Two Theories

[SSDD]

I said don't be a reflexive Dupe.

I tired to help.

tire<sic> to help some more, flea brain

I can't help you. You have no idea how dumb you really are and refuse to take even a second to think about anything

He doesn't know what 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg means. He can't put it into any context that would allow him to make sense of the volume of the ocean vs the amount of human made CO2 in the atmosphere. He has been told that humans are causing ocean acidification via their CO2 emissions and he lacks both the basic math skills and the critical thinking skills required to put the statement to the test...so he simply believes...like all of the poor dupes who simply believe because they think that they really don't have any other choice.

 

[SSDD]

So, the fringe kook right cult is now required to deny:

1. Global warming
2. Ocean acidification
3. Ozone depletion
4. DDT being harmful

Anything else? Science only. We need not get into the kook political beliefs of the cult.

For example, do deniers accept that lead in the environment is harmful? That fluoridation is not a plot to contaminate our precious bodily fluids? That secondhand smoke is harmful? That the HIV virus causes AIDS? Deniers, if you need to check with your masters here for an answer, do so and get back to us.

Actually admiral hairball, we, unlike you are required to do nothing...we are highly skeptical of the claims of the above because those making the claims lack any hard evidence to support their claims, fabricate evidence when necessary, and lie all the time. Anyone who believes claims based on little if any empirical evidence is an idiot, and those who believe because they think that the piss poor excuse for evidence that is provided is actual evidence are just tragic.

 

[SSDD]

So, the fringe kook right cult is now required to deny:

1. Global warming
2. Ocean acidification
3. Ozone depletion
4. DDT being harmful

Anything else? Science only. We need not get into the kook political beliefs of the cult.

For example, do deniers accept that lead in the environment is harmful? That fluoridation is not a plot to contaminate our precious bodily fluids? That secondhand smoke is harmful? That the HIV virus causes AIDS? Deniers, if you need to check with your masters here for an answer, do so and get back to us.

mass of water in the oceans is 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg

Total Mass of CO2 added annually 3 *10^13

see the problem with your "Manmade CO2 is turning the oceans to acid" theory?

Again, no grasp of what you are saying...no basic math skills necessary to do anything with the numbers...no critical thinking skills required to question their belief. You are talking way over their heads....it probably isn't possible to speak to them at a level they understand over the computer....you would have to have a sit down face to face that would involve paper and a box of crayons.

 

[SSDD]

See the simple math problem I posted?

What it means is that it's physically impossible for your "ManMade CO2 is turning the Oceans to Acid" Theory to work

Good thing GT never said that


but more to the point, your math is irrelevant

if you want to accurately say what your pea brain is trying to say - - -- - you'd take the percent of c02 being said to contribute to the acidification of the ocean(which isn't 30-40%, btw - - - -read more carefully), and compare it with the percent of measured acidification (it isn't but a percent increase, not a complete transformation into acid).

that's kinda hard when youre on the derp squad though

...and you bury yourself further and further.

The 30GT figure was 100% of the AGW figure, is 30% less or more than 100%?

In fact we'll do 100% for 100 years.

That's 3 *10^15 and the oceans remain at 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg so there total contribution of 100% of 30 GT annual to the oceans is 0.000219% of the total mass of the oceans.

That's a really small number, too small for it to have the stated effect on ocean pH

Is this making any sense to you?

Again...you are talking so far over their heads that they can't even begin to comprehend what you said. 30% and 100% they get, because the scare piece was written in a way to scare them. They can't grasp how vanishingly small that 30 or even the 100% is in relation to the volume of the oceans. You might not even be able to communicate to them with paper and crayons.

 

[SSDD]

Where's Admiral Moonbat.

You see now why I said the Ocean acidification story HAS to be total crap?

Of course he doesn't see. He believes.

Don't even try to get into the fact that rainwater all over the earth at a pH of about 5.6 (slightly acidic) reacts with the most common mineral on earth (feldspars) and produce clays. Don't bother mentioning that the process of producing clays is a reaction that consumes acid. It is no point in pointing out to them that alkali and alkaline clays are then deposited into the oceans and are then redeposited as cements in sediments. It is also no point in telling them that this also is an acid consuming reaction that is accelerated by temperature.

They don't grasp that in the ocean, there is a buffering action between the basalts found on the sea floor and sea water. They don't know any of these things and don't want to know any of these things. They can't begin to understand the fact that the pH scale is a log scale and they can't possibly grasp that there isn't enough fossil fuel on earth to make the oceans acidic.

They hear that CO2 can make water acidic...they don't know that the experiments that prove this are done in the lab with distilled water. They have no idea how different the real world is and no idea of the number of things that are happening in the real world that make it impossible for the oceans to become acidic...unless, perhaps we run out of rocks.

And they certainly will never ask climate science why feldspar and silicate buffering reactions which have been well understood for a good long time now are never mentioned by the acidification hysterics.

You are talking to literal children who see climate pseudoscientists as parent like figures. They can no more question them than a 3 year old could question financial decisions made by his father.

 

[Crick]

Frank,

How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?

 

[G.T.]

Frank,

How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?

A: potato

 

[Crick]

Where's Admiral Moonbat.

You see now why I said the Ocean acidification story HAS to be total crap?

Of course he doesn't see. He believes.

Don't even try to get into the fact that rainwater all over the earth at a pH of about 5.6 (slightly acidic) reacts with the most common mineral on earth (feldspars) and produce clays. Don't bother mentioning that the process of producing clays is a reaction that consumes acid. It is no point in pointing out to them that alkali and alkaline clays are then deposited into the oceans and are then redeposited as cements in sediments. It is also no point in telling them that this also is an acid consuming reaction that is accelerated by temperature.

They don't grasp that in the ocean, there is a buffering action between the basalts found on the sea floor and sea water. They don't know any of these things and don't want to know any of these things. They can't begin to understand the fact that the pH scale is a log scale and they can't possibly grasp that there isn't enough fossil fuel on earth to make the oceans acidic.

They hear that CO2 can make water acidic...they don't know that the experiments that prove this are done in the lab with distilled water. They have no idea how different the real world is and no idea of the number of things that are happening in the real world that make it impossible for the oceans to become acidic...unless, perhaps we run out of rocks.

And they certainly will never ask climate science why feldspar and silicate buffering reactions which have been well understood for a good long time now are never mentioned by the acidification hysterics.

You are talking to literal children who see climate pseudoscientists as parent like figures. They can no more question them than a 3 year old could question financial decisions made by his father.

The material we've been posting thoroughly discusses the role of weathering in the process. In all prior instances, CO2 levels have risen and fallen slowly enough that CaCO3 weathering has allowed the ocean's pH to remain within a narrow range. The current rate of acidification is at least ten times faster than ANY point in the last 300 million years. Weathering will not be able to keep up. Ocean pH will spike.

Perhaps you ought to try READING some basic references on the topic.

 

[SSDD]

Frank,

How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?

In a lab or in nature? Two entirely different things.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[SSDD]

Where's Admiral Moonbat.

You see now why I said the Ocean acidification story HAS to be total crap?

Of course he doesn't see. He believes.

Don't even try to get into the fact that rainwater all over the earth at a pH of about 5.6 (slightly acidic) reacts with the most common mineral on earth (feldspars) and produce clays. Don't bother mentioning that the process of producing clays is a reaction that consumes acid. It is no point in pointing out to them that alkali and alkaline clays are then deposited into the oceans and are then redeposited as cements in sediments. It is also no point in telling them that this also is an acid consuming reaction that is accelerated by temperature.

They don't grasp that in the ocean, there is a buffering action between the basalts found on the sea floor and sea water. They don't know any of these things and don't want to know any of these things. They can't begin to understand the fact that the pH scale is a log scale and they can't possibly grasp that there isn't enough fossil fuel on earth to make the oceans acidic.

They hear that CO2 can make water acidic...they don't know that the experiments that prove this are done in the lab with distilled water. They have no idea how different the real world is and no idea of the number of things that are happening in the real world that make it impossible for the oceans to become acidic...unless, perhaps we run out of rocks.

And they certainly will never ask climate science why feldspar and silicate buffering reactions which have been well understood for a good long time now are never mentioned by the acidification hysterics.

You are talking to literal children who see climate pseudoscientists as parent like figures. They can no more question them than a 3 year old could question financial decisions made by his father.

The material we've been posting thoroughly discusses the role of weathering in the process. In all prior instances, CO2 levels have risen and fallen slowly enough that CaCO3 weathering has allowed the ocean's pH to remain within a narrow range. The current rate of acidification is at least ten times faster than ANY point in the last 300 million years. Weathering will not be able to keep up. Ocean pH will spike.

Perhaps you ought to try READING some basic references on the topic.

Pure pulled out of someone's ass bullshit.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[mamooth]

Of course he doesn't see. He believes.

You're deliberately ignoring my post which debunked Frank's bullshit in detail, and instead are choosing to repeat the debunked bullshit. That's one heck of a brazen cowardly lie on your part.

At least Frank and jc had the decency to feel some shame and quietly slink away in disgrace. You don't even possess that modicum of decency. You're proudly displaying that classic sociopathic trait of being completely incapable of feeling shame or taking responsibility for you own bad behavior. Hence, like most sociopaths, you're a pathological liar.

 

[jc456]

Of course he doesn't see. He believes.

