AGW: atmospheric physics

[depotoo]

Wanna see the documents?

What I want is for you is to, just once, act like a grownup and stop running from my questions. Losing the pervy stalker vibe you put out would be a plus, but that's secondary. Gay stalkers don't bug me that much.

Like Numan said, drop the childish picture-spamming. Retreating behind a wall of pictures doesn't make anyone forget how how dogshit ignorant of the science you are. You try to bluster your way through with BS, I point out it's BS, everyone laughs at you, and you have a series of public meltdowns.

So, let's get back to some of those questions that have caused you to squeal like a sissy and run.

What's the purpose of a cooling tower at a nuclear reactor?

Why doesn't the navy use software to control nuclear reactors?

What's a magamp, and what's the advantage of using them for reactor controls?

Oh, the forecast high for Nuuk, Greenland tomorrow is 50F. Normal high for this date is around 28F. Naturally, you'll inexplicably keep yammering about a photoshop conspiracy, and thus cause everyone to laugh even harder at you.

Guess what? The average temp in April in Amundsen-Scott, Antarctica is -20.7c. Guess what the temp is there today? -68 c

 

[depotoo]

First of all the picture you just posted is from {http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor}

A photo of the same display is on the Navy's website here, and the Navy specifically identifies it as a reactor control room mockup.

Fast Attacks and Boomers: Submarines of the Cold War

That's what an EOS looks like. You didn't know that, and I did. 'Nuff said.

Secondly the Navy says on their home page that:

It still says that it's a _simulator_. If you still can't grasp that a simulator is not the real thing, you're too 'effin stupid to be in this conversation. Go back to the kiddie table, and stop bothering the grownups.

I've not fully followed this conversation. Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?

 

[polarbear]

First of all the picture you just posted is from {http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor}

A photo of the same display is on the Navy's website here, and the Navy specifically identifies it as a reactor control room mockup.

Fast Attacks and Boomers: Submarines of the Cold War

That's what an EOS looks like. You didn't know that, and I did. 'Nuff said.

Secondly the Navy says on their home page that:

It still says that it's a _simulator_. If you still can't grasp that a simulator is not the real thing, you're too 'effin stupid to be in this conversation. Go back to the kiddie table, and stop bothering the grownups.

My wife is finally done using the phone.
Apr 7 13:09:39 (none) local5.debug pots_bridge[2330]: vmwi_state_machine: VMWI : idx [0] on event 'call state changed'
Apr 7 13:09:39 (none) local5.debug pots_bridge[2330]: shutter_tone_timer_reset: shutter_tone_timer_REs
The snowstorm has dropped us down to 1 bar and I`m waiting for it to taper off to better than 3 car length visibility so we can go to town.
I checked back in here and almost choked on my coffee laughing what you wrote in the meantime.
Can`t you get it into your little brains THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU NOW 3TIMES THAT THE FIDE SIMULATOR IS A THE SIMULATOR which the NAVY is using...to train their watch officers...
And you keep coming back here lecturing me that it`s a simulator.
The Navy does not train Nuclear Reactor personnel in Museum subs with flooded silos, they use that Simulator.
**** are you saying the Navy is lying...go to their home page and see for yourself.
The funniest thing I seen so far is that:

Now _this_ is a reproduction of a navy reactor control room. (The teletype and TV have been added, and do not exist in an actual EOS.)That's from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel, but the EOS on a cruiser looked very similar. Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat. I knew what every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read, what the alarms meant and how to respond, as did the 3 operators at their stations. That would be why no software was necessary. We had people, and people don't crash like software does.

And you posted a picture which was from an Internet humor web site called My Little Sisters Jokes photo-shop joke minus the top left caption:
Subject: 1954 computer prediction

.

That picture that you say was "from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel," was originally published by a hoaxter: on Fark.com. The entry was submitted by a Fark user posting under the name lukket. who doctored it up using a foto from this Smithsonian exhibit:

I`ve been through the Smithsonian every time I was in Washington and so has almost every elementary school kid in nearby States...
And that`s the closest you have ever been to a Navy Nuclear reactor control room...where the display case is.

Funny how obsessed you are.
First you tried to pass off a blog picture from Greenland as a Satellite picture and actual temperatures...
when I nailed you, you changed the subject to that you "used to run nuclear reactors"...and there were no gauges...
Then I showed you the Navy Simulator and the mockup gauges...
You reply that the Navy is using simulators that are totally un-related to the "real thing" where there are no gauges,...in fact no electronics and nothing is controlled by software...
Then I showed you a picture of an actual Naval SG9 reactor control room:

Where the engineer is plugged in with his laptop`s serial port into the Westinghouse Genesis control system..
He is not playing video games or e-mailing Mom...!
And after that you come back with a photo-joke made from a Smithsonian Museum display and showed me the exact spot where you "used to sit".
You did that after I caught you with another lie, where you said that Greenland was melting an ski-races had been called off.
Then it was back to your nuclear reactor crap
When I nailed you again you showed me where you used to sit...in the SMITHSONIAN and your typical temper tantrum:

'effin stupid to be in this conversation. Go back to the kiddie table, and stop bothering the grownups.

Then It was back to Nuuk again
B.T.W. Nuuk is still at -1 C and the forecast is:

Nuuk 4 – 7 Day Weather Forecast Summary: Mostly dry. Freeze-thaw conditions (max 2°C on Thu morning, min -1°C on Wed morning).

Why don`t you grow up and stop bothering grown ups?
This thread is not about you who "used to run nuclear reactors"...you changed it to that after you avoided answering a question regarding Thermal conduction and convection

By the way you are ******* up with your internet copy naval buzzwords:

The teletype and TV have been added, and do not exist in an actual EOS.

An EOS is a enclosed operating system such as SIMULATORS...Pilots train on EOS SIMULATORS also...en EOS is not an actual control room or a cockpit

 

[depotoo]

Wanna see the documents?

What I want is for you is to, just once, act like a grownup and stop running from my questions. Losing the pervy stalker vibe you put out would be a plus, but that's secondary. Gay stalkers don't bug me that much.

Like Numan said, drop the childish picture-spamming. Retreating behind a wall of pictures doesn't make anyone forget how how dogshit ignorant of the science you are. You try to bluster your way through with BS, I point out it's BS, everyone laughs at you, and you have a series of public meltdowns.

So, let's get back to some of those questions that have caused you to squeal like a sissy and run.

What's the purpose of a cooling tower at a nuclear reactor?

Why doesn't the navy use software to control nuclear reactors?

What's a magamp, and what's the advantage of using them for reactor controls?

Oh, the forecast high for Nuuk, Greenland tomorrow is 50F. Normal high for this date is around 28F. Naturally, you'll inexplicably keep yammering about a photoshop conspiracy, and thus cause everyone to laugh even harder at you.

I have already answered this, but wish to expand on it.
You state the normal high for this date is around 28. According to weather underground the average for this day is actually 32. Their historical high for this day is 63. And their forecast for tomorrow is actually 48, not 50. Currently the temp there is 41.

 

[polarbear]

Wanna see the documents?

What I want is for you is to, just once, act like a grownup and stop running from my questions. Losing the pervy stalker vibe you put out would be a plus, but that's secondary. Gay stalkers don't bug me that much.

Like Numan said, drop the childish picture-spamming. Retreating behind a wall of pictures doesn't make anyone forget how how dogshit ignorant of the science you are. You try to bluster your way through with BS, I point out it's BS, everyone laughs at you, and you have a series of public meltdowns.

So, let's get back to some of those questions that have caused you to squeal like a sissy and run.

What's the purpose of a cooling tower at a nuclear reactor?

Why doesn't the navy use software to control nuclear reactors?

What's a magamp, and what's the advantage of using them for reactor controls?

Oh, the forecast high for Nuuk, Greenland tomorrow is 50F. Normal high for this date is around 28F. Naturally, you'll inexplicably keep yammering about a photoshop conspiracy, and thus cause everyone to laugh even harder at you.

I have already answered this, but wish to expand on it.
You state the normal high for this date is around 28. According to weather underground the average for this day is actually 32. Their historical high for this day is 63. And their forecast for tomorrow is actually 48, not 50. Currently the temp there is 41.

It was the Siames cat who chimed in on the "Spring what Spring" thread .. , that the entire winter and the sub-normal cold from the Carolinas right up to the Canadian Arctic across Greenland and into the European continent was just "weather"...and now the shifty eyed Siamese cat is using a wrong forecast for Nuuk as "climate change".
Here is the 7 day Nuuk forecast:

Nuuk 4 – 7 Day Weather Forecast Summary: Mostly dry. Freeze-thaw conditions (max 2°C on Thu morning, min -1°C on Wed morning). Wind will be generally light.

My thermometer is on the east side of my house. From sun-up to noon it`s in direct sunlight and showed +4C today.
As soon as the thermometer is in the shade it reads -9C (right now @ 15:33 local time Portage La Prairie Manitoba. I`m 25 miles SW of Portage)
I`ve been to Nuuk...They have vegetable gardens in the sub-urbs and you can start (balcony) gardening and grow flowers in May
But now the Siamese cat wants to discuss the Smithsonian display where it sat "running a nuclear reactor" and that I have a drinking problem, have nothing better to do than Internet stalking..It has me already being "gay" and all kinds of other stuff...in a thread where we are discussing atmospheric physics.


​

 

[mamooth]

Can`t you get it into your little brains THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU NOW 3 TIMES THAT THE FIDE SIMULATOR IS A THE SIMULATOR which the NAVY is using ... to train their watch officers ...

I run a simulator, on my computer, of a WWII aircraft. That does not mean the WWII aircraft used computers.

The Navy runs a simulator, on a computer, of a nuclear reactor. That does not mean the reactor uses computers.

I can't dumb this down any further for you. You are the only person here who fails to grasp such a simple concept.

That picture that you say was "from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel,"

Explain for us which one is the Electrical Control Panel, and how you can tell.

Tell us why a submarine uses a ring bus, but a cruiser or carrier does not.

Tell us the purpose of those two wheels.

Point is, I know the answers to those questions, given I worked in such a room for years.

In contrast, you've gotten pretty much every single thing totally wrong on this thread. And when I pointed it out, you went into a meltdown, spout some crazy lies about what I supposedly said, and retreated behind gibberish and picture-spamming.

You could have just admitted I was right back at the start when I pointed out Greenland was much warmer than average. It would have been much easier for you. But it's clearly too late for that now. You're far too emotionally invested in your little vendetta here to ever back down. Hence, you'll keep digging yourself deeper into the stupid hole, and everyone will continue laughing at you.

Then I showed you a picture of an actual Naval SG9 reactor control room:

Again, that's not the control room. And in any case, it definitely has nothing to do with the 1960 vintage D2G reactor. And you failed to answer my question as to what computer you think was running this software in 1960.

Where the engineer is plugged in through with his laptop the serial port into the Westinghouse Genesis control system..
He is not playing video games or e-mailing Mom...!

It's not an engineer. It's a pair of RT's. If I had to guess, I'd say they're running a precrit checkoff, something that has to be done before coldstarting the reactor. We used to do it by hand, initialing steps on a stack of paper in a 6-hour process. Makes sense that they'd eventually switch to a program to run through it.

You are essentially the only human on the planet claiming that Iconic Genesis software is used to run Navy nuclear reactors. Why is that? Oh, that's right. Because you pulled the claim out of your ass, same place you get all your information.

 

[polarbear]

Can`t you get it into your little brains THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU NOW 3 TIMES THAT THE FIDE SIMULATOR IS A THE SIMULATOR which the NAVY is using ... to train their watch officers ...

I run a simulator, on my computer, of a WWII aircraft. That does not mean the WWII aircraft used computers.

The Navy runs a simulator, on a computer, of a nuclear reactor. That does not mean the reactor uses computers.

I can't dumb this down any further for you. You are the only person here who fails to grasp such a simple concept.

That picture that you say was "from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel,"

Explain for us which one is the Electrical Control Panel, and how you can tell.

Tell us why a submarine uses a ring bus, but a cruiser or carrier does not.

Tell us the purpose of those two wheels.

Point is, I know the answers to those questions, given I worked in such a room for years.

In contrast, you've gotten pretty much every single thing totally wrong on this thread. And when I pointed it out, you went into a meltdown, spout some crazy lies about what I supposedly said, and retreated behind gibberish and picture-spamming.

You could have just admitted I was right back at the start when I pointed out Greenland was much warmer than average. It would have been much easier for you. But it's clearly too late for that now. You're far too emotionally invested in your little vendetta here to ever back down. Hence, you'll keep digging yourself deeper into the stupid hole, and everyone will continue laughing at you.

Then I showed you a picture of an actual Naval SG9 reactor control room:

Again, that's not the control room. And in any case, it definitely has nothing to do with the 1960 vintage D2G reactor. And you failed to answer my question as to what computer you think was running this software in 1960.

Where the engineer is plugged in through with his laptop the serial port into the Westinghouse Genesis control system..
He is not playing video games or e-mailing Mom...!

It's not an engineer. It's a pair of RT's. If I had to guess, I'd say they're running a precrit checkoff, something that has to be done before coldstarting the reactor. We used to do it by hand, initialing steps on a stack of paper in a 6-hour process. Makes sense that they'd eventually switch to a program to run through it.

You are essentially the only human on the planet claiming that Iconic Genesis software is used to run Navy nuclear reactors. Why is that? Oh, that's right. Because you pulled the claim out of your ass, same place you get all your information.

I`ld like to see you using the old vibrating tuning fork to time a ring bus switch on a modern 3 phase system.
All that would be left of you would be a few molten bits of body minerals.
These switches have been replaced with high speed pneumatic switches which are fired by the control system software with millisecond precision

 

[mamooth]

I've not fully followed this conversation. Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?

The nuclear reactors don't use software control. The rest of the ship is another issue.

Why? Because there's no need for software. The reactors work the same way they did in 1960, creating heat to make steam to spin turbines. That doesn't require computer control, and computer control would add another layer for things to go wrong.

There is a logic control system. For example, if 2-out-of-3 sensors show a reactor power spike, it automatically shuts down the reactor. If the reactor is critical (making power), a certain big motorized valve can't be opened, to prevent a cold water criticality incident. But it's hardwired logic, not software driven logic.

 

[polarbear]

I've not fully followed this conversation. Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?

The nuclear reactors don't use software control. The rest of the ship is another issue.

Why? Because there's no need for software. The reactors work the same way they did in 1960, creating heat to make steam to spin turbines. That doesn't require computer control, and computer control would add another layer for things to go wrong.

There is a logic control system. For example, if 2-out-of-3 sensors show a reactor power spike, it automatically shuts down the reactor. If the reactor is critical (making power), a certain big motorized valve can't be opened, to prevent a cold water criticality incident. But it's hardwired logic, not software driven logic.

NOBODY is using hardwired logic any more since pre 1960!
You are the one who claims "I used to run nuclear reactors"...
I called your bluff and except for grabbing Internet and Wiki-buzz words you have not proven anything...I never claimed I was in the navy but I can scan in a lot more documentation and upload it than the stuff I did upload and post..where you said "so what" to my AECL security clearance..and that I`ve been in and out and been where I wanted to inside the Whiteshell reactor...you replied that you`ve been in a Holiday Inn and that does not make a brain surgeon
Show me something REAL...
you got nothing...zip... zero...not even a picture of you in uniform and rank insignia.
I don`t know any military engineer who did not have his own distinct call sign...what was your`s ?
Mine was the B-Gen-O..I still got my cap...wanna see it too?

Show me your`s !
You won`t because you cant` and just keep harping to bury your other frauds that were exposed.

 

[depotoo]

What I want is for you is to, just once, act like a grownup and stop running from my questions. Losing the pervy stalker vibe you put out would be a plus, but that's secondary. Gay stalkers don't bug me that much.

Like Numan said, drop the childish picture-spamming. Retreating behind a wall of pictures doesn't make anyone forget how how dogshit ignorant of the science you are. You try to bluster your way through with BS, I point out it's BS, everyone laughs at you, and you have a series of public meltdowns.

So, let's get back to some of those questions that have caused you to squeal like a sissy and run.

What's the purpose of a cooling tower at a nuclear reactor?

Why doesn't the navy use software to control nuclear reactors?

What's a magamp, and what's the advantage of using them for reactor controls?

Oh, the forecast high for Nuuk, Greenland tomorrow is 50F. Normal high for this date is around 28F. Naturally, you'll inexplicably keep yammering about a photoshop conspiracy, and thus cause everyone to laugh even harder at you.

I have already answered this, but wish to expand on it.
You state the normal high for this date is around 28. According to weather underground the average for this day is actually 32. Their historical high for this day is 63. And their forecast for tomorrow is actually 48, not 50. Currently the temp there is 41.

It was the Siames cat who chimed in on the "Spring what Spring" thread .. , that the entire winter and the sub-normal cold from the Carolinas right up to the Canadian Arctic across Greenland and into the European continent was just "weather"...and now the shifty eyed Siamese cat is using a wrong forecast for Nuuk as "climate change".
Here is the 7 day Nuuk forecast:

Nuuk 4 – 7 Day Weather Forecast Summary: Mostly dry. Freeze-thaw conditions (max 2°C on Thu morning, min -1°C on Wed morning). Wind will be generally light.

My thermometer is on the east side of my house. From sun-up to noon it`s in direct sunlight and showed +4C today.
As soon as the thermometer is in the shade it reads -9C (right now @ 15:33 local time Portage La Prairie Manitoba. I`m 25 miles SW of Portage)
I`ve been to Nuuk...They have vegetable gardens in the sub-urbs and you can start (balcony) gardening and grow flowers in May
But now the Siamese cat wants to discuss the Smithsonian display where it sat "running a nuclear reactor" and that I have a drinking problem, have nothing better to do than Internet stalking..It has me already being "gay" and all kinds of other stuff...in a thread where we are discussing atmospheric physics.


​

yeah and I noticed he didn't mention the temperature in Cape Harald Moltke, Greenland is currently -30F
Weather Forecast Cape Harald Moltke, Greenland | Cape Harald Moltke Weather | Wunderground

 

[mamooth]

NOBODY is using hardwired logic any more since pre 1960!

No. You're just wrong. Totally and laughably wrong.

But please, inform us which computers were running this famous control software control in 1960.

And here's a thought experiment.

What happens when a computer is hit with an EMP? (Hint: It's not good)

What happens when magamp is hit with an EMP? (Hint: Nothing)

Computers are fragile. Hardwired controls are not. So why would the navy use a fragile system, when the tough system works just fine?

Show me something REAL...

HELLO? THIS IS THE INTERNET.

No matter what I put up, you'd simply claim it was photoshopped, or that it wasn't me. So what's the point?

 

[numan]

According to your scientific american article, there is 50 times as much CO2 sequestered in the ground as in the atmosphere...at present, CO2 is 0.03 percent of the atmosphere....if you could release all of the CO2 sequestered in the ground the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would go from being 0.03 percent to being 1.8%...still a trace gas and not enough to raise the atmospheric pressure by even 5 psi to 19 psi, much less 90+ times to 1260 psi as you claimed.

Change your avatar...your use of a photo of Stephen Hawking is an aggregious insult to the man's intelligence.

It may be an insult to Alfred E. Neuman, but certainly not to Stephen Hawking! · ·

If it were not evidence of your complete dunderheadedness, it would be quite amusing to watch you writhing and twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid admitting your egregious [that is the correct spelling, if you wish to correct your previous post] blunders.

If your reading skills were better, you would have noticed that the article referred only to carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans, not to the carbonate rock of the Earth's crust (which contains vastly greater quantities).

GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE

CARBON POOLS

The Earth’s Crust: The largest amount of carbon on Earth is stored in sedimentary rocks within the planet’s crust. These are rocks produced either by the hardening of mud (containing organic matter) into shale over geological time, or by the collection of calcium carbonate particles, from the shells and skeletons of marine organisms, into limestone and other carbon-containing sedimentary rocks. Together all sedimentary rocks on Earth store 100,000,000 PgC (Petagrams of carbon). Recalling that 1 Pg is is equal to a trillion kilograms and over two trillion pounds, this is clearly a large mass of carbon! Another 4,000 PgC is stored in the Earth’s crust as hydrocarbons formed over millions of years from ancient living organisms under intense temperature and pressure. These hydrocarbons are commonly known as fossil fuels.

Oceans: The Earth’s oceans contain 38,000 PgC, most of which is in the form of dissolved inorganic carbon stored at great depths where it resides for long periods of time. A much smaller amount of carbon, approximately 1,000 Pg, is located near the ocean surface. This carbon is exchanged rapidly with the atmosphere through both physical processes, such as CO2 gas dissolving into the water, and biological processes, such as the growth, death and decay of plankton. Although most of this surface carbon cycles rapidly, some of it can also be transferred by sinking to the deep ocean pool where it can be stored for a much longer time.

Atmosphere: The atmosphere contains approximately 750 PgC, most of which is in the form of CO2, with much smaller amounts of methane (CH4) and various other compounds.

[emphases added]

Since you claim to be so good at simple arithmetic, note that, at present, the atmosphere contains 400 ppm of carbon dioxide (0.04%) [up from when the article was written]. That is 750 gigatonnes of carbon (actually, somewhat more).
Crustal carbonate rock stores 100 million gigatonnes of carbon.
Therefore, multiplying (100,000,000/750) · 0.0004, we get more than 50 times more mass of carbon than the entire mass of the atmosphere!!

Of course, to get carbon dioxide, we must combine the carbon atom with two (approximately equally massive) oxygen atoms.
Since oxygen is by far and away the most common element in the Earth's crust, that is no problem.
Therefore, there is 150 times more potential carbon dioxide than the entire mass of the Earth's present atmosphere -- more than equaling the 90 times mass present on the planet Venus.

I would write "QED", but I am sure you will try to wriggle and squirm out of something even so obvious as this!
.

 

[polarbear]

NOBODY is using hardwired logic any more since pre 1960!

No. You're just wrong. Totally and laughably wrong.

But please, inform us which computers were running this famous control software control in 1960.

And here's a thought experiment.

What happens when a computer is hit with an EMP? (Hint: It's not good)

What happens when magamp is hit with an EMP? (Hint: Nothing)

Computers are fragile. Hardwired controls are not. So why would the navy use a fragile system, when the tough system works just fine?

Show me something REAL...

HELLO? THIS IS THE INTERNET.

No matter what I put up, you'd simply claim it was photoshopped, or that it wasn't me. So what's the point?

All it takes is to scan in a picture, a document or even just a patch.
They let us keep our`s even when we retire...:

I don`t care...blot out your name or you face...I`m not interested..just quit making fraudulent claims and post pictures from "My Little Sisters Jokes" and the Smithsonian museum while claiming you were an engineering officer in the U.S. Navy.
I`ve met lots of them in Thule !...they do have a submarine dock there..
I could dig up a photo shot on final approach to AFB Thule where you can see the pier...

In an emergency that was our last ditch evacuation plan...on any of the closest nuclear subs that are in the Lincoln sea

I just want to get back to the main theme of this thread...
where you claimed "Chinese aerosols" can account for the missing heat that the IPCC is discussing in Hobart Australia how that should be "explained" in their next annual report...that`s when you started with your "me..I just used to run nuclear reactors" bullshit

 

[depotoo]

I've not fully followed this conversation. Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?

The nuclear reactors don't use software control. The rest of the ship is another issue.

Why? Because there's no need for software. The reactors work the same way they did in 1960, creating heat to make steam to spin turbines. That doesn't require computer control, and computer control would add another layer for things to go wrong.

There is a logic control system. For example, if 2-out-of-3 sensors show a reactor power spike, it automatically shuts down the reactor. If the reactor is critical (making power), a certain big motorized valve can't be opened, to prevent a cold water criticality incident. But it's hardwired logic, not software driven logic.

From what I know those of the 60's and there abouts were run by analog systems, today most are run by computers.

 

[polarbear]

According to your scientific american article, there is 50 times as much CO2 sequestered in the ground as in the atmosphere...at present, CO2 is 0.03 percent of the atmosphere....if you could release all of the CO2 sequestered in the ground the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would go from being 0.03 percent to being 1.8%...still a trace gas and not enough to raise the atmospheric pressure by even 5 psi to 19 psi, much less 90+ times to 1260 psi as you claimed.

Change your avatar...your use of a photo of Stephen Hawking is an aggregious insult to the man's intelligence.

It may be an insult to Alfred E. Neuman, but certainly not to Stephen Hawking! · ·

If it were not evidence of your complete dunderheadedness, it would be quite amusing to watch you writhing and twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid admitting your egregious [that is the correct spelling, if you wish to correct your previous post] blunders.

If your reading skills were better, you would have noticed that the article referred only to carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans, not to the carbonate rock of the Earth's crust (which contains vastly greater quantities).

GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE

CARBON POOLS

The Earth’s Crust: The largest amount of carbon on Earth is stored in sedimentary rocks within the planet’s crust. These are rocks produced either by the hardening of mud (containing organic matter) into shale over geological time, or by the collection of calcium carbonate particles, from the shells and skeletons of marine organisms, into limestone and other carbon-containing sedimentary rocks. Together all sedimentary rocks on Earth store 100,000,000 PgC (Petagrams of carbon). Recalling that 1 Pg is is equal to a trillion kilograms and over two trillion pounds, this is clearly a large mass of carbon! Another 4,000 PgC is stored in the Earth’s crust as hydrocarbons formed over millions of years from ancient living organisms under intense temperature and pressure. These hydrocarbons are commonly known as fossil fuels.

Oceans: The Earth’s oceans contain 38,000 PgC, most of which is in the form of dissolved inorganic carbon stored at great depths where it resides for long periods of time. A much smaller amount of carbon, approximately 1,000 Pg, is located near the ocean surface. This carbon is exchanged rapidly with the atmosphere through both physical processes, such as CO2 gas dissolving into the water, and biological processes, such as the growth, death and decay of plankton. Although most of this surface carbon cycles rapidly, some of it can also be transferred by sinking to the deep ocean pool where it can be stored for a much longer time.

Atmosphere: The atmosphere contains approximately 750 PgC, most of which is in the form of CO2, with much smaller amounts of methane (CH4) and various other compounds.

[emphases added]

Since you claim to be so good at simple arithmetic, note that, at present, the atmosphere contains 400 ppm of carbon dioxide (0.04%) [up from when the article was written]. That is 750 gigatonnes of carbon (actually, somewhat more).
Crustal carbonate rock stores 100 million gigatonnes of carbon.
Therefore, multiplying (100,000,000/750) · 0.0004, we get more than 50 times more mass of carbon than the entire mass of the atmosphere!!

Of course, to get carbon dioxide, we must combine the carbon atom with two (approximately equally massive) oxygen atoms.
Since oxygen is by far and away the most common element in the Earth's crust, that is no problem.
Therefore, there is 150 times more potential carbon dioxide than the entire mass of the Earth's present atmosphere -- more than equaling the 90 times mass present on the planet Venus.

I would write "QED", but I am sure you will try to wriggle and squirm out of something even so obvious as this!
.

So why don`t you visit a Lime plant and see for yourself if you can decompose Calciumcarbonate to CaO and CO2 with "back radiation heat from 380 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere"
Somebody with that avatar should have no problem doing a simple experiment.
Get some CO2 (like from a neighborhood pub that dispenses draft beer) and put it in a corked bottle. Drill a hole in the cork, stick a drinking straw into the hole and dip the straw into some water..
Observe the fountain how vigorous CO2 and water attract each other...CO2 is hydro-phil and water wants to polarize and form hydrogen bridge bonds with the o=C=O bonds where the bonding electrons spacial dwelling time is closer to the Oxygen than the Carbon.
"Calciumcarbonate", you know...is Limestone...there are mountain ranges above and below sea made out of that stuff
Any high school kid knows that!

 

[SSDD]

Exactly that.

I hadn't expected that SSDD was ever going to have the cojones to admit that he'd been completely conned by his sources when it comes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I had thought the discussion might come back to something of substance.

Still waiting for you to point out anything that I have said that results in a violation of the second law...or any law of thermodynamics for that matter. We all know that you won't because you can't. You google till you find something that you think is applicable, post it, and are then completely unable to discuss it. You aren't fooling anyone.

What have I said that violates any law of physics...name one thing...or as many as you believe apply but be prepared to explain. Good luck with that.

 

[SSDD]

I've not fully followed this conversation. Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?

That's what the cat in the hat said...and I quote "That's hilarious. You actually think Navy reactors have software."

Guess she thinks there is no programming on an IC chip....any old chip will do. Take it off the assembly line...plug it in and you have control over a reactor.

 

[polarbear]

Exactly that.

I hadn't expected that SSDD was ever going to have the cojones to admit that he'd been completely conned by his sources when it comes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I had thought the discussion might come back to something of substance.

Still waiting for you to point out anything that I have said that results in a violation of the second law...or any law of thermodynamics for that matter. We all know that you won't because you can't. You google till you find something that you think is applicable, post it, and are then completely unable to discuss it. You aren't fooling anyone.

What have I said that violates any law of physics...name one thing...or as many as you believe apply but be prepared to explain. Good luck with that.

This thread is turning out to be a special needs course for individuals who failed high school and want to get their adult diploma,...like Saigon,the Siamese cat and Norman Bates

 

[mamooth]

The Discomfort of Thought: Groton, CT, 11 Sept 2001

A story from a submarine nuclear officer about getting the boat underway after the 9/11 attacks. Very detailed, and not a peep about any software.


USS Thresher (SSN-593) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The loss of Thresher in 1963. Details of what happened in the engine room, and again, no mention of software.


Prospective Executive Officer Reactor Department Orientation – Pre-Naval Reactors Command Course (2004)
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-n...lers/Documents/CVN PXO PQS Underway Guide.doc

A list of the many things the prospective XO must learn concerning the nuclear plant, including a list of documentation. There is no software or manuals for it on the list.


2190 Days: My Navy Adventure - Daniel Bil - Google Books

A book from an enlisted sailor. Lots of talk about operating the reactors manually, yet again, not a word anywhere concerning this mysterious control software.


PolarBear, you seem to be the only human on planet earth claiming that Navy nuclear plants have been controlled by software since 1960. Stop digging in deeper, and just admit you made a mistake.

 

[depotoo]

I've not fully followed this conversation. Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?

That's what the cat in the hat said...and I quote "That's hilarious. You actually think Navy reactors have software."

Guess she thinks there is no programming on an IC chip....any old chip will do. Take it off the assembly line...plug it in and you have control over a reactor.

If I get a chance I will try to reach my good friend that is a commissioned officer on a naval ship to help us out here, though they are over in the Pacific right now and have their hands full so don't know for certain when it will be.