Yes, and the fact the poll says what is says should add to the healthy skepticism of the AGW theory.
Well, learn some more, and maybe you'll get better than Manny.
Defering to others is a bad idea. Trust, but verify. Without the capacity to verify the integrity of what others say, you are just being another useful idiot for the agenda.
Yes, the scientific community is careful to note units, and I do my best to get it right. It is those like you who fail to consider the correct units, and maybe some of the AGW crowd?
The carbon cycle isn't limited to CO2. In the ocean, it has various carbonic forms. In the atmosphere, it also includes methane and other gasses, though CO2 is the primary carbon form by several factors in the atmosphere. When speaking of the carbon cycle, this is what we normally speak of:
Also, using the weight of carbon atoms keeps us using all the same units instead of having to figure out the amount of carbon in each molecule individually.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)
Yes, and the fact the poll says what is says should add to the healthy skepticism of the AGW theory.
"Deferring to others is a bad idea" from the guy who says "you people should trust me on this"?
Which is it? Should I defer to others or not?
Or should I just defer to you?
When I have delved into many of your claims and assertions on other topics, they have come up empty.
Why should this topic be any different? Because you have applied your confirmation bias to more information?
"Most scientists tend to be Democrats"
More ad hominem.
"We should be skeptical of Democrats, simply because they are Democrats, and not base our judgements on the merit of any individual claim."
Don't you ever get tired of this particular logical fallacy?
Hey, I explain my methodology, and encourage others to learn the sciences well enough to follow.
Does the AGW crowd do that?
Your methodology of automatically believing things that confirm your beliefs and dismissing things that don't?
That one?
Or was I missing something?
RG, Please ignore the ramblings of WC. His arrogance is so amazing when you realize how moronic what he is saying is.
Yes, the amount of carbon added to the atmosphere is much smaller than the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere as it is only a component of CO2. It is also completely irrelevant considering that CO2 is the gas in question and we're not worried about carbon causing AGW we're worried about CO2.
The PPM of CO2 is in question, not carbon. Therefore its completely irrelevant (and re ed) to lower the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere into the amount of carbon.
WC is like a fat guy ordering a pizza and instead of saying he ate 8 slices he's trying to say he ONLY ate ONE pizza.
I'm supposed to accept the unseen calculations of someone who can't figure out that we're not talking about carbon PPM in the atmosphere and rather CO2 PPM in the atmosphere?
Yeah, thats going to happen.
How many times must you keep exposing your ass to us. From post #677:
The carbon cycle is not limited to CO2, but then you are obviously too stupid to get that.In the atmosphere, it also includes methane and other gasses, though CO2 is the primary carbon form by several factors in the atmosphere.
Thats irrelevant when discussing PPM of CO2. CO2 isn't going to become CH4 because you wish it. The point of the conversation as to illustrate that CO2 is rising and you started rambling about how you don't see that the PPM is going to go up very much because its only 8 GT of carbon each year as opposed to 26 GT of CO2.
It makes no god damn sense. I'm not an idiot, WC and you can't just throw stupid jargon or a pretty chart out and convince me that you have a clue.
But you are an idiot. I was merely pointing out that tons of carbon in the atmosphere are not the same as tons of CO2, and you want to imply I don't know there is a correlation to ppm.
you.
You are so ing lame. So dumb that you think you are making winning points.
Manny, I'll give you a clue about how stupid your presumed win over me is. It's called "Significant Figures." In the atmosphere, all but CO2 become insignificant when talking about the carbon cycle in 2 digit accuracy.
Merely pointing out my ass. You were converting them to carbon because you get to drop the tonnage by over 1/3
There was absolutely no reason to discuss the tonnage of carbon when discussing the increasing amount of carbon DIOXIDE into the atmosphere except to mislead.
I either give you credit for being a liar or being wrong. While I certainly think you capable of being a flat out liar your history of spewing out technical jargon and pointless charts in order to cover up your ignorance precedes you.
Wow...
Your ignorance is making you call me ignorant...
Wow...
And because of what I've stated above, I've come to pretty much just ignore or laugh at your posts. I don't believe many people (I could be wrong - I'm not in their heads - just a hunch) here give you much credit so I typically don't feel a need to address the bull you spew.
RG seemed to actually believe you were making a point, however, and I wanted to make sure he understood your conversion was absolute bull .
You're free to continue on with your bull at your leisure, WC.
I see now. You are throwing on the walls, to see how much sticks, and to make the less informed wary of the messenger.And because of what I've stated above, I've come to pretty much just ignore or laugh at your posts. I don't believe many people (I could be wrong - I'm not in their heads - just a hunch) here give you much credit so I typically don't feel a need to address the bull you spew.
RG seemed to actually believe you were making a point, however, and I wanted to make sure he understood your conversion was absolute bull .
You're free to continue on with your bull at your leisure, WC.
Pretty y tactics, but I guess bull is all that works when the truth isn't on your side.
I did find this spectacularly amusing btw.
Considering you don't know what I mean, I can believe that.
Manny, another clue to your stupidity.
When talking about the carbon cycle, it is normal to talk the weight of carbon. Not CO2, or other forms, because each has it's own molecular mass. The carbon cycle deals with specific chemistry. The fact that you don't know in atmospheric form, it has a direct conversion to ppm, is your loss and ignorance. Not mine.
Considering satellite spectroscopy has noted the drop of outgoing radiation in the same bands as greenhouse gas absorption I'd say your post is hilarious.
That doesn't surprise me, since the driving force, the sun, has been emitting less energy these past few years.
I'll bet it is proportionally less.
The measurements date back 40 years so no.
They are proportional though. The change is directly proportional to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which completely contradicts your statement.
Double post.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions