Ocean acidification

[Meister]

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?

I think you have lost sight of what the original debate was.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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?

I think you have lost sight of what the original debate was.

Considering I was directly addressing a point that YOU made, you should address that statement to yourself.

 

[westwall]

Geez, you guys are like weeds..we have to keep stamping out the nonsense. First to your original post about acidification I wish to turn your attention to

[CO2 Science

And then for this latest piece of propoganda I refer you to

The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud - IBD - Investors.com But this is just the reason for the continued barrage of falsehoods.

The actual prognostications by the legitimate scientists believe this

Global Cooling until 2030 by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD | Climate Realists

And I understand that any blog that doesn't adhere to your propoganda is ipso facto wrong
but nonetheless here is what the real sea ice people have to say

Another Arctic Sea Ice Milestone | Watts Up With That?

And once again the tedious dance goes on. Please, please, please, please, please (as my three old would say when she reeeeeaalllyy wants something) come up with some new propoganda and horse manure. This stuff is so dated that it's really no longer fun poking holes in it anymore...it's simply too easy.







QUOTE=Old Rocks;2257180]Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.[/QUOTE]

 

[rdean]

But, as harmful as our forebears may have been, nothing compares to what's under way today. Throughout the 20th century the causes of extinction - habitat degradation, overexploitation, agricultural monocultures, human-borne invasive species, human-induced climate-change - increased exponentially, until now in the 21st century the rate is nothing short of explosive. The World Conservation Union's Red List - a database measuring the global status of Earth's 1.5 million scientifically named species - tells a haunting tale of unchecked, unaddressed, and accelerating biocide.

When we hear of extinction, most of us think of the plight of the rhino, tiger, panda or blue whale. But these sad sagas are only small pieces of the extinction puzzle. The overall numbers are terrifying. Of the 40,168 species that the 10,000 scientists in the World Conservation Union have assessed, one in four mammals, one in eight birds, one in three amphibians, one in three conifers and other gymnosperms are at risk of extinction. The peril faced by other classes of organisms is less thoroughly analysed, but fully 40 per cent of the examined species of planet earth are in danger, including perhaps 51 per cent of reptiles, 52 per cent of insects, and 73 per cent of flowering plants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...n--the-greatest-threat-to-mankind-397939.html

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Geez, you guys are like weeds..we have to keep stamping out the nonsense. First to your original post about acidification I wish to turn your attention to

[CO2 Science

Co2science.org is an oil company funded science propaganda mill, I have no idea why you think it credible. Probably because you didn't bother to check it out.

The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud - IBD - Investors.com But this is just the reason for the continued barrage of falsehoods.

Inverstors.com? Seriously? You get your science from investment websites? How high up was your mother when she dropped you?

Global Cooling until 2030 by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD | Climate Realists

climaterealits.com? Are you serious? You know who runs that website? Sheep farmers. Says so right here: About us | Climate Realists

I love lamb and trust them to provide me some good gyros - but I'd prefer not to get my climate science from sheep farmers.

Seriously, its amazing you survived such a fall!

Another Arctic Sea Ice Milestone | Watts Up With That?

Dude, TV WEATHERMEN are not scientists.


Listen, if you want credible scientific sources, go here:
http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws

 

[westwall]

Actually we don't KNOW they exist. A preferred wording of your statement (and certainly the way a legit scientist would put it) is this...."it is our current belief based on observed data and empirical evidence, correlated with Quantum and Cosmological theory that Black Holes exist. To support our contentions we present this evidence."

Now please do the same for AGW. So far all that has been trotted out for the last 20 years are computer models that can't accurately predict what will occur in 10 days and can't accurately recreate what happened 10 days ago. That is not what I would call a ringing endorsement.

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.

 

[westwall]

Personal insults only show how weak your arguments and propoganda are. It also shows how completely clueless you are when it comes to the reason for the propoganda you pander.

The Investors article was presented to show not the science but the reason why the AGW crowd is commiting the fraud that they are. It is about money and how much they can take from you, me, everyone and give to them..the fact that you are not bright enough, or choose not to figure it out only shows that your mother dropped you from a higher elevation than my mother dropped me.

And actually if the weatherman is a meteorologist (as my local weathermen are) then yes in fact he is a scientist, in fact many of them attended the same universities as your "climateologists" did...they are just honest.

Geez, you guys are like weeds..we have to keep stamping out the nonsense. First to your original post about acidification I wish to turn your attention to

[CO2 Science

Co2science.org is an oil company funded science propaganda mill, I have no idea why you think it credible. Probably because you didn't bother to check it out.

The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud - IBD - Investors.com But this is just the reason for the continued barrage of falsehoods.

Inverstors.com? Seriously? You get your science from investment websites? How high up was your mother when she dropped you?

Global Cooling until 2030 by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD | Climate Realists

climaterealits.com? Are you serious? You know who runs that website? Sheep farmers. Says so right here: About us | Climate Realists

I love lamb and trust them to provide me some good gyros - but I'd prefer not to get my climate science from sheep farmers.

Seriously, its amazing you survived such a fall!

Another Arctic Sea Ice Milestone | Watts Up With That?

Dude, TV WEATHERMEN are not scientists.


Listen, if you want credible scientific sources, go here:
Google Scholar

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually we don't KNOW they exist. A preferred wording of your statement (and certainly the way a legit scientist would put it) is this...."it is our current belief based on observed data and empirical evidence, correlated with Quantum and Cosmological theory that Black Holes exist. To support our contentions we present this evidence."

Uhh, why wouldn't I mention anything about general relativity?


We do know black holes exist, just as we know the wind exists without having to see it.

Now please do the same for AGW. So far all that has been trotted out for the last 20 years are computer models that can't accurately predict what will occur in 10 days and can't accurately recreate what happened 10 days ago.

I can tell that you haven't actually been keeping up with it at all. You do realize that your failure to even search out this information does not mean it doesn't exist, right? For instance, you've omitting the observed fact that there has been statistically significant warming over the last 30 years.

GCM's are not designed to predict what will happen in 10 days. You really should have already known this if you had bothered to do even one iota of the background research you seem to act like you have.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Personal insults only show how weak your arguments and propoganda are.

I don't really follow you. Are you saying that if I were to tell you "the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to their distance from one another" - I would be correct - but if I were to tell you "the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to their distance from one another, oh, and BTW, go fuck your mother dipshit!" - I would be wrong?

That's interesting logic. Please tell me more.

The Investors article was presented to show not the science but the reason why the AGW crowd is commiting the fraud that they are.

They aren't committing fraud, and even if they were, you wouldn't find proof of it in an investors journal before finding it in an actual scientific journal.

It is about money and how much they can take from you, me, everyone and give to them..the fact that you are not bright enough, or choose not to figure it out only shows that your mother dropped you from a higher elevation than my mother dropped me.

Sorry I'm not smart enough to realize I need a tin foil hat because tens of thousands of scientists, starving graduate students, and staff have conspired with government officials on an international level over a period of 100 years in what must surely be the largest conspiracy ever conceived of in the universe!

 

[westwall]

No, we don't know. Currently the observed theory is validated by observations but a new theory could come along in the next day that would then render current black hole theory obsolete, just like Aristotelean physics was supplanted by Newtonian, which was then supplanted by Einsteinian, which in its turn was supplanted by Quantum theory, which was then supplanted by String, which is now challenged by M theory.

Unlike you I had the priviledge of taking classes from Feynman. I had many long talks with him over dinner and he was the first to educate me on the fallacy of AGW(I was a supporter before I actually learned the science you see) as well as how to truly look at the world. It's amazing what you can learn when you have a genius as an instructor. I suggest you find one.

