how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[mamooth]

If you put a drop of it in a swimming pool, the Chlorine would destroy it in minutes.

A drop of ink (.05 ml) in a liter of water is around 50 ppm, and that blocks the visible light. So why is it inconceivable that 400 ppm of CO2 blocks infrared in a similar fashion?

The point is that the "A trace of something can't possibly have an effect!" argument is obviously totally wrong. If anyone thinks it's a good argument, they need to explain how that trace of ink blocks the visible light.

 

[westwall]

Ian C -

The question may not only be the scale of theshift in pH, but where that shift occurs.

Coral reefs are extremely delicate ecosystems, which we know do not adapt well to changes in water temperature or pH.

It can well be that a relatively minor change in pH would worlwide would be the end of coral reefs as we know them. I have dived all over the world, and to me this is just tragic.

Coral reefs have been around for over 60 million years, they are far from "delicate".

 

[mamooth]

It's the rate of change that matters, not the net change.

The ocean responds to lower pH by releasing stored carbonate that buffers the pH and returns it back to normal. But that process takes a thousand years or so. That's why, in the past, the ocean could maintain a healthy pH even as CO2 levels climbed to ten times current levels. The CO2 rise happened very slowly, so the ocean could keep up.

This time, the CO2 levels are spiking in an eyeblink, by geological time. The ocean will return to the old pH in a thousand years or so, but in the meantime, bad things are happening.

 

[SSDD]

It's the rate of change that matters, not the net change.

The ocean responds to lower pH by releasing stored carbonate that buffers the pH and returns it back to normal. But that process takes a thousand years or so. That's why, in the past, the ocean could maintain a healthy pH even as CO2 levels climbed to ten times current levels. The CO2 rise happened very slowly, so the ocean could keep up.

This time, the CO2 levels are spiking in an eyeblink, by geological time. The ocean will return to the old pH in a thousand years or so, but in the meantime, bad things are happening.

Lets see some proof that CO2 levels rose slowly. Ice cores tell us that as temperatures rise, CO2 follows because warm oceans don't hold as much CO2 as cold oceans...explain how you believe chemistry operated differently in the past when the oceans warmed.

There is no reason to believe that when past temperatures rose more quickly than what we are seeing that the oceans didn't outgas CO2 at an even faster rate.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I would challenge Mamooth to post his credentials that give him any credibility to declare somebody else's opinion as wrong. Most especially when he doesn't challenge information they provide with anything other than his opinion.

LOL, you must not have heard. I call mamooth admiral because his claimed credentials. He was a navy "nuke" but didn't seem to understand anything about the job, then he was an officer to boot, which of course he knew nothing about, and all of this was backed up by his desperate begging us to ask him to post his DD214. When we got tired of his crying, we said go ahead and he posts one he grabbed of the internet. Then when the metadata showed it was a fake, he scrubbed it and posted the same pic edited again..

Hence now he is Admiral....ROFL,he's some bit of work..

Well being a 'nuke' is maybe one of the most elite groups in military service, one of the hardest programs to get into, one of the toughest to complete. I believe all who make it in have tremendous academic records, IQs way on up there, and ability to process information that most of us can only pray for.

Haven't seen too many of those qualities in Mamooth's, posts.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I'll ask again - which ocean current, and where does the run off come from?

Talking to you is like talking to an idiot child. It is clear that you don't know where the cook islands are if you can look at that map of pacific ocean currents. The Cook Islands are at 21 degrees 14' S and 159 degrees 46' W. If you aren't bright enough to find them on the map I provided, then you aren't up to the conversation anyway.

Looking at the map you should be able to discern that the cook islands are in the South Equatorial Current which merges with and picks up water from the East Australia Current ad the Peru Current and also picks up water from the Equatorial Current, which contains water picked up from the North Equatorial Current which passes the Asian Pacific Coasts and then the western US coasts.

In short, the Cook Islands are bathed in every thing that is deposited in the oceans from everywhere land touches the Pacific Ocean.

The point I am tryin to get through to you here is that it runoff occurs in California, it is highly improbable that it would sail across the ocean in a giant block, and then hit beaches of Nukualofa, isn't it?

What makes you think that it has to travel in a giant block in order to damage the cook islands. Arent you always going on about a tiny bit of this or that being enough to cause great devastation? In this case, it doesn't take much and the pacific ocean is a big mixing bowl of everything that runs off from Austrailia, Asia, North America, Central America, and South America.

Do you believe the ocean neutralizes these chemicals somehow so that they have no appreciable "shelf life" once they are taken up by the oceans? What do you think happens to them? Describe the chemistry for every known chemical and pollutant known to be found in runoff.

I am not able to see that because there is no convergence, and you do not know where the Cook Islands are.

Of course there is but it isn't surprising that you would be unable to see it. The South Equatorail current which bathes the Cook Islands converges with all of the other Pacific Currents. I suppose you believe that the water within any given current is somehow held separate from all the other currents.

 

[westwall]

It's the rate of change that matters, not the net change.

The ocean responds to lower pH by releasing stored carbonate that buffers the pH and returns it back to normal. But that process takes a thousand years or so. That's why, in the past, the ocean could maintain a healthy pH even as CO2 levels climbed to ten times current levels. The CO2 rise happened very slowly, so the ocean could keep up.

This time, the CO2 levels are spiking in an eyeblink, by geological time. The ocean will return to the old pH in a thousand years or so, but in the meantime, bad things are happening.

Bullpuckey. CO2 has never, and will never have an effect on global temperatures. And even if the planet is warming (which I sincerely hope it is) that is far better than getting cold. It is only in the fevered imaginations of warmist science deniers that the Earths climate remains static.

 

[gslack]

OhLOL, you must not have heard.

Groan. I was hoping gslack had finally gotten over his butthurt, but that's clearly not ever going to happen. I think I've permanently broken his little psyche.

Yes, addressing him as if he were a rational grownup clearly was a mistake, so I'll stop and just leave him alone with his precious butthurt now.

Yes, I'm all broken over you making a fool of yourself admiral...

Here is what debating you is like...

Random poster, to another poster: I think your claim is wrong and here is my proof (supplies links to verifiable and reputable sources proving that some things are black and some things are white)

Mamooth (attacking the poster with no provocation and not quoting him fairly): All you do is troll. You haven't posted any evidence. You must be illiterate..

Random poster: Yes I did supply evidence it's right there in my post. You edited out my links in your post,seems pretty troll-like and dishonest to me..

Mamooth (responding to something he made up): You dare attack me? I am a former navy admiral with Mchales navy and super smart nuclear watch guy, how dare you!

Random poster: hey you neg-repped me! You don't sound like you have the sense to be in the navy dude..

Mamooth(after crying to a mod): You are trolling and lying,you get what you deserve. You neg-repped me back, you're a rule breaker! You doubt me???? Dare me and I will post my DD214, right here then you will be humiliated by my super smart guy brain power...Go on you think I won't post it? Huh? Dare me go on do it...

Random poster: Dude you're an idiot, no way you did anything but scrub pots or peel potatoes. And you got back what you gave me cry-baby. You went to a mod? How pathetic...

Mamooth (back after 3 days with an obvious fake picture from the web): HA! there now you are humiliated and butt-hurt! I have answered your dare and beaten you!As you can see I was admiral nimitz in my previous life, and as this picture clearly shows I was super smart too...HAHA!

And it goes on from there, we can see it here and now... You're a juvenile delinquent playing big on a web forum,nothing more.. The funny part is everyone can see what a fake you are, and when you edit quotes and respond to cherry-picked statements out of context from people rather than cite the post honestly, you show it all the more..

Eventually you will do it too often and forget yourself, and we will be rid of your childish nonsense. So please keep on being a weasel...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OohPooh -

Well, do you think agricultural run-off could be having a localised impact on pH in the Cook Islands?

I have no idea. Unlike the venerable denialists that post on this board, I'm not an expert on everything.

If so - where is it running off from?

If you can't use the internet to find out, then you've probably got a dissertation waiting for you if you'd like to take 3 or 5 or 20 years to do it. Failing either of those two options, simply be amazed at what can pile up in odd places in the ocean:

http://envacapstone.wiki.usfca.edu/Great+Pacific+Garbage+Patch

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

...

