Remember me
▼ Content

Ocean acidification



Page 1 of 3123>
Ocean acidification28-01-2020 02:22
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
So the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased CO2 in the ocean which is acidification of the ocean. This is bad because the fish aren't built to function like that. In particular shell fish don't make quite as good shells for them selves. And others.
The ocean is a fragile ecosystem. If we do too much damage we won't be able to get as much food out of the ocean. It could and will get so bad that we'll need more farmland and we might not have enough farmland. We just shouldn't mess with mother nature.
28-01-2020 03:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7047)
keepit wrote: So the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased CO2 in the ocean

You still haven't gotten anything right. This statement is based on your denial of evaporation. You think it somehow doesn't happen.

keepit wrote:... which is acidification of the ocean.

Nope. You suck at chemistry. Ask me how I know.

[free clue] Any solution shifting TOWARDS 7.0 is "neutralizing" ... not "acidifying." A solution has to cross over from a pH > 7.0 to a pH < 7.0 to have "acidified."

Oh wait! Let me guess. You are regurgitating errors you mindlessly consumed from Wikipedia. That explains a lot, including why you aren't going to get anything right in your post.

[free hint] You could incorporate this new information I am porividing you to write your first correct thing!

keepit wrote: This is bad because the fish aren't built to function like that.

Incorrect ... AGAIN.

Life is acidic. The ocean is alkaline. Marine life must develop protections against the high pH. If the ocean were to lower in pH then ocean life would thrive all the more.

You suck at biology. Ask me how I know.

keepit wrote: The ocean is a fragile ecosystem.

It's likely where all life started. If all life on planet earth were to die from an asteroid, nuclear war, whatever, life at the thermal vents would evolve to repopulate the planet.

keepit wrote: If we do too much damage we won't be able to get as much food out of the ocean.

There's no damage being done. Zero never equates to "too much." You're not very good at this.

keepit wrote: It could and will get so bad that we'll need more farmland and we might not have enough farmland.

You are not a Christian. You are a firebrand, panic-preaching fear-mongering warmizombie.

If you worry so much about being mocked for the stupid things you write, you bear the responsibility to not post. If you are going to post crap like you posted in this OP, you are begging to be derided, needled and lampooned.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2020 03:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
So the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. There are not enough stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
keepit wrote:
leads to increased CO2 in the ocean which is acidification of the ocean.

Putting CO2 in water just dissolves CO2 in water. Think soda water. About 1% of the 0.04% of the CO2 becomes carbonic acid, a weak acid. The ocean water is alkaline. You can't 'acidify' it. There is not enough carbonic acid to change the pH of ocean water appreciably at all.

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. They are not a uniform pH. All ocean water sampled so far is alkaline.

BTW, rain is naturally acidic. The water becomes alkaline as it flows to the sea. Guess how.
keepit wrote:
This is bad because the fish aren't built to function like that.

Fish biology is acidic, like us.
keepit wrote:
In particular shell fish don't make quite as good shells for themselves.

We get bumper crops of oysters, clams, crabs, mussels, and other critters right here in the Pacific Northwest. It varies from year to year. Nothing has changed about this during the last century, except the number of people farming them and harvesting them.
keepit wrote:
And others.

Such is? Void argument fallacy.
keepit wrote:
The ocean is a fragile ecosystem.

Nope. It is the drain that everything goes to. Shit, fertilizers, chemicals, solvents, plastics, oil, shipwrecks, old bombs, nuclear waste, and even a boatload of Nintendo Wii's wound up in the ocean.

It's still here. It's still productive. Bacteria eat the plastics and oil, the chemicals disassociate, and the shit and fertilizers are also fish food. The nuclear waste simply dissipates.

keepit wrote:
If we do too much damage we won't be able to get as much food out of the ocean.

We are getting plenty of food out of the ocean, despite all the junk that wound up in it over the years.
keepit wrote:
It could and will get so bad that we'll need more farmland and we might not have enough farmland.

Oceans produce rain. Rain, dirt, and critters make soil. Everywhere.

We now grow almonds, oranges, lemons, wheat, oats, an all manner of food where before there was only desert, thanks to irrigation. We farm fish too, both in the ocean and even in the middle of the desert.
keepit wrote:
We just shouldn't mess with mother nature.