Actually we don't KNOW they exist. A preferred wording of your statement (and certainly the way a legit scientist would put it) is this...."it is our current belief based on observed data and empirical evidence, correlated with Quantum and Cosmological theory that Black Holes exist. To support our contentions we present this evidence."

Uhh, why wouldn't I mention anything about general relativity?


We do know black holes exist, just as we know the wind exists without having to see it.

Now please do the same for AGW. So far all that has been trotted out for the last 20 years are computer models that can't accurately predict what will occur in 10 days and can't accurately recreate what happened 10 days ago.

I can tell that you haven't actually been keeping up with it at all. You do realize that your failure to even search out this information does not mean it doesn't exist, right? For instance, you've omitting the observed fact that there has been statistically significant warming over the last 30 years.

GCM's are not designed to predict what will happen in 10 days. You really should have already known this if you had bothered to do even one iota of the background research you seem to act like you have.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No, we don't know. Currently the observed theory is validated by observations but a new theory could come along in the next day that would then render current black hole theory obsolete

By that argument you could claim the force of gravity doesn't exist.

, just like Aristotelean physics was supplanted by Newtonian, which was then supplanted by Einsteinian, which in its turn was supplanted by Quantum theory, which was then supplanted by String, which is now challenged by M theory.

Newtonian physics was not "supplanted" by Einstein - Einstein just generalized what Newton had done to include physical regimes that Newton's physics did not work in. You wouldn't use Einstein's theory of relativity to compute the trajectory of a baseball, that would take you forever, you'd use Newton.

And the fact you think quantum physics supplanted general relativity goes to show how little you understand of physics. These two theories describe things in different physical regimes - quantum physics applies to the very tiny, and general relativity to the not so tiny. The unification of these two theories into one is still the forefront of modern theoretical physics.

Unlike you I had the priviledge of taking classes from Feynman.

Wonderful, you clearly didn't learn shit, and since it was Feynman, I can say with certainty its all your fault.

I had many long talks with him over dinner

I take it you did all the talking. I can't fathom how you could hang out with Feynman and not know that quantum physics does not supplant general relativity.

 

[westwall]

Let me ask you a simple question then if you're so smart. Please show me anywhere where the AGW crowd has ever been able to accurately predict anything. Please show me one computer model that has been able to successfully recreate any paleoclimate for any time you choose. They can't, they havn't, and they never will. The Earth is too large an engine for them to accurately model.

You contend that the data shows that the earth has been heating and yet the raw data that is available shows exactly the opposite. It shows that, in fact, temperatures have been declining at least since 1998 and probably even before that. The data also shows that the lead "scientists" in the AGW movement have been falsifying data for at least the last 10 years and most likely for the last 12 to 13 years.

Paleoclimate data shows that 2000 years ago and 1000 years ago the worldwide temperatures were higher than they are now (with no influence from mankind), Mann with his now proven fraudulent "hockey Stick" graph was trying to blot those events from the historical record. That my good person is not science that is academic fraud, and because they were taking money from the US taxpayers, ACTUAL FRAUD. And he will be (as will his other co-conspirators) be punished severly for that.

You can yell and scream and whine and snivel all you want but the fact remains there is no verifiable science that you can point to that verifys what you say. I can point out these verifiable reasons why the powers that be want to push this agenda forward however.

Barbara Hollingsworth: Fannie Mae owns patent on residential 'cap and trade' exchange | Washington Examiner

Newsmax - Scientist: Climate Change Legislation a Power Grab

Buying carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming - CSMonitor.com

Carbon offsets: Using the green cloak of 'certification' to sell - CSMonitor.com

Pajamas Media More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

Post Carbon: The Planet Panel at washingtonpost.com

Now add to this very small but robust sampling the fact that the carbon trading scheme was proposed by Ken Lay...you remember him don't you? He was the CEO of ENRON and he proposed the trade to Al Gore who realized "hey I can make a lot of bucks off of these environmental 'tards) and proceeded to set the government controls in motion.