The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

The link you post here actually admits the pH of the ocean is decreasing. THey're just whining about the fact that the stupid people that read their website can misunderstand the terminology.


From your stupid link:

The problem with using the term “acidify” for what rainwater does to the ocean is that people misunderstand what is happening. Sure, a hard-core scientist hearing “acidify” might think “decreasing pH”.

LOL! You'll need to forgive the "hard core scientists" for using terminology that hard core scientists can understand. Maybe they should talk to each other like the morons that read wattsupwiththat.com might talk - example given by the link author here:

But most people think “Ooooh, acid, bad, burns the skin.”

Sure, when they are retards reading links written by retards, it wouldn't be surprising they might think that.

Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity.

Well hell, we're making it BETTER then, aren't we?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'll ask again - where does the run off in the Cook Islands comes from?

We know there are ocean currents - but which current and from where?

If you really want to know the answer to that question you're in the wrong place.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The fact that only 10% of coral destruction is due to changes in pH and temperature does not mean it is a minor problem.

There isn't even any hard evidence that 10% or even 1% is due to changes in pH due to atmospheric CO2.

What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?

Any changes in pH are more likely due to fertilizer runoff and chemical pollution. It is a problem but you are so wrapped up in your cult that you aren't able to see where the problem is coming from.

"more likely" ? Is that your opinion as an expert in the field or are you repeating what someone else told you?

 

[westwall]

OohPooh -

Well, do you think agricultural run-off could be having a localised impact on pH in the Cook Islands?

I have no idea. Unlike the venerable denialists that post on this board, I'm not an expert on everything.

If so - where is it running off from?

If you can't use the internet to find out, then you've probably got a dissertation waiting for you if you'd like to take 3 or 5 or 20 years to do it. Failing either of those two options, simply be amazed at what can pile up in odd places in the ocean:

http://envacapstone.wiki.usfca.edu/Great+Pacific+Garbage+Patch

Cute picture. Of course it's on a coastline...Here's another picture (link) of it...and surprise, surprise it's in India...not the Pacific ocean.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch | The Hard Way

Here's what the area really looks like...


The real Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Photo by Miriam Goldstein, 2010 ...

 

[westwall]

I'll ask again - where does the run off in the Cook Islands comes from?

We know there are ocean currents - but which current and from where?

If you really want to know the answer to that question you're in the wrong place.

That's certainly the truth when idiots like you post pictures of the coast of India claiming it to be the great Pacific Gyre. What a complete asshat.

 

[SSDD]

What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?

What I mean is hard evidence. You claim to be a scientist...surely you know what the term means.

Any changes in pH are more likely due to fertilizer runoff and chemical pollution. It is a problem but you are so wrapped up in your cult that you aren't able to see where the problem is coming from.

"more likely" ? Is that your opinion as an expert in the field or are you repeating what someone else told you?[/QUOTE]

Once more, warmers confuse correlation for causation. Explain the chemistry that allows an ocean that is outgassing more CO2 than it is taking up to become acidic.

 

[polarbear]

What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?

What I mean is hard evidence. You claim to be a scientist...surely you know what the term means.

Any changes in pH are more likely due to fertilizer runoff and chemical pollution. It is a problem but you are so wrapped up in your cult that you aren't able to see where the problem is coming from.

"more likely" ? Is that your opinion as an expert in the field or are you repeating what someone else told you?

Once more, warmers confuse correlation for causation. Explain the chemistry that allows an ocean that is outgassing more CO2 than it is taking up to become acidic.

This ocean pH scare is even more ridiculous than these "average" global temperatures. It`s not as if we were talking about a homogeneous swimming pool with circulation pumps that haven been sized and accordingly placed so that the water treatment chemicals are properly mixed.
In addition to that this 0.1 pH unit drop is an ESTIMATE, because nobody really knows what the ocean pH was earlier...and represents a ridiculously small change as far as the actual increase of the H+ ion concentration is.

The psychotic Siamese cat buried it with "ink molecules" minutes after I posted the math, but it`s no problem to post it again.
Dissolved CO2 is pH neutral until it hydrates to Carbonic acid and only 1 CO2 molecule in 1700 does so:

Carbonic acid
a name sometimes given to solutions of carbon dioxide in water (carbonated water), because such solutions contain small amounts of H2CO3.
The hydration equilibrium constant at 25°C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] ≈ 1.7×10−3 in pure water[2]

They claim that the "average" pH is 8.14 = 7.2 x 10 ^(-9) [grams H+ per liter]...
And "estimate" that it was 8.24 = 5.6 x 10^(-9) [grams per liter]

When a few fish shit near a coral reef it will have as much pH impact...
And so do all these fissures that produce Sulfuric acid round the clock:

Talking about CO2 in water is as much as an oxymoron as talking about CO2 in air with water vapor.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?

What I mean is hard evidence. You claim to be a scientist...surely you know what the term means.

Any changes in pH are more likely due to fertilizer runoff and chemical pollution. It is a problem but you are so wrapped up in your cult that you aren't able to see where the problem is coming from.

"more likely" ? Is that your opinion as an expert in the field or are you repeating what someone else told you?

Once more, warmers confuse correlation for causation. Explain the chemistry that allows an ocean that is outgassing more CO2 than it is taking up to become acidic.

As you can see from the above graph, the measured dissolved Co2 content of the ocean has risen with atmospheric levels.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'll ask again - where does the run off in the Cook Islands comes from?

We know there are ocean currents - but which current and from where?

If you really want to know the answer to that question you're in the wrong place.

That's certainly the truth when idiots like you post pictures of the coast of India claiming it to be the great Pacific Gyre. What a complete asshat.

I made no such claim.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?

What I mean is hard evidence. You claim to be a scientist...surely you know what the term means.

"more likely" ? Is that your opinion as an expert in the field or are you repeating what someone else told you?

Once more, warmers confuse correlation for causation. Explain the chemistry that allows an ocean that is outgassing more CO2 than it is taking up to become acidic.

This ocean pH scare is even more ridiculous than these "average" global temperatures. It`s not as if we were talking about a homogeneous swimming pool with circulation pumps that haven been sized and accordingly placed so that the water treatment chemicals are properly mixed.
In addition to that this 0.1 pH unit drop is an ESTIMATE, because nobody really knows what the ocean pH was earlier...and represents a ridiculously small change as far as the actual increase of the H+ ion concentration is.

The psychotic Siamese cat buried it with "ink molecules" minutes after I posted the math, but it`s no problem to post it again.
Dissolved CO2 is pH neutral until it hydrates to Carbonic acid and only 1 CO2 molecule in 1700 does so:

Carbonic acid
a name sometimes given to solutions of carbon dioxide in water (carbonated water), because such solutions contain small amounts of H2CO3.
The hydration equilibrium constant at 25°C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] ≈ 1.7×10−3 in pure water[2]

They claim that the "average" pH is 8.14 = 7.2 x 10 ^(-9) [grams H+ per liter]...
And "estimate" that it was 8.24 = 5.6 x 10^(-9) [grams per liter]

When a few fish shit near a coral reef it will have as much pH impact...
And so do all these fissures that produce Sulfuric acid round the clock:

Talking about CO2 in water is as much as an oxymoron as talking about CO2 in air with water vapor.

So you're saying the cause of the rising ocean pH isn't the Co2, even as the Co2 content of ocean water increases?

 

[mamooth]

They claim that the "average" pH is 8.14 = 7.2 x 10 ^(-9) [grams H+ per liter]...

Well, given that there are these things called pH meters that measure pH quite accurately, it's kind of silly to call it a "claim". Only a conspiracy theorist would put "claim" in quotes and thus imply that they were lying about it.

Anyways, it seems PolarBear's knowledge of water chemistry sucks just as badly as the rest of his "science". He doesn't understand how weak acids and bases work, as his crack about hydrothermal vents shows. I'll give you a hint. A weak base like baking soda will neutralize acid just as well as a strong base like lye. The amount of acid coming out of those vents is completely insignificant compared to the dissolved CO2.