Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide
Topic Started: Mar 13 2017, 07:46 PM (1,545 Views)
nNeo

W A Mozart
Mar 23 2017, 08:02 PM
How does one argue that [CO2% / the ocean is big]?
One doesn't argue. That's the point you are missing. Science isn't debate club.

You, and most of your bloggers are tying to "common sense" your way to outcomes you like, rather than using the already available data and formulas to find the right answer. Your guy even correctly identified the applicable law, but either didn't bother to do the math, or did so including only the variables that supported his argument, while treating more significant ones as constant, when they aren't. That isn't scientific. It's a problem any 100 level chem student should be able to do. I posted the basic formula earlier in the thread.

Had he figured partial pressures, he'd have realized that (in comparison) his temperature issue was insignificant. From equilibrium, we increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 250ppm to 410ppm. That makes the new aquatic equilibrium concentration 1.64x its starting concentration. The ocean will continue to absorb carbonic acid until it reaches that value, or the level in the air comes down. Since we are adding more faster than it can be absorbed, it's not coming down, and will keep going up as long as we add.

What actually happens once it's absorbed is another, much more complex situation, involving a bunch of ionic reactions, as well as the work of many organisms. The ocean is good at maintaining pH, having evolved these systems over billions of years. Your blogger had that bit right-ish -- the sea has been a pretty stable buffer, a soup of cations and anions, dancing Ca2+, CO3 2-, and dependable HCO 3-. That we have been able to measurably alter that is a testament to the scary amount of carbon we're releasing.

The ocean doesn't care how big you think it is, or how you feel about coal, or if you think Al Gore is too fat. It's water, it's going to do what physics and chemistry say it must, whether you understand that or not.

Some interesting side-science -- did you know that all the vast calcareous rock deposits on earth were made by life? and that all the carbon in that solid rock was once dissolved in the ocean, having been absorbed from the air? CO2 may not be a large percentage of the air, but it's a big part of our planet in many ways.

Perhaps these will help with a conceptual "how can there be enough CO2 in the air to..." All of the carbon in these rocks, and many more, was once in the atmosphere:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

and yes, even these "rocks" -- carbon from the air, to the sea, to the land

Posted Image
Posted Image

Science is beautiful, even the lowly carbon cycle in these cases, but to understand it, you must be willing to learn what it teaches, and that sometimes means letting go of what you "know". If all you read is stuff that confirms your bias, you cut yourself off from greater truth.

I hope the cognac was tasty. I assure you I am chill as the average 268 billion tons of melt from Greenland glaciers each year, and will not rush you to answer the key question, which in case you forgot, was "where does the CO2 produced from burning of fossil fuels go?". Based on energy industry figures, it's over 30GT per year. It must go somewhere.

I hope you will reach out for some better sources and explore that, wherever it may lead...
Edited by nNeo, Mar 24 2017, 12:48 AM.
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

nNeo
Mar 23 2017, 09:32 PM
The problem is that you don't understand how science works. You are not alone, sadly, most Americans don't understand how science works, nor do they have enough basic literacy in it to spot what should be obvious as snake oil.

W A Mozart
Mar 23 2017, 08:02 PM
You've come on this board and have challenged most/all of the scientists I quoted in our ongoing discussion.

I am not "challenging your scientists". It's not about me, or them. It's about the science... which most of them seem to be ignoring, or applying only selectively. That's typical when you have an agenda, and the reason this stuff is on blogs, not in real science journals.
W A Mozart
Mar 23 2017, 08:02 PM
The problem here is, who knows more, ....you or them?

That's not a "problem" or a question that matters. Argument to authority is a common fallacy, along with it's meaner little brother, ad hominem. Science doesn't give a damn who "knows more" or how decorated you are. Does your theory fit the data? Can you repeat the results? Does it stand up to scrutiny? I've seen first years call out phds on basic arithmetic. Right is right.
W A Mozart
Mar 23 2017, 08:02 PM
I pluck most of the quotes from some of the best anti-global warming blogs, supported by eminent scientists of all sorts, many with prestigious scientific awards in tow

Which speaks more about the state of anti-global-warming blogs than about me. I suggest reading some science journals and actually trying to understand the field. "Plucking" things that support your preexisting bias isn't serving you well.

Most of the people you quote have questionable credentials, at least in the areas they are commenting on. Many have obvious financial or ideological motivations. In reality, almost no "eminent scientists" in atmospheric chemistry, climatology, geophysics, or any closely related fields doubt global warming. So typically you're quoting people way outside their area of legit expertise, or straight up cranks. Notice how many of the ones with credentials are retired, or have changed away (often after failure or scandal) from the fields they started in. A few actually know what they are doing, but have sold out, often to mining or oil lobby, and are willing to lie for money.

This usually goes wrong since there is no consistent, scientifically coherent case for "anti-global-warming" Your bloggers are prone to self-contradiction -- "plucking" a sciencey assertion for one argument that undermines one for something else -- or simply making claims they can't back up with anything solid. For example: "ANY change in the oceans PH levels has absolutely nothing to do with CO2" is based on a non-scientific comparison between the total mass of the atmosphere and the total mass of the ocean. It sounds sensible, but as it turns out when you apply the real mechanics, plug in actual numbers & time scales, it's a red herring. So they haven't "made the point" at all, they've just asserted it and acted like it should be accepted.

side note: i was right, the Epipelagic Zone -- which is where the air-water mixing (hence CO2 absorption) and solar energy absorption are happening -- is actually less than the mass of the atmosphere. Eventually gases and heat can get to deeper layers via thermohaline circulation & such, but that takes a long time for reasons that would turn this into an even bigger wall of text.

Roughly - based on ocean surface of 510 million square km, nominal sea water density of 1.029

Atmosphere 5.15 x 10^18 kg
Epipelagic ocean 1.5 x 10^18 kg

So the part of the ocean that's changing isn't as big as your blogger thinks, not that his argument would hold up in either case. If we had normal rates of change, as typical at the end of an ice age, the seas might actually be able to process the increase, or most of it. But this is not normal. We're released millions of years worth of stored carbon in a century.
Some thoughts here...

Thanks for posting all of those wonderful equations and such..! And I tried really hard, being a non-scientist and all, to make any sense of your arguments. You throw a lot of it up on the blog, hoping that some of it will stick. On this blog I use the information provided by the primary "anti-global warming" web pages. These are real scientists, PHD's in climatology, with real experience in debating the global warming topic. I, however, try and make sense of it all and look to the logic. From all that you posted this was YOUR answer to my question:

Quote:
 
"ANY change in the oceans PH levels has absolutely nothing to do with CO2" is based on a non-scientific comparison between the total mass of the atmosphere and the total mass of the ocean. It sounds sensible, but as it turns out when you apply the real mechanics, plug in actual numbers & time scales, it's a red herring. So they haven't "made the point" at all, they've just asserted it and acted like it should be accepted.



You really haven't answered the question as to how PH levels in the ocean can be affected by increases in CO2 levels, a very minor greenhouse gas. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's all a bit smoke and mirrors.

Then there was this sentence that caught my attention:

Quote:
 
In reality, almost no "eminent scientists" in atmospheric chemistry, climatology, geophysics, or any closely related fields doubt global warming.



In reality? I've seen this argument countless times before and posted numerous, verifiable articles debunking that very absurd assertion. Like the loon who first posted about 97% of all scientists believe in the catastrophic affects of the global warming predictions. It's all nonsense. It's a pompous argument, usually made by Kool Aid slurping, government funded and sponsored, advocates like, say, Bill Nye, the creepy guy. So, let's throw some scientists on the board, real ones... :) , ...who completely disagree with the many of the tenants of global warming. Are these guys all fakes, charlatans?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/25/richard-lindzen-petition-to-president-trump-withdraw-from-the-un-convention-on-climate-change/


Mozart

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply