How far have we already gone?

[wirebender]

I consider Bob to be the spokesperson for the Warmers and Decline Hiders. You learn so much by just listening sometimes

You punks parade this guy Mann and your shit about tree-rings, like modern hockey players should all put down their sticks because Lord Stanley isn't alive, anymore.

Assholes, the hockey stick is a generic concept. But since your assholes have this guy Mann up a tree, you keep barking, and the temperatures and acidity will keep rising.

This time of writing and reading will pass. When it gets hot enough, it's off to the pool. And if some tribe of hunter-gatherers roasts up some wingpunk, in the future, the dog might have to eat some.

Geez guy, you really are behind the 8 ball on this. Without the hockey stick there is no basis for alarmism as without the hockey stick the roman and medieval warm periods take the wind out of the alarmist sails so to speak. With the roman and medieval warm periods being considerably warmer than the present without the benefit of so called greenhouse gasses being emitted by man, the present warming becomes nothing more than the paltry natural variation that it is.

The hockey stick is important to warmers entirely because it supposedly erased the warm periods over the past couple of thousand years. It has nothing to do with methane release from the arctic which surely happened to a greater degree during both the medieval and roman warm periods as they were both considerably warmer than the present and as anyone who cares to look can see, the releases of both those periods brought about no harmful effects unless of course, you want to blame the little ice age on them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I consider Bob to be the spokesperson for the Warmers and Decline Hiders. You learn so much by just listening sometimes

You punks parade this guy Mann and your shit about tree-rings, like modern hockey players should all put down their sticks because Lord Stanley isn't alive, anymore.

Assholes, the hockey stick is a generic concept. But since your assholes have this guy Mann up a tree, you keep barking, and the temperatures and acidity will keep rising.

This time of writing and reading will pass. When it gets hot enough, it's off to the pool. And if some tribe of hunter-gatherers roasts up some wingpunk, in the future, the dog might have to eat some.

How much Carbonic acid do you have to add to the ocean (as if its generic like a liter of water, but let's pretend it is) to get a .1 drop in pH?

 

[bobgnote]

How much Carbonic acid do you have to add to the ocean (as if its generic like a liter of water, but let's pretend it is) to get a .1 drop in pH?

Ocean Acidification - What is Ocean Acidification? | NRDC

"Earth’s atmosphere isn’t the only victim of burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the earth’s oceans, where they’re having an impact that’s just starting to be understood.

Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that this excess CO2 is actually changing the chemistry of the sea and proving harmful for many forms of marine life. This process is known as ocean acidification.

A more acidic ocean could wipe out species, disrupt the food web and impact fishing, tourism and any other human endeavor that relies on the sea.

The change is happening fast -- and it will take fast action to slow or stop it. Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, triggering a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity."

-530 billion tons of CO2 went in, over 250 years.

Ocean Acidity | Climate Change | US EPA

-You will notice the pH went down, as the CO2 rose, 1983-2005.

Carbon Dioxide and Carbonic Acid

Relative H2CO3 concentration is really CO2 (aq) in equilibrium with water.

In summary;
CO2 enters water through interface with the atmosphere and the biological processes of organic carbon digestion and photosynthesis. Aqueous carbon dioxide, CO2 (aq), reacts with water forming carbonic acid, H2CO3 (aq).
Carbonic acid may loose protons to form bicarbonate, HCO3- , and carbonate, CO32-. In this case the proton is liberated to the water, decreasing pH.
The complex chemical equilibria are described using two acid equilibrium equations. The first acid equilibrium constant accounts for the CO2 (aq) - H2CO3 (aq) equilibrium. It concequently seems to have a high pKa.
The fraction of the inorganic carbon in a particular form is call the "alpha" and there are simple equation to describe this alpha."

-To compute the incremental weight of CO2 to add to seawater, which today is about pH 8.1-8.4, you need to know how to evaluate the molecular weight, acidity (pKa), and conversion to carbonate, in the exchange of CO2 to carbonic acid to carbonate:

Carbonic acid is diprotic: it has two protons, which may dissociate from the parent molecule. Thus, there are two dissociation constants, the first one for the dissociation into the bicarbonate (also called hydrogen carbonate) ion HCO3−:

H2CO3 HCO3− + H+
Ka1 = 4.5×10−7 ; pKa1 = 6.367 at 25 °C.[1]
The second for the dissociation of the bicarbonate ion into the carbonate ion CO32−:

HCO3− CO32− + H+
Ka2 = 4.69×10−11 ; pKa2 = 10.329 at 25 °C and Ionic Strength = 0.0

-Here's the Wikipedia link. If you are smart enough, you find out what a liter of seawater weighs, and YOU can figure it out. That is bitchwork. I need a cup of coffee, first:

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much Carbonic acid do you have to add to the ocean (as if its generic like a liter of water, but let's pretend it is) to get a .1 drop in pH?

Ocean Acidification - What is Ocean Acidification? | NRDC

"Earth’s atmosphere isn’t the only victim of burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the earth’s oceans, where they’re having an impact that’s just starting to be understood.

Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that this excess CO2 is actually changing the chemistry of the sea and proving harmful for many forms of marine life. This process is known as ocean acidification.

A more acidic ocean could wipe out species, disrupt the food web and impact fishing, tourism and any other human endeavor that relies on the sea.

The change is happening fast -- and it will take fast action to slow or stop it. Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, triggering a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity."

-530 billion tons of CO2 went in, over 250 years.

Ocean Acidity | Climate Change | US EPA

-You will notice the pH went down, as the CO2 rose, 1983-2005.

Carbon Dioxide and Carbonic Acid

Relative H2CO3 concentration is really CO2 (aq) in equilibrium with water.

In summary;
CO2 enters water through interface with the atmosphere and the biological processes of organic carbon digestion and photosynthesis. Aqueous carbon dioxide, CO2 (aq), reacts with water forming carbonic acid, H2CO3 (aq).
Carbonic acid may loose protons to form bicarbonate, HCO3- , and carbonate, CO32-. In this case the proton is liberated to the water, decreasing pH.
The complex chemical equilibria are described using two acid equilibrium equations. The first acid equilibrium constant accounts for the CO2 (aq) - H2CO3 (aq) equilibrium. It concequently seems to have a high pKa.
The fraction of the inorganic carbon in a particular form is call the "alpha" and there are simple equation to describe this alpha."

-To compute the incremental weight of CO2 to add to seawater, which today is about pH 8.1-8.4, you need to know how to evaluate the molecular weight, acidity (pKa), and conversion to carbonate, in the exchange of CO2 to carbonic acid to carbonate:

Carbonic acid is diprotic: it has two protons, which may dissociate from the parent molecule. Thus, there are two dissociation constants, the first one for the dissociation into the bicarbonate (also called hydrogen carbonate) ion HCO3−:

H2CO3 HCO3− + H+
Ka1 = 4.5×10−7 ; pKa1 = 6.367 at 25 °C.[1]
The second for the dissociation of the bicarbonate ion into the carbonate ion CO32−:

HCO3− CO32− + H+
Ka2 = 4.69×10−11 ; pKa2 = 10.329 at 25 °C and Ionic Strength = 0.0

-Here's the Wikipedia link. If you are smart enough, you find out what a liter of seawater weighs, and YOU can figure it out. That is bitchwork. I need a cup of coffee, first:

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

530B tons CO2, which makes mockery of the AGW notion that the oceans are net displacing CO2 as the temperature rise.

There is no Positive CO2 Feedback Loop!

"A brief aside: are the oceans a net source or sink of CO2?

One interesting question about the marine carbon cycle concerned whether or not the oceans are a source of CO2, adding it to the atmosphere, or a sink, removing it from the atmosphere. Recent research indicates that the oceans are a net sink, though some regions (generally colder and more turbulent) absorb CO2, and other regions (warmer and less turbulent) release CO2. The North Atlantic Ocean accounts for about 60% of the CO2 absorption by the global ocean. (CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold water.) For a variety of reasons, global warming could convert the oceans from a sink to a source, which is an example of bad positive feedback."

Total ocean mass = 1.4*10^18

5.3*10^11/1.4*10^18= 3.7*10^-7 (I said it was a really small number, remember?)

.000037% increase in CO2 over the last 250 years.

"A Brief Summary of Carbonate Buffer System Chemistry

Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in seawater and is hydrated to form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Carbonic acid is divalent; that is, it can undergo two de-protonation reactions to form bicarbonate (HCO3-), and carbonate (CO32-). The co-existence of these species in seawater creates a chemical buffer system, regulating the pH and the pCO2 of the oceans. Most of the inorganic carbon in the ocean exists as bicarbonate (~88%), with the concentrations of carbonate ion and CO2 comprising about 11% and 1%, respectively"

http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/

Carbonic acid in the ocean breaks down into Bicarbonate, which is an alkaline

"Bicarbonate is alkaline, and a vital component of the pH buffering system[2] of the human body (maintaining acid-base homeostasis). 70 to 75 percent of CO2 in the body is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3), which can quickly turn into bicarbonate (HCO3&#8722.
With carbonic acid as the central intermediate species, bicarbonate – in conjunction with water, hydrogen ions, and carbon dioxide – forms this buffering system, which is maintained at the volatile equilibrium[2] required to provide prompt resistance to drastic pH changes in both the acidic and basic directions. This is especially important for protecting tissues of the central nervous system, where pH changes too far outside of the normal range in either direction could prove disastrous.[citation needed] (See acidosis, or alkalosis.) Bicarbonate also acts to regulate pH in the small intestine. It is released from the pancreas in response to the hormone secretin to neutralize the acidic chyme entering the duodenum from the stomach.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate

Now Carbonic acid has a pH of 6.367 (pKa1), 10.329 (pKa2) and I have no idea how to do that math after this but if you take the "Ocean pH" which varies from 8.1 to 8.4 and add .000037% Carbonic acid (pH of 6.3), my guess is you would see no measurable decrease in ocean CO2

So, to highlight:

1. Global Warming is total bullshit

2. There is NO positive CO2 feedback Loop

3. Whatever CO2 is added to the oceans is less than a gnats fart into a Cat V hurricane and would have no measurable impact on ocean chemistry even if it didn't degrade into an alkaline as it does

 

[Skull Pilot]

 

[bobgnote]

530B tons CO2, which makes mockery of the AGW notion that the oceans are net displacing CO2 as the temperature rise.

There is no Positive CO2 Feedback Loop!

"A brief aside: are the oceans a net source or sink of CO2?

One interesting question about the marine carbon cycle concerned whether or not the oceans are a source of CO2, adding it to the atmosphere, or a sink, removing it from the atmosphere. Recent research indicates that the oceans are a net sink, though some regions (generally colder and more turbulent) absorb CO2, and other regions (warmer and less turbulent) release CO2. The North Atlantic Ocean accounts for about 60% of the CO2 absorption by the global ocean. (CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold water.) For a variety of reasons, global warming could convert the oceans from a sink to a source, which is an example of bad positive feedback."

Total ocean mass = 1.4*10^18

5.3*10^11/1.4*10^18= 3.7*10^-7 (I said it was a really small number, remember?)

.000037% increase in CO2 over the last 250 years.

"A Brief Summary of Carbonate Buffer System Chemistry

Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in seawater and is hydrated to form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Carbonic acid is divalent; that is, it can undergo two de-protonation reactions to form bicarbonate (HCO3-), and carbonate (CO32-). The co-existence of these species in seawater creates a chemical buffer system, regulating the pH and the pCO2 of the oceans. Most of the inorganic carbon in the ocean exists as bicarbonate (~88%), with the concentrations of carbonate ion and CO2 comprising about 11% and 1%, respectively"

SeaWiFS: Ocean Chemistry

Carbonic acid in the ocean breaks down into Bicarbonate, which is an alkaline

"Bicarbonate is alkaline, and a vital component of the pH buffering system[2] of the human body (maintaining acid-base homeostasis). 70 to 75 percent of CO2 in the body is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3), which can quickly turn into bicarbonate (HCO3&#8722.
With carbonic acid as the central intermediate species, bicarbonate – in conjunction with water, hydrogen ions, and carbon dioxide – forms this buffering system, which is maintained at the volatile equilibrium[2] required to provide prompt resistance to drastic pH changes in both the acidic and basic directions. This is especially important for protecting tissues of the central nervous system, where pH changes too far outside of the normal range in either direction could prove disastrous.[citation needed] (See acidosis, or alkalosis.) Bicarbonate also acts to regulate pH in the small intestine. It is released from the pancreas in response to the hormone secretin to neutralize the acidic chyme entering the duodenum from the stomach.[3]"

Bicarbonate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now Carbonic acid has a pH of 6.367 (pKa1), 10.329 (pKa2) and I have no idea how to do that math after this but if you take the "Ocean pH" which varies from 8.1 to 8.4 and add .000037% Carbonic acid (pH of 6.3), my guess is you would see no measurable decrease in ocean CO2

So, to highlight:

1. Global Warming is total bullshit

2. There is NO positive CO2 feedback Loop

3. Whatever CO2 is added to the oceans is less than a gnats fart into a Cat V hurricane and would have no measurable impact on ocean chemistry even if it didn't degrade into an alkaline as it does

But Crosstard, the more acidic colder waters are killing oysters and plankton, and reefs can all go down, by 2050. If eggs and little fish die, down goes the food chain. If eggs on land follow, in 100 years, we are in shit. Hey, Crosstard, even if you don't live over by the ocean, you will notice this.

Your bullshit about carbonate as buffer is just that, total bullshit. Carbonate is in the exchange, but it doesn't buffer enough, to stop die-offs. 530 tons is the estimate of CO2 dissolution, which has moved ocean pH from about 8.7 to between 8.4 and 8.1, and that is enough variance, to kill organisms, already, given cold-water spike phenomena. So pull your cheerleader, Saveshit, out of your butt and sock up a post for him.

Global warming is killing, CO2 is killing, and humans are going on the endangered list. Since you are a sub-human, you aren't worried. Sub-humans don't have to go near the water. But you could wind up under water, one day. I don't believe you wrote that shit, about 'degrade,' when the phenomenon is an exchange, with tendencies, and these tendencies are deadly. But hey, I knew you were stupid, but cunning enough, to bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

530B tons CO2, which makes mockery of the AGW notion that the oceans are net displacing CO2 as the temperature rise.

There is no Positive CO2 Feedback Loop!

"A brief aside: are the oceans a net source or sink of CO2?

One interesting question about the marine carbon cycle concerned whether or not the oceans are a source of CO2, adding it to the atmosphere, or a sink, removing it from the atmosphere. Recent research indicates that the oceans are a net sink, though some regions (generally colder and more turbulent) absorb CO2, and other regions (warmer and less turbulent) release CO2. The North Atlantic Ocean accounts for about 60% of the CO2 absorption by the global ocean. (CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold water.) For a variety of reasons, global warming could convert the oceans from a sink to a source, which is an example of bad positive feedback."

Total ocean mass = 1.4*10^18

5.3*10^11/1.4*10^18= 3.7*10^-7 (I said it was a really small number, remember?)

.000037% increase in CO2 over the last 250 years.

"A Brief Summary of Carbonate Buffer System Chemistry

Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in seawater and is hydrated to form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Carbonic acid is divalent; that is, it can undergo two de-protonation reactions to form bicarbonate (HCO3-), and carbonate (CO32-). The co-existence of these species in seawater creates a chemical buffer system, regulating the pH and the pCO2 of the oceans. Most of the inorganic carbon in the ocean exists as bicarbonate (~88%), with the concentrations of carbonate ion and CO2 comprising about 11% and 1%, respectively"

SeaWiFS: Ocean Chemistry

Carbonic acid in the ocean breaks down into Bicarbonate, which is an alkaline

"Bicarbonate is alkaline, and a vital component of the pH buffering system[2] of the human body (maintaining acid-base homeostasis). 70 to 75 percent of CO2 in the body is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3), which can quickly turn into bicarbonate (HCO3&#8722.
With carbonic acid as the central intermediate species, bicarbonate – in conjunction with water, hydrogen ions, and carbon dioxide – forms this buffering system, which is maintained at the volatile equilibrium[2] required to provide prompt resistance to drastic pH changes in both the acidic and basic directions. This is especially important for protecting tissues of the central nervous system, where pH changes too far outside of the normal range in either direction could prove disastrous.[citation needed] (See acidosis, or alkalosis.) Bicarbonate also acts to regulate pH in the small intestine. It is released from the pancreas in response to the hormone secretin to neutralize the acidic chyme entering the duodenum from the stomach.[3]"

Bicarbonate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now Carbonic acid has a pH of 6.367 (pKa1), 10.329 (pKa2) and I have no idea how to do that math after this but if you take the "Ocean pH" which varies from 8.1 to 8.4 and add .000037% Carbonic acid (pH of 6.3), my guess is you would see no measurable decrease in ocean CO2

So, to highlight:

1. Global Warming is total bullshit

2. There is NO positive CO2 feedback Loop

3. Whatever CO2 is added to the oceans is less than a gnats fart into a Cat V hurricane and would have no measurable impact on ocean chemistry even if it didn't degrade into an alkaline as it does

But Crosstard, the more acidic colder waters are killing oysters and plankton, and reefs can all go down, by 2050. If eggs and little fish die, down goes the food chain. If eggs on land follow, in 100 years, we are in shit. Hey, Crosstard, even if you don't live over by the ocean, you will notice this.

Your bullshit about carbonate as buffer is just that, total bullshit. Carbonate is in the exchange, but it doesn't buffer enough, to stop die-offs. 530 tons is the estimate of CO2 dissolution, which has moved ocean pH from about 8.7 to between 8.4 and 8.1, and that is enough variance, to kill organisms, already, given cold-water spike phenomena. So pull your cheerleader, Saveshit, out of your butt and sock up a post for him.

Global warming is killing, CO2 is killing, and humans are going on the endangered list. Since you are a sub-human, you aren't worried. Sub-humans don't have to go near the water. But you could wind up under water, one day. I don't believe you wrote that shit, about 'degrade,' when the phenomenon is an exchange, with tendencies, and these tendencies are deadly. But hey, I knew you were stupid, but cunning enough, to bullshit.

Because you say so...got it. 530B tons of CO2 is less than a rounding error, but it's acidifying the oceans. Righhhht.

My suspicion is that for CO2 to cause a .4 drop in pH you'd have to add 5,300,000 Billion tons and not just 530 as you allege. The math is not in your favor.

You might want to go to the library and pick up math books and maybe a few books on "How to come out" as a gay man in America in 2012

 

[wirebender]

But Crosstard, the more acidic colder waters are killing oysters and plankton, and reefs can all go down, by 2050. If eggs and little fish die, down goes the food chain. If eggs on land follow, in 100 years, we are in shit. Hey, Crosstard, even if you don't live over by the ocean, you will notice this.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily, and thoroughly the uneducated can be duped. That in and of itself is justification for higher education. bobgnote, your inability to research and your willingness to be the shill of anyone who you believe shares your political leanings has led you to this sad point of being nothing more than a willing mouthpiece for unscrupulous people seeking money and power.

This issue with the oysters of the north pacific isn't new and not so long ago (2009) was thoroughly studied and the problem was identified. Here is a link to the study:

http://www.pcsga.org/pub/science/Emergency_Seed_Proposal_Indesign-1.pdf

The report was a joint effort by the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, Whiskey Creek Hatchery, Taylor Hatchery, Pacific Shellfish Institute, Willapa-Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association, Lummi Indian Tribe Hatchery, U.S. Department of Commerce (NOAA Aquaculture Program), Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NOAA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (ARS and CSREES), Oregon State University, AquaTechnics, Inc., and the Nature Conservancy

The issue was carefully studied and while CO2 is an issue, it has absolutely nothing to do with man's emissions of the gas or acidification of the oceans by man's CO2 emissions.

Here, from the report is a description of the cause of the problem:

Identified water quality/hatchery problems:
Shellfish hatcheries have historically used coarsely filtered but otherwise untreated seawater for larval culture with few problems, and larval shellfish have thrived in water in the Pacific Ocean and coastal estuaries. Upwelling of deep, cold, nutrient-rich water from the continental shelf off the coast of Oregon and Washington is typical during summer months in this region and drives high primary productivity.

Since 2003, however, higher than normal upwelling increased the extent and intensity of intrusions of deep acidic, hypoxic water off the Oregon and Washington coasts, and contributed to the formation of persistent dead zones. These events have resulted in fundamental changes in the character of our coastal bays, which contribute to high larval mortality throughout the entire year

These fundamental changes in seawater quality influence a host of complex chemical interactions, many of which are not fully understood. However, recent research has identified at least four potential stressors that adversely affect shellfish larvae:

• Larval and juvenile shellfish are highly sensitive to acidic (low pH) seawater because their shells are formed from calcium carbonate, and dissolves when pH is low.

• Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8 - 10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone. When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25 - 28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the
seawater becomes super-saturated. Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions.

• A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment. Vt infections are lethal to shellfish larvae and juveniles. High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks.

• There is potential for further stress to oyster seed given the difference between water conditions in the hatcheries where larvae are produced, and quality of water found in the remote settings where larvae set onto cultch (“mother shell&#8221 are planted in the natural environment for grow-out.
I know that the language might be a bit technical for you so allow me to help you out. What the study found was that very cold water from very deep is upwelling into the sound. The CO2 found in the deep cold water of the ocean is not due to man's CO2 emissions. It is ocean oscilations bring that water up from the depths. Oscilations such as the PDO and ENSO bring it up. Then the hatcheries themselves heat the water in order to bring it up to a useful temperature and in doing so, supersaturate the water with CO2.

Then on top of that, there is a bacteria competing with the oyster larva for what oxygen is available in that cold oxygen deprived water from the deep ocean and then on top of that there is the inherent stress involved in moving the oyster larvae into a new environment.

I read the whole report and there is nothing there about oceans absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Of course, when that report was written, the global warmig hoax had not fallen apart to nearly the extent that it has today and the ocean acidification hoax wasn't even really a blip on the horizon.

The people who have so successfully scared you with the ocean acidification hoax were perfectly aware of that report and they knew perfectly well that ocean acidification was not the cause for the problems the oyster industry in the north pacific is having. They count on the ignorance of people like you and your willingness to repeat their claims without a clue or even a care as to whether the claims are accurate.

Tell me, what does it feel like to be so uneducated that you can be duped and used by anyone with some snake oil to sell who you perceive as being on your side politically?

 

[bobgnote]

Because you say so...got it. 530B tons of CO2 is less than a rounding error, but it's acidifying the oceans. Righhhht.

My suspicion is that for CO2 to cause a .4 drop in pH you'd have to add 5,300,000 Billion tons and not just 530 as you allege. The math is not in your favor.

You might want to go to the library and pick up math books and maybe a few books on "How to come out" as a gay man in America in 2012

Those are the totals, and since they involve data since the 19th Century, and good climate models for total human interaction since then are not yet evident, these are estimates. That includes the 530 billion tons. It's all shit, anyway, since up go the temperatures, down goes productivity, and here comes the die-off. It will take till after our lifetimes, to all go down, but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people. That means you don't get to make babies, is all.

But you are unlikely, to make a kid. You are a suspected queen of the internet. You don't do math; you just spout shit. You are in denial of the accelerating warming and acidification, which is just like the gay dose, you dodged, somehow, with speed and tricks. But your Navy buddy Quantum Windbag is out, in your style, so don't proselytize, you miserable punk. You paraded in here, with your own kind, you post crap like this is your own tea-room, so bitch, out!

 

[wirebender]

but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people.

If your side believes that you are an example of "smart people" we are in trouble.

 

[bobgnote]

but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people.

If your side believes that you are an example of "smart people" we are in trouble.

Hey. Wiener. Psst! See the thread on acidification, where I wrote the OP? See about ten of my posts, which you were too gay to read, but they all mention carbonic acidification, and how the carbonic acid has an affinity, for cold water? Preach, if you must, DD+D.

OMG, Wiener found out about the dead oysters. What's next, Wiener admits the reefs are due to die, by 2050, and the eggs, little fish, plankton, and whatever can go, any time? What's next, Wiener rants about CO2 being all the way, to 400 ppm? Go Wiener, go Wiener, go Wienerbitch! Earth to Wiener . . .

 

[Old Rocks]

but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people.

If your side believes that you are an example of "smart people" we are in trouble.

LOL. Look who is talking.

 

[bobgnote]

And Wienerbitch, wasn't Crosstard Fucknbitch trying to lecture all of us, on the way carbonic acid "degrade(s)," into carbonate, and I answered, telling him his characterization was inaccurate?

You seem to be trying to prove any of my points, with your post on acid, which has a non-current allegation of a pathogenic organism, but current allegations, of carbonic acid activity? Read my OP, re acidification, for the current report. Here's some math, meanwhile: what do you get, when you add D + D + D? Wienerbitch! Wienerbitch! Don't forget Crosstard Fucknbitch.

 

[wirebender]

Hey. Wiener. Psst! See the thread on acidification, where I wrote the OP? See about ten of my posts, which you were too gay to read, but they all mention carbonic acidification, and how the carbonic acid has an affinity, for cold water? Preach, if you must, DD+D.

Do you even know what the word affinity means? I guess not as carbonic acid does not have an affinity for cold water. CO2 does not seek out cold water. It doesn't pass through warm water in search of cold. Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water but "affinity" has nothing to do with it.

OMG, Wiener found out about the dead oysters.

The dying oysters that have nothing to do with the CO2 emissions of man. The oysters that you believe are dying because atmospheric CO2 levels have reached some arbitrary point. The dying oysters that were employed to completely dupe and use you. If you believe my post on the oysters in any way laid the blame on atmospheric CO2 levels, then you are even less perceptive than I had given you credit for.

