Random...
Tell me.
Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.
It is illogical as you have worded it. I am defining "ACC/AGW Alarm" not "Climate Change Alarm".
Getting the definition of words correct is not semantics it is important for communication. Your statement is illogical and wrong.
Your carelessness at using words properly is very revealing about your arguments in general.
Random...
Tell me.
Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.
Fuzzy...
Tell me.
Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.
I have simply stopped trying to read much into your explanations. When I have in the past, they always turn out to be flawed thinking in some manner, usually because of your marked confirmation bias, and inability to sift out how that bias affects your starting assumptions.
At this point I assume that if you can't explain it easily, simply, and coherently, you are wrong.
From what I have seen, you are contradicting yourself.
Again, I could very well be wrong about that, I have not taken the time to dig into it.
It isn't really my intention to be obtuse, or an asshole here. I will drop it, since it is upsetting you, and go back into it when I have the time.
Please accept my apologies for being a bit frustrating, it is merely due to my unwillingness to spend the time fully understanding your argument, and that is more on me, than you. (edit) I will go in and do some reading on the studies and get back to you on that.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-26-2012 at 07:54 PM. Reason: (missed an honest question)
What he said.
Is Greenfyre honest?
Who is a "legitimate" skeptic?
double double toil and trouble
They disagree with the conclusion of your Dr. EZ-Bake Dumbass 'thought experiment.'
The ocean is like a BIG SODA!!
Excuses, excuses.
I make simplified explanations so anyone with basic science skills can understand. I'm not quantifying the CO2 between the actual ocean and air here, just simplifying the way it works. Why is this so difficult?
Post #144
Using easier numbers just for an example. Let's assume we have balance of 98:2. We have 10,000 units. We have 9,800 units in water and 200 units in the air above the water. If we increase the temperature of the water enough to change the calculated balance to 97.6:2.4, then the system will equalize to that. Equalization will occur when the water has 9,760 units and the air has 240 units. We didn't add the 40 units. It was achieved by the change in temperature
Now let's use the same 10,000 units and keep the temperature stable. Let's add another 100 units (man-made) into the system. Our 10,000 number now becomes 10,100. Since the equilibrium is at 98:2, the water will absorb 98 units leaving 2 in the air. Our new mix is now 10,098 to 202. We added 100, but 98% of it was dissolved.
Now we do both. We increase temperature and we add 100 units. We have 10,100 units at a 97.6:2.4 ratio for equilibrium. We now have 9,857.2 units in the water and 242.4 units in the air. Only 2.4 more units out of 100 than if we didn't add the 100.What needs to be explained farther?Consider this.
If I take a 100 gallon fish tank with 70 gallons of clear water in it, add 19 gallons of clear water, and add 1 gallon of water with 1 drop of dye in it, mix it up, then pour out 20 gallons to get the original 70 gallons, we will see some coloring in the water. The more we repeat this process of adding 19 clear and 1 colored, the darker the water will become, as we are slowly increasing the percentage of dye in the water.
Now consider how this applies to what we see in the isotopic ratio changes.
I see...
You have no evidence I'm wrong, so you resort to such bull again.
Reordering the adjective and subject is fun I guess. You suck at arguing semantics.
Meh.
I don't think you are all that capable of constructing a logical argument, and in the same manner, recognizing one when it is presented to you.
Although I am not going to hammer on it as much as Fuzzy is, I genuinely think you are a broken mind.
Further, the way I think you are broken would lead you to be somewhat sociopathic to people you are antagonisitic to.
It was interesting to me to engage you on a topic in which I truly consider myself an expert in, i.e. the hydrocarbon thread, but you seem to recognize the asymetry and have withdrawn from that.
Your narcissism will not let you place yourself in a position to be "shown up" by those you consider inferior, so I don't expect that to change.
Given that I don't think you are capable of recognizing a logical argument, and I genuinely believe your mind is dysfunctional, what possible motivation would I have to humor your request?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-26-2012 at 08:12 PM. Reason: it's all about cost/benefit.
Why do i have to prove something wrong when you have not even proven it right in the first place?
I get that there might be some play as you increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and alter the solubility of the ocean.
But so far you have used made up numbers, a fresh water solubility chart, and napkin math. I'm not even sure you've used the chart this time. It looks like you are just pulling figures out of your ass.
You are just going to have to accept that is not good enough to prove a point when you are talking about the behavior of any ocean much less all of them. Quantifying empirical observations and using empirically demonstrated solubility figures from the actual ocean would be compelling.
That's what the scientists that you claim are 'innacurate.' Its really easy to be accurate when you just make up as you go along.
Quite frankly I have seen much better analysis from middle schoolers. If nothing else, they do not make up and fill in the gaps gratuitously
You are letting your anger drive, here. That generally doesn't help decent conversations.
As I said, I haven't spent the time to get into it. I think you know me well enough to know I have "basic science skills", so I can let that go as frustration and not meant too seriously.
I am tired. I am going to wander to the corner store, get a beer and watch a movie with the wife. You have my promise to get to it when I can.
Take care.
No matter the order of the phrase, it's definition is illogical in it's application. I ask again, Who denies the climate changes?
You have created an entirely illogical thread and cannot define the words you used improperly.
When you cannot debate logically you always fall back to this smear.
I have not "withdrawn" as in accepted your argument, I just have not bothered to read it recently. My arguments on the issue have not changed.
That's OK Fuzzy. I'm tired of you purposely skewing things. I tried to open a dialog with you again, but you simply refuse to acknowledge valid points. You continue to do so in rather obnoxious ways. I get pissed at random as well, but at least after a while, he "gets it." I'll probably put you on IGNORE again, and never take you off. You will never simply change your stance once you are shown to be wrong. Before I do so, please remember:
You don't have to prove I'm wrong? I think you mean you are incapable of proving I am wrong, because solubility determined by partial pressure and temperature is an undisputed science. No skeptics in this part of science, except it appears you are a denier.
Fresh water chart? Liar. I have furnished in the past and used a chart that applies to the oceans. It shows solubility in a matrix by temperature and salinity. Again, a known proven aspect of science, not in dispute, except for your denial of real science.
Quantifying? I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a difficult task. Again, my examples are not trying to quantify real world situations. I am only showing those with basic understandings how these function.
The inaccuracies I claim are fact. Of the several studies done of atmospheric 13C, the results from one study to another are all over the place. The only consistency is that they all show the same direction of ratio changes. The magnitudes are really far off though. Again how do these studies matter?
The definitions of words is semantics.
Quite frankly who gives a what you are defining? This is not the 'Let's phrase things for easy interpretation for Poptech's mentally disordered mind.' thread. If you are confused by what he means by 'climate change' then ask him.
If you are confused by it then that's your problem.No one else is having this problem. Have you considered that maybe YOU are the problem in your lack of understanding? Nope, its always someone else lying or otherwise maligning your 'irrefutable' interpretations.
Its also very transparent that this is one of your narcissistic ploys. If the wording doesn't match YOUR definition then you can just discount it.
You don't even live up to that as I have seen you argue that if the climate has changed it has only been insignificant and you are not even convinced of that.
You are a cliche at this point.
All of them show an upward trend but you get to simply dismiss that by claiming that the magnitudes are 'wildly all over the place' asif you have even attempted to demonstrate that.
matrix. Sure seems like simultaneous functions to me. Its a chart. It's a chart of seawater tested in a lab its not describing the behavior of the ocean with all its thermal layers, salinity gradients, ocean currents algae plumes and other assorted wildlife.
The problem with your matrix is the solubility formulas for CO2 and the actual mechanism. You are dumbing it down here. In essence what youa re claiming is that the sea temperature changes and poof the ocean fizzes out CO2.
Again
Even then, the notion that climate science does not consider this is prima facia stupid but further it is easily demonstrable that they do. The IPCC details scientific work on it from 10 years ago in their 2001 report.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/104.htm
They quite obviously have extensively looked into it.
What you are missing about the partial pressures is that CO2 doesn't just dissolve. It dissociates into a couple of different compounds and there are chemical reactions in the ocean that happen. This phenomenon is ongoing.
HERE is a study that tries to discuss the empirical observations of said behavior, quantification thereof. Below is a discussion of some of the feedbacks involved.
The science is so obviously so far beyond your Dr. EZ Bake Optics analysis and quite frankly you of all people thinking you got one over on the entirety of the scientific community is laughable.
Yes, I know the CO2 changes form. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know about it. They have equilibrium as well based on pH, temperature, etc. This is one of my biggest dislike about you. You automatically assume things and respond with your inaccurate assumption, instead of asking. You make calloused remarks based on your ignorance of what other people know. Do you have any redeeming qualities as a person, or are you a waste of flesh?
It does not change the fact the CO2 is both sinked and sourced with the ocean, and that the balance changes with temperature, salinity, etc.
Are you going to deny that the warming of the ocean changes this balance?
Whatever you claim to know or not know you do not even attempt to account for them in any way shape or form. I think you are pretty stupid and have demonstrated it time and again. If you cannot deal with it then put me on ignore because unless you demonstrate something significantly different, i will continue to do so.
Additionally you have been claiming that the scientists do not consider this 'important scientific fact.' I just showed you where they had in their conferences. A simple google search pulled it up multiple times. That shows me that you are unwilling to even research what you claim but rather would 'suppose' or guess.' You have demonstrated that time and again as well.
I deny that the scientific evidence does not consider it and that you're attempts to show otherwise have been anything other than ty. Quit supposing and start proving empirically and I will treat you differently.
within post # 413 of the original thread:
Also in the thread, posted by me:Solution:
CO2(atmospheric) ⇌ CO2(dissolved)
Conversion to carbonic acid:
CO2(dissolved) + H2O ⇌ H2CO3
First ionization:
H2CO3 ⇌ H+ + HCO3− (bicarbonate ion)
Second ionization:
HCO3− ⇌ H+ + CO3−− (carbonate ion)
Please note that more than 90% of the carbon is in either CO2, or carbonic acid. They freely equalize as the conditions change.
You need to really stop thinking other people are beneath you. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know of them. It's still part of the 98% balance.
You need to start giving people a little more credit as to their knowledge and ask for clarification rather than accuse.
I really don't see how you could possible have any friends in real life.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-26-2012 at 10:14 PM.
And you do?
No, I put you on IGNORE because you are impossible to reason with.
The linked materiel also supported what I said, yet you deny it.
Which claim and I trying to quantify? I am showing why skepticism is proper. When have i said i try to quantify? I don't need to pull up studies that quantify when that isn't my goal. If you want that, find them yourself.
I not sure what you are referring to here. How about refreshing my memory. I believe the last time I used such a meaning was saying they do not count the indirect solar energy in greenhouse gas forcing. Increases in solar energy directly increase the forcing of greenhouse gasses, but instead of assigning the extra forcing to the sun, they assign the extra forcing to the gasses.
We are talking about solubility right now, right?
Failure to properly define and use words means a failure to communicate. If the goal is to be incoherent then you have succeeded. Either provide a definition from a dictionary for the context of the words "Climate Change Deniers" or this thread is falsified as incoherent.
Psychotic drug addict, I have no confusion about words that only have a certain range of definitions.
Please provide a definition from a dictionary of these words in the context used here. So far no such definition has been provided and the thread has been falsified as incoherent.
What?
Last edited by Poptech; 05-27-2012 at 01:34 AM.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)