Ocean "acidification" once and for all?

trafn wrote:On the bad side:

1. PNAS is probably run by a bunch of Marxist.
2. For the purpose of discussing M2C2, science might be overrated.
3. I'm not that good at finding typos, anyways.

You decide. Thoughts?

Rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions are anticipated to drive change to ocean ecosystems

trafn wrote:By the way, after we do dominate this smog filled world with our demonic socialist vision of peace and happiness for everyone, I'm still gonna get that 8 bedroom house with the olympic size swimming pool, two tennis courts, and his and hers Bently's you promised me, aren't I? (just asking)

trafn wrote:
Great, could you make that beach-front ocean property somewhere where the pH of the saline is 8.1?

litesong wrote:Methane plumes are bubbling up from the continental shelf off the Oregon & Washington state coasts. Possibly similar to methane plumes found to be increasing in the Siberian Arctic Ocean continental shelf & other regions, it'll be interesting to monitor the activity..... possibly easier to do than the Arctic Ocean methane bubbles.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151014132455.htm

trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - what website is your post supposed to be on? I can't find anyone named "litesong" on the Climate-debate.com user's list

trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - Can you give me the URL of the other site (the one with litesong)? I'd love to join in the fun!

trafn wrote:I think I'll just stay here where at least some of the people get my sense of humor.

trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - can't say I'd love too. Gotta admit, I just took a little look around, but what I saw actually hurt my brain. Geez, I get having a disagreement, but when you gotta magnify every freaking detail to the point that string theory looks like the land of giants, maybe you need to get out more often. No, I'll stay here where I don't have to pull out a Texas Instruments science algorithm calculator to interpret what everyone's saying.

IBdaMann wrote:

trafn wrote:On the bad side:

1. PNAS is probably run by a bunch of Marxist.
2. For the purpose of discussing M2C2, science might be overrated.
3. I'm not that good at finding typos, anyways.

You decide. Thoughts?

On the bad side, the authors hide behind the passive voice:

Rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions are anticipated to drive change to ocean ecosystems

1. My presumption, as a reader, is that this really must not be anticipated by anyone I consider important.
2. The first words tell me that, yes, these are probably a bunch of Marxists who are writing for an already believing audience. We all know the standard mantra of all religions: "You must believe!"
3. For guys who are supposed to be scientific, the authors certainly aren't doing anything to raise the scientific awareness of anyone. How much more vague can a thesis statement be? How are CO2 emissions driving change, and what changes are being driven? Am I supposed to suspend my disbelief and think in terms of "climate" miracles that violate the laws of physics? Is this a case whereby I am supposed to accept that by "changes" the authors could mean absolutely anything and thus I should just simply FEAR the worst ...as opposed to demanding that the authors specify exactly what changes they mean?
4. The one thing that could support the fear-mongering intended by this article is conspicuously omitted. Where's the complete set of raw, unfudged, unmodified, unaltered, unadjusted, uncooked, unsalted, untweaked data of global ocean pH values? If the data are available, why werethey not published for public scrutiny to put the issue to rest? If the answer is that there is no such data supporting the authors' claims, why are they pushing this fear-mongering (...and hence we go back to assuming they are a bunch of Marxists).

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
IBdaMann already "debunked" ocean acidification ten years ago!

IBdaMann wrote:

trafn wrote:
Great, could you make that beach-front ocean property somewhere where the pH of the saline is 8.1?

Two issues you're going to have to accept:

1. That will put you house on sand as the sea level lowers and pushes "beachfront property" further out...and

2. Sustained ocean pH of 8.16 is the lowest anyone can go, but it's that way for everyone.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

trafn wrote:
Great, could you make that beach-front ocean property somewhere where the pH of the saline is 8.1?

Two issues you're going to have to accept:

1. That will put you house on sand as the sea level lowers and pushes "beachfront property" further out...and

2. Sustained ocean pH of 8.16 is the lowest anyone can go, but it's that way for everyone.

"Sustained ocean pH of 8.16 is the lowest anyone can go, but it's that way for everyone."

A very precise figure for the ocean's pH minimum.

More made up bullshit.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

trafn wrote:
Great, could you make that beach-front ocean property somewhere where the pH of the saline is 8.1?

Two issues you're going to have to accept:

1. That will put you house on sand as the sea level lowers and pushes "beachfront property" further out...and

2. Sustained ocean pH of 8.16 is the lowest anyone can go, but it's that way for everyone.

"Sustained ocean pH of 8.16 is the lowest anyone can go, but it's that way for everyone."

A very precise figure for the ocean's pH minimum.

More made up bullshit.

*** whiff! *** Riiiiiight over your head!

Im a BM wrote:A very precise figure for the ocean's pH minimum.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:A very precise figure for the ocean's pH minimum.

I take it you don't feel obligated to include all context in your quotes.


.

Im a BM wrote:
You deny science.

Science is not a chemical.

You are not a chemist.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You deny science.

Science is not a chemical.

You are not a chemist.

YARP

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:A very precise figure for the ocean's pH minimum.

I take it you don't feel obligated to include all context in your quotes.


.

When you have no idea what those big words mean, you just call it incomprehensible gibber babble. And make false accusations.

Im a BM wrote:
You openly admit that you have no idea what scientific papers mean unless the author spoon feeds you remedial education for every vocabulary term.

Im a BM wrote:
Since they refuse to do that, scientific journals are just "shit rags".

Im a BM wrote:
It is hilarious that you appear to honestly believe your comprehension of science exceeds that persons such as myself.

Im a BM wrote:
One might even describe you as a "scientifically illiterate moron", if they were the kind of insecure dropout who would feel the need to say such a thing.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:A very precise figure for the ocean's pH minimum.

I take it you don't feel obligated to include all context in your quotes.


.

When you have no idea what those big words mean, you just call it incomprehensible gibber babble. And make false accusations.

YARP

Im a BM wrote:
You openly admit that you have no idea what scientific papers mean unless the author spoon feeds you remedial education for every vocabulary term.

Science is not a paper. You are illiterate.

Im a BM wrote:
Since they refuse to do that, scientific journals are just "shit rags".

Science is not a journal.

Im a BM wrote:
It is hilarious that you appear to honestly believe your comprehension of science exceeds that persons such as myself.

THAT's pretty easy, since you routinely deny science.

Im a BM wrote:
One might even describe you as a "scientifically illiterate moron", if they were the kind of insecure dropout who would feel the need to say such a thing.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
So, as we know, the world's big petroleum deposits formed under ancient shallow seas on the continental shelf. Tectonic processes moved them into what is today above sea level positions. A significant fraction of the world's total pool of organic carbon is found there today. But it is much less than the total coal, or natural gas, or wetland soils and subsoil.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, more than half the carbon atoms on Earth are contained in solid carbonates of calcium or magnesium.

Im a BM wrote:
Shell forming organisms laid down a lot of calcium carbonate in those ancient shallow seas of the continental shelf. All that carbon that organisms laid down in carbonate shell millions of years ago gets uplifted above sea level over geologic time. You could say that all that carbon got taken out of the sea water, and now it is buried up on the land.
Calcium carbonate is not carbon. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not seawater. You are still desperately trying to ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process for some reason.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
The sea just keeps taking in more and more CO2,

Im a BM wrote:
and it gets cycled by the organisms which ultimately lay it down as solid carbonates which build up more and more.. and if you wait long enough they be up on land above sea level where they make very productive soils. And some of that carbonate even gets back to the sea, eroded off the limestone and limestone soils. Just a trickle, though. Most carbon that gets back into the sea does so as CO2.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
So, as we know, the world's big petroleum deposits formed under ancient shallow seas on the continental shelf. Tectonic processes moved them into what is today above sea level positions. A significant fraction of the world's total pool of organic carbon is found there today. But it is much less than the total coal, or natural gas, or wetland soils and subsoil.

You are ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process again. Carbon is not organic. Methane is not carbon. Water is not carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, more than half the carbon atoms on Earth are contained in solid carbonates of calcium or magnesium.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Argument from randU fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Shell forming organisms laid down a lot of calcium carbonate in those ancient shallow seas of the continental shelf. All that carbon that organisms laid down in carbonate shell millions of years ago gets uplifted above sea level over geologic time. You could say that all that carbon got taken out of the sea water, and now it is buried up on the land.
Calcium carbonate is not carbon. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not seawater. You are still desperately trying to ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process for some reason.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
The sea just keeps taking in more and more CO2,

Not possible.

Im a BM wrote:
and it gets cycled by the organisms which ultimately lay it down as solid carbonates which build up more and more.. and if you wait long enough they be up on land above sea level where they make very productive soils. And some of that carbonate even gets back to the sea, eroded off the limestone and limestone soils. Just a trickle, though. Most carbon that gets back into the sea does so as CO2.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon dioxide is not 'carbonate'. Carbonate is not a chemical.
Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
I suspect that part of IBdaMann's rebranding as a rational scientist type will require him to distance himself from your "carbonate is not a chemical" crap.

Im a BM wrote:
More than three years ago, he insisted that YOU were, indeed, a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
His only defense of you is to inquire as to what MY definition of "chemist" is.

Im a BM wrote:
I think he is going to back off from making "You are a scientifically illiterate moron" his principal explanation for why any rational adult should take him seriously.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I suspect that part of IBdaMann's rebranding as a rational scientist type will require him to distance himself from your "carbonate is not a chemical" crap.

You don't get to speak for anyone else. Omniscience fallacy. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
More than three years ago, he insisted that YOU were, indeed, a "chemist".

I am.

Im a BM wrote:
His only defense of you is to inquire as to what MY definition of "chemist" is.

You don't know, so you whine and try to BS your way through with buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
I think he is going to back off from making "You are a scientifically illiterate moron" his principal explanation for why any rational adult should take him seriously.

Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
You should read his newest posts so you know what I'm talking about.

He uses those meaningless letters and numbers to acknowledge the chemical behavior of the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) in pH buffering that is NOT dilution, because "water itself is a buffer for acid".

Im a BM wrote:
He just wants to claim that enough of them are "eroding" off the land into the sea to satisfy any and all needs for neutralizing ocean acidification.

Im a BM wrote:
I think he figured out that you don't actually understand chemistry as well as he used to imagine you might.