You're deliberately ignoring my post which debunked Frank's bullshit in detail, and instead are choosing to repeat the debunked bullshit. That's one heck of a brazen cowardly lie on your part.

At least Frank and jc had the decency to feel some shame and quietly slink away in disgrace. You don't even possess that modicum of decency. You're proudly displaying that classic sociopathic trait of being completely incapable of feeling shame or taking responsibility for you own bad behavior. Hence, like most sociopaths, you're a pathological liar.

You talking about me again? Hah.... I believe nothing from you. Information was provided and you haven't debunked it. Sorry, what can I say. Just like you can't provide proof of the 120PPM drives climate like you claim!!!!! I will say, at least you're consistent with not being able to prove your claims.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is pretty funny to see how manboob and his AGW-Faither compatriots all strain so hard to AVOID defining their own heavily endorsed "theory."

 

[mamooth]

Ilar, what about "CO2 blocks infrared radiation and warms the planet" escapes your grasp?

It's not actually the case that most deniers are as breathtakingly stupid as they appear to be here. Only a few are actually that dumb. It's more the case that their cult has ordered them to pretend to be gibbering morons. And some of them, like jc to give one example, go a little overboard with their zeal to follow that order.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar, what about "CO2 blocks infrared radiation and warms the planet" escapes your grasp?

It's not actually the case that most deniers are as breathtakingly stupid as they appear to be here. Only a few are actually that dumb. It's more the case that their cult has ordered them to pretend to be gibbering morons. And some of them, like jc to give one example, go a little overboard with their zeal to follow that order.

You ARE in fact pretty breathtakingly dumb if THAT is your notion of the greenhouse AGW Theory.

Sunlight goes right through the greenhouse glass and IR radiates back up. But IR gets blocked by greenhouse glass so not all of the energy coming INTO the greenhouse escapes. And the net effect is (akin to a blanket) the greenhouse glass keeps the greenhouse warm.

See? I just did a slightly better job in explaining YOUR theory than you did.

But, unlike you, I am willing to admit that there are a lot of variables and assumptions at work in your analogy of greenhouse gasses and water vapor acting like the glass of a greenhouse. And you, sure as shit, have never successfully even so much as ATTEMPTED to address those numerous assumptions and the myriad of variables.

I'll give YOU a little credit. Unlike many of your compatriots, YOU at least occasionally acknowledge some of those things. Sadly, however, when you confronted by others with a significantly deeper base of knowledge on the topic, you tend to run away from engaging in the discussion.

 

[mamooth]

But, unlike you, I am willing to admit that there are a lot of variables and assumptions at work in your analogy of greenhouse gasses and water vapor acting like the glass of a greenhouse.

Being I never made such an analogy, your whole rant looks crazy.

But thanks for confirming another point I like to make, which is that deniers rarely respond to what you actually say, since they're generally incapable of doing so. Instead, they'll respond to some convenient strawman.

Sadly, however, when you confronted by others with a significantly deeper base of knowledge on the topic, you tend to run away from engaging in the discussion.

Thanks for illustrating another point I like to make, which is that deniers are delusional, having some very peculiar and amusing misconceptions concerning the intellects and quality of discussion from their fellow deniers.

But by all means, point out these instances where a superior mind has caused me to run. This should be funny.

 

[bripat9643]

Ilar, what about "CO2 blocks infrared radiation and warms the planet" escapes your grasp?

It's not actually the case that most deniers are as breathtakingly stupid as they appear to be here. Only a few are actually that dumb. It's more the case that their cult has ordered them to pretend to be gibbering morons. And some of them, like jc to give one example, go a little overboard with their zeal to follow that order.

How ironic.

 

[Crick]

No, how true.

 

[bripat9643]

No, how true.

You know how we can tell it's a lie? An AGW cult member posted it.

 

[Crick]

Picture that ol' visitor from Mars. He sees a relatively technologically advanced society: advanced solid state electronics, nuclear power, space travel, advanced medicine, etc. Earth culture has a pretty substantial reliance on the work of its scientists. Then he comes across a social phenomenon that they just don't have on back on Mars. Science on Earth has concluded that human GHG emissions are warming the planet and are beginning to have harmful consequences. However, a small group of people rejects what mainstream science has to say. Their arguments flip from one topic to another, their speeches are filled with charges massive incompetence and world spanning conspiracies charging that thousands of a specific group of scientists want to get rich off everyone else's misery and all have the moral lacking to take action on that desire. When the insanity of that charge is pointed out to them, they flip back to charges of mass incompetence. When the insanity of that charge is pointed out to them, they flip back to charges of mass conspiracy. And so forth.

Now you think the Martian is going to conclude YOU are the ones telling the truth around here?