It is a multiplier.
Stop asking me stupid questions that I end up guessing what you want to know.
Can we get to you disproving that temperature has little or no effect of solubility of CO2?
No.
I don't consider CO2's coefficient because it doesn't change. Temperature changes.
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
Oh...
You just changes your wording.
Here I assumed you meant CO2 coefficient, now you specify "transfer" coefficient.
That is different, and changes with other variable.... like temperate, salinity, etc.
You are good at confusing me, I'll admit that.
You do mention transfer coefficient, but then link an article that says this:
This...The net air–sea CO2 flux is estimated using the sea–air pCO2 difference and the air–sea gas transfer rate that is parameterized as a function of (wind speed)2 with a scaling factor of 0.26.
IS NOT A TRANSFER COEEFICIENT!
Transfer rate adjustment because of lag for the partial pressure change to get someplace is not the same as a transfer coefficient!
Fuzzy...
Will you agree that the transfer coefficient of CO2 into sea water increases as the sea water temperature decreases, and that the transfer coefficient decreases as the water temperature increases?
Nope. That is a different variable within the function, dipshit. If you were to actually read their studies and not be an idiot you would see that. They take the equilibrium difference due to concentrations and the solubility state at that time and they MULTIPLY IT BY THE COEFFICIENT. The concentrations of both are also not just simple x and y because they take into account all of these other things we have talked about. I have seen studies that attempt to use gradients and others that break it down into a grid and add them all up.
You take bullshit general numbers for the entire ocean from out of your ass determine the difference in equilibrium values and call it a day. It's fucking kindergarten bullshit.
The transfer rate is the coefficient, dumbass.
HERE is a Harvard study that spells it out since I do not expect you to just take my word for it.
"All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell
"Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken
Officially Noted By Agloco
Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas
This is monumentally stupid. Not just a little bit but gibbering drooling all over yourself stupid.
Well, I can't read the whole thing without paying money. Still, the summary suggests that the transfer coefficient is reliant primarily by temperature:
There are multiple things that affect the transfer rate. Temperature is primary.Monthly maps of the ocean--atmosphere CO2 gas-transfer coefficient are derived from meteorological winds for 1982. The seasonal variations are of the order of a factor 2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. A strong meridional pattern is observed: the exchange coefficient is larger at high latitudes than in tropical areas. However, the zonal variations within a latitudinal band (generally a westward enhancement) can be as large as the meridional ones. The representativity of the winds is a major concern: interannual variations of the order of 30% are documented by an analysis of four years of the monthly transfer coefficient derived from meteorological winds in the Atlantic ocean. In the future, these maps will be obtainable on a routine basis from satellite data. As an example, a map derived for August 1978 from Seasat altimeter winds is compared with the present ones.
How about giving me a link that defines what you are calling "transfer rate coefficient."
You are fucking dumb. The word temperature is not even in the abstract.Monthly maps of the ocean--atmosphere CO2 gas-transfer coefficient are derived from meteorological winds for 1982.
I've given several links from the IPCC, PSU, Harvard etc.
How about you show me where they say its a function of temperature.
If you say so. Considering they even mention "wind" and there is a time differential, I don't see how you can claim it to be "monumentally stupid."
How about this.
What is that 0.26 transfer rate measured in?
Is it grams/liter, milligrams/kg, etc.
What were they speaking of then if it isn't a percentage of the normal intake?
winds...
LOL...
And winds take time to carry the changes of atmospheric content, and you're calling me dumb...
Maybe you should look in a mirror.
Who is to say its not dimensionless?
And the only one that is talking about differentiating by time is you. Keep throwing shit against the wall, dumbass, I'm going to bed.
Back to my claim, that you haven't ever addressed.
Does temperature change the solubility?
Yes or no?
If temperature does change solubility, then how do you know that it cannot be the reason why CO2 levels are stabilized to where they are now?
OK, then tell me.
What do they mean by that 0.26?
Just when I think you cannot be dumber.
WTF do you think they are accounting for? WTF do you think its a function of windspeed. If more wind blows across the surface, the more the coefficient changes.
Seriously are you trying to sound like an idiot? You are doing a great job.
Anyway, bad night, fuckface.
Thanks for the chuckle though.
Forget everything else.
i will concede that I am wrong on evertyhing else...
Just mnot this...
The solubility of CO2 in sea water increases as sea water temperature decreases, and the solubility of CO2 in sea water decreases as the sea water temperature increases.
This is my argument. That's my argument.
I don't care about your sidetrack issues, so I will concede because you are wearing me out on the stupid nuances that we don't agree on with terminology. I simply don't care about the definitions we have disputes over. It does not change scientific facts, which you are doing everything possible to avoid discussing when it comes to solubility changes by temperature.
My God...
You are the dumb one.
The primary ocean sink is in the north Atlantic. The primary ocean source is (if I remember right) the equatorial Pacific.
When we generate CO2 on land, it takes time for the increased CO2 content to reach a sink.
It isn't instantaneous.
Now I don't know with any certainty what that 0.26 is suppose to be in the study. That's why I asked you. I told you what my assumption was. If you refuse to tell me, then I must assume you are talking out your ass.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-29-2012 at 05:41 AM.
.... what a stupid thread
“ All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. ”— William J. Cummings, Exxon-Mobil company spokesman, December 2005[52]“ It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive. ”— Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, October 2008
Energy independence my ass...
Really? Whats that for? Youre having trouble figuring that out? I told you how its used earlier in this thread I even bolded the complex mathematical relationship that it has with the rest of the function.ocean--atmosphere CO2 gas-transfer coefficient
And talking out of my ass? I am citing peer reviewed papers and letting them speak for themselves. You are fumbling through napkin math with numbers that you made up and talking about comparing CO2 to a dye when CO2 dissolutes and dye does not.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...nstmts2011.pdf
FWIW they have invested rather heavily in the last few years in equipment and so forth.
All energy has costs... combined share of approximately 4 percent of world energy.
The Corporation anticipates that the world’s available oil and
gas resource base will grow not only from new discoveries, but
also from reserve increases in previously discovered fields.
Technology will underpin these increases. The cost to develop and
supply these resources will be significant. According to the
International Energy Agency, the investment required to meet
total oil and gas energy needs worldwide over the period 2011-
2035 will be close to $20 trillion (measured in 2010 dollars) or
close to $780 billion per year on average.
THe thing is that with this money sloshing into energy, renewables will get some of that, as Exxon's analysts have rightly noted.
You will see tremendous relative growth in renewables, as a vanishingly small sector becomes a small sector.
Again, I think renewables are going to make a lot more progress than most analysts think, for a host of reasons that I don't believe are being really encapsulated in conventional thinking on the subject.
That said, oil will still be a main source of energy in 2040, as Exxon rightly points out.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
post6568713
One has to be careful when viewing some of this.
The exploration from the mid 1990's to about 2003 fell off a cliff because the price of oil fell so much. This graph, widely produced here and elsewhere shows a trend that has not held.
Recent additions to reserves globally have exceeded production, especially given the vast uptick in exploration.
From 2005 to 2011, Exxon more than doubled its exploration and capital expenditures. High prices will drive that.
THAT said, as all the oil companies themselves point out, discoveries WILL taper off.
What is left will require a lot more capital to exploit, and the financials reflect that in the capital property and plant expenditure increases.
(edit)
For those interested, Exxon's discussion of their total reserves start at page F-63:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...nstmts2011.pdf
2009-2011 had Exxon spending heavily, but earning a pretty good return on that investment, and expanding their total reserves about 4% (this is net of subtractions from production)
(edit #2)
It should be noted this is from a quick analysis of ONE company, but Exxon's experience doesn't tend to be too far out of line with other Western Oil majors.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-31-2012 at 12:17 PM. Reason: spelling, and some add'l content
All of that said, most oil production globally is in the hands of inefficient national oil companies, who are viewed as piggy banks by their national goverments.
Most of the rest of the world has been under-investing in new production, and replacing equipment.
Pemex (mexico) and PDVSA (venezuala) are good examples. Google is that way if you want to read up.
More worrisome is what is happening to Russia:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadom...on-plummeting/
A decided lack of transparency when it comes to Russia's oil production does not engender confidence that they have kept their production up.
My gut says that their figures were honest up until about 2003 or so, when production first started to decline a little (2003 is a rough guess based on memory, would have to re-find articles to get exact date), then I think the Kremlin stepped in and started over-stating their production for political prestige purposes.
Falling production as a result of kicking out BP about that time and their expertise/capital out is probably what prompted them to go back to BP recently. I would say "crawling back", since they realize that they cannot keep their production up without assistance.
Anyhoo, lunch is over.
Interesting look at exactly that. Argh. Out of time.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9205#more
Article also speaks to one of PopTech's points regarding extra investments due to intermittancy problems.
Their next step is to push renewables closer to where the energy is consumed, i.e. rooftop solar and the like.
It is an interesting case.
I wonder if Yoni will ever man up and define "hydrocarbon denial".
Or even tell me what technology is in the pipeline to get at all the hydrocarbons talked about in the OP.
I would be interested in reading about it.
Since Yoni has not bothered to show any such technology, he might as well hang his hat on magic to get at all that oil/gas.
The magic hydrocarbon unicorn will do it. Right?
What determines energy abundance? Flow.
Energy abundance depends entirely on the RATE of energy flow. Let me say it again: Energy abundance depends entirely on the RATE of energy flow.
Now, here is what it does NOT depend on: supposed, but often unverified, fossil fuel reserves in the ground; hypothetical, sketchy, guesstimated, undeveloped, undiscovered resources imagined to be in the ground by governments or by energy companies and often deceptively referred to as "reserves"*; claims about future technological breakthroughs; mere public relations puffery about abundance in the face of record high average oil prices.
Why is the rate of flow the key metric? Because in order to function the global economy depends entirely on continuous, high-quality energy inputs. We cannot shut down the world's electric generating plants for six months or even three months without crashing world society into a state of irretrievable chaos and decline. We cannot shut down the world's shipping fleet for even a few weeks without doing irreparable harm. Modern global society has become like a shark. It either keeps barreling forward or it dies.
Fossil fuels that are actually proven to be in the ground are by definition not currently being used, whatever we may consider their potential. Fossil fuels that are hypothetical and undiscovered by definition cannot be used. Technology is NOT energy. Technology runs ON energy. Energy first, then applied technology. The ancient Romans designed and built small steam engines and used them to animate children's toys. But, the Romans lacked the dense energy sources needed to make steam engines practical as a mode of transportation or of power for manufacturing.
Now, why am I making such a fuss about all this? Because this week we have yet another entry in the ongoing energy misinformation derby, this time from the usually sensible Atlantic Monthly magazine. In fairness, the headline on the magazine's cover which reads "We will never run out of oil" was probably not chosen by the author for it does not really respect the nuances found in the piece which inside has the only slightly less disinformational headline:
"What If We Never Run Out of Oil?"
The subheading makes the astounding claim that fossil fuels may not be finite making me believe that the editors didn't actually read their own story.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...All+Stories%29
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
