And you still refuse to answer my question.
Goodbye. You are a waste of time.
Wow. We've discussed at length how using a solubility chart to describe the behavior of the ocean makes no sense. Do you really think I don't understand what you are getting at? Do you not understand how that discussion subsumes all of what you are trying to get at?
I really hope that you are trolling at this point. Are you really that stupid?
And you still refuse to answer my question.
Goodbye. You are a waste of time.
I actually feel i have done far better than accuse. Along that vein lets change track a bit to get back to this chart.
You referred to the ocean as a soda and then gave us a solubility chart.
You say I fail to comprehend why you used the chart. I want a serious debate so please explain to me why you used the chart.
And you still refuse to answer my question.
Goodbye. You are a waste of time.
You accused me of being unfair. I don't understand something apparently. You do not want to explain yourself? I could be wrong. Here is your opportunity to clue me in.
With projections of Med water temps rising quite a bit by the end of the century, I bring you what is likely to be a more common occurrence. This falls in line with the first do ented tropical storms int he southern Atlantic basin as well (Brazil's first hurricane etc).
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/9122
Its going to be the insurance lobby versus the oil lobby woohoo!!!
I bet the CO2 in the ocean wouldn't even fill up the Superdome. Case closed.
Oil lobby will win that fight every time. Insurance doesn't have much to lose here assuming they raise rates appropriately. Oil on the other hand has everything to lose if money is put into renewable3s at a good rate.
well, I'm not going to figure the specifics size, but there is approximately 700 gigatons of CO2 in there ocean. What would that volume be in either solid, or gas form at 1 atmosphere?
I was waiting for a response, but never got one. I don't recall anyone saying that either, but you recently.
If I take 0.5% of the carbon in the ocean and give it an approximate weight for CO2, I get about 700 gigatons, or 700 petagrams. I get this by using the 2004 carbon cycle pictation in wikipedia. Most of this is in the form of carbonic acid, and since you said CO2, I used strictly CO2 which is about 0.5% of the ocean carbon equilibrium. 0.5% of 39,120 GtC is 196.6 GtC. Adding the mass of two oxygen atoms per carbon gives us 716.4 Gt of CO2, but we are scientifically stuck with 1 digit accuracy, but I will deviate. Still, I will use 716 and 3 digits, so I used 716 gigatons or 716 petagrams. It might be interesting to note that the atmosphere has real close to four times this number, which would explain why the absorption is so slow. The CO2 in the ocean must also equalize with the carbonic acid.
Now you didn't specify solid, liquid, Since gas is CO2's natural form at atmospheric pressure, until you get really cold, I continued with the gas form. The superbowl is about 3.5 million cubic meters is volume. 716 petagrams would be 362,000,000,000,000 cubic meters, which is means it would fill 103 million superdomes.
Now in solid form at -78.5C, it would only fill up 131,000 superdomes.
Someone double check my math please.
Now the 2004 number included 750 GtC carbon in the atmosphere. Some will,be methane and other trace sources, but if I attribute it all to CO2, I get 2745 gigatones or petagrams. Like I said, almost 4 times more.
Something interesting to note. If we could separate the CO2 to the bottom layer of the atmosphere, it would only be 710 centimeters thick. It would be 2.72 meters thick for atmospheric CO2.
(sighs)
This was a reference to something you or maybe Darrin said in one of the threads about the oil slick. "the oil doesn't even fill up the superdome, so why are we all worried about it?" or something similar.
It was a joke, and an obscure one at that.
Even if you didn't remember the reference, you probably should have figured out it was something of a tongue in cheek sarcasm. Probably should have made it blue text on my part to remove ambiguity. Your response is still funny though for its sciency overkill.
I see. It was an inside joke.
Without a frame of reference to me, it made no sense. It still doesn't.
Why do you like comparing apples and oranges all the time anyway?
I think one thing we all forget, is that we don't think alike. Suggesting that CO2 wouldn't fill the superdome can then be a suggestion at added CO2 is very, very bad because we can see sources that emit that much on a regular bases. What was the BP in volume? If I the numbers I just looked up are accurate, it would take 4-1/2 BP spills to fill the superdome. Radically different than CO2 since mans annual output of CO2 well exceeds 1,000 superdomes in solid form. Probably about 1,500.
Random. Do you have anything serious to add to this thread? Climate change is a serious matter, or do you prefer to joke about it?
Koch-Funded Scientist On Morning Joe: ‘We’re Getting Very Steep Warming’
Dr. Richard Muller, a contrarian physicist funded by the Koch brothers to investigate the temperature record smeared by the “Climategate” campaign, told MSNBC’s Morning Joe today that “we’re getting very steep warming.” He confirmed that the disturbing warming found by the scientific community “two years ago” was correct, even though at the time he “was not convinced that global warming was real, or that it existed.” Muller cautioned that “we may really have trouble in the next coming decades.” Muller is testifying at a congressional briefing organized by House Democrats this afternoon.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/...steep-warming/
I have long since proven the point of the OP, which, you seem to have forgotten, had nothing to do with AGW's ultimate veracity as a theory, and everything to do with pointing out that no small part of the "skepticism" of this theory is little more than politically motivated bloviating, and illogical bloviating at that.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PseudosciencePseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877
From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]
While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.
Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.
I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.
What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.
Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.
----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:
Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.
Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.
DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data
Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread
Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy
I'm curious.
How many times now have you posted that video?
Quite a few.
You have yet to adequately address the logic, other than to make rather grandiose claims of infallibility about your own estimations of various forcing factors.
Since you do not allow for the possibility of you being incorrect about this, then you have sidestepped the logic in his reasoning.
I like it because one doesn't have to rely on the science to come to a fair conclusion as to what the best way to hedge ones bets when it comes to policy is.
Nonsense. The heat was hiding in the deep oceans.
Well a lot of the heat IS in the deep oceans but thats not whats driving atmospheric heating.
First of all, I never even thought about that video as a question. Incorrect about what?
1) There is no doubt in my mind that BC and solar have a greater warning effect than given by alarmists.
2) The claim of warming from the 1700's to modern day is only about 0.85C max.
3) The claim of warming from cherry picked times of the 20th century is around 0.6C
I could go on. Remember, I do not claim CO2 has no warming effect. Only that it isn't as much as claimed.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)