.

A single sentence that shows fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic of physics.

>>Links science video from some bloviating entitled nobody.

That man is Peter Hadfield, a trained geologist, and science reporter that wrote for New Scientist for 14 years. I trust his interpretation of facts more than someone who does not even know high-school level physics.

>>Doesn't disprove anything I said.

That's not how this works, and anyway the video provides rebuttals to every unsubstantiated, idiotic statement in your post.

>>15307884

Some of those papers aren't even supporting what you're claiming. In one of them they survey a broad range of calcifiers (including fucking crustaceans and worms) and conclude that 10 out of the 18 species studied experienced reduced calcification and some experienced dissolution. In the abstract. Also, I never claimed that a mass extinction in the ocean will happen due to slight acidification; natural selection still applies and obviously the ocean will not become any more of a desert than it already is, except for potentially coral reefs which are very sensitive to pH, even within 0.1 or fewer units and could become an extinct biome in the future. Other papers in that section are claiming that increased temperature and pH have beneficial effects to some organisms, which has never been disputed.

The only claim I made was that the ocean overall is getting slightly more acidic due to increasing pCO2 in the atmosphere, which every paper you linked agrees with, and that this phenomenon is much more severe in eutrophic coastal areas that are heavily influenced by humans (primarily due to pollution and nitrogen input to estuaries, which is only peripherally linked to CO2 emissions). No mass extinction will take place but some organisms of high economic value to us (clams, scallops, oysters) are already being affected, though not in a severe enough fashion to claim that they will be extinct within the next 100 years. You're refuting the kike exaggeration of the phenomenon used to guilt people into voting for communists, not the actual scientific body of work which the papers you linked are part of.

Alarmism is a huge problem in this field and I understand how that decreases public trust in science, and in a lot of ways modern science has earned that low trust and needs to redeem itself. But to claim that oceanography is a sham science like psychology or sociology is ridiculous and insulting.

>>15307946

>in a lot of ways modern science has earned that low trust and needs to redeem itself.

To be fair, that isn't the fault of the scientists, but of the media and other organizations with an agenda.

>>15307956

No, some scientists are definitely to blame. Many are irredeemably but passively leftist because they never bothered to think about anything beyond 'their field' and prestige in publishing papers. And some actually do have an agenda and push it through research that seriously pushes the boundaries of research misconduct.

>>15307597

>he doesn't know what buffers are

>he doesn't know that the mineral salts in sea water is a literal buffer with a large capacity for buffering

>he doesn't know that marine life when kept in captivity can live in a range of PH so the very slight swing won't even happen due to volume and buffering won't be a catastrophe like people make it out to be

>>15304379

>boxed release of (((enhanced))) PST with full polish dub

i feel sick, but it could be at least fun to listen to

>>15307989

>I'm not going to sit through that entire video

The video is shorter than giving an impromptu science lesson to an ignoramus like you, who likely won't even bother to read it.

>What is a peer review

Exactly, what is peer review. Something you've clearly not heard of, since the scientific literature of reputable scientific journals does not agree with you.

>You have to suck professor Schlomo Sheckelstein's circumcised cock for 8 years straight to be able to be able to practice science.

No, but you do have to sit through actual science lectures so that you can understand shit. you didn't bother doing this, and that's why those of us that did think you are stupid and ignorant.

>it's nothing but an exercise in nepotism and facebook memes at this point.

>he says as he posts an image macro

Serious science is unknown to you because you didn't bother going to school. That's the sad reality.

>>15308160

>Cliff Harris

Wow, sure is reputable up in here, and not at all retarded. By the way, real scientists don't put "climatologist" attached to their names to make them more reputable. Cliff Harris has no published work on the subject. Kill yourself.

>>15308085

>>he doesn't know what buffers are

Apparently neither do you. Buffers don't negate the change in equilibrium due to stress from added CO2 for increasingly large quantities of CO2. And nobody is claiming a "catastrophe" in the scientific literature. This is a strawman. As for marine life, those relying on calcium do not bode so well in such changed environments. This is also a strawman.

>>15308205

Nigger buffers keep the PH equilibrium within range and helps balance out added acidity. That's literally what a buffer is. There's so much of it and a large volume of that can handle large quantities of CO2. "It won't bold well for out coral reefs omg we need to stop" "Whoa it's not a catastrophe or anything"

>>15308167

Thanks for proving me right you pretentious blowhard. I watched your shitty kiketube video and I was right, you didn't disprove all of my points. The guy in the video completely ignores the fact that CO2 was as high in the past (without the human factor) as it is now (with the human factor). If climate change is man made how can that be? Are you postulating that we somehow control the power of the sun as well?

>You have to sit through lectures to understand what Professor Schlomo Shceckelstein thinks he knows about science

Thanks for repeating what I typed for me.

>Trying to measure academic dick size on an anonymous Tibetan macrame board.

I doubt you have my credentials, kid. I would be genuinely surprised if you have anything more than a Bachelors degree.

>>15308177

>""""REAL"""" scientists don't put "climatologist" next to their names.

>The fag in the video you linked me did it multiple times throughout his gay ass video

>Cliff Harris hasn't published anything before on the subject so he can't possibly have any real experience!

>I won't bother debating any of his observations though!

Literally fellate a shotgun, pull the trigger, and blow your brains out all over your room, faggot.

>>15308204

>CO2 concentration increasing = Bad thing

Unless it gets to China-tier insane bullshit with smog and acid rain it's not a problem

>>15308284

>I'm too fucking stupid to look up filenames that are obviously from Wikipedia, since nowhere else uses svg

>>15308205

>>15308261

And it's not like the CO2 doesn't get used up in the ocean either idiot. Plants and algae use it up feeds the fish.

>>15308297

>Wikipedia

>no political bias whatsoever

>>15308295

The point isn't to graph CO2, you colossal brainlet, they're attempts to reconstruct historical temperature air temperature.

>>15308311

>now

>technically

>>15308311

>what was cool two years ago is Reddit today

I can't tell if this is bait or a newfag trying way too hard to fit in

>>15308311

All that matters is where something started, hydeposting was not started on reddit.

>>15308322

>At the present time

>According to the "Facts"

>>15308331

>Getting bent out of shape over a reaction image

>The absolute state of summer

>>15308331

You're RIGHT things do get played out and old... that doesn't change where they come from. When all the oldfags "forget" where hydeposting comes from, you can claim it comes from reddit and no one will be able to second guess you. Until then, hydeposting is not a reddit meme.

>>15308331

>It's two years old, therefore it fits my arbitrary definition of Reddit

<I think you're full of shit mister

>Thinks can get old and stale, therefore that meme is old and stale

Have you ever thought of not visiting this site anymore?

>>15308349

>No argument

>"No, you're the outsider!!"

>>15306387

Don't use welfare English like some retard, anon.

>>15308393

>"He is clearly trying to derail a thread based on a post from 19 hours ago"

>Admitting to being completely insane

>>15307558

>If you drop a quarter from the Empire State Building it will go straight through a person standing under it and make an impression on the concrete

No it fucking wont. Ever heard of terminal velocity?

>>15307558

>The climate changes

Yeah and people die so that means you shouldn't worry that Muslims are blowing themselves up in your country because death is natural.

>>15308085

>Buffer

Buffers have a capacity point and if you look at the Ocean PH you would see it is clearly lowering.

>>15308160

>Random graph with no source

>>15308305

>peer-reviewed scientific data

>the same as their dumb gamergate article

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png#Data_sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg#Data_sources

Knock yourself out, champ.

>>15308498

That's surface PH and only a slight shift which is to be expected with increases in temperature. Lower PH actually increases photosynthetic activity which means more Algae and Phytoplankton which ultimately means more food for the fishes.

>>15308085

>Marine life can live in a range of PH

No they can't

>>15308535

>Increase in temprature

It's caused by carbonic acid build up. Stop talking out of your ass.

>Lower PH actually increases photosnythetic activity

Source. Even if that were true many animals in the ocean can't handle changes in PH so it doesn't matter if photosynthesis increases.

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

>>15308535

>lower ph actually increases photosynthesis in algae

This is simply not true. Though the theory is correct photosynthesis and plant physiology are extremely complex systems. Lowered pH has been shown unequivocally to benefit some marine photosynthesizers, most notably seagrass, but others such as macroalgae (multicellular protistan photosynthesizers aka seaweed) and phytoplankton vary hugely in their responses from species to species, and many do poorly or experience no change whatsoever. Increasing sea surface temperature is the main issue for phytoplankton in the open ocean, not acidification, as faster heating will cause greater stratification of the upper ocean and produce a shallower surface mixed layer; this is important because virtually all nutrients (N, P, Fe) large eukaryotic phytoplankton need to grow are supplied from mixing with the deeper ocean. This could result in a shift towards nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria and tiny picocyanobacteria that require almost no nutrients comparatively becoming even more prominent among primary producers. Altering the size structure of planktonic communities like that chamges the entire food web and ultimately reduces energy available to higher trophic levels exponentially.

>>15308562

>No they can't

Yes they can even coral can be kept in PH as low as 7.8

>It's caused by carbonic acid build up. Stop talking out of your ass.

And also by heat http://www.biochemj.org/content/39/3/245

In oceans CO2 gets stored in the deep layers as the water flows from high biological activity until it's released through upwells.

>>15308603

>This specific animal can so that means all can

Are you a jew or just pretending to be?

I love how the kike argument went from

>Climate change isn't real

to

>Climate change is a good thing goy, let's fuck up the environment, it's a good thing

>>15308574

>cyanobacteria and tiny picocyanobacteria

And those are predated by species of zooplankton which are then consumed by fish.

>>15308621

Coral is widely regarded as the most difficult species to keep in an aquarium and highly sensitive to changes in water parameters.

>>15308631

Doesn't matter. Many studies show other organisms can't handle the change in PH.

Stop justifying Jewing the earth kike.

>>15303437

>Chernobyl was a steam explosion.

Actually, it was a full-scale meltdown and the reactor came down with a bad case of China-syndrome. Look up the "Elephants Foot".

>>15308603

>In oceans CO2 gets stored in the deep layers as the water flows from high biological activity

A fraction of it does. The majority of carbon fixed by photosynthesis in the open ocean remains in the surface layer essentially in contact with the atmosphere. In order to be retained in the deep ocean as part of the total dissolved inorganic carbon for timescales of 100-1000 years, it needs to sink as particulate organic matter below 2000m. Some phytoplankton like cyanobacteria will just never sink after senescence because their cell parts are so tiny as to be neutrally buoyant in seawater, and other small phytoplankton (and zooplankton) like nanoflagellates, heterotrophic flagellates, cilliates, etc. (basically any small protist) will meet a similar fate - their remains metabolized by heterotrophic bacteria with the nutrients from amino acids and nucleic acids released back into the water as inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous, while the carbon is released back out as CO2. In fact the transfer efficiency of photosynthetically fixed carbon from the euphotic zone to even 1000m in depth is lower than 5% in the majority of the world's ocean - it is primarily this low in open ocean gyres, especially subtropical anticyclonic gyres, which are the most nutrient poor regions and therefore dominated by picocyanobacteria and other very small phytoplankton. There are regions that have higher transfer efficiency - these are typically highly seasonal temperate regions that are part of subpolar cyclonic gyres, which experience enormous spring phytoplankton blooms made of diatoms and/or coccolithophores. Diatoms are huge and have cell walls made of biogenic opal, which ballasts their large cell parts even further; coccolithophores have CaCO3 shells which sink them three times as fast as diatoms. Furthermore most diatoms produce extracellular transparent polymers which stick them together, enhancing sinking. But even in these regions you will not see a transfer efficiency to 1000m greater than maybe 25%.

>>15308631

>And those are predated by species of zooplankton which are then consumed by fish.

They are too small to be eaten directly by mesozooplankton like copepods or salps. They are consumed by cilliates and heterotrophic flagellates, which are then consumed by either other larger microbes or smaller mesozooplankton. There are 2 problems with adding extra links to the microbial food web in the plankton:

1. Energy transfer efficiency between trophic levels is low, a rule of thumb is only 10% of the energy gets transferred. If you add an extra 1-2 links in the microbial arena, that's exponentially less energy going even to the mesozooplankton, not to mention fish.

2. More microbial levels in the food web give the energy transfer structure much less resilience against viruses. Viruses are the most abundant biological entity in the ocean BY FAR and most marine viruses are lytic, meaning they lyse the host (typically within 24 hours) and release all cell contents to the surrounding water. Guess what can eat all that fresh dissolved organic matter? It's heterotrophic bacteria. Add in parasitoid eukaryotes, which are extremely common as well and have a similar effect, and you have microbes being predated by smaller microbes or viruses, and cycling the energy in what is known as the 'microbial loop' indefinitely.

>>15308648

Such as? Most fish an inverts can handle a PH swing of 1 throughout the day which is considered to be natural in many aquatic ecosystems especially tropical ones. Some species will only breed at lower PH too. And if the waters aren't right the fish will migrate as they do to breed.

