Two Theories

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey Frank

Before YOU go, stick your head up your ass and jump. I want to see if it improves our view.

What I proposed was science. What you proposed is how the AGWCult operates.

See the difference?

 

[jc456]

They never "wonder" about anything except why we skeptics can't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes.

At least we skeptics usually understand the stuff we post and don't post huge blocks of cut and pasted scientific looking stuff copied from some pro AGW site that the poster couldn't explain in his own words if their lives depended on it. Once I see somebody doing that, I know he or she doesn't have a clue.

But you never succeed in challenging the science.

Now that's funny. Did I say that this is funny? Yes, I think I said this is funny. yep. You crack me up. So, for the umpteenth hundred time, just supply the supporting evidence to your claim, that sir is your challenge, and you have failed for months. So..................................challenge you fail, so who has been successful? not you!

 

[jc456]

Hey Frank

Before YOU go, stick your head up your ass and jump. I want to see if it improves our view.

No experimental evidence? Complete absence of anything even resembling the scientific method where climate science is concerned?

Of course, insult is all you would have....and you aren't even good at that.

And now you know why his post about challenging is so fnnn funny. All he has are insults and religion. Not much in the way of actual evidence as we've continued to point out to him. But he is entertaining.

 

[Crick]

Hey Frank

Before YOU go, stick your head up your ass and jump. I want to see if it improves our view.

No experimental evidence? Complete absence of anything even resembling the scientific method where climate science is concerned?

Of course, insult is all you would have....and you aren't even good at that.

Having Frank stick his head up his ass is an experiment of the first order. The secrets that will be revealed will tell us what the universe was SUPPOSED to be like.

I've fed you guys science till it ought to be coming out your ears. After all, those of us on the mainstream science side have a MOUNTAIN of work to quote. The vast majority of all climate science studies support or simply assume AGW is perfectly valid. But you ignore it. You come back with your asinine accusations of wrongdoing, with the output of the most geriatric of retired researchers and with piles upon piles of really, really, really bad science. After a while it gets very hard to avoid saying "what's the ******* point?"

 

[mamooth]

At this point, it's just the same small group of denier cultists raving mindlessly on a message board. You can't reason a person out of a position they weren't reasoned into, so it's not possible to reach them with reason. Just consider them to be free entertainment. Poke the loonies occasionally, laugh at them, but address most of your posts to the grownups in the audience.

 

[mamooth]

^ 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.

No, I haven't. Not once have I talked about glass or made a comparison to a physical greenhouse. If I had wanted to compare the atmosphere to a glass greenhouse, I would have done so. There's a reason I didn't.

You need to explain why you're claiming I said such a thing. Your choices are:

1. Show where I made such a claim.

2. Admit you made a mistake.

3. Do neither of the above, and instead double down on your big lie, moving yourself into the classification of "deliberate liar".

Remember, it's not the mistake that ruins your reputation. It's what you do after. Mistakes are not a big deal, but deliberate lying is.

 

[mamooth]

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 eho copied and pasted the numbers from that wiki-page.
All I did was showing how way off the mark his claim was.

I specifically stated in my first calcs that they had nothing to do with seawater. I specifically said exactly what my calcs were for, to show that very small concentrations of CO2 can change pH significantly, and specifically added the caveats that the oceans are very different. I misrepresented nothing, while you're wildly misrepresenting what I said.

So "mamooth" show me were in your post you addressed the partial pressure for CO2.

It's on the tables, so why do I need to address it more? I could run the numbers, but since the table already did so, what's the point? A good engineer knows when to use the tools given him.

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 ?

Because I'm not sure of the carbonate and bicarbonate buffer concentrations, the calcium ions that in turn react with the buffers, or the equilibrium constants of all associated reactions. And even if I did know all that, it's still a very difficult thing to do. Two buffers and a 3rd substance also reacting with the buffers? That's going beyond the basic water chemistry I learned. It's more than I can handle, and I've always said so.

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.

I detect a very strong aroma of bullshit coming from that claim.

Go on, run those numbers for seawater, including the effects of the buffers and the calcium ions. That is, if you're not bullshitting us.

44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6

Nope. Multiplication fail on your part. I'm correct, and you're wrong.

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.

Given I got it right and you botched the exponents, the irony is amusing. Before you lecture me again, double-check your work. I double-check my work, which is why I don't botch it like you do.

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.

Solubility isn't expressed in grams. Again, I recommend double-checking your work.

The number you copied from the table [CO2](mol/L) was 3.36E-8 moles/liter

That's definitely the correct column/number to use, since the concept being discussed is how much CO2 was absorbed by the oceans. Since the equilibrium constant is so small, that means 99+% of the CO2 does not disassociate, so we can quickly estimate [CO2] as CO2 absorbed divided by volume (or mass, depending how you look at it). There's no need to mess with disassociation constants, because the table does that calculation.

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.

You're really confused about this. Since everyone is discussing how much CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean, the number to use is CO2 absorbed by the ocean. That is, [CO2]. You're off in left field when you say we should take the value of [CO2] and then declare [CO3]2- must be the same. That's just wacky, and would have earned you a failing grade in freshman chemistry.

 

[SSDD]

quote=polar bear]44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6[/quote]

Nope. Multiplication fail on your part. I'm correct, and you're wrong.

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

 

[Crick]

quote=polar bear]44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6

Nope. Multiplication fail on your part. I'm correct, and you're wrong.

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?[/QUOTE]

Mamooth is correct. 44 * 3.36e-8 = 1.4784e-6

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At this point, it's just the same small group of denier cultists raving mindlessly on a message board. You can't reason a person out of a position they weren't reasoned into, so it's not possible to reach them with reason. Just consider them to be free entertainment. Poke the loonies occasionally, laugh at them, but address most of your posts to the grownups in the audience.

"You tell 'em, Projector Girl!"

 

[gipper]

Anyone with a brain...well let me correct that...anyone with a FUNCTIONING brain KNOWS AGW is not science, but politics. It is pushed almost exclusively by left wing politicians and why? Because their solutions to AGW is big statist elitist government...every leftists dream!

What is truly amazing about AGW, is it's leaders ability to dupe millions. Amazing and frightening that so many people can be so easily influenced to believe a lie, by the elite left. CRAZY!!!

 

[mamooth]

44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6

Nope. Multiplication fail on your part. I'm correct, and you're wrong.

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

Mamooth is correct. 44 * 3.36e-8 = 1.4784e-6

SSDD is just showing off his cult loyalty. If he supports a fellow cultist, he gets cult brownie points, regardless of whether such support makes him look amazingly stupid.

It's also an arrogance thing. Some deniers are too full of themselves to even consider the possibility that they could make an error, so they refuse to double-check their work. It's a symptom of their Dunning-Kruger syndrome, in the way they vastly overestimate their own competence.

 

[SSDD]

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

Mamooth is correct. 44 * 3.36e-8 = 1.4784e-6

SSDD is just showing off his cult loyalty. If he supports a fellow cultist, he gets cult brownie points, regardless of whether such support makes him look amazingly stupid.

It's also an arrogance thing. Some deniers are too full of themselves to even consider the possibility that they could make an error, so they refuse to double-check their work. It's a symptom of their Dunning-Kruger syndrome, in the way they vastly overestimate their own competence.

Look whose talking...the official ugly cheerleader for anyone who promotes the AGW hoax...wave them pom poms hairball...sis boom baaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

Mamooth is correct. 44 * 3.36e-8 = 1.4784e-6

SSDD is just showing off his cult loyalty. If he supports a fellow cultist, he gets cult brownie points, regardless of whether such support makes him look amazingly stupid.

It's also an arrogance thing. Some deniers are too full of themselves to even consider the possibility that they could make an error, so they refuse to double-check their work. It's a symptom of their Dunning-Kruger syndrome, in the way they vastly overestimate their own competence.

^ manboob congratulating himself on his prowess with a calculator. And he's thrilled to display his faux depth of knowledge again by repeating "Dunning-Kruger."

Let's all give manboob a hand.

 

[Crick]

You should be wondering about SSDD's LACK of prowess with a simple calculator. And what sort of person it takes to say:

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

when both you and this highly regarded chemist are the ones that are wrong. BTW, even without a calculator, folks should have been able to guesstimate that 44 *3.3 was closer to 140 than to 14.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You should be wondering about SSDD's LACK of prowess with a simple calculator. And what sort of person it takes to say:

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

when both you and this highly regarded chemist are the ones that are wrong. BTW, even without a calculator, folks should have been able to guesstimate that 44 *3.3 was closer to 140 than to 14.

Don't be even dumber than you usually are.

anybody can jump a gun now and then.

The fact is, prowess with a calculator is not a very remarkable skill.

Making a mistake is not a cardinal sin. For which you should be eternally grateful, pricky.

 

[mamooth]

It's funny, how you assume a calculator is necessary for such simple calculations.

And you're right, making a mistake is not a sin. But SSDD didn't make a mistake. He didn't even do the calculation. He just auto-screamed that I must be wrong because he doesn't like me. That wasn't a mistake; that was kookery.

 

[Crick]

You should be wondering about SSDD's LACK of prowess with a simple calculator. And what sort of person it takes to say:

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

when both you and this highly regarded chemist are the ones that are wrong. BTW, even without a calculator, folks should have been able to guesstimate that 44 *3.3 was closer to 140 than to 14.

Don't be even dumber than you usually are.

anybody can jump a gun now and then.

The fact is, prowess with a calculator is not a very remarkable skill.

Making a mistake is not a cardinal sin. For which you should be eternally grateful, pricky.

I'd have no problem with a simple mistake. It's making the mistake and then calling the fellow stupid who corrects you without spending two seconds checking your work. That's ignorance and arrogance.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's funny, how you assume a calculator is necessary for such simple calculations.

And you're right, making a mistake is not a sin. But SSDD didn't make a mistake. He didn't even do the calculation. He just auto-screamed that I must be wrong because he doesn't like me. That wasn't a mistake; that was kookery.

It's funny how you assume that I made an assumption that a calculator was "necessary."

I didn't say or suggest any such thing. I did assume that you used one. But I said nothing about it being necessary.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You should be wondering about SSDD's LACK of prowess with a simple calculator. And what sort of person it takes to say:

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

when both you and this highly regarded chemist are the ones that are wrong. BTW, even without a calculator, folks should have been able to guesstimate that 44 *3.3 was closer to 140 than to 14.

Don't be even dumber than you usually are.

anybody can jump a gun now and then.

The fact is, prowess with a calculator is not a very remarkable skill.

Making a mistake is not a cardinal sin. For which you should be eternally grateful, pricky.

I'd have no problem with a simple mistake. It's making the mistake and then calling the fellow stupid who corrects you without spending two seconds checking your work. That's ignorance and arrogance.

Nah. It was a simple mistake.

You clearly ARE stupid.