Two Theories

[CrusaderFrank]

How would you go about obtaining a more accurate figure dude?


Or should I say, "A more ACCURATE figure"?

IDK maybe you could have done a lab experiment showing the ocean acidification that would occur from an additional 100PPM of atmospheric CO2?

Instead you make up some imaginary ESTIMATE of ocean pH 100 years ago.

You can show us in a lab how 100PPM of CO2 drops pH from 8.25 to 8.15, right?

You're not just making stuff up again, are you?

 

[Crick]

You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.

Haven't been shown a single one actually

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

^ manboob either flat out lies when caught or he actually doesn't understand the nature of his own "theory." For the truth is, he HAS argued that the so-called "greenhouse gasses" have served to act like the glass of a greenhouse. In short, manboob, you dishonest pathetic hack, it IS your theory.

Your denial of what you are actually contending is highly amusing.

You truly are fundamentally dishonest or just pitiably stupid. Possibly both.

 

[Crick]

I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on. It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation. It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s. So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked. It's why the process was named as it was.

But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days. It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here. So, Mylar, what's your point? Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?

 

[Crick]

You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.

Haven't been shown a single one actually

And you talk to your children with that mouth? ******* amazing.

 

[bripat9643]

I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on. It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation. It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s. So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked. It's why the process was named as it was.

But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days. It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here. So, Mylar, what's your point? Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?

No one but a bunch of scientific ignoramuses ever thought greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation.

 

[polarbear]

That's complete bullshit and I would have expected you to know better. You know as well as do I that there exists butt-ton-loads of evidence to support all these ocean acidification commentaries. And you know as well as do we all that these peer-reviewed, PhD chemistry and oceanography authors know this shit far better than do you. Here is the full reference set from Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid. Feel free to identify all the folks with no background in chemistry - the "ridiculous" ones.

It`s you who is full of bullshit and who is ridiculous.
I asked you and your buddy mamooth to do the very simple math how many ppm atmospheric CO2 would it take to drop the pH of plain water by 0.1 and neither you or your buddy can do it and both of you are trying to conceal that by "answering" with what you`ve been Googling about ocean acidification.
It turned out (when you were still Abraham3) that you can`t even do a simple conversion of [H+] concentration to get the correct pH and your buddy can`t even convert ppm to percent.
That also tells me that neither of you would have a clue what this oceanographer with a PhD in chemistry or any of the other authors are talking about.
Like your #1 Google search result.

1) Acid-Base Physiology 2.1 - Acid-Base Balance by Kerry Brandis
Is about acid base role in the liver, urinary pH etc and has s.f.a. to do with the subject
#2 is a reference to a basic chemistry book published by Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310... . and so on and on
Why page 310? You don`t even have it in your post what`s on page 310 of that book, so why do you pretend that you have been reading it?
It`s a list of Google search results that comes up in the same order as you posted it when somebody who has no clue about pH Googled for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.

Haven't been shown a single one actually

And you talk to your children with that mouth? ******* amazing.

my oldest was one of the top 5 students in his law school, my youngest just finished working at an iPSC lab and starts medical school so clearly my kids came out OK.

you however can go **** your ignorant cult worshipping self

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking

No Frank, you didn't miss it and EVERYONE here knows that to be a fact. Thus, everyone here knows you are LYING. Bravo. Well Done.

IOW: No. Prick/Abe cannot show it.

Why not?

Because he is the liar and we all see it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking

No Frank, you didn't miss it and EVERYONE here knows that to be a fact. Thus, everyone here knows you are LYING. Bravo. Well Done.

please repost the lab experiment showing a temperature increase from a 120ppm increase in CO2

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

That's complete bullshit and I would have expected you to know better. You know as well as do I that there exists butt-ton-loads of evidence to support all these ocean acidification commentaries. And you know as well as do we all that these peer-reviewed, PhD chemistry and oceanography authors know this shit far better than do you. Here is the full reference set from Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid. Feel free to identify all the folks with no background in chemistry - the "ridiculous" ones.

It`s you who is full of bullshit and who is ridiculous.
I asked you and your buddy mamooth to do the very simple math how many ppm atmospheric CO2 would it take to drop the pH of plain water by 0.1 and neither you or your buddy can do it and both of you are trying to conceal that by "answering" with what you`ve been Googling about ocean acidification.
It turned out (when you were still Abraham3) that you can`t even do a simple conversion of [H+] concentration to get the correct pH and your buddy can`t even convert ppm to percent.
That also tells me that neither of you would have a clue what this oceanographer with a PhD in chemistry or any of the other authors are talking about.
Like your #1 Google search result.

1) Acid-Base Physiology 2.1 - Acid-Base Balance by Kerry Brandis
Is about acid base role in the liver, urinary pH etc and has s.f.a. to do with the subject
#2 is a reference to a basic chemistry book published by Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310... . and so on and on
Why page 310? You don`t even have it in your post what`s on page 310 of that book, so why do you pretend that you have been reading it?
It`s a list of Google search results that comes up in the same order as you posted it when somebody who has no clue about pH Googled for it.

I told you exactly what that was but I guess you didn't read my massive tome with sufficient precision. THAT is the REFERENCE section to Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid, the one you claimed had been written by people with no familiarity with chemistry, the one you called "ridiculous".

Point is, the world's real chemists and real oceanographers are quite certain that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the 0.1 pH acidification that the ocean has undergone in the last century or so. You think it is not. I'm going to side with them.

A number of scientists have lately been studying CO2 and pH transitions throughout the Earth's history and have found that when CO2 levels increase slowly, weathering ashore is able to buffer the reaction and maintain equilibrium within a very narrow range of pH. The current rate of change is larger by at least one order of magnitude than any change in the last 300 million years - and that includes several extinction events. We stand a VERY good chance that weathering will NOT be able to keep up with the rate of acidification and pH will spike as it has never done before.

I'm sure you disagree with that as well. Well, tough shit. As far as the peer reviewed work in refereed journals, researched and written by professional, degreed researchers, you might as well be a grade school student. I don't think you're qualified to polish their shoes. So when you and them disagree, I think you know which direction I'll be trending.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PolarBear, do you deny the following statement:

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 [5], representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7]

5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96–9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop

It's an ESTIMATE From people who have been caught with their thumb on the scale multiple times

That`s right it`s an estimate and the people who estimated it are hell bent to "prove" that oceans "acidify at alarming" or "unprecedented" rates....and do it by claiming that they estimate that the "average ocean pH" which varies all over the place was 0.1 pH units higher.
The fact that there is no data supporting that claim does not matter because in that "science" all it takes is an estimate and a "consensus" amongst those who estimated it. After that some of the media and individuals with no background in chemistry whatsoever do the rest.
Take "mamooth" for example.
Now he is twisting it as if I was the one who picked these numbers from wiki....which are indeed for water without any CaCO3 buffer in it.
Now he admits it has nothing to do with sea water and talks as if it wasn`t him who copied and pasted the numbers from that wiki-page.
All I did was showing how way off the mark his claim was.

So "mamooth" show me were in your post you addressed the partial pressure for CO2.
After you posted these ridiculous numbers I posted what it would take for pCO2 for the equally ridiculous pH range you copied from wikipedia:

polarbear post 352
So he used pH 7 as a baseline and picked the numbers of the wiki table for pH 6.81 without understanding what the table shows.
On the left side of the table are the numbers for the partial pressure of CO2 you need to get from pH 7 down to pH 6.81
For pH7 pCO2 = 10^(-8) atm and to get it down to pH 6.81 you need a pCO2 of 10^(-6) in other words 100 times more CO2 than what it is
if the oceans were already at pH 7

And now you pretend that I picked that table and that you did it correctly for ppm CO2.
But that`s par for the course. Everyone of you instant wiki-science "graduates" does the same thing when you get caught bullshitting.
If you had any idea whatsoever how to do the math then why did you not do it for the pH range of 8.25 to 8.14 ?
If I wanted to I could and I would not be confined to the numbers of that wiki-page which don`t go above pH7.
You however are confined to the numbers wiki listed there because you haven`t got the slightest clue how to do that calculation.
and boast to Frank that you know more about chemistry than he does...and are you saying now you know more about it than I do as well?
Weren`t you the one who was talking about "ink molecules" last year when the same subject was discussed.
I`m still waiting for you to show me what the molecular structure of an "ink molecule" looks like.
We have been round the same bend just a little while ago with that instant wiki-science expert"Abraham3" before he changed his name to "Crick".
He can`t even use a log function correctly and you can`t do a simple calculation with exponents either:

mamooth post # 349
According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.
CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.
1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.

44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6
and if you have 0.00000014784 grams per liter that would be 0.00014784 ppm. A ppm is one part per million and a percent is one part in 100.
So before you start lecturing us about pH and chemistry you should first learn how to use exponents and how to convert ppm correctly to percent.
And after you did then come back here and tell us what the pH would be if you got a solution of 1.5 ^(-7) grams of CO2 gas in water.
1.7/1000 th of that is Carbonic acid and the pKa for Carbonic acid is on the same wiki page you were quoting.
Since you were the one who used tables for plane water keep using plain water.
You have no idea anyway what you were quoting from there when you did your milkmaid math and could not even do that right.
If you knew how the pH is calculated then you should have realized at the first glance at that table that the numbers you used to perform your screwy math has nothing to do with dissociated CO2 as an acid.
The number you copied from the table [CO2](mol/L) was 3.36E-8 moles/liter
Since you have zero knowledge about chemistry you don`t know the difference between [CO2] and [CO3]2- and took that number as dissociated [CO3]2- which is the anion of carbonic acid.
The correct numbers for the pH you picked (pH 6.81) would have been in then columns labelled [HCO3−](mol/L) and [CO32−](mol/L)
In conclusion it`s abundantly clear that the table you wagged in front of Frank`s face has dick all to do with "ocean" water "acidification, current ppm atmospheric CO2 and the pH range in question.
And it`s also clear that you have no idea whatsoever what the number you picked expressed....which is CO2 dissolved in H2O and is in no way an "acid",...until it is Carbonic acid which only yields :
HCO3−