>>15303437

>>15303663

>>15304209

>>15304290

>>15304718

>>15305181

>>15305670

>>15306302

>>15306334

>>15306422

>>15306431

>>15306448

>>15307105

>>15307276

>>15307420

>>15307462

>>15307490

>>15307528

>>15307548

>>15307552

>>15307558

>>15307564

>>15307565

>>15307567

>>15307570

>>15307583

>>15307595

>>15307597

>>15307623

>>15307683

>>15307731

>>15307776

>>15307835

>>15307859

>>15307874

>>15307892

>>15307946

>>15307964

>>15307989

>>15308085

>>15308167

>>15308177

>>15308261

>>15308290

>>15308295

>>15308299

>>15308477

>>15308498

>>15308535

>>15308562

>>15308574

>>15308603

>>15308621

>>15308631

>>15308648

>>15308657

>>15308661

>>15308669

Much of this is actually pretty interesting, but when you're talking about something off-topic for the board, let alone the thread, please remember to

SAGE FAGGOT

A

G

E

F

A

G

G

O

T

>>15308685

>implying marine biology isn't /v/ culture

>>15308669

Look at the source posted above. Or

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/150203-Ocean-Acid.html

>>15308661

There are downward and upward currents. Bouyancy is only one factor when water currents are involved. And as they decompose they are consumed by bacteria which are in tun consumed by larger and large organisms so they're not wasted.

Fast breeding species can develop immensities to viruses in short spans of time due to natural selection.

>>15308700

>lists coral and inverts which can live in a PH of 7.8 like I said.

Okay.

>>15308722

>This one species can survive this certain range so I will ignore everything else

You may in fact be retarded

>>15308747

Then list some species that can't

>>15308755

Maybe read the sources posted anon.

>>15308761

It lists coral and invertebrates from a quick skim.

>>15308722

There are not any 'currents' that go directly down or up in the ocean - currents are almost entirely horizontal movement as they are driven only by wind. In a few places on the planet, namely the North Atlantic by the Labrador Sea and the coast of Antarctica, there is deep convection or some other way (brine rejection from sea ice formation increases the density of water, a lot; sea ice is constantly blown away from the coast of antarctica and is constantly forming, so there is constant brine rejection) of surface water naturally sinking to the very bottom of the ocean, but this is exceedingly rare and does not typically coincide with regions of heavy primary production. Actual z-axis mixing of water masses in the ocean is only done by wave action, which doesn't reach the deep ocean, or diffusion, which is extremely slow, so slow compared to horizontal movement due to currents that it is negligible when considering the movement of particles in the ocean i.e. dead cells. Gravity, and some biological activity (many zooplankton live in the mesopelagic and migrate up to feed on phytoplankton during the night, then take that organic matter back down to depth) are the only two real factors when considering sinking of carbon.

You are right that the matter gets decomposed by bacteria, but some of that is not incorporated by the bacteria and is released as waste, which as mentioned earlier is either inorganic nutrients (N, P, micronutrients) or inorganic C, which is essentially carbon dioxide. If it's deep enough in the ocean when this happens the inorganic C will not contact the atmosphere, but imagine how many cycles of decomposition organic matter goes through as it sinks. The C content attenuates with depth and only a fraction of particles hit the bottom, unless they are very large to start with or ballasted with biogenic minerals (CaCO3, silicate). But yeah, the material that is incorporated into the falling marine snow by bacteria and higher links in the food web is the only source of energy that deep ocean ecosystems get, so not wasted. The point I was trying to make is that the C that is metabolized as waste and released as inorganic C can only stay in the deep ocean for timescales that matter if the original particulate organic matter sinks to a certain depth before it's eaten by bacteria, and most if it doesn't.

>>15308770

What is downswelling?

>but this is exceedingly rare and does not typically coincide with regions of heavy primary production

The coastlines, regions of heavy primary production, either downswell or upswell depending on the directions of waves relative to the ocean's spin.

> But yeah, the material that is incorporated into the falling marine snow by bacteria and higher links in the food web is the only source of energy that deep ocean ecosystems get, so not wasted. The point I was trying to make is that the C that is metabolized as waste and released as inorganic C can only stay in the deep ocean for timescales that matter if the original particulate organic matter sinks to a certain depth before it's eaten by bacteria, and most if it doesn't.

It gets incorporated into the biomass of species living above the deep ocean too

>>15307989

>that quote

Tell me he didn't actually fucking say that.

>>15303061

>>15308803

Downwelling and upwelling do occur on coastlines, that's true, but even though coastlines are hotspots of primary productivity the vast majority of the ocean is not coastline, and most total primary production in the ocean takes places in the open ocean just due to how big it is. There is certainly a lot of carbon burial on coastlines and not only due to downwelling; nutrient input from rivers and runoff is much higher promoting much more phytoplankton growth and bigger sinking particles. Also, the mechanism of downwelling and upwelling is not -directly- the movement of water vertically, the vertical movement of water is in response to the horizontal movement of another mass of water. In the northern hemisphere the very surface layer of the water is deflected 90 degrees to the right of the wind; this means that along the coast of california when you get southward winds, the surface layer moves directly westward out towards the pacific ocean, causing the upwelling of deep waters. It's more complex on east coasts of continents because of the phenomenon of the intense western boundary current (caused by some physics I don't really understand, I'm a phytoplankton ecologist for christ's sake), but the same southward wind along an east coast would cause surface water to move directly towards the shore and be forcibly downwelled.

Other upwelling and downwelling occurs at the center of ocean gyres depending on the orientation of the gyres, but the phenomenon is based completely on the coriolis effect and the fact that surface water will move 90 degrees to the right of the wind in the northern hemisphere. So a northern hemisphere cyclonic gyre, like the subpolar gyres I mentioned in an earlier post, will be spinning counterclockwise, meaning that all flow of surface water is actually directed away from the center of the gyre. This causes the surface layer of the gyre to progressively 'flatten' as it approaches the center, forcing upwelling from deeper, nutrient rich water. Anticyclonic gyres, which are larger due to their position in subtropical zones, have the opposite effect, with the center of the gyre bulging downwards causing downwelling, but also starving the region of essential nutrients for phytoplankton (mostly N). The effect here is that even though there is slight downwelling in the subtropical gyres (though it is negligible compared to current based transport) there is comparatively little primary production.

>It gets incorporated into the biomass of species living above the deep ocean too

It does, but the abundance of large pelagic species that live in the upper ocean is very small compared to the total biomass of plankton. Eventually the corpses of those large animals will sink as well, and much much quicker. I've never seen this factor incorporated into calculations of transfer efficiency with respect to burial of carbon in the deep ocean, but it definitely could be significant. If you are interested in reading more about the topic by the way the term for the phenomenon is 'biological pump.'

>>15308861

You're supposed to sign it "Black Science Man"

>>15308769

Ok now read the rest of it. Sound out the words.

