Peer Review

[SwimExpert]

How about C + O2 -> CO2. Carbon is not diatomic.

But what does this have to do with microscopic amount of matter being added to the Earth's mass? What effect do you believe meteors have on climate?

Your stupidity is starting to hurt my head. Let's start over.

1. The Earth is not a closed system, nor is its atmosphere.
2. The addition into the atmosphere does not constitute a closed system mechanism.

The purpose of my chemical equation was to highlight the second point. Human activity adds CO2 to the atmosphere by a chemical mechanism. Chemical mechanisms also remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

As for your babble about matter-energy conversion, you are barking up the wrong, and an irrelevant, tree. Matter and energy are, for all purposes relevant to this discussion, are the same. If the atmosphere were a closed system, then neither matter nor energy would enter it or leave it. If the Earth were a closed system then neither matter nor energy would enter or leave it.

 

[SSDD]

How about C + O2 -> CO2. Carbon is not diatomic.

But what does this have to do with microscopic amount of matter being added to the Earth's mass? What effect do you believe meteors have on climate?

Let me guess. Were you going to suggest that meteors are providing carbon that is combining with terrestrial O2 to form CO2? Only trouble is that humans produce 725,000 times more CO2 by fossil fuel combustion than the total mass of incoming meteors.

Here's a website that discusses the chemical composition of meteorites. No mention of carbon whatsoever.Chemical Composition of Meteorites

And you still owe us an explanation as to what terrestrial energy<->matter conversions you believe are involved anywhere in this process.

The matter, no matter how small an amount it may be is proof that the earth system is open contrary to your idiot claim.

 

[Abraham3]

The sort of closed system you're thinking of is an abstract, like a geometric line or a tangent plane. Perfectly closed systems don't exist in nature. And what is the actual difference between a perfectly closed system and one that increases its mass by a proportion with 18 zeros after the decimal point after 3.5 billion years? PARTICULARLY, when we are examining a time period less than one millionth that span?

I'm not the one making idiotic claims. You've never done a thermo problem in the real world, have you.

 

[SSDD]

The sort of closed system you're thinking of is an abstract, like a geometric line or a tangent plane. Perfectly closed systems don't exist in nature. And what is the actual difference between a perfectly closed system and one that increases its mass by a proportion with 18 zeros after the decimal point after 3.5 billion years? PARTICULARLY, when we are examining a time period less than one millionth that span?

I'm not the one making idiotic claims. You've never done a thermo problem in the real world, have you.

Geez guy, how stupid are you? Give it up....go to another thread. The more you try to defend your completely wrong, uninformed, ignorant comment, the more stupid you look. The earth is an open system by any scientific definition as both energy and matter enter and exit.

But hey, who am I to stop you from fully revealing your true level of ignorance....carry on...tell us how the earth system, which receives and sheds both matter and energy is closed.

 

[Abraham3]

How about C + O2 -> CO2. Carbon is not diatomic.

But what does this have to do with microscopic amount of matter being added to the Earth's mass? What effect do you believe meteors have on climate?

Your stupidity is starting to hurt my head. Let's start over.

1. The Earth is not a closed system, nor is its atmosphere.
2. The addition into the atmosphere does not constitute a closed system mechanism.

The purpose of my chemical equation was to highlight the second point. Human activity adds CO2 to the atmosphere by a chemical mechanism. Chemical mechanisms also remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

As for your babble about matter-energy conversion, you are barking up the wrong, and an irrelevant, tree. Matter and energy are, for all purposes relevant to this discussion, are the same. If the atmosphere were a closed system, then neither matter nor energy would enter it or leave it. If the Earth were a closed system then neither matter nor energy would enter or leave it.

I made it quite clear that I am contending that the Earth is a closed system with respect to carbon dioxide. If you can't cope with that, you need a little more experience in the real world.

The Earth and it's atmosphere are the system.

I never brought up any mass additions. You guys did. I simply pointed out that they were as inconsequential as it is possible to be.

