Ocean acidification

[CrusaderFrank]

It's beyond our power to make a black hole of any meaningful size, but any HS Science class can put a teaspoon of dry ice in a covered fish tank and see it the temperature goes up from the slight increases in CO2 like you claim it does

You don't think a box with some gas in it small enough to fit in a classroom is a gross over simplification of the Sun-Earth climate system? For one thing, you're missing the Sun, that's a pretty important factor.

But you're the ones making the hypothesis that a de minimus change in one variable causes cataclysmic changes!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[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?

OH snap!

Troll outing

Very scientific of you DR DOUCHEBAG.... Is that one of your scientific terms?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's beyond our power to make a black hole of any meaningful size, but any HS Science class can put a teaspoon of dry ice in a covered fish tank and see it the temperature goes up from the slight increases in CO2 like you claim it does

You don't think a box with some gas in it small enough to fit in a classroom is a gross over simplification of the Sun-Earth climate system? For one thing, you're missing the Sun, that's a pretty important factor.

But you're the ones making the hypothesis that a de minimus change in one variable causes cataclysmic changes!!!!!!!!!!!

Small changes in a materials chemical composition can often lead to huge shifts in its opacity to radiation. This is a well known fact, measured in the lab - not a hypothesis.


From an astrophysical POV we see this effect all over the place. It plays a crucial role in star formation, for instance. The addition of even a small amount of metals to a proto-stellar medium can have drastic effects on the star's subsequent formation and evolution.

 

[gslack]

You don't think a box with some gas in it small enough to fit in a classroom is a gross over simplification of the Sun-Earth climate system? For one thing, you're missing the Sun, that's a pretty important factor.

But you're the ones making the hypothesis that a de minimus change in one variable causes cataclysmic changes!!!!!!!!!!!

Small changes in a materials chemical composition can often lead to huge shifts in its opacity to radiation. This is a well known fact, measured in the lab - not a hypothesis.


From an astrophysical POV we see this effect all over the place. It plays a crucial role in star formation, for instance. The addition of even a small amount of metals to a proto-stellar medium can have drastic effects on the star's subsequent formation and evolution.

You are busted already dufus..... The large hadron collider was used already... Like he said a astro-physics Phd candidate would know this..... You are done boy no go join DR DOUCHEBAG in the known and proven fakes section....

 

[saveliberty]

I thought they were making small black holes at the particle accelerator in Europe?

Not yet. But we already know black holes exist, without having to have created them in a lab.

Actually they have. The data is being reviewed at several world leading universities in the field. Michigan State University for example. Someone in your field of study should know that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You are busted already dufus..... The large hadron collider was used already... Like he said a astro-physics Phd candidate would know this..... You are done boy no go join DR DOUCHEBAG in the known and proven fakes section....

And they already made a black hole? Wow. That was fucking quick! Can you please direct me to the relevant publications?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You don't think a box with some gas in it small enough to fit in a classroom is a gross over simplification of the Sun-Earth climate system? For one thing, you're missing the Sun, that's a pretty important factor.

But you're the ones making the hypothesis that a de minimus change in one variable causes cataclysmic changes!!!!!!!!!!!

Small changes in a materials chemical composition can often lead to huge shifts in its opacity to radiation. This is a well known fact, measured in the lab - not a hypothesis.


From an astrophysical POV we see this effect all over the place. It plays a crucial role in star formation, for instance. The addition of even a small amount of metals to a proto-stellar medium can have drastic effects on the star's subsequent formation and evolution.

But you haven't yet measured climate changes from small increases in CO2 in a lab because....?

Seriously, you don't have to pretend with me, I know you're full of crap

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I thought they were making small black holes at the particle accelerator in Europe?

Not yet. But we already know black holes exist, without having to have created them in a lab.

Actually they have. The data is being reviewed at several world leading universities in the field. Michigan State University for example. Someone in your field of study should know that.

By all means, I'm eager to read more. Please link me up. And tell me what you mean by rotation. I'm interested.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

But you haven't yet measured climate changes from small increases in CO2 in a lab because....?

Because you can't fit Earth's climate in a lab. That should be obvious! LOL!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But you haven't yet measured climate changes from small increases in CO2 in a lab because....?

Because you can't fit Earth's climate in a lab. That should be obvious! LOL!

Yet you know that deminimus increases in CO2 are the culprit.

See, that's not science, that's solidly between phrenology and palmistry

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Louisiana State University is in Baton Rouge and they do have an Astrophysics department. Just saying. 77 students.

Rotating or nonrotating ST?

LOL, alright, I figured it out. No, I don't rotate. I've actually never even heard of a rotating physics graduate student, outside maybe the context of medical physics. Isn't that something that mostly PhD/MD's do?


I apologize for not being familiar with terminology which is irrelevant to my quite narrow field of study.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yet you know that deminimus increases in CO2 are the culprit.

The increase in CO2 mass or volume concentration isn't what causes the greenhouse effect - its the amount of opacity to infrared radiation that is added to the atmosphere that causes it. Do you understand?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet you know that deminimus increases in CO2 are the culprit.

The increase in CO2 mass or volume concentration isn't what causes the greenhouse effect - its the amount of opacity to infrared radiation that is added to the atmosphere that causes it. Do you understand?

I understand you're totally full of crap, but that's OK so is every other Global Warming "Scientist"

If I were a real scientist I'd demand my university move the Warmers to the Cafeteria or tennis court because what they do is not science

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yet you know that deminimus increases in CO2 are the culprit.

The increase in CO2 mass or volume concentration isn't what causes the greenhouse effect - its the amount of opacity to infrared radiation that is added to the atmosphere that causes it. Do you understand?

I understand you're totally full of crap, but that's OK so is every other Global Warming "Scientist"

That's great, but do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The increase in CO2 mass or volume concentration isn't what causes the greenhouse effect - its the amount of opacity to infrared radiation that is added to the atmosphere that causes it. Do you understand?

I understand you're totally full of crap, but that's OK so is every other Global Warming "Scientist"

That's great, but do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

How'd ya manage to rule out water vapor so quickly?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I understand you're totally full of crap, but that's OK so is every other Global Warming "Scientist"

That's great, but do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

How'd ya manage to rule out water vapor so quickly?

Hold up Crusader, you're moving too quickly for your own good. We first have to make sure you understand the very basic issue. So please, answer the question, yes or no:

Do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?

 

[Meister]

That's like saying math isn't science.

Not at all, CrusaderFrank is saying that a computer model isn't exact science.

That's like saying math isn't exact science.

Are you trying to be stupid...or is this coming natural for you?

Computer models have a margin of error.
Where in math is there a margin of error?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Not at all, CrusaderFrank is saying that a computer model isn't exact science.

That's like saying math isn't exact science.

Are you trying to be stupid...or is this coming natural for you?

Computer models have a margin of error.
Where in math is there a margin of error?

Pretty much whenever math is applied to anything in the real world, there is a margin of error. This is because the numbers you input into the equations themselves are not exact - for instance, if you want to know the area of a rectangle, you have to measure it - but those measurements have a margin of error associated with them - So even though the equation itself is exact = Area = width * length, the result has a margin of error.

In this case the error is (Width_error/Width + length_error/length) * width * length


Anymore basic stuff you need to know?

 

[Meister]

That's like saying math isn't exact science.

Are you trying to be stupid...or is this coming natural for you?

Computer models have a margin of error.
Where in math is there a margin of error?

Pretty much whenever math is applied to anything in the real world, there is a margin of error. This is because the numbers you input into the equations themselves are not exact - for instance, if you want to know the area of a rectangle, you have to measure it - but those measurements have a margin of error associated with them - So even though the equation itself is exact = Area = width * length, the result has a margin of error.

In this case the error is (Width_error/Width + length_error/length) * width * length


Anymore basic stuff you need to know?

So it's not natural, and your just trying to be stupid.....got it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Are you trying to be stupid...or is this coming natural for you?

Computer models have a margin of error.
Where in math is there a margin of error?

Pretty much whenever math is applied to anything in the real world, there is a margin of error. This is because the numbers you input into the equations themselves are not exact - for instance, if you want to know the area of a rectangle, you have to measure it - but those measurements have a margin of error associated with them - So even though the equation itself is exact = Area = width * length, the result has a margin of error.

In this case the error is (Width_error/Width + length_error/length) * width * length


Anymore basic stuff you need to know?

So it's not natural, and your just trying to be stupid.....got it.

??? Uhh, no, I was showing you how math isn't exact when applied to science.

Are you OK?