>>15308851

>Corals and inverts and then the slippery slope of it affecting all lives because of corals and inverts being affected. Not because of the PH itself

Why not just list them instead of relying on an article? It couldn't be that you can't think of any.

>>15308851

Yep whatever's brought down is eventually dissolved into nutrients and then brought back up through upswells and fed to the auto and phototrophs.

>It does, but the abundance of large pelagic species that live in the upper ocean is very small compared to the total biomass of plankton.

Of course it wouldn't be. Most biomass consumed by larger species is converted to waste which is in turn used by microorganisms which eventually become food again for the larger species.

>>15309194

I've been thinking about this as well because I've always wanted a "game where you can do anything and your actions affects the NPCs". Imagine something like Morrowind/Dwarf Fortress/Minecraft. After playing a lot of Elona+, a roguelike is probably the best combination of solo/party and simulation/wacky shit

Most games I've seen just roll a weighted dice to determine what weather effects happen, 15% cloudy, for example. I've thought of having a rolling sin() wave for each granularity of time and space. For example, you'd have a curve for each year, each month, each week, and each day. Combine them and you basically have a predictable noise function for both short and long term. Then, you just modify the curve with game mechanics, and there you go. Since it's a generic function, you can have it propagate based on different factors like humidity etc

>>15309194

Few games simulate ecosystems at all: it stands to reason that climates are even rarer. When was the last time you witnessed a game with a dynamic food chain?

>>15308502

>Accepts "peer-reviewed" article on (((wikipedia)))

>Won't accept "peer-reviewed" article on site disproving him because the website isn't OWNED by ((("scientists")))

This hypocrisy, and the fact their "solutions" to the problem involve us giving up 90% of our production capacity while our neighbors refuse to do so, is the reason I know they're full of shit and only in it for socio-political means.

>>15308815

Apparently it was originally said by (((Carl Sagan))) when he was trying to give an example of how many stars there are in the universe, which makes it even more hilarious tbh.

sage for off topic, and double post

>>15308685

>he doesnt know that /marine/ was the first board made in 8chan after the first exodus

>>15309168

Meant for >>15309046

>>15309532

>Apparently it was originally said by (((Carl Sagan))) when he was trying to give an example of how many stars there are in the universe, which makes it even more hilarious tbh.

Nice use of niggerspeak while also being full of shit.

>>15309168

>List source

>Oh man I am too dumb to read the source

>This is somehow everyone elses fault

Many invertebrates can't handle the changes in PH or the change in temp

>>15309168

>>15309668

To double post the other source that was listed shows the issues it has for shell growth and reproduction for many animals as well. Do you honestly think changing the PH of the environment, something every animal is sensitive to to some degree wont cause problems?

>>15309668

List them then.

>>15309676

Depending on the PH. Not to the degree where they die off. I've raised marine shrimp in PH lower than 7.5. Freshwater shrimp breed well and have the best color in slightly acidic waters.

What matters more is total dissolved minerals like calcium which can and do buffer the PH which is why ocean water PH is so high and will remain high.

>>15309679

Nigger, you seriously can't read?

Ok fine.

>Inhibits shell growth in many invertebrate animals

>Causes reproductive issues in many fish

It also references this study http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/ocean_acid/Kroeker%20et%20al%202010.pdf Which goes into more detail. Why am I doing this for you?

>>15307276

>Anon literally tells you a proven known fact that you can try yourself at home

>NO IT'S A CONSPIRACY

Qanon really fucked this place up didn't he? Why do you trust kike politicians over actual provable science?

>>15309700

>meta analysis

>fit our criteria

Literally garbage.

>>15309710

>Meta analysis

>Bad

Explain. It literally uses multiple studies showing the effects of PH. You really are grasping to defend the kikes aren't you anon? Lower your blood PH by .2 and see what happens faggot if you seriously can't accept PH changing things.

>>15309717

In extreme hypothetical scenarios which won't happened as I explains and they're also free to ignore studies that contradict. Same shit is pulled all the time in the climate sciences.

>>15309717

>>15309734

> However, many studies do not report the values for all of the carbonate chemistry parameters, and it is difficult to standardize comparisons across all of the carbonate

chemistry parameters. Therefore, we chose to standardize the study by unit change in pH, and noted the method of manipulation (altered DIC

⁄constant TA or constant

DIC/altered TA)

Lmao

>>15306302

>Washington Post tagline: Democracy dies in Darkness

>Site is behind a paywall

>>15309734

>>15309734

>These studies don't count because I disagree with them

>I will just keep saying it wont happen over and over

>A study taking out specific events that don't have useful data means it's lies

You really are a retard. Congrats.

>>15309958

Yeah take the studies on PH that ignore alkalinity seriously.

>>15309961

You keep spouting that the ocean will buffer the PH with literally no evidence that contradicts observation. Congrats, you are a retard and a kike.

>>15309961

>What is buffer capacity

You realize buffers weaken over time not strengthen right? A change in pH early with a buffer signals a greater change down the road.

>>15309980

That's most likely due to heat. Alkalinity in this discussion has more to do with dissolved Magnesium and Calcium which are important for the survival of coal and inverts. A common practice in keeping low PH saltwater and marine aquariums is to increase the alkalinity through calcium and magnesium. They didn't list those concentrations or ignored them for ph. The bicarbonates which are what's measured as alkalinity is the form of carbon that corals take up to build their shells from calcium.

They didn't even list the specific methodology for each experiment (adding co2 or acid straight up). For all we know they could have died of PH shock (which happens going from low to high PH too)

>>15307776

>what is sarcasm for $50

>>15310013

*increase alkalinity though calcium carbonate

>>15310032

Oh…. I see why you're all here discussing this instead of on /sci/ … I'm sorry anons…

>>15309532

>>15308815

Sagn's quote is that there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all of the beaches of this planet. Which is true.

>>15310085

Yea I concede my rused status.

permaban everyone above this post

>>15310013

I never thought I would see a kike trying this hard to argue that making water acidic wont hurt animals. You are reaching hard anon. What these studies are trying to do is each show how Ph alone affects organisms. That is all that is trying to be observed.

>>15310237

Whilst ignoring alkalinity which is what the corals and invertebrates studied rely on.

>>15310241

Lol no. You don't understand basic scientific research. Each wanted to see how pH affected organisms as the lone factor. You may scream about how buffers might change things but all that matters is how a target pH will affect specific organisms. I am honestly amazed at your kikery right now. You are literally trying to argue that changing the pH of the ocean wont hurt animals. Scream about buffers all you want but as >>15309980 explained they have a fucking capacity so given that we are already seeing pH change now things can only get worse.

>>15308535

>More photosynthesis = better

Even if what you said is true that isn't true at all. Ever hear of Algal blooms? Are you the same retard a few months ago saying global warming was good because it Europe wouldn't be so cold?

>>15310253

Yeah a buffering capacity of 420ppm and alkalinity = 2.5 meq/L (7 dKH) over the vast volume of water will be overcome by breathable air and all the corals will die.

I'm arguing that the ocean had a huge buffering capacity that won't be overcome in likely scenarios and if it will the species that are listed to be affected, the corals and invertebrates, are shown to be able to live in PH as low as 7.8. For a person who is so concerned about fish you display an even lower mental capacity than a goldfish.

>>15310270

Algal blooms have been shown to occur due to nutrient runoff or naturally due to nutrient accumulation from coastal upwelling which means nutrients are the limited factor, retard.

>>15302983

OP, I want congratulate you on making a thought provoking thread. I can't come up with one aside from the Deus Ex series. Perhaps Metro 2033 as well.

>>15310324

>Anon gives an example of how more Photosynthesis doesn't = good

>Can't see the point

Also you seem to not understand how a buffer works. Even with a buffer pH changes. Oceans today are about 25% more acidic than they were 100 years ago. Even if you are right and the buffer holds forever we will see a continual increase of acidity at (at best) a constant rate and as posted multiple animals cannot handle changes of pH very well

>B-But some of them can!

Also

>Anon gives an example of why more Photosynthesis doesn't = better

>Can't even comprehend it

>>15310339

You are just as stupid. You are upset that a single study looks at an individual thing instead of every aspect of a subject. You don't understand basic science and are likely a kike. The studies listed were trying to see how organisms handle specific pH.

>>15310363

Abe's Odessey had a message about industrial usage of animals and the environment.

>>15310324

>He thinks buffer capacity has to be overcome in order for pH to change

Take basic Chem there lad.

>>15310339

See above, even if you assume Capacity holds pH still changes.

>>15307896

>HURRRRRRRRRRRRR APPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAL TOOOOOOOOOO AUTHORITTTTTTTYYYYYYYYYY

1. Reported.

2. Reported.

3. Reported.

4. Every single link is a scientific document that has been peer reviewed. The website is an aggregate for said documents.

5. Thank you for admitting that global warming does not exist in any capacity, and that every single claim in any category made by every single person who claims that AGW exists has been completely disproven.

6. Reported.

>>15310461

My mistake; you made a genetic fallacy. The authority is there–they’re all scientists in their respective fields and they have all disproven every single last one of your claims–but your complaint was specifically with the aggregate website used to collect their papers, rather than with the papers themselves.

Because you’re too mentally defective to discuss the contents of the papers or their overall subject matter.

Because you’re a paid shill. Here. Of all places. Spamming your lies about global warming.

Because, for whatever reason, you are clinically insane.

>>15308205

Reminder that CO2 has doubled since the middle ages and the temperature has gone down. You have nothing in any field of study, as proven by my links.

>>15310443

Not significantly which that graph shown doesn't even demonstrate.

>>15310384

Also you seem to not understand how a buffer works. Even with a buffer pH changes. Oceans today are about 25% more acidic than they were 100 years ago. Even if you are right and the buffer holds forever we will see a continual increase of acidity at (at best) a constant rate and as posted multiple animals cannot handle changes of pH very well

Yeah and in the past 80000 years we've seen the PH swing from between 8,0 to 8.3 continuously

The CO2 gets used up through photosynthesis and stored as chemical energy so it's not continuously building up. It's being used up continuously. Photosynthesis is good that way. Nutrient surpluses is what causes algal blooms.

>>15310471

>not significantly

That's subjective. Ph can change as much as 1 whole unit or more before buffer capacity is overcome. That might be fine for some things but not others for example if your blood changed by that much you would be dead. Each buffer is different as so too what count as "significant".

>80000

Yes, 80,000 years is a long as time for animals to adapt and change. However 100 years is not. The ice age ended 12k years ago yet caused amazing shifts in life that can still be seen to this day.

>>15310471

>Temperature has gone down

No it hasn't. Average temp is much higher than it was during the Middle Ages.

>>15310384

>>15310443

Hasn't large scale death of animals been recorded naturally in bodies of water during migration periods due to algae formations affecting the acidity of water?

As an aside: How does animals dying en mass affect the climate of earth? Genuine curiosity

So with all this talk of buffers, is no one gonna bring up the common ion effect? Cause I'd like to know how many carbonate ions the ocean has.

>>15310512

>look up James McCanney

>go to his website

>one of the very first things you see is "BUY MY WATER FILTERS"

I'm not convinced.

>>15310506

It's the reverse. Change in climate causes Ocean acidity to increase (Ph lower) and causes ecosystem collapse. Though it being a loop animals dying en mass can change the climate but in ways that are too hard to really guess.

>>15310512

>This doesn't work on a planetary scale in free atmosphere because there's no strong borders

Are you pretending to be stupid? Do you think the Co2 will all just fly away to space? How do you think our Atmosphere stays on our planet without getting blown away by solar winds? Yes there is a fucking border anon and the biggest one is called gravity.

>>15310512

>Foolish

That is what I call believing Jews, politicians and water filter salesman instead of actual scientific evidence. You are a sheep thinking you are redpilled, it's quite sad. Do you even understand how stupid the stuff you said is? Are you the same anon who was trying to tell us Evolution was Jewish conspiracy?

>>15310363

Try mother 3, apparently its commie propaganda and it has frogs so its related to pepe somehow.

>>15310557

Yeah anon, I reposted it after catching a spelling error and forgetting to put my quote in greentext. You totally caught me anon, I am shamed.

>>15310565

I'm just ribbing you calm down/

>>15310566

Too late anon, your words convinced me to pull the trigger, this blood is on your hands.

>>15310502

>>15310494

Not significantly relative to the input of base/acid as shown in your diagram. Compare the region of under the bugger region to where the ph changes drastically from 4-12. You'd have to add a lot of acid to get from one end of the buffer region to the next. But thanks for proving my point by googling a random tutorial on buffers.

>>15310587

>not significantly relative to the input

Lol that doesn't fucking matter, we are talking about significant to living organisms which can be in the range of .1 of a unit. Your entire buffer argument means jack fucking shit. Ph is log based, you can double acidity without making a "retaliative" difference to the Ph. Again, take a basic Chem class.

>>15310540

The Co2 does evaporate into space though, it just take longer than it takes for it to be replenished, or that's the spiel I've heard from climate alarmists anyway.

>>15310621

All atmosphere evaporates into space but at a rate so low that it takes literally billions of years to matter. If that wasn't the case there wouldn't be any air for us to breath at all.

>>15310612

>Uses generic chart for buffers ignoring that each buffer or mix of buffers has different capacity

>"It doesn't matter when the chart proves me wrong:

>t-take a chem class

All species marine kept in captivity including coral.which everyone is making a fuss over are kept in are kept at a rank of 7.8 to 8.4 which is much more than .1 of a unit. 7.8 is the magic number where CaCO3 doesn't dissolve and that applies to coral since inverts can be kept lower.

You're thinking of a sudden shift of .1 of a unit which can inflict PH shock.

>>15310665

>All he can bring up are Coral reefs

>Not about the other organisms that have been mentioned that are affected by pH

Just stop anon, you are talking in circles and you don't understand Chemistry.

>>15310687

What the fuck is this bullshit you are spouting? You have yet to explain how a gas known to increase temperature wont actually increase temperature.

>>15310702

The lame ass meta study you mentioned only bring sup coral inverts and microorganisms that would be affected by decalcification and even concluded that they micro-organisms aren't affected that much bumbass

>>15310734

You didn't even read the STUDIES I posted did you? They include fish, many shelled creatures along with what you mentioned. Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>15310728

But the question is: why should we trust (have trusted) people like, (((Carl Sagan))), Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc. save for (((Carl Sagan))) they're all just glorified facebook memes. I'm just as qualified to talk about climate change as Bill Nye, you've seen the (factual) memes about Bill Nye being compared to random people who have more than a Bachelor's Degree who are objectively more qualified than Bill Nye. Yet he continues to be carted around to presser after presser touting climate change like the next Al Gore. He has a Bachelors degree in Biomechanical Engineering he has no room to talk about anything related to Climatology. His claim to fame is a children's television show in which he teaches babbies first science lessons, and yet he is carted out to bloviate and debate actual established climatologists that say he's full of shit. Neil Degrasse Tyson is basically Michio Kaku except it isn't that he is so intelligent that some of his points go over our heads, it's that half of what he says actually doesn't make any sense because he talks out of his ass 50% of the time. The only reason he's famous is because he's a low budget Morgan Freeman stand in for science shows. I wasn't alive during (((Carl Sagan)))'s hayday so I can't attest to his angst or his actual claim to fame, other than the show he did on television, so I won't talk about him. TL;DR "Science" of today seems like an exercise in nepotism in which only Hollywood, politician, or (((old money))) approved faces are given a spotlight, and their ideas cause the next batch of scientist who watched "Bill Nye's Babbies Introduction to Science" or "Science Nigger's Baked Space Exploration Show" go out into the scientific community bloviating what their "masters" told them to without actually understanding a god damn thing. See >>15306302

>>15310796

Because science is repeatable observations that can be verified. That's a lot more trustworthy than where ever you get your info from

>>15310802

Also science isn't a group of people which he seems to not understand.

>>15310802

So which is it? Original Bill Nye who says there are only two chromosome sets or Nu-Bill Nye who claims there is an entire spectrum? Also I like how you ignored the last sentence of my post, and apparently everything else in it, just to post your rebuttal. Thanks for proving my point.

>>15310769

Shelled creatures were invertebrates dumbass. Are you so retarded you don't know what an invertebrate is? The fish weren't affected much. It was the coral.

>>15310809

(((Modern Science))) IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE THOUGH. It's a CULT. I'm not some braindead sicophant who wants to burn all the books in the library. I want to hear from real scientists instead of being lectured to by a power clique that has been kept in power by nepotism alone.

>>15310826

Nice reading comprehension.

>>15310813

Not all invertebrates are shelled anon. You can't insult me for you being an idiot and not using the correct terms.

>The fish weren't affected so much

Higher pH causes reproductive issues in many fish. Read the sources.

>>15310812

Bill Nye isn't a scientist retard.

>>15310540

>Change in climate causes Ocean acidity to increase (Ph lower) and causes ecosystem collapse.

Ecosystem collapse is not an inherently bad thing unless we depend on the ecosystem for resources; it's happened all the time in history and trying to preserve the Earth as-is, as if that's what's ecologically 'right,' is fucking laughable. Natural selection will create new ecosystems after the collapse, it's happened tons of times, with 5 mass extinctions thrown in there. Fucking hell, photosynthetic life managed to survive the entire fucking planet being turned into Hoth, in fucking puddles underneath a mile of ice; I think life will survive whatever the fuck humans can do. We're way to arrogant about our own importance and the importance of the little fucking changes we're making to the climate.

If only more scientists still understood this and weren't pathetic 'muh nature is peaceful and right, humans are wrong' shit-for-brains. I would say letting women into science was a mistake but some of the best real ecologists have been women, and I've seen more pathetic men in this field (as grad students or undergrads) than women.

>>15310820

>Science

>Nepotism

Lol?

>Posts group of random people some of which aren't scientists

>Can't understand the difference between science and individual scientists

The other anon who doesn't understand buffers is one thing but you seriously can't be over the age of 14.

>>15310842

So why does he keep getting carted out as one to "debate" climate skeptics with actual credentials in the field of Climatology? Isn't there someone more qualified to debate the matter?

>>15310849

(((Modern Science))) != Science, (((Modern Science))) is quite literally a cult of personality.

>>15310854

>Ecosystem collapse is not an inherently bad thing unless we depend on the ecosystem for resources

Is this sarcasm? You know we do right? You may have a point 500 years from now when we are living on space ships or whatever but we kind of fucking need things to stay nice until then.

>>15310862

>Modern science is a cult

Here we go again. Anon, in actual science no one gives a shit about Bill Nye or black science man. The first isn't even a scientist. You are seriously the dumbest person in this entire thread without a doubt.

>>15310862

>Isn't there someone more qualified to debate the matter?

Yes. The real question is

>Isn't there someone more famous to debate the matter?

To which the answer is probably no. It's a sad fact, but star-power beats out actual credentials and knowledge.

>>15310862

>So why does he keep getting carted out as one to "debate" climate skeptics

I don't know and I don't care.

>Isn't there someone more qualified

The media doesn't give a shit about that. You are letting the media inform your beliefs on science.

>>15310867

Yes, we depend on some ecosystems, but it's not going to be the end of the world if we lose biodiversity here and there or an entire biome gets wiped out. Humans will adapt to any conditions. Hopefully some of the human trash that can't do that are permanently removed from the gene pool when (and if) the positive feedback loops start to kick in. I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes but I hope so.

>>15310824

Calcium and Magnesium in high alkalinity precipitates the shells the corals and inverts. They're both important. Calcium carbonate is naturally because because of all the dissolved limestone in the ocean. Magnesium has a similar effect but if too much of it occurs then the shells lose their affinity for calcium and you'll get developmental problems.

By themselves calcium and calsium will increase carbon's affinity for forming carbonate and bicarbonates to balance out the positive charges of the calcium and magnesium.