CO32− + H+Ka2 = 4.69×10^(−11)mol/litre which is the ratio of [H+] times [CO3 2−] to non dissociated, meaning pH inactive carbonic acid.The [H+] concentration in moles per liter would be the square root of that and the pH would be the negative log value taken from that.
After that do the math how much more CO2 you need in the atmosphere to drop the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 considering the partial pressure increase it takes just to increase how much CO2 is dissolved in water and that it takes 1000 times more dissolved CO2 before you get 1 single molecule of carbonic acid which in turn is one of the weakest acids with a pKa of only 4.7 E-7
I won`t do it for you but rather sit back and wait for you and "Crick" to do it so that I can have a good laugh.
It would be a fulltime job to debunk all the bullshit you freaks are posting and I do have better things to do with my time.

please make this a sticky! that's science!!

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

But the small library of chemistry textbooks that say he's wrong... what are they Frank?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on. It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation. It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s. So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked. It's why the process was named as it was.

But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days. It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here. So, Mylar, what's your point? Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?

No, Pricky. I am not unhappy at all. I have a GOOD time pointing out how dishonest you are.

The FACT is that you AGW Faith-based goofballs HAVE been maintaining that the "trapped" heat in our atmosphere is "caused" by the CO2 gas and other alleged "greenhouse" gasses. I am not as concerned with the mechanism of how it gets "trapped" according to you mush-mouthed vacillating dishonest cultist douche bags, as I am with the fact that you DO repeatedly make the claim.

I'll grant you that you may have been yabbering a bit informally. That's fair enough.

But the TRUTH is that you HAVE maintained that the heat gets "trapped" (even if that is not an accurate way of describing what you actually mean to convey). There is a REASON that it's known as a "greenhouse" effect, you dishonest yabbering douch nugget. It's why you try to explain it to skeptics in terms of a "blanket."

And you know it.

You global Climate Faither cultist Warmer/Cooler/Cacaphony alarmists OFTEN talk in condescending ways to anybody who challenges your Faith. I mean, shit: Just look at the way you get your thin-skinned back up whenever anybody points out that you are unable to coherently explain the basic thesis of your AGW theory.

Instead of simply ANSWERING the questions put to you by CrusaderFrank, for instance, you PRETEND that the question has been answered a lot, previously. Which is EXACTLY the same thing as NOT even attempting to answer his very precise question. You are particularly adept at that evasion technique. At least manboob tries. He may be wrong and he may reveal the shallowness of his own alleged "understanding" in the AGW theroy "process," but at least he tries.

You, pricky, by contrast, are merely a weasel. And you fool no body. Your dishonesty is on full display,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But the small library of chemistry textbooks that say he's wrong... what are they Frank?

you're too stupid to know you're lying.

there are zero science books showing how a 120 ppm increase in CO2 drops ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

No, Pricky. I am not unhappy at all. I have a GOOD time pointing out how dishonest you are.

That should be entertaining. So... when are you going to start?

The FACT is that you AGW Faith-based goofballs HAVE been maintaining that the "trapped" heat in our atmosphere is "caused" by the CO2 gas and other alleged "greenhouse" gasses.

If by that slightly odd construction you mean to say that we (and the rest of mainstream science) have been contending that anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases trap or retain heat in our atmosphere, than you are correct.

I am not as concerned with the mechanism of how it gets "trapped"

Ohhh, I bet you're not.

according to you mush-mouthed vacillating dishonest cultist douche bags

Now that's not nice. And here I was beginning to think of you in a positive manner

as I am with the fact that you DO repeatedly make the claim.

Well, not quite the way you put it, but there is a distinct resemblance.

I'll grant you that you may have been yabbering a bit informally. That's fair enough.

And I do so love the full-on, informal yabber.

But the TRUTH is that you HAVE maintained that the heat gets "trapped" (even if that is not an accurate way of describing what you actually mean to convey). There is a REASON that it's known as a "greenhouse" effect, you dishonest yabbering douch nugget. It's why you try to explain it to skeptics in terms of a "blanket."

Y-y-y-yesss. Though it's known as the greenhouse effect because at the time the atmospheric process was discovered, it was thought that greenhouses got warm by the very same mechanism: that glazing allowed the sun's visible light to pass but reflected the infrared light radiated by the warmed interior. Turns out that's not the case, but you know English - no vocabulary rules.

And you know it.

I know some things. But I'm pretty sure I don't know what you know. Maybe never.

You global Climate Faither cultist Warmer/Cooler/Cacaphony alarmists OFTEN talk in condescending ways to anybody who challenges your Faith. I mean, shit: Just look at the way you get your thin-skinned back up whenever anybody points out that you are unable to coherently explain the basic thesis of your AGW theory.

I just did. In eight words. "Anthropogenic greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere." Yup. Did that not seem coherent to you? I'm quite certain I've explained that before on numerous occasions. If you don't think that makes sense, tell me where it goes wonky on you and I'll straighten 'er out.

Instead of simply ANSWERING the questions put to you by CrusaderFrank, for instance, you PRETEND that the question has been answered a lot, previously.

We're not pretending in the slightest. Besides, Frank was not asking a question, he was making a request. There's a difference. His request was also rhetorical in nature. He didn't want to learn of an experiment that demonstrated AGW. I guess he actually assumed there were no such experiments and that we would be embarrassed by being unable to produce one. We didn't want to satisfy his initial requests because we knew he didn't really want to see them and that when he did, he would deny they did what their descriptions claimed, would deny that they were an adequate demonstration of the behavior of the climate in situ and then would simply deny that he had ever been shown a successful experiment. Little did we know that he would actually take it a step further and deny that he had ever seen the things. The posts can still be pulled up - christ, they're probably still warm. The last set were put up by G.T. Do a search through his posts (he hasn't done that many). You'll find them. Then you too can deny they do what they claim to do.

You also need to realize that it's not necessary to demonstrate this process by making some sort of global climate simulation (ie, a large clear box full of air and a cup of water) and shining bright lights at it. You can take the gases that make up our atmosphere, and, in a nicely equipped lab such as the one Polar Bear is so proud of having worked, carefully measure their behavior in response to sunlight and how they behave when they get warm and get cold. For instance, you may have seen a diagram like this on a few occasions.

This graph shows what frequencies of light are absorbed by some of the components of our atmosphere: water vapor (H2O), oxygen and ozone (O2 and O3) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The horizontal axis is frequency and goes through several bands of electromagnetic radiation (EM, aka light). The vertical scales show the percent of light at each frequency absorbed by each gas. You'll note that CO2's green curve is dominated by three humps. The significant one is the one on the right. That's the one that sits near the middle of the infrared band (heat) which the Earth uses to radiate its excess heat back to space. You'll not it lies in a bit of a gap in H2O's curve. H2O is the champeen absorber, but the only thing that'll change it's atmospheric level is heat. It's got such a quick turn around time in the atmosphere that it's nigh on impossible to build it up there. It just falls back down. Rain, the locals call it. CO2, on the other hand, can effectively stay in the atmosphere for centuries. So if we add a little, it starts soaking up more heat and it keeps doing it for a very long time. Even if we stop making CO2 now, the amount we've already put in the air will be there for a very long while. Longer than you and me.

Anyway, back to experiments to demonstrate that CO2 absorbs infrared. Look at that graph up there Mylar. How do you think they got that information? I'll tell you how they did it. They did an experiment; the kind where you just measure something you don't know. In this case, they measured how much CO2 absorbed different frequencies of light. They found, as you can see right there, that it absorbs a band of infrared light right in the middle of the frequencies that the warm Earth wants to radiate back out to space. That means that CO2 in the atmosphere will absorb that heat. The CO2 will get warmer and some of that heat energy will spread to other gas molecules that brush up against the CO2. Some of it will leave the CO2 the same way it came in: as infrared light in that same band. It will hit and warm other gases, or the Earth or the ocean or it might escape out to space. That's how CO2 makes us warmer.

There is Crusader Frank's experiments. We told him that over and over and over again. But he refused to believe us. I guess he was looking for that big clear box with the bowl of water and the floodlight.

Which is EXACTLY the same thing as NOT even attempting to answer his very precise question. You are particularly adept at that evasion technique. At least manboob tries. He may be wrong and he may reveal the shallowness of his own alleged "understanding" in the AGW theroy "process," but at least he tries.

You, pricky, by contrast, are merely a weasel. And you fool no body. Your dishonesty is on full display,

Well, now you've got a little more information. I'd be curious if you still think the same things.

 

[SSDD]

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

CO2 doesn't block IR. CO2 absorbs and emits a narrow band of IR. Absorption and emission are not blocking no matter how much you wish they were.

 

[SSDD]

Lexical nitpicking is generally taken as a sign of desperation.

And claiming that a thing does a thing that it does;'t is a sign of a liar.

 

[SSDD]

You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.

Haven't been shown a single one actually

When you consider what passes for evidence in the minds (?) of these people, it is little wonder that they have been so completely hoaxed.