So there you go...you're a smart guy...use Occams Razor here....which is most likely.

Global warming is occuring even though we can't prove one single aspect of it either in the lab, or with empirical observation (remember they "lost" the raw data and only have "value added" data to support their cause-please show me anywhere in the scientific method where that is OK) or with their vaunted but so far incompetant computer models.
And also please show me where climateologists have ever researched a possible other reason for the warming that was observed in the 80's and 90's.

You can't, because they went in with a preconceived agenda and never bothered to research anything else. Please show me any other field of science where they limit themseves to one avenue of research..just one.
Or maybe, just maybe...it really is all about money and power and how they want it and they want to take it from you.

Personal insults only show how weak your arguments and propoganda are.

I don't really follow you. Are you saying that if I were to tell you "the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to their distance from one another" - I would be correct - but if I were to tell you "the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to their distance from one another, oh, and BTW, go fuck your mother dipshit!" - I would be wrong?

That's interesting logic. Please tell me more.

The Investors article was presented to show not the science but the reason why the AGW crowd is commiting the fraud that they are.

They aren't committing fraud, and even if they were, you wouldn't find proof of it in an investors journal before finding it in an actual scientific journal.

It is about money and how much they can take from you, me, everyone and give to them..the fact that you are not bright enough, or choose not to figure it out only shows that your mother dropped you from a higher elevation than my mother dropped me.

Sorry I'm not smart enough to realize I need a tin foil hat because tens of thousands of scientists, starving graduate students, and staff have conspired with government officials on an international level over a period of 100 years in what must surely be the largest conspiracy ever conceived of in the universe!

 

[westwall]

Please tell me what gravity is. Feynmen certainly didn't know..c'mon smart guy it's an instant Doctoral Degree if you can tell us what gravity is. We can certainly observe the effects but we don't know what it is.

Can we travel faster than light? Current theory says no, but we can observe gravitational effects between two stars that require it.

I am not a physicist, I am a geologist but I happened to enjoy having a conversation with Richard. And no, if you knew him, which you clearly never had the priviledge, he did the vast majority of talking. Thankfully!

So once again lay off of the personal insults, they demean you and are totally unnecessary.
Present your data and have a civil conversation, who knows you may learn something as might myself. As it is you prejudice anyone who reads your correspondence because they think you an ass.

No, we don't know. Currently the observed theory is validated by observations but a new theory could come along in the next day that would then render current black hole theory obsolete

By that argument you could claim the force of gravity doesn't exist.

, just like Aristotelean physics was supplanted by Newtonian, which was then supplanted by Einsteinian, which in its turn was supplanted by Quantum theory, which was then supplanted by String, which is now challenged by M theory.

Newtonian physics was not "supplanted" by Einstein - Einstein just generalized what Newton had done to include physical regimes that Newton's physics did not work in. You wouldn't use Einstein's theory of relativity to compute the trajectory of a baseball, that would take you forever, you'd use Newton.

And the fact you think quantum physics supplanted general relativity goes to show how little you understand of physics. These two theories describe things in different physical regimes - quantum physics applies to the very tiny, and general relativity to the not so tiny. The unification of these two theories into one is still the forefront of modern theoretical physics.

Unlike you I had the priviledge of taking classes from Feynman.

Wonderful, you clearly didn't learn shit, and since it was Feynman, I can say with certainty its all your fault.

I had many long talks with him over dinner

I take it you did all the talking. I can't fathom how you could hang out with Feynman and not know that quantum physics does not supplant general relativity.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

Made several artifical ones in 2005. The current CERN project has created some too, but we will have to wait until the data is reviewed to see if any of them were captured.

 

[westwall]

This is not true. They made "simulations" of the event horizon using fiber optics. No black holes have been made and most likely won't be for many years...if ever.


Direct experiments with black holes are unlikely, due at the very least to the distance any are from Earth, not to mention how difficult these warps in space and time would be to work with.