>>15310862

>He thinks climate "debates" have anything to do with actual science

Guess what, most scientists are actually doing science, not wasting time trying to educate retards like you. Bill Nye is an engineering teacher so he has the time to fuck around on tv. Do you have any idea how science is actually done? It's not a bunch of people on tv yelling at each other for views.

>>15310893

>it's not going to be the end of the world if an entire Biome gets wiped out

Are you being serious anon or just edgy?

>>15310877

The dumbest person here is you for not understanding that when I say "Modern Science" I mean the cult of personality that is Carl Sagan and literally anyone that knew him (Bill Nye, NDT), and anyone that knows them. It isn't science, it's a cult of personality. When it comes to REAL Science: whenever I look up debates or papers about climate change the alarmist point of views are always written by understudies and people who aren't actually qualified to talk about it (I was linked a video of a geologist of all things trying to prove how man made climate change is real), and all of the skeptic positions I see are from well established climatologists who have many years of experience and are actually "climate-ologists"

>>15310912

>Modern science

Is the same as older science. You have yet to explain how they have hurt science in any way considering Carl Sagan has done a lot of research himself and Bill Nye isn't a fucking scientist.

>Thinks random forum or media debates about climate change have anything to do with science

That anon is right, you are the dumbest person in this thread. At least the other anon is debating the facts, you don't even know what science is.

>>15310912

>it's a cult of personality

No it isn't. It in no way changes the verified observations of data or publication of it.

Co2 has been proven to raise temperature and you acting like a retard isn't going to convince anyone otherwise.

>>15310901

>>15310909

Actual scientists don't pass moral judgement on phenomena. We are living in an opportunity to study what could potentially become a mass extinction event, and I'm not going to say my species or race is evil for partially causing it. I personally do not believe that it will get that far and that the ocean is a lot more resilient than people think, and of course I personally love the ocean and its biomes or I never would have gone into science in the first place, but what is happening and whatever happens in the future is an opportunity to better understand how the planet works as a system.

If you think I'm being edgy you clearly don't belong in the community that understands how the holocaust never happened but should have and will. And to be clear, by 'biome' I specifically meant coral reefs, which provide almost no tangible benefits for humanity and are the most threatened by climate change currently. When seasonal temperate continental shelf biomes are seriously threatened then maybe I will start worrying for humanity as that biome actually significantly provides for humans in food resources, but even that would still be an interesting and absolutely unique opportunity to study algal bloom collapse and food web dynamics.

>>15310937

>Actual scientists don't pass moral judgement on phenomena

Yes they do. They are human. How can someone not make a moral judgement on something that negatively effects people?

> I'm not going to say my species or race is evil for partially causing it.

No but it's clearly a bad thing that should be avoided since it is bad.

>>15310912

To be fair, climate change is a natural process that happens over thousands of years. For example, the past ice age 12,000 years ago. Or looking as historical satellite images of how African desert belts grow and shrink and migrate with canopy cover.

If humans affect it, it'll only speed the process up by a few hundred years and is nothing to worry about. I'd argue that Pajeet and Chink plastic pollution is more harmful.

>>15310929

They don't have a science degree and just parrot liberal talking points for politics sake.

>>15310929

I haven't looked into anything new on climate change in years so I couldn't debate it with you, I stopped caring because I came to the realization that even if it is real it doesn't matter. What can we do about it, bring our industry to a screeching halt as we try and utilize horridly, less efficient means of energy production? All the while other nations, some hostile, not taking the same steps and in not doing so bypassing out industrial power and kicking us back into the stone age figuratively, and most likely literally? I'm all for pursuing alternative energy, I just don't think we should start changing anything about how we live or how we produce goods until we have something better than fossil fuels. I want to innovate, not stagnate and die.

>>15310946

>Few hundred

You mean thousand. The ice age was a major event lasting a very long time that just recently ended. Temperatures should actually be slowly decreasing, not increasing and over the span of dozens of thousands of years. Natural selection operates in the hundreds of thousands of years, not hundreds.

>They don't have a science degree

They aren't scientists and in no way reflect science.

>>15310959

> I stopped caring because I came to the realization that even if it is real it doesn't matter.

Yes it does.

> What can we do about it

Look into research of ways to safely lower Co2 levels. You don't have to kill the economy to do this, research into Biofuels, Nuclear or other alternatives without having to ban gas. Slowly lower Co2 production using political and scientific means. There is a reason we don't let corporations dump toxic waste into our rivers even if it would help the economy to allow it. The long term economic affect climate change will have on the world is far greater than the short term costs of managing it. We should have started 30 years ago but because of kikes tricking the average goy that it wasn't real it's still difficult to get funding to actually do something about it. China is the fucking worst and yet because no one wants to actually police them they pollute the global environment. You are willing to let kikes piss in your drinking water because the alternative takes a bit of work.

>>15310838

INvertebrates encompass shelled and non shelled creatures, I never said non shelled ones aren't dumbass.

>Higher pH causes reproductive issues in many fish. Read the sources.

A few less eggs.

>applying one species to the rest.

What were saying about me talking about corals now?

>>15310929

>Thinks debates don't have anything to do with Science

How do you think controversial ideas are settled? Sure 99% of science is proven through action and not philosophical debate, but debates lead to the furthering of ideas. Sure a debate on an anonymous Vietnamese Car Trading Board might not find the cure for cancer, but Academic debates on the subject should be more prevalent instead of the constant back and forth that currently exists which mirrors squabbles between political parties more than scientists trying to come to a mutual understanding on an issue.

>>15310988 (Heil'd)

If that's all you want to do I agree with your approach, I guess my responses are a knee-jerk reaction to people like Bill Nye and Al Gore advocating immediate change before Tennessee becomes ocean front property (next year).

>>15310943

>No but it's clearly a bad thing that should be avoided since it is bad.

Are you willing to return to the stone age and never advance technologically behind stone axes and animal hide clothing? Wanting to preserve the Earth as it was when we emerged onto the scene (or as it is now; the biosphere has already been massively changed by the civilization of humans) and have an advanced civilization with all the comforts and wonders of modernity is absolutely hypocritical. You need to follow your philosophical positions to their logical ends and stop using wishy-washy statements with no substance like "bad things are bad." The dieoff of coral reefs is bad? For who or what? We should stop it? Why, and how? Because they're aesthetically pleasing to us and enrich our lives? Should we devote the massive amount of resources necessary to do so to a task, and probably fail miserably at it as the planet's biogeochemical cycles are all intricately linked in an impossibly complex system we are just barely starting to understand? Like the iron fertilization experiments of high nutrient low chlorophyll zones, where we literally spent almost billions of dollars to just dump a bunch of fucking iron into regions of the ocean that we had recently discovered were iron limited, in an effort to increase CO2 drawdown from the atmosphere via enhanced primary production? It worked for less than a week as zooplankton populations quickly caught up to the new bloom of diatoms, ate them and stopped the increased primary production, the iron was rapidly depleted, and the same community of picocyanobacteria returned afterwards, just like before we tried to change the system. No matter how much you think you understand an biogeochemical system you are still just scratching the surface and anything you try to do to 'change' it back to a 'better' or 'healthier' state, will most likely have no effect at all or further perturb it in a way that is not desired.

