i see that ozdoss glossy link
is much like mrabbits glossy 3 point plan

worse was trying to download the slimy mollusk thing
too many pretty pictures of slime
not enough written fact

every time your told your the ignorant ..one
cause you cant refute a picture..spinning a sin

ozzzzzdooss link..is so wrong..
it would take 3 posts to point it all out..and he would simple post it again and again..never even trying to read its rebuttal

he talks interchangeably about ion as if its acid
tell me spin doc..is the acid within..the mollusk higher or lower than the sea?..

is it consistent throughout its body?
or does it like us use acid..[among other ph/things]..to digest?

see how so much so called comment..is only excuse to insult/enema
or right or wrong..simply to backup a mate..

this extends further than mateship..
[mates dont lie to mates],yet here we all are

not/one really KNOWING*
thus if only by opinion..
lying again..to those..olo peers

more important..to our sanity..than life itself

Interesting, the ozdoc's link is off-air due to the US Gov't shut-down.

Point taken about log scales &c., but what does such a shift in pH mean ? Can organisms cope with such change ?

I'm still sceptical - in denial, if you like - about an eight-inch sea-level rise: where ? On our beaches, such a rise would mean that the tides would be coming in (and going out) up the beach, fifty feet or 20 metres higher than they did a century ago.

Yes, parts of coastlines which have previously been under glaciation are still rising, so they would be countering any sea-level rise somewhat. I don't think South Australia's coastline was under the ice 12-30,00 years ago, so that can't be it.

What has been the experience in temperate and tropical zones, where glaciation didn't occur ? Have their coast-lines retreated ?

Tectonic plates tilt. Atolls sink. Dams hold back silt and cause inundation in river deltas. Apart from all that and (I'm sure) more, where has there been eight-inch sea-level rise ? Anywhere ? [Oh yes, I forgot Fiji, with its mountains now being swamped].

Seriously, I don't pretend to be anything other than a 'village idiot' in these matters, but I do want to know. Thank you.

Joe

"Seriously, I don't pretend to be anything other than a 'village idiot' in these matters...."

We know.

<<"Seriously, I don't pretend to be anything other than a 'village idiot' in these matters...." We know>>

But in a village of Poirot's any sensible person would likely be labeled odd!

Belly,

Luciferase is an enzyme used in bio-luminescence used by "Dorothy" which as a nom du plume appears to pointless. Lucyface, is a shorter form that is not intended to be insulting. So please don't get your knickers twisted over this.

As for my views, I have stated them before:

I understand the effect of CO2 on climate change, but am irritated by the wild exaggerations of green "doomsday" cults.

A price on carbon is the most effective means of reducing carbon emissions PROVIDING that the majority of world wide emissions are covered by an equal carbon price. Without some form of global consensus unilateral action on pricing carbon is largely ineffective, and extremely punitive to the host countries industries.

Until some global consensus is achieved, direct action to reduce emissions by providing alternative power sources such as lower emitting gas to replace coal, renewable power, and nuclear power. A combination of gas, nuclear and renewable power could easily reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.

When most of the world is on board, I will be there cheering for an ETS, until then, not.