What's next, Wiener admits the reefs are due to die, by 2050, and the eggs, little fish, plankton, and whatever can go, any time?

Sorry guy, none of those things are going to happen due to any amount of CO2 in the air. Published peer reviewed study after published peer reviewed study tells us that it simply isn't going to happen.

What's next, Wiener rants about CO2 being all the way, to 400 ppm? Go Wiener, go Wiener, go Wienerbitch! Earth to Wiener . . .

Realy guy, get back on your meds, you might make more sense and you certainly won't look nearly as stupid.

 

[wirebender]

but to survive, humanity has to evolve smart people.

If your side believes that you are an example of "smart people" we are in trouble.

LOL. Look who is talking.

Yep. Someone who actually grasps the science and can do the math as opposed to......well, you know.

 

[wirebender]

Read my OP, re acidification, for the current report.

By "current" you mean hype not founded in fact but supports the current reason warmists give us that the sky is falling?

The dying oysters have nothing whatsoever to do with ocean acidification. If atmospheric CO2 were 100 ppm, the deep ocean water would still be saturated with CO2 and have a very low oxygen content. Read for comprehension. The upwelling water from the deep pacific is what is killing the oysters, not acidification due to mankind's CO2 emissions.

By the way, love the constant name calling. Tells me that you are intimidated and feel the need to comfort yourself if even a small amount by name calling. It is like whistling when you walk by a graveyard to show the ghosties in there that you aren't scared even though they can all see your knees knocking.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

530B tons CO2, which makes mockery of the AGW notion that the oceans are net displacing CO2 as the temperature rise.

There is no Positive CO2 Feedback Loop!

"A brief aside: are the oceans a net source or sink of CO2?

One interesting question about the marine carbon cycle concerned whether or not the oceans are a source of CO2, adding it to the atmosphere, or a sink, removing it from the atmosphere. Recent research indicates that the oceans are a net sink, though some regions (generally colder and more turbulent) absorb CO2, and other regions (warmer and less turbulent) release CO2. The North Atlantic Ocean accounts for about 60% of the CO2 absorption by the global ocean. (CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold water.) For a variety of reasons, global warming could convert the oceans from a sink to a source, which is an example of bad positive feedback."

Total ocean mass = 1.4*10^18

5.3*10^11/1.4*10^18= 3.7*10^-7 (I said it was a really small number, remember?)

.000037% increase in CO2 over the last 250 years.

"A Brief Summary of Carbonate Buffer System Chemistry

Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in seawater and is hydrated to form carbonic acid, H2CO3. Carbonic acid is divalent; that is, it can undergo two de-protonation reactions to form bicarbonate (HCO3-), and carbonate (CO32-). The co-existence of these species in seawater creates a chemical buffer system, regulating the pH and the pCO2 of the oceans. Most of the inorganic carbon in the ocean exists as bicarbonate (~88%), with the concentrations of carbonate ion and CO2 comprising about 11% and 1%, respectively"

SeaWiFS: Ocean Chemistry

Carbonic acid in the ocean breaks down into Bicarbonate, which is an alkaline

"Bicarbonate is alkaline, and a vital component of the pH buffering system[2] of the human body (maintaining acid-base homeostasis). 70 to 75 percent of CO2 in the body is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3), which can quickly turn into bicarbonate (HCO3&#8722.
With carbonic acid as the central intermediate species, bicarbonate – in conjunction with water, hydrogen ions, and carbon dioxide – forms this buffering system, which is maintained at the volatile equilibrium[2] required to provide prompt resistance to drastic pH changes in both the acidic and basic directions. This is especially important for protecting tissues of the central nervous system, where pH changes too far outside of the normal range in either direction could prove disastrous.[citation needed] (See acidosis, or alkalosis.) Bicarbonate also acts to regulate pH in the small intestine. It is released from the pancreas in response to the hormone secretin to neutralize the acidic chyme entering the duodenum from the stomach.[3]"

Bicarbonate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now Carbonic acid has a pH of 6.367 (pKa1), 10.329 (pKa2) and I have no idea how to do that math after this but if you take the "Ocean pH" which varies from 8.1 to 8.4 and add .000037% Carbonic acid (pH of 6.3), my guess is you would see no measurable decrease in ocean CO2

So, to highlight:

1. Global Warming is total bullshit

2. There is NO positive CO2 feedback Loop

3. Whatever CO2 is added to the oceans is less than a gnats fart into a Cat V hurricane and would have no measurable impact on ocean chemistry even if it didn't degrade into an alkaline as it does

But Crosstard, the more acidic colder waters are killing oysters and plankton, and reefs can all go down, by 2050. If eggs and little fish die, down goes the food chain. If eggs on land follow, in 100 years, we are in shit. Hey, Crosstard, even if you don't live over by the ocean, you will notice this.

Your bullshit about carbonate as buffer is just that, total bullshit. Carbonate is in the exchange, but it doesn't buffer enough, to stop die-offs. 530 tons is the estimate of CO2 dissolution, which has moved ocean pH from about 8.7 to between 8.4 and 8.1, and that is enough variance, to kill organisms, already, given cold-water spike phenomena. So pull your cheerleader, Saveshit, out of your butt and sock up a post for him.

Global warming is killing, CO2 is killing, and humans are going on the endangered list. Since you are a sub-human, you aren't worried. Sub-humans don't have to go near the water. But you could wind up under water, one day. I don't believe you wrote that shit, about 'degrade,' when the phenomenon is an exchange, with tendencies, and these tendencies are deadly. But hey, I knew you were stupid, but cunning enough, to bullshit.

You're ranting again.

530B additional tons of CO2 over 250 years, cannot possibly have the effect that you describe. It just not possible for it to lower pH by even .1 much less .4 as you allege

Yes, if you take the trouble to read the articles you link to you'll see that Carbolic acid breaks down into bicarbonate which is an alkaline, the opposite of an acid.

 

[wirebender]

Yes, if you take the trouble to read the articles you link to you'll see that Carbolic acid breaks down into bicarbonate which is an alkaline, the opposite of an acid.

Pointless for him to take the time to read what he links to. Like rocks, he lacks the intelligence to actually understand any of it. He is merely posting scripture that is to be taken on faith and anyone who questions it is a heretic.

 

[Old Rocks]

So says the dumb ass that cannot do simple research to verify his stupid post concerning CO2 levels at the beginning of the present ice age.

 

[bobgnote]

Hey. Wiener. Psst! See the thread on acidification, where I wrote the OP? See about ten of my posts, which you were too gay to read, but they all mention carbonic acidification, and how the carbonic acid has an affinity, for cold water? Preach, if you must, DD+D.

Do you even know what the word affinity means? I guess not as carbonic acid does not have an affinity for cold water. CO2 does not seek out cold water. It doesn't pass through warm water in search of cold. Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water but "affinity" has nothing to do with it.

OMG, Wiener found out about the dead oysters.

The dying oysters that have nothing to do with the CO2 emissions of man. The oysters that you believe are dying because atmospheric CO2 levels have reached some arbitrary point. The dying oysters that were employed to completely dupe and use you. If you believe my post on the oysters in any way laid the blame on atmospheric CO2 levels, then you are even less perceptive than I had given you credit for.

What's next, Wiener admits the reefs are due to die, by 2050, and the eggs, little fish, plankton, and whatever can go, any time?

Sorry guy, none of those things are going to happen due to any amount of CO2 in the air. Published peer reviewed study after published peer reviewed study tells us that it simply isn't going to happen.

What's next, Wiener rants about CO2 being all the way, to 400 ppm? Go Wiener, go Wiener, go Wienerbitch! Earth to Wiener . . .

Realy guy, get back on your meds, you might make more sense and you certainly won't look nearly as stupid.

"Realy guy," you are fucking queer and you can't spell, with your thumb up your butt. And you can't remember the shit you paste, which you don't ever read. The other day, you should have learned how CO2 exchanges with carbonic acid which exchanges with carbonate, but human emissions and defoliation have screwed up the ocean's balance, which you balk at understanding:

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The natural pH of the ocean is determined by a need to balance the deposition and burial of CaCO3 on the sea floor against the influx of Ca2+ and CO2−
3 into the ocean from dissolving rocks on land, called weathering. These processes stabilize the pH of the ocean, by a mechanism called CaCO3 compensation...The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."

In the 15-year period 1995–2010 alone, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska.[29] -unquote, Wienerbitch.

You aren't taking your meds, that's for shit-sure. Get some smart pills, to get to tardy-level intelligence, instead of fucktard-level stupidity.