Instead, researchers are searching for ways to create lab models of event horizons.

Now scientists have created an artificial event horizon on a tabletop using fiber optics.

The researchers started by firing a stream of intense, brief laser pulses inside an optical fiber. These pulses acted like a current of flowing light.

Such intense, brief pulses "make physical effects visible that would also occur for much longer and weaker pulses, but are hard to detect there," explained researcher Ulf Leonhardt, a theoretical physicist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. "High intensity and short pulses are needed for seeing subtle effects and discriminating them from noise."

At the same time, the researchers fired a continuous beam of infrared light down the optical fiber. This beam created waves that got overtaken by the laser flow, resembling how light waves are overcome by the gravitational pull just past an event horizon.

"The most surprising aspect for me is how simple it actually is to create artificial event horizons," Leonhardt told LiveScience.

Related StoriesSaturn Moon May Have Rings of Its Own
'Death Star' Gamma-Ray Gun Pointed Straight at Earth
NASA Space Probe Takes Photos of Avalanche on Mars
Four More Spacecraft Show Bizarre Speed Changes
Scientists Predict When World Will End
He and his colleagues detailed their findings in the March 7 issue of the journal Science.

Scientists had proposed other systems to mimic aspects of black holes. All those, however, needed moving parts — specifically, very fragile, ultra-cold blobs of matter — and none of them have yet successfully displayed phenomena resembling event horizons.

The artificial event horizons Leonhardt and his colleagues have devised could help researchers explore bizarre aspects of black holes, such as radiation they are supposed to emit.

Black holes are not entirely black. Physicist Stephen Hawking discovered that all black holes should instead evaporate at least a bit, leaking energy dubbed "Hawking radiation."

Scientists have not yet seen this mysterious energy — Hawking radiation from normal black holes is completely obscured by the cosmic microwave background, radiation left over from the Big Bang that pervades the entire universe.

However, Leonhardt suggests that with their new lab model, "we can create artificial event horizons that would generate enough Hawking radiation to be detectable."

A greater understanding of Hawking radiation could help unite our currently disparate theories of physics into one "theory of everything" that could conceive of all the natural forces.

So far scientists have not successfully united the field of general relativity, which explains how matter and energy behave at large scales and predicts the existence of black holes, with that of quantum mechanics, which helps explain how matter and energy act at atomic and subatomic levels and predicts the existence of Hawking radiation.

A better understanding of Hawking radiation could help bridge general relativity with quantum mechanics to understand how these "worlds are connected," Leonhardt explained
aveliberty;2259597]

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?

Made several artifical ones in 2005. The current CERN project has created some too, but we will have to wait until the data is reviewed to see if any of them were captured.[/QUOTE]

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Now add to this very small but robust sampling the fact that the carbon trading scheme was proposed by Ken Lay

Then you have to be wrong, because AGW theory predates Ken Lay by quite a bit.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I am not a physicist

Really? I had no idea, honestly.

And no, if you knew him, which you clearly never had the priviledge, he did the vast majority of talking.

You do realize, you don't learn physics simply by talking to physicists, right? You do understand that, right?

So did you hang with Feynmann when you were working on your undergrad or your PhD?




And you do realize that quantum physics does not supplant general relativity, right?

 

[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?

Made several artifical ones in 2005. The current CERN project has created some too, but we will have to wait until the data is reviewed to see if any of them were captured.

Does the experiment in 2005 have a name?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This is not true. They made "simulations" of the event horizon using fiber optics. No black holes have been made and most likely won't be for many years...if ever.

Finally we agree on something.

 

[westwall]

Yes it does, but the carbon trading scheme originated from him and that is when you first see governments become interested in the trade and when massive amounts of money first started flowing to the AGW proponents.

Now add to this very small but robust sampling the fact that the carbon trading scheme was proposed by Ken Lay

Then you have to be wrong, because AGW theory predates Ken Lay by quite a bit.