YOU brought up the equivalence of matter and energy. That equivalence is utterly irrelevant to climate change and is many orders of magnitude more inconsequential than our daily collection of meteor dust.

I've already asked this of SSDD. Let me ask it of you. The Earth's addition of meteoritic mass over the planet's entire 3.5 billion years is a factor with 18 zeroes after the decimal place (quintillionths). We're actually examining a process that has only been going on for 150 years and we can say we're interested at most in the next few millennia. Further research indicates that the incoming matter includes almost no carbon whatsoever and so is even more irrelevant to the process under examination.

So, what is the difference between the abstract construct of a closed Earth system and the real one? If you don't want to talk about that one, how about ANYONE here identifying a truly closed, real, extant system; no energy in or out, no matter in or out.

And do try to tell us that you misstated the CO2 reaction as a test.

 

[SwimExpert]

Geez guy, how stupid are you?

The measured data on record only goes back about 125 years, but so far peer reviewed studies indicate that it's a figure ending with 18 zeros before the decimal point, with a man made dumbing trend as indicated by computer simulations.

 

[SwimExpert]

....

Part of the problem continues to be that you are completely incapable of comprehending what people are actually saying. You insert things that people don't actually say, which leads you on a tangent. And then you use your own tangent to accuse others of not understanding science, because they allegedly are bringing things up.

It's really amazing, you draw connections that don't exist at all, but then completely fail to comprehend basic connections that do exist.

 

[Abraham3]

Geez guy, how stupid are you?

The measured data on record only goes back about 125 years, but so far peer reviewed studies indicate that it's a figure ending with 18 zeros before the decimal point, with a man made dumbing trend as indicated by computer simulations.

If you'd like to have these conversations like actual grownups, you could consider resisting your apparently unending urges to insult me, particularly when they have so far been attached, without fail, on more and more evidence that your science education ended with 7th grade physical science.

What measured data are you talking about?

 

[Darkwind]

Oh, come on people. You can't be serious.

If you take a box, which is definitely a closed system, and pound it with a hammer, it's no longer closed, but it's also destroyed.

You hit the earth with a six mile wide asteroid, on one hand it proves it's not closed. But when it comes to an ecosystem of life, that's wiped out. It's not closed, it's gone. So it was closed. Until it was hit with an hammer.

The same thing with CO2. You can overwhelm the ecosystem with poison gas. It's not any different than hitting it with a hammer or an asteroid, it's just slower.

Atmosphere and heat bleed into space by the second.....Want to know how much?

google.com

Go look it up. Its a true story.

 

[SwimExpert]

If you'd like to have these conversations like actual grownups, you could consider resisting your apparently unending urges to insult me, particularly when they have so far been attached, without fail, on more and more evidence that your science education ended with 7th grade physical science.

I've already told you. I, if you want me to engage, you need to have something to say that's worth my effort. Until then, I won't be bothered with anything of more substance than the nonsense you keep rattling off.

What measured data are you talking about?

*facepalm*

 

[mamooth]

So Swim and SSDD think that meteors control the climate by adding CO2.

Hey, it's their theory. You'll have to ask them to explain it. But beware, they get kind of testy when you do.

 

[SwimExpert]

So Swim and SSDD think that meteors control the climate by adding CO2.

 

[Abraham3]

No, they have not said they believe that. I was attempting to guess why they thought added mass from meteors had some significant effect on climate. Neither fellow has explained.

The reason I ask what measured data you're talking about is two-fold:

1) No one, not even in the last 125 years, has measured the actual total mass of meteors landing on the Earth each year.
2) The clever comments you tacked on, particularly given point #1, had the effect of making me think you might be thinking of temperature or CO2 concentration - that you had failed to understand what I wrote.

 

[SwimExpert]

why they thought added mass from meteors had some significant effect on climate.

 

[Abraham3]

If you'd like to have these conversations like actual grownups, you could consider resisting your apparently unending urges to insult me, particularly when they have so far been attached, without fail, on more and more evidence that your science education ended with 7th grade physical science.

I've already told you. I, if you want me to engage, you need to have something to say that's worth my effort. Until then, I won't be bothered with anything of more substance than the nonsense you keep rattling off.

I'm afraid the shortfall around here is found with you. You are the one who has failed to post anything worth discussion. For instance, in the course of your time here you have told us:

That we are in an ice age. The point is irrelevant.

That the Earth receives 45,000 tons of meteors a year. The point is irrelevant.

That climate change is a geological process. The point is blatantly incorrect.

That we are overdue for a glacial period. The view is held by a small minority of climatologists.

That I'm handicapped in these discussions for not having been a psych major. You're handicapped in a science discussion due to your obvious weakness in the sciences. The only thing you seem to have learned from your psych major is an insecurity that keeps you throwing puerile insults when pertinent conversation is required.

That a significant part of the development of human culture took place prior to the end of the last glacial period. The point is blatantly incorrect.

That carbon dioxide is subject to chemical weathering. The point is another failure of your general science knowledge.

That the majority of climate scientists believed we were headed into a glacial period. That you parrot this nonsense indicates you've chosen to buy the denier package unexamined.

That global warming began as a strategy to prevent global cooling [now THERE is a facepalm]. The point is laughable.

That you've apparently never seen anyone exhibit facetiousness and were unfamiliar with the term. [Just weird]

That you made up the word "Puellatine" and thought no one would notice. The point indicates your ego REALLY needs some adjustment.

If you don't want to discuss global warming, feel free to remain silent. How much difference could it make?

 

[SwimExpert]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCiN3q3ARfU]Grandad's speaking rubbish agin..... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flacaltenn]

The conclusions in the latter paragraph are entirely those of SSDD and are not in the paper at all.

They're not SSDD's conclusions. SSDD is cribbing links from The Hockey Schtick, a denialist blog. Go there, you'll find all of SSDD's "discoveries", down to the same headlines.

GoldiRock's words from Post #50...

SSDD

New computer model claims that global warming decreases cloudsl

A new paper published in Nature claims global warming reduces low clouds, the opposite of what has been claimed in the past. For example, the forthcoming IPCC AR5 notes climate models have predicted that in a warmer climate, increased evaporation will increase low cloud thickness, vertical, and horizontal extent, all of which increases reflection of sunlight [albedo], cools the planet, and acts as a negative feedback.

Now this is what SSDD gets out of this paper. Hard to say where he sees that.

SSDD OR HockeyStick --- those words are CORRECT.. They were not addressing the content of the NEW paper -- only how they contradict the findings in AR5 -- and all of that is accurately stated.. Conclusion --- GoldiRocks is hard of seeing...

 

[flacaltenn]

How about C + O2 -> CO2. Carbon is not diatomic.

But what does this have to do with microscopic amount of matter being added to the Earth's mass? What effect do you believe meteors have on climate?

Your stupidity is starting to hurt my head. Let's start over.

1. The Earth is not a closed system, nor is its atmosphere.
2. The addition into the atmosphere does not constitute a closed system mechanism.

The purpose of my chemical equation was to highlight the second point. Human activity adds CO2 to the atmosphere by a chemical mechanism. Chemical mechanisms also remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

As for your babble about matter-energy conversion, you are barking up the wrong, and an irrelevant, tree. Matter and energy are, for all purposes relevant to this discussion, are the same. If the atmosphere were a closed system, then neither matter nor energy would enter it or leave it. If the Earth were a closed system then neither matter nor energy would enter or leave it.

I made it quite clear that I am contending that the Earth is a closed system with respect to carbon dioxide. If you can't cope with that, you need a little more experience in the real world.

The Earth and it's atmosphere are the system.

I never brought up any mass additions. You guys did. I simply pointed out that they were as inconsequential as it is possible to be.

YOU brought up the equivalence of matter and energy. That equivalence is utterly irrelevant to climate change and is many orders of magnitude more inconsequential than our daily collection of meteor dust.

I've already asked this of SSDD. Let me ask it of you. The Earth's addition of meteoritic mass over the planet's entire 3.5 billion years is a factor with 18 zeroes after the decimal place (quintillionths). We're actually examining a process that has only been going on for 150 years and we can say we're interested at most in the next few millennia. Further research indicates that the incoming matter includes almost no carbon whatsoever and so is even more irrelevant to the process under examination.

So, what is the difference between the abstract construct of a closed Earth system and the real one? If you don't want to talk about that one, how about ANYONE here identifying a truly closed, real, extant system; no energy in or out, no matter in or out.

And do try to tell us that you misstated the CO2 reaction as a test.

WRT CO2 --- the EARTH may be a closed system, but the CLIMATE is not.. Nor is the Atmos a closed system with regards to CO2.. As the chemical and physical sequestration cycling of the compound is MASSIVELY DYNAMIC.. The land and oceans are both removing and adding GTons of CO2 into the atmos systems every year.. When CO2 is 500m under the ocean -- it's not affecting climate is it? Or when it's part of Navel Orange --- it's not affecting GW is it? But in a couple months -- it could be again...

 

[flacaltenn]

2 or 3 papers in that list addressing Ocean Acidification.. And more attempts to kill baby critters with MASSIVE doses of CO2 fail.. Quantifying coral biospheres with NATURAL pH variations higher than the projections from AGW with thriving coral.. The picture there is getting much clearer as I suspected..

 

[Abraham3]

Your stupidity is starting to hurt my head. Let's start over.

1. The Earth is not a closed system, nor is its atmosphere.
2. The addition into the atmosphere does not constitute a closed system mechanism.

The purpose of my chemical equation was to highlight the second point. Human activity adds CO2 to the atmosphere by a chemical mechanism. Chemical mechanisms also remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

As for your babble about matter-energy conversion, you are barking up the wrong, and an irrelevant, tree. Matter and energy are, for all purposes relevant to this discussion, are the same. If the atmosphere were a closed system, then neither matter nor energy would enter it or leave it. If the Earth were a closed system then neither matter nor energy would enter or leave it.

I made it quite clear that I am contending that the Earth is a closed system with respect to carbon dioxide. If you can't cope with that, you need a little more experience in the real world.

The Earth and it's atmosphere are the system.

I never brought up any mass additions. You guys did. I simply pointed out that they were as inconsequential as it is possible to be.

YOU brought up the equivalence of matter and energy. That equivalence is utterly irrelevant to climate change and is many orders of magnitude more inconsequential than our daily collection of meteor dust.

I've already asked this of SSDD. Let me ask it of you. The Earth's addition of meteoritic mass over the planet's entire 3.5 billion years is a factor with 18 zeroes after the decimal place (quintillionths). We're actually examining a process that has only been going on for 150 years and we can say we're interested at most in the next few millennia. Further research indicates that the incoming matter includes almost no carbon whatsoever and so is even more irrelevant to the process under examination.

So, what is the difference between the abstract construct of a closed Earth system and the real one? If you don't want to talk about that one, how about ANYONE here identifying a truly closed, real, extant system; no energy in or out, no matter in or out.

And do try to tell us that you misstated the CO2 reaction as a test.

WRT CO2 --- the EARTH may be a closed system, but the CLIMATE is not.. Nor is the Atmos a closed system with regards to CO2.. As the chemical and physical sequestration cycling of the compound is MASSIVELY DYNAMIC.. The land and oceans are both removing and adding GTons of CO2 into the atmos systems every year.. When CO2 is 500m under the ocean -- it's not affecting climate is it? Or when it's part of Navel Orange --- it's not affecting GW is it? But in a couple months -- it could be again...

Note the bold, blue comment above. That takes care of all sequestration. And thank you for your admission that the Earth is closed wrt CO2.

Why isn't the Great Swimmer responding here? Wait, let me guess, you don't have the swimmer watch.