Nature isn't a mother. It isn't a person or a personage. Sorry to blow up your religion.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 03:49
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
IBDM, Shell fish can't function as well without the right pH. Sort of like you can't function very well without your trashmouth.
28-01-2020 03:53
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
IBDM and ITN,
Look in wiki. The definition of ocean acidification is defined as movement in the direction away from the current level of alkalinization even if it doesn't actually go below 7.0. It's a little subtle and somehow i knew you would misinterpret.

The post in general was about the changes in the various parameters, not the current state.

Re: the level of acidification. You can know that the atmospheric CO2 level has gone way up lately and you can know that that mean the ocean acidification has increased and you can know that many fish can't function as well that way. It's subtle.
Edited on 28-01-2020 04:24
28-01-2020 05:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7047)
keepit wrote: IBDM and ITN, Look in wiki.

Did I call it or what? You are quoting errors.

Your whole post is dismissed. Next ...


keepit wrote: The definition of ocean acidification is defined as movement in the direction away from the current level of alkalinization

Nope. Read my post ... or don't. I gave you the correct answer. You can't afford to go with what I told you because you don't want to be caught getting something right.

keepit wrote: even if it doesn't actually go below 7.0.

Yes, going below 7.0 is absolutely required for something to become acidic. Being acidic is absolutely required for something to have acidified. Chemistry does not subscribe to warmizombie panic-hype.

keepit wrote: You can know that the atmospheric CO2 level has gone way up lately

You don't know that atmospheric CO2 has increased.

keepit wrote: ... and you can know that that mean the ocean acidification has increased

You can know that your gibberish is dismissed.

keepit wrote: ... and you can know that many fish can't function as well that way.

Life is acidic. Marine life would thrive all the more.


You're still batting 0.000


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2020 08:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
IBDM, Shell fish can't function as well without the right pH.
The are functioning just fine, despite your stupid predictions.
keepit wrote:
Sort of like you can't function very well without your trashmouth.

YALIF.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 08:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
IBDM and ITN,
Look in wiki.

You won your bet with yourself IBdaMann. Wiki isn't a science book, moron.
keepit wrote:
The definition of ocean acidification is defined as movement in the direction away from the current level of alkalinization even if it doesn't actually go below 7.0.

Nope. Anything above a pH of 7 is not an acid.
keepit wrote:
It's a little subtle and somehow i knew you would misinterpret.

Nope. Only a pH below 7 is an acid. You can't acidify an alkaline.
keepit wrote:
The post in general was about the changes in the various parameters, not the current state.

You say CO2 has gone up from 315ppm to 400ppm. You say it already happened. The fish and the oceans are doing just fine.
keepit wrote:
Re: the level of acidification.

There is no such thing as 'level of acidification'. Buzzword fallacy.
keepit wrote:
You can know that the atmospheric CO2 level has gone way up lately and you can know that that mean the ocean acidification has increased

You can't acidify an alkaline.
keepit wrote:
and you can know that many fish can't function as well that way.

They are doing just fine, despite the increased levels of CO2 that are claimed.
keepit wrote:
It's subtle.

No. It's not happening.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 13:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3259)
keepit wrote:
So the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased CO2 in the ocean which is acidification of the ocean.
Yeah but it's a really teeny tiny change. I'd love to have an expert actually talk about how it's significant. Just seems so slight.

from: co2-emission-from-fossil-fuels

tmiddles wrote:
In terms of the data thrown around the change seems so teeny tiny even as claimed:


What's that 0.02 with a 30% increase in CO2? And .02 less alkaline at that, not technically acidic at all.
28-01-2020 17:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7047)
tmiddles wrote:

What's that 0.02 with a 30% increase in CO2? And .02 less alkaline at that, not technically acidic at all.

I read some US Navy data about three years ago indicating the ocean is around 8.2 pH with regional, local and depth variances. Also, any geologist should be able to tell you that the ocean becomes more alkaline from natural geological processes. It's minute but explains why the ocean has always been alkaline and has never acidified.

Also, if you ask any chemist instead of asking keepit, he'll tell you that ocean water does, in fact, evaporate. Any "carbonic acid" that might happen to find its way into the ocean is short-lived ... evaporating soon thereafter, releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The ocean is not "accumulating" carbonic acid.

There is no ocean "acidification" outside of warmizombie fear-mongering hype. Why keepit NEEDS to propagate panic I'll never understand.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2020 18:58
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
Tmid,
Ocean acidification means moving in the direction of acid, not necessarily to the point of becoming acidic.
The issue is how much movement is harmful to fish of various varieties and ocean reefs. I have a friend who is a biologist (he's sometimes quoted in textbooks) who goes on diving trips all over the world every year (what a life) and he says most reefs are suffering greatly but that there are a few that aren't. He didn't give me an explanation for that.
Re: evaporation. I'm not sure where the misinterpretation about my thoughts on evaporation came from. To think that any one on the planet doesn't believe there is evaporation is bizarre.
I know a couple of psychiatrists in seattle, Dr Frasier Crane and Dr. Niles Crane. They're not real psychiatrists, they're TV actors, but at some point in each or their lives they did stay at a holiday inn.
Edited on 28-01-2020 19:07
28-01-2020 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

What's that 0.02 with a 30% increase in CO2? And .02 less alkaline at that, not technically acidic at all.

I read some US Navy data about three years ago indicating the ocean is around 8.2 pH with regional, local and depth variances. Also, any geologist should be able to tell you that the ocean becomes more alkaline from natural geological processes. It's minute but explains why the ocean has always been alkaline and has never acidified.

Also, if you ask any chemist instead of asking keepit, he'll tell you that ocean water does, in fact, evaporate. Any "carbonic acid" that might happen to find its way into the ocean is short-lived ... evaporating soon thereafter, releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The ocean is not "accumulating" carbonic acid.

There is no ocean "acidification" outside of warmizombie fear-mongering hype. Why keepit NEEDS to propagate panic I'll never understand.


.

He doesn't understand that CO2 <-> H2CO3 is a reaction in equilibrium, just as CO2 dissolving in water or venting from water is also a reaction in equilibrium. Nor does he understand just how little H2CO3 results from dissolving CO2 in water, nor does he understand the nature of pH buffering, or even the nature of acid-base chemistry at all.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-01-2020 19:45
28-01-2020 20:08
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
ITN,
it's true that my general chemistry is from the 60's and i'm not up on it as much as you. I do know a few things about equillibrium though.
Anyway, as i understand it phytoplankton take up CO2 at the interface of the ocean and air. When they die they sink with that co2 to the bottom. That is where the shell fish live and they don't like living in a more acidic environment than they are used to.

I think there's a significant likelihood that global warming is an emergency, an emergency we don't want to get behind the power curve on.
Edited on 28-01-2020 20:10
28-01-2020 20:32
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2059)
How do you know it's the CO2. Aren't the sea levels, rising, at an alarming rate? The rise is from melting ice, which should be semi-fresh, water. Would that dilute and neutralize some of that alkali seawater? You can't acidify a base, you can neutralize it with an acid though. It's still a base, until it crosses over the '0' pH (neutral) mark.

Crustaceans also live in freshwater, different species, but obviously pH isn't that deadly, or required, it's just what they adapted to, and they can get use to a change as well.
28-01-2020 20:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7047)
keepit wrote: Tmid,Ocean acidification means moving in the direction of acid, not necessarily to the point of becoming acidic.

Moving towards pH 7.0, i.e. moving towards NEUTRAL, is called NEUTRALIZING in chemistry.

The word "acidifying" is already taken and means something else.

You are clearly bent on dishonesty, disguising your religious propaganda in seemingly chemistry terminology.


Oh, and you are still batting 0.000


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2020 20:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
it's true that my general chemistry is from the 60's and i'm not up on it as much as you.

You deny chemistry. Acid-base chemistry is much older than the 60's!
keepit wrote:
I do know a few things about equillibrium though.

Apparently not.
keepit wrote:
Anyway, as i understand it phytoplankton take up CO2 at the interface of the ocean and air.
When they die they sink with that co2 to the bottom.

Not a description of equilibrium. You are also denying that CO2 dissolves in water. You are also incorrectly assuming that CO2 is an acid.
keepit wrote:
That is where the shell fish live

Shell fish do not live on the bottom of the ocean.
keepit wrote:
and they don't like living in a more acidic environment than they are used to.

Ocean water is alkaline. It is not acidic. Life, however, is acidic. That includes shellfish.
keepit wrote:
I think there's a significant likelihood that global warming is an emergency, an emergency we don't want to get behind the power curve on.

Buzzword fallacy. Define 'global warming'. Power curves have nothing to do with climate or weather.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do you know it's the CO2. Aren't the sea levels, rising, at an alarming rate? The rise is from melting ice, which should be semi-fresh, water.

Ice is always fresh water. The process of freezing removes any salts.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Would that dilute and neutralize some of that alkali seawater?

Not particularly. Not enough ice.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can't acidify a base, you can neutralize it with an acid though. It's still a base, until it crosses over the '0' pH (neutral) mark.

Correct.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Crustaceans also live in freshwater, different species,

True. Of course, most rivers and lakes are alkaline. Rain, however, is naturally acidic.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but obviously pH isn't that deadly, or required, it's just what they adapted to, and they can get use to a change as well.

pH is required to be within a certain range for life to occur at all of course.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 23:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7047)
HarveyH55 wrote: You can't acidify a base, you can neutralize it with an acid though. It's still a base, until it crosses over the '0' pH (neutral) mark.


Correct, except NEUTRAL is pH = 7.0, not 0.0

The pH scale spans from 0 to 14 and is defined by the ratio of H+ ions to OH- ions, or logarithmically, the negative base-10 logarithm of the H+ concentration.

When the concentration of H+ ions equals the concentration of OH- ions, it is exactly NEUTRAL and has a pH of 7.0

When the concentration of H+ ions excedes the concentration of OH- ions, it is ACIDIC and has a pH < 7.0

When the concentration of H+ ions is exceded by the concentration of OH- ions, it is ALKALI, or BASE, and has a pH > 7.0




So a key point to remember is that life is heavily skewed towards being acidic (being based on amino acids) while alkaline substances are usually industrial chemicals. Of course there are relatively rare exceptions in both cases.

The ocean, being alkali/base, is a harsh environment and life must develop protections against its otherwise corrosive nature. Most ocean fish develop a slimy excretion over the scales to protect it from the water. Tree sap is roughly pH 5.5 (acidic), with some variance between trees. Obviously humans have uric acid, lactic acid, gastric acid, and quite a few others.

Anyway, claims that fish somehow would die off en masse if the ocean were to become less alkali are absurd. Fish would have license to thrive.

To anyone claiming that life is not acidic, ask him or her to join you in a shot glass of lime juice (for you) and Drano (for him). Both are equally offset from NEUTRAL, just in different directions. The lime juice is rather acidic and Drano is rather alkali. Tell him that it will permanently clean his pipes.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2020 00:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
IBdaMann wrote:
To anyone claiming that life is not acidic, ask him or her to join you in a shot glass of lime juice (for you) and Drano (for him). Both are equally offset from NEUTRAL, just in different directions. The lime juice is rather acidic and Drano is rather alkali. Tell him that it will permanently clean his pipes.
.


Now there's a caustic suggestion!



The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 01:03
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
IBDM,
Smart arse remarks aren't a substitute for good science.

Mindless criticism of other people's science isn't a substitute either.
Takes those out of your posts and what do you have?
ans: not as much as you think.
Edited on 29-01-2020 01:09
29-01-2020 01:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
Smart arse remarks aren't a substitute for good science.
You aren't using science.
keepit wrote:
Mindless criticism of other people's science isn't a substitute either.
You aren't using science. Religion is not science.
keepit wrote:
Takes those out of your posts and what do you have?
ans: not as much as you think.

We have already discussed the theories of science you deny. You try to continue to deny them by changing their equations. You are not using science.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 02:02
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
For example, you say you got that long list of info just from science theory and you say that the science theory that you believe is your own.
If that is the case, how did you learn anything about dark energy and how did you learn anything about the Large Hadron Collider's discoveries? Do you have your own Large Hadron Collider? Have you traveled 5 billion light years out to take measurements of the dark energy there?
I hope you get my point.
29-01-2020 02:16
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
The pH of human blood is 7.35 and the pH of human urine is 6.2.
Of course there are AMINO ACIDS and nucleic ACIDS.
I don't know what the total is.
Edited on 29-01-2020 02:22
29-01-2020 03:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
For example, you say you got that long list of info just from science theory
No. I simply listed three theories of science. They are not a long list. It's just three equations.
keepit wrote:
and you say that the science theory that you believe is your own.
Nope. I didn't create the theories.
keepit wrote:
If that is the case, how did you learn anything about dark energy
I am not claiming anything about 'dark energy'. YOU are.
keepit wrote:
and how did you learn anything about the Large Hadron Collider's discoveries? Do you have your own Large Hadron Collider? Have you traveled 5 billion light years out to take measurements of the dark energy there?
I am not claiming anything about 'dark energy'. YOU are.
keepit wrote:
I hope you get my point.

Hallucinations have no point.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
The pH of human blood is 7.35 and the pH of human urine is 6.2.
Of course there are AMINO ACIDS and nucleic ACIDS.
I don't know what the total is.

Human blood also has carbon dioxide dissolved in it.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 03:24
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
There are no hallucinations here . There might be some delusions though (in you).
I'm sure you made a comment about dark energy in the past.

Maybe there's some misunderstandings about where you get your scientific theories. I thought they were your own from thinking about science.
Why don't you explain clearly where you get your theories.
Edited on 29-01-2020 03:31
29-01-2020 03:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
There are no hallucinations here . Thee might be some delusions though (in you).
I'm sure you made a comment about dark energy in the past.

No. YOU did.
keepit wrote:
Maybe there's some misunderstandings about where you get your scientific theories. I thought they were your own from thinking about science.

Nope. I didn't create the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
keepit wrote:
Why don't you explain clearly where you get your theories.

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 03:37
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
You're right that human blood has CO2, and a pH of 7.35 to 7.45.
It's true that you didn't create the SB law and the 1st and 2nd law but i think you misapply them.
For example, you think that energy can't created yet dark energy is being created in large quantities. And you think greenhouse gasses are a violation the SB law yet there is an emissivity of planetary bodies that you deny. Read about it in Wiki.
Just a suggestion. I shouldn't have remind you that it is merely a suggestion and i won't bother to remind you with other suggestions.
29-01-2020 03:40
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
I've made a lot of comments about dark energy. I wrote a paper about it but it hasn't been published.
Why don't you explain where you get your theories. I'm sure there is some misunderstanding about that on the board here.
RQAA is just a copout.
29-01-2020 03:45
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2059)
Beer has a lot of CO2 in it, and yet it's not lethal, even if consumed in mass quantities, even enjoyable. Doesn't seem unpleasantly acidic, and use to do quite a bit of research, in my younger year, of the subject. Still occasioning run a few tests, to reaffirm previous research. Still find that it's not unpleasant, or harmful. It should be obvious, that the surface of the ocean, is only exposed to the atmospheric CO2, which is only a small fraction of the volume of the ocean. CO2 is a trace gas, only makes up 0.04% of the total atmospheric volume, which is even greater than all the water on earth. Even if you could capture all that CO2, and put it in the ocean, it wouldn't be enough to carbonate the oceans. It's like waking up sometime after noon, and grabbing a half empty bottle off the coffee table, not even sure if it was yours, hoping some redneck was using it for a spitoon, and taking a drink, but a least it's wet.

You still don't get that climate science, is mad science, weird science, alternative science. The only thing it's not, is real science. What you observe in a test tube, in a controlled environment, rarely can be scaled and applied on a planet sized hypothetical.

There is a popular parlor trick, where the climate scientist shoves thermometer into two jars. One jar, is just air from the room, the control jar. The other jar is filled with CO2. Bothe are sealed, and placed in front of a heat lamp. Couple hours later, the CO2 jar is measurably warmer. The control jar is still basically at the ambient temperature of the room. Obviously, it doesn't really reflect any real word observation, since we'd all be dead, long before CO2 reach even 2% of what's in the jar. But mostly, if you check, pretty much any where you like, indoor air quality CO2, is generally double, even more than outdoor levels. There should have been significant warming of the control jar, since it's considerably higher in CO2, than what is considered a dire emergency, by the climate science squad.

Water only absorbs a small amount of CO2, before it's saturated, and it's not all that acidic. adding more CO2, doesn't change the acid level, just makes it bubbly, like beer. You can't 'Force' anymore into a saturated solution. Forcing, is fantasy.
29-01-2020 03:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3259)
keepit wrote:
Ocean acidification means moving in the direction of acid
Yes of course no problem there. The PH numbers are provided so quibbling about what is being theorized is pointless.

I do think it's fare to accuse those who titled the articles of alarmist propaganda in word choice.

keepit wrote:...a friend who is a biologist...says most reefs are suffering greatly
Ask her how much of that is considered to be caused by temperature shifts and how much by PH shifts. I think temperature anomaly is suspected far more than PH.

IBdaMann wrote:
Any "carbonic acid" that might happen to find its way into the ocean is short-lived
Into the Night wrote:
He doesn't understand that CO2 <-> H2CO3 is a reaction in equilibrium,
But that phenomenon would only be relevant if the added CO2 was short-lived. Since this theory is that it's a persistently present extra CO2 dose than the influence wouldn't be short lived and a shift in the equilibrium point would be persistent as well.

And neither keepit or I pretend to be chemists or any other type of scientist. We are laypeople and proud of it : )

HarveyH55 wrote:
How do you know it's the CO2. ...melting ice, which should be semi-fresh, water.
I think they can calculate what they think the added CO2 would do. I wonder if the data follows that calculation.

HarveyH55 wrote:Water only absorbs a small amount of CO2, before it's saturated, and it's not all that acidic.
I think the argument that a small change in environment is a small thing should be weighed against our direct experience with plants. Trees that will thrive in one region will fail in a similar region where there are only small differences in the environment. How different are Florida and California? Yet a the Jacaranda just won't get going in Florida where it thrives in CA:


And that's in someones yard, with help, and a strong desire to make it work.
Edited on 29-01-2020 03:54
29-01-2020 03:55
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
Tmid,
Good question - pH vs temp. I'll ask him.
29-01-2020 04:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
You're right that human blood has CO2, and a pH of 7.35 to 7.45.
[quote]keepit wrote:
It's true that you didn't create the SB law and the 1st and 2nd law but i think you misapply them.
Nope. They apply everywhere. All the time. YOU keep trying to deny them and change them.
keepit wrote:
For example, you think that energy can't created yet dark energy is being created in large quantities.

Buzzword fallacy. Define 'dark energy'.
keepit wrote:
And you think greenhouse gasses are a violation the SB law yet there is an emissivity of planetary bodies that you deny.
No. you are trying to change the equation again. You keep trying to add a frequency term and remove the emissivity term.
keepit wrote:
Read about it in Wiki.

RFAF. Dismissed.
keepit wrote:
Just a suggestion. I shouldn't have remind you that it is merely a suggestion and i won't bother to remind you with other suggestions.

RFAF. Dismissed.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 04:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
I've made a lot of comments about dark energy. I wrote a paper about it but it hasn't been published.

Then define 'dark energy'.
keepit wrote:
Why don't you explain where you get your theories. I'm sure there is some misunderstanding about that on the board here.
RQAA.
keepit wrote:
RQAA is just a copout.

Argument of the stone. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 04:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Beer has a lot of CO2 in it, and yet it's not lethal, even if consumed in mass quantities, even enjoyable. Doesn't seem unpleasantly acidic, and use to do quite a bit of research, in my younger year, of the subject. Still occasioning run a few tests, to reaffirm previous research. Still find that it's not unpleasant, or harmful. It should be obvious, that the surface of the ocean, is only exposed to the atmospheric CO2, which is only a small fraction of the volume of the ocean. CO2 is a trace gas, only makes up 0.04% of the total atmospheric volume, which is even greater than all the water on earth. Even if you could capture all that CO2, and put it in the ocean, it wouldn't be enough to carbonate the oceans. It's like waking up sometime after noon, and grabbing a half empty bottle off the coffee table, not even sure if it was yours, hoping some redneck was using it for a spitoon, and taking a drink, but a least it's wet.

I prefer Coke.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You still don't get that climate science, is mad science, weird science, alternative science. The only thing it's not, is real science. What you observe in a test tube, in a controlled environment, rarely can be scaled and applied on a planet sized hypothetical.

Test tubes are not science. Observation is not part of science. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is a popular parlor trick, where the climate scientist shoves thermometer into two jars. One jar, is just air from the room, the control jar. The other jar is filled with CO2. Bothe are sealed, and placed in front of a heat lamp. Couple hours later, the CO2 jar is measurably warmer. The control jar is still basically at the ambient temperature of the room. Obviously, it doesn't really reflect any real word observation, since we'd all be dead, long before CO2 reach even 2% of what's in the jar. But mostly, if you check, pretty much any where you like, indoor air quality CO2, is generally double, even more than outdoor levels. There should have been significant warming of the control jar, since it's considerably higher in CO2, than what is considered a dire emergency, by the climate science squad.

The atmosphere DOES absorb infrared light emitted by the surface. What the Church of Global Warming fails to mention is that emitting infrared light requires energy, which cools the surface.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water only absorbs a small amount of CO2, before it's saturated, and it's not all that acidic. adding more CO2, doesn't change the acid level, just makes it bubbly, like beer. You can't 'Force' anymore into a saturated solution. Forcing, is fantasy.

Correct. Dissolved CO2 is just CO2. It is not an acid.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 04:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7047)
keepit wrote:
I've made a lot of comments about dark energy. I wrote a paper about it but it hasn't been published.


Would you like it reviewed before publishing?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2020 04:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
Ocean acidification means moving in the direction of acid
Yes of course no problem there.

Big problem. You can't acidify an alkaline.
tmiddles wrote:
The PH numbers are provided so quibbling about what is being theorized is pointless.

Where have pH numbers been provided?
tmiddles wrote:
I do think it's fare to accuse those who titled the articles of alarmist propaganda in word choice.

Going into quibbling words again?
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:...a friend who is a biologist...says most reefs are suffering greatly
Ask her how much of that is considered to be caused by temperature shifts and how much by PH shifts. I think temperature anomaly is suspected far more than PH.

Reefs aren't suffering.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Any "carbonic acid" that might happen to find its way into the ocean is short-lived
Into the Night wrote:
He doesn't understand that CO2 <-> H2CO3 is a reaction in equilibrium,
But that phenomenon would only be relevant if the added CO2 was short-lived. Since this theory is that it's a persistently present extra CO2 dose than the influence wouldn't be short lived and a shift in the equilibrium point would be persistent as well.

Guess you don't understand acid-base chemistry either.
tmiddles wrote:
And neither keepit or I pretend to be chemists or any other type of scientist. We are laypeople and proud of it : )

Proud to be illiterate??
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do you know it's the CO2. ...melting ice, which should be semi-fresh, water.
I think they can calculate what they think the added CO2 would do. I wonder if the data follows that calculation.

What data? What calculation?
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Water only absorbs a small amount of CO2, before it's saturated, and it's not all that acidic.
I think the argument that a small change in environment is a small thing should be weighed against our direct experience with plants.

Trees that will thrive in one region will fail in a similar region where there are only small differences in the environment. How different are Florida and California? Yet a the Jacaranda just won't get going in Florida where it thrives in CA:

This tree grows just fine in Florida.
tmiddles wrote:
And that's in someones yard, with help, and a strong desire to make it work.

It works. This tree grows just fine in Florida.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 05:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3259)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do you know it's the CO2. ...melting ice, which should be semi-fresh, water.
I think they can calculate what they think the added CO2 would do. I wonder if the data follows that calculation.

What data? What calculation?
If you know the concentration of gases over water, the pressure, ect., you can calculate how much of the gas will dissolve in the water. It was in another thread.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Yet a the Jacaranda just won't get going in Florida where it thrives in CA:

This tree grows just fine in Florida.
Ah right you are. I forgot Florida is a long state. My poor relatives lived too far north.
29-01-2020 07:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do you know it's the CO2. ...melting ice, which should be semi-fresh, water.
I think they can calculate what they think the added CO2 would do. I wonder if the data follows that calculation.

What data? What calculation?
If you know the concentration of gases over water, the pressure, ect., you can calculate how much of the gas will dissolve in the water. It was in another thread.

So?
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Yet a the Jacaranda just won't get going in Florida where it thrives in CA:

This tree grows just fine in Florida.
Ah right you are. I forgot Florida is a long state. My poor relatives lived too far north.

No problem. An easy mistake to make!



The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 07:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3259)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[...What calculation?
If you know the concentration of gases over water, the pressure, ect., you can calculate how much of the gas will dissolve in the water. It was in another thread.

So?
So thats what calculation.

If the amount of CO2 that would dissolve in water can be calculated we can compare that to what we measure.
Just like using a ruler and the pythagorean theorem to calculate the sides of a right triangle.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Ocean acidification:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Ocean currents are speeding up faster than scientists predicted417-02-2020 14:55
Ocean ph.4917-09-2019 00:40
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Historic ocean acidification6025-04-2019 18:03
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact