You must be high again.
For the acidity to double in 40 years means the pH needs to decrease by 0.3. Look at this chart:
That would require a doubling of absorbed CO2 in the water, if CO2 was the cause. Other things change the chemistry of the ocean. Temperature plays a large role.
Really now. Sanity check please. i don't see surface CO2 in the water doubling in 40 years.
Please...
Learn a little more about science if you wish to debate me on this issue. Stop using propaganda material as proof.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-04-2011 at 01:36 AM.
You must be high again.
I do understand what you say, for the most part. One of your problems is that you, no offense, have problems getting points across in a clear and concise manner. You seem to be getting better at this, but it is a skill that takes a while to master.
In the past, when I have bothered to delve into your points when you get overly scientific, they have always turned out to be spurious or flawed in some way, because of your cognitive bias on the issue.
I read through the rest of that post and still found more than one thing that I thought was wrong with your reasoning, but since I have proven to my satisfaction that you are a poltically motivated hack on this issue, with demonstrably flawed reasoning, making the effort to have another Battle of the Graphs seems like a waste of time, akin to trying to prove to mouse that the earth is older than a few thousand years, because he wants to believe that "aliens did it", or whatever it is he believes this week.
I can't logically dismiss your criticisms as being invalid simply because you say it, but I can logically conclude that the chances of them being valid are low enough that bothering with them or assigning more than the lightest credibility to them is spurious.
You have only yourself to blame for that, and it dovetails rather well with the quote from the gal DarrinS posted. The crazies and political hacks that push pseudoscience, like I think you are doing here, have poisoned the legitimate skepticism of the science.
You, Darrin, Yonivor, et al, are your own worst enemy on this topic.
Learn a bit more about basic math before debating me on this issue.
Most of the Co2 that mankind has ever put into the air has been done in the last 25 years or so.
That means that, given that we keep increasing our output of CO2 by a moderate % every year, in the next 25 years or so, we will put out more CO2 than we have to date. That means the next 25 years will put more CO2 into the air than we have in our entire history.
Given that atmospheric CO2 has pretty much doubled since the industrial revolution, whatever man's impact, even if you think it is small, on overall CO2 will also double.
Given that you have said that warming trend will release a net of CO2 into the air, this means that it appears that a doubling of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is quite plausible. I would say it seems probable, but that is my opinion.
Unless the oceans warm enough to really reduce their ability to absorb gases faster than the atmospheric vapor pressure forces CO2 into them, again, a doubling of Ph doesn't seem beyond the pale.
Please stop trying to push your propaganda on me.
Tell me why or if his reasoning is incorrect.
Exponential growth is hard.
It doesn't require math. You are treating all the oceans of the earth as a set of two numbers as to dumb it down to the barest possible reckoning. Time to get back to Bert again:
The oceans are bodies of water 10 to the order of who knows how many individual atoms each with an energy state. Same with the atmosphere. When you model such situations you use a gradient not a single point. Now the important interactions only occur along the surface where the two meet. Co2 is not going to dissolve in the ocean 10 feet above the surface. Unfortunately the ocean and atmosphere are not rigid bodies so that introduces the issue of flow and thus turbulence which becomes very messy.A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
All of these directly effect (re:feedback) into the solubility of the system. This is not 7th grade chemistry class with its pretty ultra controlled experiments. You are trying to make comments as to what we 'should' expect in terms of the solubility of the ocean and all you have done is dumb it down as much as you possibly can so it becomes easy for dimwits such as yourself to understand.
You cannot control the Earth's oceans to only pressure. Thats the point, dumb . You have to account for all these other variables and you cannot just simply superimpose them. The reason why is if you do you leave out so much of what is actually going on as to be pointless.
Furthermore quit talking about equilibrium in reference to the ocean and atmosphere. Its not going to go around in a closed loops or stay at a point in terms of pressure and temperature. It will always move and to a degree be chaotic. If you really want to understand mathematically what is going on look into stochastics.
Looking at a chart of single values to analyze the entire ing ocean and tell us what we should expect is stupid. I guess you enjoy looking stupid because you certainly do it a lot.
There is the issue of flow and just as you stir a boiling pot to help dissolve it effects the systems. Its not a linear property and he does not even consider it.
You guys need to quit even trying to be civil and just treat him like the ing re he is. I like science experiments too but I refuse to base US energy policy off of Dr. EZ Bake Ovens chemistry experiment.
Oceans, that span all manner of temperature zones and even pressures, are far more complex than subjecting them to some simplistic, back-of-the-envelope calculation as if the entire world's oceans had one temperature and pressure.
Simplification has its uses, but going too far makes attempting to do so meaningless, and that is what I think he has done here.
Acceptable simplifications have purpose though. It makes sense to only range the 3-D gradients to ocean/oceanic thermal layers or to a lesser acceptable extent make a single solubility state.
Using a 2-D chart? He deserves nothing but ridicule.
This was comedy gold. We are the ones that need to pay attention to other factors? off dumbass.
Not hard.
The answer to your formula would be 16, not 8.
