a chemist’s view

[SSDD]

And a real experiment that actually shows the effect of CO2, rather than that bullshit peice you posted;

7A: Carbon Dioxide and Ocean pH: What's the Connection?

Note that your experiment, as I stated is devoid of life. It is an experiment that only has meaning if the world were a lifeless, sterile, processed place. Try the same experiment with water that is full of minerals and life and you will see a different set of results. It is your experiment, as I have already pointed out that has no connection with the real world.

That's the problem with climate science today...none of it equates to the real world. Is it because the scientists lack the education to realise the flaws in their experiments, or are they perpetrating deliberate fraud on a less educated public? Which is worse?

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn. So you are the best scientist in the world and everyone else lacks education.

LOL.

The experiment is being tried at this at this very moment, and the show a declining pH in the oceans.

Ocean Acidification: A Greater Threat than Global Warming and Overfishing?, by Dr. William C.G. Burns : Articles : Terrain.org

While chemically neutral in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide in the ocean is chemically active. As carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water molecules (H2O) to form a weak acid, carbonic acid (H2CO3), the same weak acid found in carbonated beverages. Like all acids, carbonic acid then releases hydrogen ions (H+) into solution—leaving both bicarbonate ions (HCO3-1) and, to a lesser extent, carbonate ions (CO32-) in the solution. The acidity of ocean waters is determined by the concentration of hydrogen ions, which is measured on the pH scale. The higher the level of hydrogen ions in a solution, the lower the pH.

The increase of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide since the advent of the Industrial Revolution has decreased surface pH values by 0.12 units. While this may not sound like a substantial change, the pH scale is logarithmic. Thus, a 0.1 unit change in pH translates into a 30 percent increase in hydrogen ions. The pH of the world’s oceans now stands at approximately 8.2, with a variation of about ±0.3 units because of local, regional, and seasonal variations. The pH unit change over the past 150 years is probably the greatest seen over the past several million years.

While increases in ocean acidification have been substantial to date, far more dramatic changes are likely to occur during this century and beyond as a substantial portion of burgeoning levels of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions enter the world’s oceans. Under a “business as usual” scenario, carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow at 2 percent annually during the remainder of this century, although emissions have grown far more substantially in the past six years, exceeding even the upper range of the projections of the IPCC. The IPCC in its Special Report on Emissions Scenarios projected that carbon dioxide emissions could be as high as 37 gigatons of carbon annually by 2100, with the median and mean of all scenarios being 15.5 and 17 GtC, respectively. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide may reach twice pre-industrial levels by as early as 2050, and could triple or quadruple by 2100.

Bet you haven't a clue as to what they are refering to.

 

[mamooth]

The experiment is what it is and demonstrates what it demonstrates.

The experiment demonstrated that algae growth can make water alkaline.

The experiment didn't even try to demonstrate that increasing CO2 levels makes water more or less acidic.

A more meaningful experiment would have grown the algae at low CO2 and high CO2 levels, and checked pH difference.

So, the experiment had nothing to do with the issue, and the purpose of citing it seems to be to misdirect.

 

[SSDD]

The experiment is what it is and demonstrates what it demonstrates.

The experiment demonstrated that algae growth can make water alkaline.

The experiment didn't even try to demonstrate that increasing CO2 levels makes water more or less acidic.

A more meaningful experiment would have grown the algae at low CO2 and high CO2 levels, and checked pH difference.

So, the experiment had nothing to do with the issue, and the purpose of citing it seems to be to misdirect.

Sorry you missed the point of the experiment and what it demonstrated regarding CO2. It was written in straight forward english and I don't know how you missed it. Guess your faith is very strong. I suggest you do it at very high CO2 levels and see what happens. See how far you have to go to make the water acidic. My bet is that it will require concentrations so high that they could not be reached even if we burned all the known fossil fuels on earth.

 

[SSDD]

Damn. So you are the best scientist in the world and everyone else lacks education.

Guess so.

Bet you haven't a clue as to what they are refering to.

Actually, I do and if you were the geologist you claim to be, you would know that the presence of very old limestone on the ocean floor, known to exist during periods when atmospheric CO2 was measured in multiple thousands of ppm is conclusive proof that high atmospheric CO2 does not result in devastating ocean acidification....if it did, such limestone would not exist.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry you missed the point of the experiment and what it demonstrated regarding CO2. It was written in straight forward english and I don't know how you missed it.

Oh, I didn't miss it. You stink at chemistry, just as you stink at all of the science. Hence, you posted something irrelevant in an attempt to deflect from your ineptitude.

Guess your faith is very strong.

I'm not the one who is religiously ignoring real world pH measurements. That would be you. You have to, since your cult's beliefs always get contradicted by the real world.

I suggest you do it at very high CO2 levels and see what happens. See how far you have to go to make the water acidic. My bet is that it will require concentrations so high that they could not be reached even if we burned all the known fossil fuels on earth.

Since no one ever said pH would go acidic, what are you babbling about?

For glub's sake, do some actual reading on how ocean chemistry works, and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[SSDD]

I'm not the one who is religiously ignoring real world pH measurements. That would be you. You have to, since your cult's beliefs always get contradicted by the real world.

Of course you are. If you paid any attention whatsoever to real world pH measurements, you would know that the pH swing from low tide to high tide is greater than the claimed acidification from increased atmospheric CO2.

Since no one ever said pH would go acidic, what are you babbling about?

For glub's sake, do some actual reading on how ocean chemistry works, and stop embarrassing yourself.

If you had a clue, it would be you who is embarassed. The fact that you are still here rather than hiding under a couch, dying from embarassment is evidence that ignorance is bliss.

 

[mamooth]

If you paid any attention whatsoever to real world pH measurements, you would know that the pH swing from low tide to high tide is greater than the claimed acidification from increased atmospheric CO2.

What does that have to do with anything? It's like saying since the temperature swing from day to night is bigger than global warming, global warming is meaningless. It's a dumb argument, and only a retard would keep chanting it as if it meant something.

If you had a clue, it would be you who is embarassed. The fact that you are still here rather than hiding under a couch, dying from embarassment is evidence that ignorance is bliss.

I see you're not going to take my advice to actually learn something about ocean chemistry. Not surprising. That would take work on your part, and it's so much easier to just repeat what your cult told you and then scream at people. And on some level, even you know how the science destroys your positions, hence you have to avoid it.

 

[bripat9643]

How long has "principia scientific" existed? *

The experiment is what it is and demonstrates what it demonstrates. You can do it yourself for mere pennies and see what you see.

As for the actual paper itself, you’ve probably figured by now that it’s a load of rubbish. And you’d be right.

As for the paper...I did the experiment myself and got the same results. Real world observation vs flawed computer model output. The contrast is undeniable.

If a circumstantial ad hominem is the best you can do, why even bother?

These turds seem to think no one is competent to interpret the results of a simple experiment unless they have a PHD in climate bullshitology. They can't refute such obvious facts, so they go into their Alinsky mode of attacking the source. Why don't they point out the faults in the methodology of the experiment? Because they know they can't.

It's hilarious watching all the fireworks that result.

 

[SSDD]

These turds seem to think no one is competent to interpret the results of a simple experiment unless they have a PHD in climate bullshitology. They can't refute such obvious facts, so they go into their Alinsky mode of attacking the source. Why don't they point out the faults in the methodology of the experiment? Because they know they can't.

It's hilarious watching all the fireworks that result.

It is sad..right from the outset my experiment stated that CO2 could make water more acid in sterile lab conditions and goes on to show that in the real world, under real conditions the results are very different...and what does rocks do, brings forward an expriment calling for treated tap water....add some life to that water and some minerals and nutrients and the results of the experiment will match those of the experiment I provided. Guess they think the oceans are full of tap water.

 

[SSDD]

Here crazies...look at another experiment.

This video shows that a candle floating on water, burning in the air inside a glass, converts the oxygen in the air to CO2. The water rises in the glass because the CO2, which replaced the oxygen, is quickly dissolved in the water. The water contains calcium ions Ca++, because we initially dissolved calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 in the water. The CO2 produced during oxygen burning reacts with the calcium ions to produce solid calcium carbonate CaCO3, which is easily visible as a whitening of the water when we switch on a flashlight. This little kitchen experiment demonstrates the inorganic carbon cycle in nature. The oceans take out our anthropogenic CO2 gas by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO3-, which in turn forms solid calcium carbonate either organically in calcareous organisms or precipitates inorganically. The CaCO3 is precipitating and not dissolving during this process, because buffering in the ocean maintains a stable pH around 8. We also see that CO2 reacts very fast with the water, contrary to the claim by the IPCC that it takes 50 - 200 years for this to happen. Try this for yourself in your kitchen!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjxUwDTkd4g&feature=player_detailpage]CO2 Experiment Video - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Trakar]

Little hysteria there eh? I liked the parts about carbon sequestration in the oceans being a "drop in the bucket" (good pun, i crack myself up), but the LOGIC sucks and there is no real analysis in your summary..

Carbon Sequestration would be a small effect, but the stuff that's NOT sequestered currently and being sunk by oceans is?? That assertion totally depends on the efficiency and commitment to sequestration.. Which is NOT a chemistry issue at all -- is it?

The hysteria part is the fact that 1million tons/hour is miniscule compared to the natural exchange rates of land and ocean WITHOUT MAN --- but that measuring stick is completely ignored, to add URGENCY to his "opinions"..

Your rant appears to be lacking veracity, support and relevance to this thread.

You've pulled this tactic recently on me in a couple threads. I responded DIRECTLY the OP. Perhaps you think there's a difference between PURPOSELY sequestering carbon in the ocean or waiting til most of it ends up there. Planning to sink the CO2 to great depth is a boatload better than waiting to see where the absorption limit of the ocean is -- don't ya think? Else that 1mil ton/hour STOPS going into the ocean -- dont it?

Are you not aware of the ratio of man-caused CO2 to the "natural volumes" exchanged at land and sea.. If this is what you want back-up on -- I'm SURPRISED -- but willing to help you out.. Thought you were all Pro-Active and stuff this week all into fixing things.

At this point -- it's not my veracity in question but your unwillness to discuss and possibly your ability to read critically and select material that you WANT to defend..

lacking veracity
"Little hysteria there eh?"
"I liked the parts about carbon sequestration in the oceans being a 'drop in the bucket'"
"but the LOGIC sucks and there is no real analysis in your summary.."
"Carbon Sequestration would be a small effect, but the stuff that's NOT sequestered currently and being sunk by oceans is??"


lacking relevance
"That assertion totally depends on the efficiency and commitment to sequestration.. Which is NOT a chemistry issue at all -- is it?"
"The hysteria part is the fact that 1million tons/hour is miniscule compared to the natural exchange rates of land and ocean WITHOUT MAN"
"but that measuring stick is completely ignored, to add URGENCY to his 'opinions'.."

And your last response follows this up with more, irrelevant to this topic rants and strawman bluster.