| 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: |
| Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2017, 07:46 PM (1,550 Views) | |
| nNeo | Mar 23 2017, 11:02 PM Post #61 |
|
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: ![]() ![]() ![]() and yes, even these "rocks" -- carbon from the air, to the sea, to the land ![]() ![]() 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.” | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Mar 24 2017, 11:19 AM Post #62 |
|
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:
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:
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 |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic » |











, ...who completely disagree with the many of the tenants of global warming. Are these guys all fakes, charlatans?
3:09 PM Jul 11