Ocean acidification

[SpidermanTuba]

No, we have someone who can think critically, and is aware of tricks inherent in computer models.

I see no evidence of that. Please justify your statement.

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay. The Climate models. Please give the absolute complete list of random factors that can affect the weather and accurately predict them out only 64 months. Should be easy right? we can do that with chess programs.

Now, do you have all the possible factors that can ever affect the climate? And if we have not accounted for ALL the factors, even one can start an error in the model, can't it?

This is known as critical thinking. Hell, the original models of the Greenhouse effect made the error of assuming an infinitely deep atmosphere.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Okay. The Climate models. Please give the absolute complete list of random factors that can affect the weather and accurately predict them out only 64 months. Should be easy right? we can do that with chess programs.

Why would factors that affect weather be relevant? We are trying to model climate, not weather.

Now, do you have all the possible factors that can ever affect the climate? And if we have not accounted for ALL the factors, even one can start an error in the model, can't it?

You are right, if not properly handled, a small error can propagate into a much bigger error. Fortunately, numerical and fluid scientists have worked very hard over decades and come up numerical methods that result in small errors dissipating from the solution rather than being multiplied to ever increasing proportion. The reason for this difficulty is due to the non-linear nature of the hyperbolic conservation equations, but I'm sure you already knew that.

This is known as critical thinking. Hell, the original models of the Greenhouse effect made the error of assuming an infinitely deep atmosphere.

Can you name one of those models?

 

[gslack]

Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study

Real science bit #2: 175 million years ago in the Jurassic era there was also 20 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and at this time the Aragonite corals came into being. So we have two points in history which had greater CO2 in the atmosphere and at both points we find coral life forms developing rather than dying off...... So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane....

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study. It isn't the CO2 in the AIR that kills the shellfish, you do understand this, right?


Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...

You are confusing total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.

Real science bit #4: CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the oceans by volume that could in theory effect the PH balance. Meaning there are 6 other elements before CO2 which could in theory do the same to the PH. In practice this means the likelihood of CO2 actually causing oceans acidification is minuscule at best even IF the theory is correct. If you want to be real technical on it CO2 would not alter the PH at all but rather buffer other elements which could possibly make some impact on the PH balance. Those impacts are minuscule given the depth and scope of the entire thing.

Wouldn't the likelihood of CO2 causing acidification depend on factors other than its size? For instance, the amount of CO2 being added or subtracted to the system would seem important, as well.

Real science bit #5: The ocean rides over vast amounts of alkali. We are talking vast amounts of alkali stone, rock and soil which the oceans stir up and roll over 24/7... Alkali is the acid stopper in case you weren't aware.

So why does the ocean's Ph vary at all then? Can you please direct me to your calculations showing that this alkali base is sufficient?

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study

Why of course you fail to see how it invalidates the study.... Its the standard Bullshit from your side these days. I will answer this with more detail after the next quote because they same the same thing...

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study. It isn't the CO2 in the AIR that kills the shellfish, you do understand this, right?

CO2 in the air according to theories your side proposes are what increases CO2 in the oceans..... Get it yet? Yeah you really are that thick..... According to your sides claims increased atmospheric CO2 increases the ocean CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.. IF that is the case, then the times I mentioned above when CO2 concentrations were 20 times greater, the oceans would have been too acidic for those life forms to survive much less evolve. So either the theory is incorrect regarding CO2 and its effects on the ocean PH level, the theories are inaccurate and misleading, or the reaction of such life forms to CO2 induced acidification in the oceans is not understood fully.

Either way something is not right in it... now do you understand this now? Do not make me repeat this crap again, its been gone over and over. All of your so-called scientist pals have ran from this like the plague. They know its impossible to fight. They resort to claiming im a troll and refuse science.

I do not refuse science I refuse idiots who think they can pass of Bullshit as science.....

You are confusing total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.

uh no, thats your sides theory doing that.... They make the claim that current atmospheric CO2 is causing ocean acidification. I simply show the fallacy in that assumption based on the past knowledge we have, which categorically shows this assumption false in the manner they claim.... If you don't like the theory they use than talk to them about it.... jesus you can't keep your arguments straight can you.....

Wouldn't the likelihood of CO2 causing acidification depend on factors other than its size? For instance, the amount of CO2 being added or subtracted to the system would seem important, as well.

Do you understand what "size by volume" means? it means the largest amount or quantity. For instance, if I have 50 red gumballs and 20 blue gumballs, the largest by volume is the red gumballs.....

Seriously? This is a prime example of the idiocy plaguing your side.... One in ten of you can think logically and maintain a clear argument on this..... unbelievable... You are just as bad as konradv...

So why does the ocean's Ph vary at all then? Can you please direct me to your calculations showing that this alkali base is sufficient?

Ignorant, retarded and classically stupid remark...

The oceans PH varies for many reasons we know of and many others we don't yet know about or understand fully. The problem is your side like to claim its all because of CO2, when in reality they cannot make such a claim with any real certainty.

My calculations? Tell ya what azzhole lets see any calculations you personally have done on any of this... From the looks of this display of ignorance you just gave, we can be assured that you certainly didn't do any calculating so far....

 

[gslack]

Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study



I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study. It isn't the CO2 in the AIR that kills the shellfish, you do understand this, right?


Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...

You are confusing total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.


Wouldn't the likelihood of CO2 causing acidification depend on factors other than its size? For instance, the amount of CO2 being added or subtracted to the system would seem important, as well.

Real science bit #5: The ocean rides over vast amounts of alkali. We are talking vast amounts of alkali stone, rock and soil which the oceans stir up and roll over 24/7... Alkali is the acid stopper in case you weren't aware.

So why does the ocean's Ph vary at all then? Can you please direct me to your calculations showing that this alkali base is sufficient?

Don't bother, gsuck is a pathetic troll. Our links to actual science has already shown his statments and logic is flawed. He' just act like a child and rant and rave about how stupid and phony we are, all while never citing any actual science.

Just another asshole that thinks posting on a forum with no evidence to back it up can discredit research from trained professionals.

Cue gsuck's rantings and ravings in 3.....2.......1

Coming from a fake elitist wannabe, that must be as valuable a theory as AGW....

DR.DOUCHEBAG! you want to tell us all how we are unfit to discuss this because we are not super smarty-smart science experts like you and oldsocks again?

Fuckin fake ass forum scientist, your BS act has been outed.... Get a new persona dipshit...

 

[gslack]

I love it when the little AGW propaganda army has to circle the wagons..... LOL

 

[SpidermanTuba]

CO2 in the air according to theories your side proposes are what increases CO2 in the oceans..... Get it yet? Yeah you really are that thick..... According to your sides claims increased atmospheric CO2 increases the ocean CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.. IF that is the case, then the times I mentioned above when CO2 concentrations were 20 times greater, the oceans would have been too acidic for those life forms to survive much less evolve. So either the theory is incorrect regarding CO2 and its effects on the ocean PH level, the theories are inaccurate and misleading, or the reaction of such life forms to CO2 induced acidification in the oceans is not understood fully.

You are assuming that the functional relationship between CO2 levels in the air and and ocean Ph is and has always been the same. That seems like an oversimplification to me. You yourself have stated that there are many other factors influencing ocean PH.

uh no, thats your sides theory doing that....

Oh really, it is my side? Then by all means, please explain the difference between total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.

They make the claim that current atmospheric CO2 is causing ocean acidification. I simply show the fallacy in that assumption based on the past knowledge we have, which categorically shows this assumption false in the manner they claim.... If you don't like the theory they use than talk to them about it.... jesus you can't keep your arguments straight can you.....

Would you mind directing me to some of your more recent publications on the matter?

Do you understand what "size by volume" means?

Yes, but that's not what you said. You said CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the ocean. Are you retracting that statement?

The oceans PH varies for many reasons we know of and many others we don't yet know about or understand fully. The problem is your side like to claim its all because of CO2, when in reality they cannot make such a claim with any real certainty.

I do not know what side you are referring to here. AGW theory is one based on all greenhouse gases, including CO2, but also methane, etc.

Tell ya what azzhole lets see any calculations you personally have done on any of this..

.

I'm not an expert like you are. Please show me your calculations. Your most recent publication would be a good starting place.

 

[gslack]

CO2 in the air according to theories your side proposes are what increases CO2 in the oceans..... Get it yet? Yeah you really are that thick..... According to your sides claims increased atmospheric CO2 increases the ocean CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.. IF that is the case, then the times I mentioned above when CO2 concentrations were 20 times greater, the oceans would have been too acidic for those life forms to survive much less evolve. So either the theory is incorrect regarding CO2 and its effects on the ocean PH level, the theories are inaccurate and misleading, or the reaction of such life forms to CO2 induced acidification in the oceans is not understood fully.

You are assuming that the functional relationship between CO2 levels in the air and and ocean Ph is and has always been the same. That seems like an oversimplification to me. You yourself have stated that there are many other factors influencing ocean PH.

DUMASS, your side has tried and still tries to use past climate to dictate current trends in climate.... Moron! THis is your sides methods, got that yet you insufferable idiot?

uh no, thats your sides theory doing that....

Oh really, it is my side? Then by all means, please explain the difference between total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.

Would you mind directing me to some of your more recent publications on the matter?

No I don't have to the OP tried to do that you imbecile!!! And as far as my publications where are yours retard??? So you can take that whiny punk bitch excuse and stick it... you ignorant morons really irk me....


Yes, but that's not what you said. You said CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the ocean. Are you retracting that statement?

Oh yes it is!..... Read it punk!!!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/113049-ocean-acidification.html#post2199920

Real science bit #4: CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the oceans by volume that could in theory effect the PH balance.

The oceans PH varies for many reasons we know of and many others we don't yet know about or understand fully. The problem is your side like to claim its all because of CO2, when in reality they cannot make such a claim with any real certainty.

I do not know what side you are referring to here. AGW theory is one based on all greenhouse gases, including CO2, but also methane, etc.

UNBELIEVABLE!!! you complete and total nincompoop, this is about CO2 induced ocean acidification.... Your side claims this is a fact. CO2 they don't mention methane causing this or any other gas so far its all CO2 on ocean acidification..... Freaking idiot!!!!!

Tell ya what azzhole lets see any calculations you personally have done on any of this..

.

I'm not an expert like you are. Please show me your calculations. Your most recent publication would be a good starting place.

Come on douchebag show me your credentials then...... THought so just some more of the same lame ass "your not qualified" Bullshit.... Then neither are you, and since that is the case you are not qualified to dictate who to believe on this, because you have shown an inability to think critically and follow a simple thread....

Jesus christ you are an idiot..... Do you even understand any of this?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Come on douchebag show me your credentials then...... THought so just some more of the same lame ass "your not qualified" Bullshit.... Then neither are you, and since that is the case you are not qualified to dictate who to believe on this, because you have shown an inability to think critically and follow a simple thread....

Jesus christ you are an idiot..... Do you even understand any of this?

I'm not a climate scientist. That's why I rely on other people to get my climate science - namely - climate scientists. I am a PhD candidate in astrophysics, and would expect that climate scientists who wanted to know about binary stars would consult someone like me (or my professor), instead of just making up theory on the fly as they like.

You, on the other hand, seem to have your own theories you've developed. So I assumed you knew what you are talking about. Are you telling me that I should accept your conclusions even though your conclusions aren't based on any actual research you did?

 

[saveliberty]

For all the confused people who are in denial of the reality of this situation and ignorant of the science but who keep posting anyway, here's a good rundown of the basic facts of the matter.

As humanity continues to pump, every single year, more than 28 billion tons of previously sequestered fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, sending world atmospheric CO2 levels skyrocketing to heights not seen in millions of years, the excess CO2 is also causing another huge environmental disaster besides just the more well known global warming/climate change problem. As the oceans absorb more and more of the excess atmospheric CO2, they become more acidic, threatening the whole marine ecosystem with the kind of mass extinction event that has been seen before in the distant past when the oceans got too acidic.

Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs

Chemical change placing 'unprecedented' pressure on marine life and could cause widespread extinctions, warn scientists

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 March 2009 00.05 GMT

Human pollution is turning the seas into acid so quickly that the coming decades will recreate conditions not seen on Earth since the time of the dinosaurs, scientists will warn today.

The rapid acidification is caused by the massive amounts of carbon dioxide belched from chimneys and exhausts that dissolve in the ocean. The chemical change is placing "unprecedented" pressure on marine life such as shellfish and lobsters and could cause widespread extinctions, the experts say.

Remainder of piece HERE.

Forum policy on copyright and fair use, to be found HERE, prohibit the posting of copyrighted pieces in their entirety.

Learn it, love it, live it.

~Dude

Volcanic vents feed far more acids into the ocean than what little actually transfers from the discharges you cite. Your sources are so biased and founded on falsified data results it defies rational thought.

 

[gslack]

Come on douchebag show me your credentials then...... THought so just some more of the same lame ass "your not qualified" Bullshit.... Then neither are you, and since that is the case you are not qualified to dictate who to believe on this, because you have shown an inability to think critically and follow a simple thread....

Jesus christ you are an idiot..... Do you even understand any of this?

I'm not a climate scientist. That's why I rely on other people to get my climate science - namely - climate scientists. I am a PhD candidate in astrophysics, and would expect that climate scientists who wanted to know about binary stars would consult someone like me (or my professor), instead of just making up theory on the fly as they like.

You, on the other hand, seem to have your own theories you've developed. So I assumed you knew what you are talking about. Are you telling me that I should accept your conclusions even though your conclusions aren't based on any actual research you did?

I knew you would try that DR DOUCHEBAG tactic....

Sure you are a phd candidate buddy sure you are.... THats why you couldn't follow the simple line of debate here... I suppose its common in the PHD candidates huh.... Sure...

You are full of shit..... You just spent two posts showing how utterly ignorant you are and then just like DR DOUCHEBAG you try and save face by claiming you are a PHD candidate.

Let me clue you in on some things right quick... You can't hide miles of ignorant evidence with a simple claim you are smart or educated..... That only makes you look even more ignorant...

And nice bit of dodging junior...... Pathetic....

 

[Dr Gregg]

I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study



I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study. It isn't the CO2 in the AIR that kills the shellfish, you do understand this, right?


Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...

You are confusing total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.


Wouldn't the likelihood of CO2 causing acidification depend on factors other than its size? For instance, the amount of CO2 being added or subtracted to the system would seem important, as well.





So why does the ocean's Ph vary at all then? Can you please direct me to your calculations showing that this alkali base is sufficient?

Don't bother, gsuck is a pathetic troll. Our links to actual science has already shown his statments and logic is flawed. He' just act like a child and rant and rave about how stupid and phony we are, all while never citing any actual science.

Just another asshole that thinks posting on a forum with no evidence to back it up can discredit research from trained professionals.

Cue gsuck's rantings and ravings in 3.....2.......1

Coming from a fake elitist wannabe, that must be as valuable a theory as AGW....

DR.DOUCHEBAG! you want to tell us all how we are unfit to discuss this because we are not super smarty-smart science experts like you and oldsocks again?

Fuckin fake ass forum scientist, your BS act has been outed.... Get a new persona dipshit...

Oh irony, and more proof you are nothing but a pathetic troll

YOu've been spouting the same bullshit over and over for 18 pages know, calling everybody the same stupid names, ignoring scientists logic and their evidence and data, all while providing none, and you claim I need a new persona?

YOu need to get a life is what you need to do

 

[Dr Gregg]

Come on douchebag show me your credentials then...... THought so just some more of the same lame ass "your not qualified" Bullshit.... Then neither are you, and since that is the case you are not qualified to dictate who to believe on this, because you have shown an inability to think critically and follow a simple thread....

Jesus christ you are an idiot..... Do you even understand any of this?

I'm not a climate scientist. That's why I rely on other people to get my climate science - namely - climate scientists. I am a PhD candidate in astrophysics, and would expect that climate scientists who wanted to know about binary stars would consult someone like me (or my professor), instead of just making up theory on the fly as they like.

You, on the other hand, seem to have your own theories you've developed. So I assumed you knew what you are talking about. Are you telling me that I should accept your conclusions even though your conclusions aren't based on any actual research you did?

I knew you would try that DR DOUCHEBAG tactic....

Sure you are a phd candidate buddy sure you are.... THats why you couldn't follow the simple line of debate here... I suppose its common in the PHD candidates huh.... Sure...

You are full of shit..... You just spent two posts showing how utterly ignorant you are and then just like DR DOUCHEBAG you try and save face by claiming you are a PHD candidate.

Let me clue you in on some things right quick... You can't hide miles of ignorant evidence with a simple claim you are smart or educated..... That only makes you look even more ignorant...

And nice bit of dodging junior...... Pathetic....

You can say it over and over, but everything you say up here fits you to a tee. You have shown how full of shit and ignorant you are.

Man some people are so fucking pathetic and have such a sorry life they have to troll the internet being purposely dense and idiotic.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Sure you are a phd candidate buddy sure you are.... THats why you couldn't follow the simple line of debate here... I suppose its common in the PHD candidates huh.... Sure...

I find it interesting you believe PhD's to be incapable of scientific thought, especially considering the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs come from people with PhD's. Can you please justify your statement with anything other than insults?

 

[gslack]

Sure you are a phd candidate buddy sure you are.... THats why you couldn't follow the simple line of debate here... I suppose its common in the PHD candidates huh.... Sure...

I find it interesting you believe PhD's to be incapable of scientific thought, especially considering the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs come from people with PhD's. Can you please justify your statement with anything other than insults?

No dumass I think YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought... Don't add LIAR to the list a second time.... You are a liar, and now you try and lie about what I said.... Typical and pathetic.... Some PHD candidate..... GO and play scientist with DR DOUCHEBAG now...

 

[gslack]

I'm not a climate scientist. That's why I rely on other people to get my climate science - namely - climate scientists. I am a PhD candidate in astrophysics, and would expect that climate scientists who wanted to know about binary stars would consult someone like me (or my professor), instead of just making up theory on the fly as they like.

You, on the other hand, seem to have your own theories you've developed. So I assumed you knew what you are talking about. Are you telling me that I should accept your conclusions even though your conclusions aren't based on any actual research you did?

I knew you would try that DR DOUCHEBAG tactic....

Sure you are a phd candidate buddy sure you are.... THats why you couldn't follow the simple line of debate here... I suppose its common in the PHD candidates huh.... Sure...

You are full of shit..... You just spent two posts showing how utterly ignorant you are and then just like DR DOUCHEBAG you try and save face by claiming you are a PHD candidate.

Let me clue you in on some things right quick... You can't hide miles of ignorant evidence with a simple claim you are smart or educated..... That only makes you look even more ignorant...

And nice bit of dodging junior...... Pathetic....

You can say it over and over, but everything you say up here fits you to a tee. You have shown how full of shit and ignorant you are.

Man some people are so fucking pathetic and have such a sorry life they have to troll the internet being purposely dense and idiotic.

AWWWW, you crying still? You sure do sound all sciency there douchebag.....

Please spare us your BS now you are already outed as a fake scientist. Maybe you should try and help your little clone here....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No dumass I thin YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought...

Then why do you insist on engaging me in a scientific debate? Wouldn't it make more sense to go have a debate with people you agree with?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You are assuming that the functional relationship between CO2 levels in the air and and ocean Ph is and has always been the same. That seems like an oversimplification to me. You yourself have stated that there are many other factors influencing ocean PH.

DUMASS, your side has tried and still tries to use past climate to dictate current trends in climate.... Moron! THis is your sides methods, got that yet you insufferable idiot?

Why would you use a method you believe to be incorrect? That doesn't make sense. Please explain.

No I don't have to the OP tried to do that you imbecile!!! And as far as my publications where are yours retard???

I have no journal publications yet. I have given talks on the flux-limited diffusion approximation for radiation hydrodynamics, models of super-eddington accretion in binary stars, as well as presented my proposed thesis topic along the same lines. If you are interested I could send you copies, just have to take my name out to protect my anonymity.

Jesus christ you are an idiot..... Do you even understand any of this?

Do you have anything to offer other than insults?

 

[gslack]

No dumass I thin YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought...

Then why do you insist on engaging me in a scientific debate? Wouldn't it make more sense to go have a debate with people you agree with?

No dipshit you came trying to engage me remember? yeah thats all part of that "following the thread" thing I mentioned earlier.... you brought up an old post in here because you thought you had a new plan all worked out. Well the reality was you didn't have anything planned out at all, and it blew up in your face and made you look even more ignorant.

1. you couldn't keep the premise of the OP separate from my arguments. As evidenced by your inane claims it was my theory...

2. you couldn't grasp the entire theory well enough to keep the concepts of it while reading my arguments against it. As seen by your statements in that post, you were flailing and your points were nonsensical.

3. you claimed I didn't say something the way I said originally. When the post itself shows I did exactly that. The words were the same. To this you have not even responded at all.....

Those are just the simplest and most obvious reasons we can be assured you are neither a PHD candidate or even know anything about astro-physics..... So go peddle you BS elsewhere, you are one more fake internet scientist.....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

assured you are neither a PHD candidate or even know anything about astro-physics.....

I couldn't possibly know more than you, because you know everything.


And since you do, can you help me out? I'm trying to figure out how to model super-eddington flows without relativity - the problem is the radiation pressure pushes the velocities towards infinity. Any ideas?