Minecraft Forums

It's a game with a lot of possibilities.

Also wow, that title banner is irrelevant.

Since coral is very sensitive, it would begin to die, endangering many creatures living in it.

First off, seawater in the open ocean is typically at a pH of 8.0-8.5 on a scale of 0-14, where 0 is the most acidic, 14 is most basic and 7 is neutral. Ocean acidification from increased CO2 is predicted to make the ocean less basic, perhaps to pH 7.5 under so-called worst-case projections.

Taking into the account that Co2 levels are far lower than they've been for hundreds of years, well before the Romans as calculated, corals have been clearly far more than capable of surviving through much higher ocean acidity levels if such a thing is directly linked to higher Co2, several times higher than it is today, in fact. If it were that sensitive, coral reefs would have died off centuries before.

The “ocean acidification” story depends only on a chemical hypothesis completely ignoring the millions of years in the past where despite far higher Co2 levels shellfish and coral have successfully adapted or simply weren't effected by higher acidity. If it were such a risk, why are there still coral reefs?

Ocean acidification proponents also typically invariably argue that increased CO2 will also cause the oceans to warm due to a warming climate. Yet they convenientlyignore the fact that when water warms the gases dissolved in it tend to “outgas”. It’s the same phenomenon that happens in a glass of cold water taken from the fridge and placed on a counter at room temperature. The bubbles that form on the inside of the glass as it warms are the gases that were dissolved in the colder water. So in theory a warmer sea will have less CO2 dissolved in it than a cooler one.

However, if it continues to be put into the atmosphere at the rate it is now, ocean acidity and depth could go up as well.

Whether or not it raises faster or slower has a miniscule effect; life will be more than capable of adapting, and Co2 is absolutely necessary for growth of plants, and certainly isn't going to kill off sea life.

I'm also willing to bet you the sea level is exactly the same as it was back in the 1950s, or even further back.

Sooooooooo
the fact that suddenly C02 levels, ocean acidity levels, and heat
levels have gone up drastically in the past few years is all a
coincidence?

For the most part, a great deal of the data has been tampered with to suit the day's narrative. Do a search for tampered climate data; a lot will show up. I posted a few gifs of graphs from NASA and the NOAA; they also still continue to use out-of-date methods of taking the temperature such as land-based thermometers instead of satellite systems that have been invented more recently.

Here's a couple blogs run by a very good man that consistently points out a lot of the hypocrisy and nonsense of the whole climate change debate:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

http://realclimatescience.com/

It's also where I got the two charts above. He took them from NASA, resized them to have the scales match, then put them in a gif.

Edit: This also just came out:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/

The most advanced climate station in America shows that we're actually in a 10 year slight cooling trend.

Co2 levels rising is actually a good thing; to quote from Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace:

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down
steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280
parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend
continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support
life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have
boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth
back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural
ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The
optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and
nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher
than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields.
Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the
earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no
significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of
all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on
Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to
our children?

( http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic )

And as far as ocean acidity levels go, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Quote from Alexthe666»

huh. I knew there would be these people who disagree with some of the best officials on the subject because they simply don't agree with the idea.

The best officials on the subjects can't seem to make up their mind about what's happening, and they not only constantly adjust data from decades or over a century ago down or up to fit their newest stories, their disastrous predictions have consistently failed to come true.

Changes to GISS surface temperature from 2002 to 2014

I'd also like to ask why Al Gore, if he continues to rant about how the ice caps will have melted by (current date+20/15/10 years) ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/gore-polar-ice-may-vanish_n_391632.html ), he continues to fly around on a massive private jet, ( http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=2489e0b8-3e57-40eb-9748-6c250d63c40d , http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/ ) hawks electric cars that produce even more airborne waste in the form of emissions from coal plants used to charge their batteries, or endlessly promotes inefficient solar plants and wind farms that use huge amounts of space and produce incredibly inefficient and irregular amounts of energy as opposed to nuclear or fission energy.( https://www.masterresource.org/wind-power/15-bad-things-windpower/ for an example on why wind is bad.)

Ah, yes, global cooling.

Oh wait, they changed the name, didn't they? It's global warming now, right?

When did 'climate change' become a thing, much less an actual threat?

Have the fish be fast enough or simply immune to sword damage, have them spawn over time in pretty much any water that doesn't have a current, and have them be attracted to fishing rod's hooks. There, now fishing not only isn't random but you can also have fish swimming around in your lake without outdating fishing rods.

Quote from TNH718»

uhhh.... what is this

That's Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers films, a parody of James Bond. They're rather funny, if a bit inappropriate.

First off, that image is creepy.

Secondly, happy day-of-birth!

This would be more impressive if it were put towards, I dunno, something larger than color-changing armor.

And if it actually hid you.

Please, please, pleeease update the basic Dungeons. Add randomly generated rooms, add more spawners, add better loot. Single boxes are so boring, I want to fight through an actual ruined multiroom dungeon.

Heyyy, it's Love and Tolerance.

Quote from Lutzee»

We are currently not taking any applications, follow @magicraft on twitter to keep up to date with all the server news

Why would you keep applications private, but suggest we follow your server's news?

Quote from APlotdevice»

Probably won't, as lighting requires block updates, and so could be a source of lag.

If it places a single torch where it lands, it won't cause any more lag than placing a torch by hand yourself, and that hardly drops the framerate, does it?

...Wow.

I hope we get arrows that let us light things up from a distance.