We are moving into the anthropocene because it is the only direction we can move as a society, since civilized humans are not going to decivilize themselves. The biosphere will adapt to it, and we can use these changes to understand a little bit better how the impossibly complex system called Earth works.

If you need to focus your moral outrage on something, pick something we can actually absolutely stop and change for the better: pollution. Marine pollution (hell, all pollution) is an enormous issue and it is not a complex system, and one with attainable solutions. Pollution ruins the aesthetic and health value of the environment way more than any aspect of climate change, and it has a human source that can be destroyed or changed. I do personally value the aesthetic value of almost all aspects of nature, but you need to separate yourself emotionally from the science and look at the system from an unbiased viewpoint.

>>15310988

>just like lower CO2

We can and are slowly evolving our civilization to do that but much of the rest of the world isn't.

>>15310990

>A few less eggs

Can you really not see how "A few less eggs" can be an issue?

>>15310998

Climate debate is 100% media driven. Scientists don't debate about if climate change or evolution are real, that is bait for views. Actual climate debate would be for example the use of iron fertilization to collect Co2, something that is still barely understood.

>>15311008

Politicians aren't scientists. They don't know anything about science and will use anything for attention. This is true if they do or don't believe in climate change. If they actually new anything about the subject they wouldn't be politicians.

>>15311011

>We can and are slowly evolving our civilization to do that but much of the rest of the world isn't.

That is why the West should demand the rest of the world does as well. China, India, ect can't get away with what they are doing. The most powerful nations on earth have the strength to force them but we aren't for some reason.

>>15311023

Oh and I almost forgot. China is STILL releasing chemicals into the air that deplete the ozone layer. Every other country agreed to stop but China has been slowly undermining all of that for the last few years. The chinks are no better than Jews.

>B-But they are a poor country so it's ok for them to fuck everyone else over so they can get a few extra Shekels

Thankfully they might actually get in trouble for their Chinkery this time.

>>15311023

Lol I actually bothered reading through the article and it says it had a significant positive effect on fish and positive meaning good as the article interprets the data. Some species show higher success while others showed lower success. This happens all the time in nature. A few less eggs for one species means a few more eggs for another and it'll eventually balance to an equilibrium.

Dude, I fucking love ((( LE SCIENCE )))

You guys wanna watch some RimJob and Mortimer? Yabba dabba doo doo

>>15302997

But /v/ doesn't understand how games can be left wing and successful at it

>>15311140

It's not a hyperbole you useless bacterium. I hate halfassed shits like you who never take their positions to their logical end. The attitude of someone who doesn't really care about the philosophy or ethics behind a position and only evaluates things based on what makes them feel good or get their does of social approval. By advancing science and technology humans have been transforming the Earth since we started to tie rocks to sticks, and as the technology gets more advanced and humans strive towards their potential this rate of transformation increases exponentially. To advocate for the conservation of nature and still partake in the modern society that fundamentally changing nature has produced is extremely hypocritical.

As for switching away from fossil fuels, we are already in the process of doing that as a society; it's part of humanity striving to reach its potential. But don't think that by doing so we are not still changing the planet.

But the fact that you posted a shitty leftist political cartoon of a le evil porky diabolically tenting his hands in anticipation of 'ruining' the planet to satisfy his greed and enslave you is enough to invalidate everything you've said. You are stuck in the current era and its politics, and cannot see things for what they really are.

>>15310912

>I was linked a video of a geologist of all things trying to prove how man made climate change is real

Yeah, because that man actually was a science correspondent. You'll notice he didn't claim to be a scientist. It's just an easy way to explain it to idiots like you. And the guy you claimed was a climatologist holds no such degree and has no published work. Kill yourself.

>>15310897

By themselves calcium and magnesium*

Also forgot to add that the balance of calcium, magnesium and carbonates is important as they relate to PH. When one gets imbalanced bad things can happen. Too low Magnesium and calcium and the carbonates will precipitate out reducing alkalinity and available calcium for corals. This is also why you need to always monitor them with water parameter changes and it is laughable that the failed to even mention keeping track of them.

>>15311140

What would the land usage look like for each item in the first graph to achieve 1MWh?

>>15311349

Sorry if I'm not swayed by arguments from someone who has absolutely no business talking about something he doesn't understand and never studied. Whom did I claim was a climatologist?

>/sci/ comes back

>global warming autism immediately stops

>>15311344

>People actually defend the kikes and Mudslimes who own the oil industry

For what purpose?

>>15311082

> Some species show higher success while others showed lower success.

I know you don't know anything about ecology but that isn't a good thing. You don't want one fish to suddenly have it better and you definitely don't want some fish to have it worse. Having a single/handfull of species do better at the cost of other species is really fucking bad for a stable ecosystem. The fact that some fish have it better is actually worse than if it didn't affect them at all. Do you think invasive species are good because that one species does well? Do you think Algal blooms are good because the Algae does good?

>>15308133

The music still gives me chills.

>>15320879

Game?

>>15320939

can you read you dumb nigger?

>>15324888

Yes I can. And no reason to be rude.

>SELECTED TILE

>OVERLOAD

>Overloads will cause a short circuit that delivers a massive, damaging shock.

>

>Avoid at all costs!

>>15324902

holy fuck you cant be this retarded

>>15324902

>And no reason to be rude

You are right, the plight of the mentally impaired is hard enough without constant bullying.

BioShock Infinite - Kill whitoid "people"

>>15311253

>that game

>having to do with the modern 'left' at all

lmao

>>15320889

It's not a good or a bad thing. It's a thing that happens and balances out. A fish doesn't become an invasive species in its own biome because it has a few more offspring. It means more food for its predator who in nature are relatively starved. And if you actually read the lame-ass study you yourself linked it showed that some related species had higher success while others had lower success which is biodiversity at work. They don't die off their cousins succeed more until the environment changes. Literally the first thing you'll learn when you read about Darwin.

>>15332070

>Animals dying is biodiversity

You know that's not how it works right? Some animals doing well with others doing bad is the exact opposite of biodiversity.

>>15337253

You didn't even read what I said. One animal doing worse and it's cousins doing better as the environment changes is biodiversity dumbass. This is rudimentary biology.