Guys, I don't have time today. Have to leave soon else I would try to get to your points better.
Random... you appear stuck on CO2 being the only cause, and not allowing for other possibilities.
Fuzzy, equilibrium, with all other factors equal, is a given. Increase only temperature, and the solubility decreases. The ocean is not static, but dynamic. It flows in a long loops. Eventually, the whole system moves towards the new equilibrium, though it is a slow process. I used close to accepted figures that are about a decade old, slightly changing the values.
I vowed never to respond to one of that dude's posts again and I won't. Either he's an epic troll or one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered. Either way, the prudent course of action is not to respond to him.
Of course its not hard. That was rhe point.
from a 14 year old I would credit your lack of insight to naivete however at your age I attribute stupidity. So tell us some more about how we need to understand there are many factors to a complex system juxtaposed to your model of the ocean as a single pressure and temperature.
I see we are back to middle school science project. You are not making predictions on a system where all other things are equal. You obviously have no conception of flow as you just ignore it. At this point we can conclude your assertions about predictions can be ignored.Guys, I don't have time today. Have to leave soon else I would try to get to your points better.
Random... you appear stuck on CO2 being the only cause, and not allowing for other possibilities.
Fuzzy, equilibrium, with all other factor
s equal, is a given. Increase only temperature, and the solubility decreases. The ocean is not static, but dynamic. It flows in a long loops. Eventually, the whole system moves towards the new equilibrium, though it is a slow process. I used close to accepted figures that are about a decade old, slightly changing the values.
all those arrows on your picture are representative of factors your model just ignores. There is no period to rhe data. You are dumb.
It's re s like you who fail to understand what I say. I did point out temperatures were different, and the slope changes with temperature because it is not linear. You guys are either dense, or purposely being dense. Just the same, what I said stands. If the ocean as a whole increased by the 0.1 degrees, the percentages of the dissolved gasses would also change by an amount not far off than my simplified method. Only the surface waters will have changes seen relatively soon. The entire ocean would take a very long time to change.
If you disagree with me, then please point me to a reference and page number to show me wrong.
Manny won't respond any more because he is not capable of finding evidence to discredit me. All the links I ever see is someone else saying something different, without addressing what I say. Are you up to the challenge?
Not all, but many represent an equilibrium. An equilibrium that changes with other factors, temperature being a primary factor. Why don't you understand that?
No they do not. Equilibrium means they either stay the same or they return to the same state after following a repeating pattern like a ball at the bottom of a hill or a pendulum swinging back and forth without friction.
The problem is that in the real world there is friction. You are talking about the ocean, dumbass. As such there is no real equilibrium. When you make stupid assumptions or oversimplification what you end up with is poor forecasting.
I do not give a damn about how you rationalize the world in your pea-brain. What matters is if your model of how ocean temperatures reflect atmospheric CO2 actually makes a piss worth of sense or if we can take your predictions and they be worth anything whatsoever.
We cannot. Why? Because the notion is oversimplified bull . There is all kinds of reciprocity in a system of that type and you just blithely act like its just something you can read off a solubility chart. It was dumb. Real dumb.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 11-04-2011 at 02:59 AM.
Yes, other factors influence where the equilibrium will be, and yes, it changes with several factors.
The point I am making is with all other factors unchanged, that temperature changes will change the ratio of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean.
I hope you are not stupid enough to say I'm wrong.
Wow, bravo WC you stated the obvious. That is a far cry from your claim that it was the driving force. That was your initial point. Temperature drives CO2 not the other way around. Do you really want to revisit your initial post with the chart?
Just go piss off and let it go. It was dumb. Just stop.
My God.
I show how one factor changes things and you dance around it. Simply will not accept that I am right and you were wrong. You aren't the new and improved Boutons. You are a cross between Chump and Boutons.
Yes or no.
Does a change in ocean temperature change the solubility of CO2 and change how much it sinks?
As for the initial chart...
Keep up... there is more going on than one thing.
Well we have to go back to your OP. This is the salient part. Yes, future has been your judge and the conclusion is your soda model was stupid and you cannot even keep up with the you yourself wrote.I have stated before, I guess I must remind you again, I will let our future's history judge me.
Really now. Consider how equilibrium of a gas and fluid respond vs. temperature. Since the oceans contain 50 times more carbon in the carbon cycle, it should absorb about 98% of the extra we emit in the atmosphere. I say it doesn't because the ocean temperatures have increased. I say we would see nearly the same CO2 levels if we emitted zero.
Look at how rapidly (slope of change) levels increase and decrease with temperature changes:
The ocean is like a soda, going flat.
I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.
I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.
Do you really wish to continue?
Did Herman Cain say the ocean is a soda?
LOL...
This is an 1800+ post thread. That was not my OP. If you fail to comprehend why I used that chart, don't ask why for me to elaborate, then accuse me if stupidity, then how can we have a serious debate?
I go back to this:
Yes or no.
Does a change in ocean temperature change the solubility of CO2 and change how much it sinks?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
