Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How would you go about obtaining a more accurate figure dude?
Or should I say, "A more ACCURATE figure"?
You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.
But, unlike you, I am willing to admit that there are a lot of variables and assumptions at work in your analogy of greenhouse gasses and water vapor acting like the glass of a greenhouse.
Being I never made such an analogy, your whole rant looks crazy.
You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.
Haven't been shown a single one actually
I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on. It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation. It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s. So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked. It's why the process was named as it was.
But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days. It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here. So, Mylar, what's your point? Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?
That's complete bullshit and I would have expected you to know better. You know as well as do I that there exists butt-ton-loads of evidence to support all these ocean acidification commentaries. And you know as well as do we all that these peer-reviewed, PhD chemistry and oceanography authors know this shit far better than do you. Here is the full reference set from Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid. Feel free to identify all the folks with no background in chemistry - the "ridiculous" ones.
my oldest was one of the top 5 students in his law school, my youngest just finished working at an iPSC lab and starts medical school so clearly my kids came out OK.You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.
Haven't been shown a single one actually
And you talk to your children with that mouth? Fucking amazing.
Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking
No Frank, you didn't miss it and EVERYONE here knows that to be a fact. Thus, everyone here knows you are LYING. Bravo. Well Done.
please repost the lab experiment showing a temperature increase from a 120ppm increase in CO2Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking
No Frank, you didn't miss it and EVERYONE here knows that to be a fact. Thus, everyone here knows you are LYING. Bravo. Well Done.
That's complete bullshit and I would have expected you to know better. You know as well as do I that there exists butt-ton-loads of evidence to support all these ocean acidification commentaries. And you know as well as do we all that these peer-reviewed, PhD chemistry and oceanography authors know this shit far better than do you. Here is the full reference set from Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid. Feel free to identify all the folks with no background in chemistry - the "ridiculous" ones.
It`s you who is full of bullshit and who is ridiculous.
I asked you and your buddy mamooth to do the very simple math how many ppm atmospheric CO2 would it take to drop the pH of plain water by 0.1 and neither you or your buddy can do it and both of you are trying to conceal that by "answering" with what you`ve been Googling about ocean acidification.
It turned out (when you were still Abraham3) that you can`t even do a simple conversion of [H+] concentration to get the correct pH and your buddy can`t even convert ppm to percent.
That also tells me that neither of you would have a clue what this oceanographer with a PhD in chemistry or any of the other authors are talking about.
Like your #1 Google search result.
1) Acid-Base Physiology 2.1 - Acid-Base Balance by Kerry Brandis
Is about acid base role in the liver, urinary pH etc and has s.f.a. to do with the subject
#2 is a reference to a basic chemistry book published by Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310... . and so on and on
Why page 310? You don`t even have it in your post what`s on page 310 of that book, so why do you pretend that you have been reading it?
It`s a list of Google search results that comes up in the same order as you posted it when somebody who has no clue about pH Googled for it.
please make this a sticky! that's science!!PolarBear, do you deny the following statement:
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 [5], representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7]
5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 969. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop
It's an ESTIMATE From people who have been caught with their thumb on the scale multiple times
That`s right it`s an estimate and the people who estimated it are hell bent to "prove" that oceans "acidify at alarming" or "unprecedented" rates....and do it by claiming that they estimate that the "average ocean pH" which varies all over the place was 0.1 pH units higher.
The fact that there is no data supporting that claim does not matter because in that "science" all it takes is an estimate and a "consensus" amongst those who estimated it. After that some of the media and individuals with no background in chemistry whatsoever do the rest.
Take "mamooth" for example.
Now he is twisting it as if I was the one who picked these numbers from wiki....which are indeed for water without any CaCO3 buffer in it.
Now he admits it has nothing to do with sea water and talks as if it wasn`t him who copied and pasted the numbers from that wiki-page.
All I did was showing how way off the mark his claim was.
So "mamooth" show me were in your post you addressed the partial pressure for CO2.
After you posted these ridiculous numbers I posted what it would take for pCO2 for the equally ridiculous pH range you copied from wikipedia:
And now you pretend that I picked that table and that you did it correctly for ppm CO2.polarbear post 352
So he used pH 7 as a baseline and picked the numbers of the wiki table for pH 6.81 without understanding what the table shows.
On the left side of the table are the numbers for the partial pressure of CO2 you need to get from pH 7 down to pH 6.81
For pH7 pCO2 = 10^(-8) atm and to get it down to pH 6.81 you need a pCO2 of 10^(-6) in other words 100 times more CO2 than what it is
if the oceans were already at pH 7
But that`s par for the course. Everyone of you instant wiki-science "graduates" does the same thing when you get caught bullshitting.
If you had any idea whatsoever how to do the math then why did you not do it for the pH range of 8.25 to 8.14 ?
If I wanted to I could and I would not be confined to the numbers of that wiki-page which don`t go above pH7.
You however are confined to the numbers wiki listed there because you haven`t got the slightest clue how to do that calculation.
and boast to Frank that you know more about chemistry than he does...and are you saying now you know more about it than I do as well?
Weren`t you the one who was talking about "ink molecules" last year when the same subject was discussed.
I`m still waiting for you to show me what the molecular structure of an "ink molecule" looks like.
We have been round the same bend just a little while ago with that instant wiki-science expert"Abraham3" before he changed his name to "Crick".
He can`t even use a log function correctly and you can`t do a simple calculation with exponents either:
44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6mamooth post # 349
According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.
CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.
1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.
and if you have 0.00000014784 grams per liter that would be 0.00014784 ppm. A ppm is one part per million and a percent is one part in 100.
So before you start lecturing us about pH and chemistry you should first learn how to use exponents and how to convert ppm correctly to percent.
And after you did then come back here and tell us what the pH would be if you got a solution of 1.5 ^(-7) grams of CO2 gas in water.
1.7/1000 th of that is Carbonic acid and the pKa for Carbonic acid is on the same wiki page you were quoting.
Since you were the one who used tables for plane water keep using plain water.
You have no idea anyway what you were quoting from there when you did your milkmaid math and could not even do that right.
If you knew how the pH is calculated then you should have realized at the first glance at that table that the numbers you used to perform your screwy math has nothing to do with dissociated CO2 as an acid.
The number you copied from the table [CO2](mol/L) was 3.36E-8 moles/liter
Since you have zero knowledge about chemistry you don`t know the difference between [CO2] and [CO3]2- and took that number as dissociated [CO3]2- which is the anion of carbonic acid.
The correct numbers for the pH you picked (pH 6.81) would have been in then columns labelled [HCO3−](mol/L) and [CO32−](mol/L)
In conclusion it`s abundantly clear that the table you wagged in front of Frank`s face has dick all to do with "ocean" water "acidification, current ppm atmospheric CO2 and the pH range in question.
And it`s also clear that you have no idea whatsoever what the number you picked expressed....which is CO2 dissolved in H2O and is in no way an "acid",...until it is Carbonic acid which only yields :
HCO3−CO32− + H+Ka2 = 4.69×10^(−11)mol/litre which is the ratio of [H+] times [CO3 2−] to non dissociated, meaning pH inactive carbonic acid.The [H+] concentration in moles per liter would be the square root of that and the pH would be the negative log value taken from that.
After that do the math how much more CO2 you need in the atmosphere to drop the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 considering the partial pressure increase it takes just to increase how much CO2 is dissolved in water and that it takes 1000 times more dissolved CO2 before you get 1 single molecule of carbonic acid which in turn is one of the weakest acids with a pKa of only 4.7 E-7
I won`t do it for you but rather sit back and wait for you and "Crick" to do it so that I can have a good laugh.
It would be a fulltime job to debunk all the bullshit you freaks are posting and I do have better things to do with my time.
I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on. It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation. It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s. So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked. It's why the process was named as it was.
But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days. It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here. So, Mylar, what's your point? Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?
Which is EXACTLY the same thing as NOT even attempting to answer his very precise question. You are particularly adept at that evasion technique. At least manboob tries. He may be wrong and he may reveal the shallowness of his own alleged "understanding" in the AGW theroy "process," but at least he tries.
you're too stupid to know you're lying.But the small library of chemistry textbooks that say he's wrong... what are they Frank?
No, Pricky. I am not unhappy at all. I have a GOOD time pointing out how dishonest you are.
The FACT is that you AGW Faith-based goofballs HAVE been maintaining that the "trapped" heat in our atmosphere is "caused" by the CO2 gas and other alleged "greenhouse" gasses.
I am not as concerned with the mechanism of how it gets "trapped"
according to you mush-mouthed vacillating dishonest cultist douche bags
as I am with the fact that you DO repeatedly make the claim.
I'll grant you that you may have been yabbering a bit informally. That's fair enough.
But the TRUTH is that you HAVE maintained that the heat gets "trapped" (even if that is not an accurate way of describing what you actually mean to convey). There is a REASON that it's known as a "greenhouse" effect, you dishonest yabbering douch nugget. It's why you try to explain it to skeptics in terms of a "blanket."
And you know it.
You global Climate Faither cultist Warmer/Cooler/Cacaphony alarmists OFTEN talk in condescending ways to anybody who challenges your Faith. I mean, shit: Just look at the way you get your thin-skinned back up whenever anybody points out that you are unable to coherently explain the basic thesis of your AGW theory.
Instead of simply ANSWERING the questions put to you by CrusaderFrank, for instance, you PRETEND that the question has been answered a lot, previously.
Which is EXACTLY the same thing as NOT even attempting to answer his very precise question. You are particularly adept at that evasion technique. At least manboob tries. He may be wrong and he may reveal the shallowness of his own alleged "understanding" in the AGW theroy "process," but at least he tries.
You, pricky, by contrast, are merely a weasel. And you fool no body. Your dishonesty is on full display,
Ilar, what about "CO2 blocks infrared radiation and warms the planet" escapes your grasp?
Lexical nitpicking is generally taken as a sign of desperation.
You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.
Haven't been shown a single one actually
