Would the magnesium carbonate buffer in the ocean break as CO2 increases,When?
| Would the magnesium carbonate buffer in the ocean break as CO2 increases,When?19-12-2014 01:32 | |
| Chondrally☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
The politicians couldn't understand or respond to this even with all their advisers! pH oscillation in ocean previous results depend on equations from Zeebe and Wolf- Gladrow in book: CO2 in Seawater. The following article depends entirely on the Diffusion equations for CO2 in water and O2 in water at the air/ocean interface, and the equilibrium at the surface, solved down to depth at varying temperature and pressure. It also, and more importantly, depends on the kinetics equations for the salts and minerals in the ocean like phosphates, nitrates, sulphates, and other known minerals like Calcium Carbonate (aragonite and calcite) and Magnesium Carbonate (magnesite) and their kinetic balance with CO2(2-),HCO2(-) and H2CO2 in seawater as described in the equations by Dr. Zeebe and Dr. Wolf-Gladrow in their book: CO2 in Seawater: Equilibria, Kinetics, Isotopes. If those equations are incorrect then my results are incorrect. If they are true, then logically from the software (debugged) the results below are true to the best of anyones knowledge. They can and have been inspected. Also, if the pH equations of Brookhaven National Lab scientist Dr. Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace are incorrect , then also my results are incorrect. To the best of my knowledge all typos and errors have been removed from the code over a period stretching from 2007 to present. To the best of my knowledge and experience the equations of Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow and the software and equations of Dr. Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace of Brookhaven National Labs are correct and verified. One should bear in mind that 18 g=18 millilitres of H2O contains approx. Avogadros number of molecules of water (plus minerals , etc...) and that is about 6.024 x 10^23 molecules of H2O. According to the work of Dr. K. Gubbins at Cornell, the quantum wave function of 100 molecules of water can not be calculated on a supercomputer because it is too combinatorially explosive. Likewise, an accurate calculation on a quantum computer would take an infinite amount of time, as water moves in time, just like smoke in air. In fact , no accurate calculation of turbulence exists compared to a kayakers mind going down whitewater rapids at the Olympics. Smoke in air is just not repeatable from second to second or millisecond to millisecond for that matter. Likewise, minerals and water structure beyond about 23 molecules of water cannot reasonably be expected to be simulated or predicted with any real to life accuracy. Then there is the contemplation of a lake or a river beyond 18 ml of water, and the contemplation of the whole water cycle, weather, the oceans. Averages into the future can be estimated along with confidence bounds, and these are acceptable for planning, however, actual knowledge of all the trillions and trillions of molecules and their whereabouts from millisecond to millisecond are not predictable. A case in point is flight MH370 from Malaysia to God doesn't know where!!!! if you get my drift. This is my disclaimer for these results. They are averages of what is most likely, but a living ocean and atmosphere with orgone energy throws enough uncertainty into the results that we may never be sure ahead of time. We need to make plans however, and it is wise to take precautions and take the side of caution. I personally am convinced that these results are genuine and we should heed them. But in a complex world with many demands on us like the conflict in Ukraine, Iran, N. Korea,Afghanistan,Pakistan and India,China and the rest of the world, Israel and Palestine, Mexico and US , Energy needs and Oil and Gas or Nuclear (Thorium), and the fact it takes 20 years to get permissions and plan and build a new nuclear reactor.... we may not have enough time to save the oceans. Like James Lovelock said, we might , in order to prevent from getting too depressed over the issue, just enjoy living our little personal lives ; 1 out of 7 billion can't hope to really change it all in time and few would believe him or her anyway because they don't have the background education to understand or the connections necessary, or they might lose too much money in the process. So C'est la vie. Life goes on one way or the other. Besides, the whole thing may be a secret illusion concocted by aliens, the Elites or both to suck Orgone out of all of us and all of Earth. I wouldn't put it past them. I don't know anyone who has actually taken CO2 measurements of the atmosphere, I've never talked with such a person. I've heard they are using laser spectroscopy to make the measurements at Mauna Kea in Hawaii (the astronomical observatory there) and many other places at NASA, military bases and civilian universities. But I've never seen a TV show about it or heard their tones or found out how it works in detail. It is possible that you can make CO2 measurements with barium hydroxide solution in water in a lab at a school, but it is not very accurate and it is laborious. I know how to do it, and have mentioned the technique in my blog earlier. But i know of no one or no school willing to let their kids do it, or kids willing to do it. The whole thing is based in fear and doomsday messages. I guess we just have to choose to live in spite of the insecurity and realize that it all might be just a bad dream. Babies are still born, and they still drink their mothers milk and they dream, feel secure usually, and grow up and find their way in life one way or the other. The Gig is up. They still kill rats at the hospital in the name of good science. Listen to the music. They either sink or swim. I think we should choose to swim regardless and play some beautiful music along the way. The markets are still all stealing and so are the political parties. Politics is often a blood sport. Its not necessary for that to be so with better education and information and connections with good folk. With no reward in sight or sound or sex or any of the senses for that matter for my work on the environment in terms of acclamation or much recognition, it just doesn't make sense to continue it much more. Life is meant to be enjoyed in the presence of good company, and the public news channels are too full of destructive energy and not enough of the orgone to make it pleasant. Check out The Indian Ocean with Simon Reeves..... he ends up in Australia. Pretty good fun. SpaceshipEarth could last another 5 billion years (the expected life of our Sun before it goes Red Giant), if we looked after it properly, NASAs message about leaving and going to another planet and giving up on Earth which they have actively been doing since the 1960s seems altogether doomed aswell unless aliens actually are here and can help. I'm sure some are ok, while others are creating mischief or worse. On that note, the book 'Science ,Skeptics and UFOs' written by an retired accredited scientist who has journal papers and patents to his name who comes from farming stock in Mississippi area, whose great grandfather saw UFOs in the 1890s and his grandfather saw them, his father saw them and he saw them about 40 times in his life. Their womenfolk saw them too. He recounts this personal information in an objective and scientific fashion as possible and his account seems credible. France and the UK and Germany have all declassified their Military UFO sighting and contact research. Britain claims there are aliens (resembling humans very closely) who exist interacting with humans on planet earth right now. And now for the main agenda: pH oscillation will impact diversity and life in the ocean perhaps catastrophically unless intervention occurs Fish,crustaceans, corals and marine mammals like cetaceans and all marine animal and plant life may be at risk due to the pH drop that will most likely occur between 2022 and 2024 , first the pH will rise by .5 to 8.9 approximately in 2018 then it will drop to 8.4 the following year then to 7.9 and contine dropping to a value just above 7.8 by 2069. So the magnesium carbonate buffer will break in the ocean around 490 ppm within a period of 2 years, and the calcium carbonate buffer will break in the ocean around 945 ppm within a period of 10 years. The calculations take into account the SWS scale of pH which includes an analysis at depth and CO2(2-),HCO2(-) and H2CO2 concentrations and their solubility products as well as phosphates, bromium,boron,chlorine, sodium, Magnesium Carbonate (magnesite)buffer and Calcium carbonate(both aragonite and calcite) buffer and Sulphur dioxide (sulphuric acid) and all other relavant chemical species that exist in the ocean in abundance that are significant (about 98% of the variation is accounted for statistically). An average Temperature change profile with depth is used but temperature changes year over year are ingnored in this time period due to the great heat capacity of water, but temperatures are rising causing a die off of phytoplankton in the ocean http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/phytoplankton-panic/... . A .1 degree change in the entire ocean is equivalent to a nuclear bomb going off in terms of raw heat energy. So we ignore the temperature changes as they are mostly negligible on average for the entire ocean. This might be a mistake, a future analysis to take this into account is planned. But i wanted, in the interests of time and security and safety to get the broad outlines of the chemistry calculated to release the results. I used the formulas developed by Brookhaven National Labs at the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre on the SWS scale for pH and total alkalinity developed by scientists Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/co2rprt.html and diffusion equations at depth solving for the equilibrium concentration at the surface first. I used all the formulas in the book CO2 in seawater;Equilibrium, kinetics and isotopes by Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow http://store.elsevier.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780444509468&pagename=search I recommend reading the IPCC reports even though their summary only focusses on aragonite, and has better regional data and profiles than i could muster. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-4-2.html They did not contain enough detail for me to be sure they were reporting the situation accurately or repeatably (they were missing a lot of the story in their public reports and were appealing to their own authority for validity rather than allowing independent verification), which is unscientific. They never admit their ignorance or doubt on any topic. For instance, nobody knows for sure how much aragonite is accessible for buffering from the ocean bottom(floor) across the entire ocean. Estimates have been made by drilling core samples at many locations, and statistical sampling techniques have been used to estimate the total, but nobody knows for sure (they can be pretty certain, but they never even discuss this point). There may be vast deposits of fossil aragonite on the ocean floor that they have missed, or there may be none. My bet is that there are some, given the vastness of the ocean floor, and the fact that they have only just discovered a massive fossil reserve on land near the Burgess shale in the Rockies. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/vast-fossil-bed-found-in-rocki... Also , until the advent of modern sonar techniques (only now in 2014 coming to the mainstream science community) to measure salinity, pH,temperature and velocity profiles, only just now are we getting valid data about the ocean as a whole from these techniques, and there are some errors in measurment that creep in especially if instruments aren't calibrated properly and kept maintained;and their is massive variability in the data, both is space and time. this information has not yet been assimilated by the IPCC team, or at least they have not made this assimilation public, or the data public. I have computed the density and pressure of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere up to 44 km high (beyond this they are inclculable mostly as they are too small to have an impact). the total is integrated numerically and the results are tabulated in the previous post. I have solved the diffusion equilibrium equations at the surface and at depth to calculate CO2 concentrations at depth for the first 1000 feet of the ocean (333.3 metres), calculated at every .1 metre. The pH values indicate that beginning around 2017 to be conservative and continuing to 2020 the ocean will exhibit some wild pH fluctuations in the first 1000 feet, and probably beyond at greater depth as well. This relatively enormous fluctuation from 8.4 baseline up to 8.9 (a difference of .5 pH) and then a dive back down to 7.9 will have a major impact on life in the oceans. fish will feel it as will all marine life. There may be a mass die off, and some evolution. The base of the food chain has already been impacted since 1950, seeing a drop of 40% over this time period. http://news.discovery.com/earth/phytoplankton-oceans-food-web.htm The loss of phytoplankton is little understood, but probably related to temperature and pollution and pH changes in the ocean. The loss is probably more attributable historically since 1950 due to temperature and pollution changes in the ocean, as during this time up until the present, pH has stayed relatively stable. We desperately need to find subsets of the marine life and especially krill, zooplankton and phytoplankton that can survive at pH 7.9 (and if they can photosynthesize that would be a bonus) and that are resitant to temperature changes especially. Experiments in the lab at pH 7.9 and increased temperatures with populations of krill and plankton subspecies is necessary to create a population that can survive and thrive under these conditions, and then seed the oceans with this subset at around the right time period. Timing is everything. Measurements of ocean pH and temperature need to be made periodically as they are. Temperature, salinity and velocity profile can be measured in the ocean with new sonar techniques. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/new-sonar-technology-reveals... http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6404791&url=http%3... There are groups of three unmanned drones surveying the ocean as we speak(2014) gathering sonar data, so that triangulation can be done and the equations can be solved for the unknowns.... If the ocean can be seeded at the right time, the base of the food chain will survive, giving optimal chances for survival of aquatic life in general. We need to seed also at a pH of 8.9 and up to this value, and keep seeding on the precipitous dive afterwards. It could be a catastrophic event resulting in the death of the oceans if we don't carefully examine the cause and the and take preventative and interventionist measures to ensure the survival of aquatic species. It appears the mechanism is that there is a lot less magnesium in the ocean than calcium, and around 2018 the magnesiumk buffer breaks between 490 to 500 ppm in the atmosphere. The calcium carbonate buffer does not break just yet (thank goodness,, and we have some time left to solve the CO2 emission problem after this point due to the ongoing activity of the calcium carbonate buffer). We shouldn't rule out the use of genetic engineering to save the food chain in the oceans, but preferably we should avoid it as it could lead to unintended consequences as natural species have the diversity in their DNA of a long history of environmental changes and the rapid cycling of generations due to pH changes could result in the expression of survival DNA. But there is still a puzzle as to why the zooplankton have not thrived as much or adapted since 1950, perhaps due to pollution in general. Perhaps their DNA has never seen such a pH range and they may be too finely tuned to historic levels prior to the industrial revolution. When the pH reaches 8.9 (which is more basic/alkaline) there will be less CO2 in the ocean, ie. the ocean suck gas CO2 from the atmosphere, increasing pressure and concentration at the depth, causing more CO2 at depth, causing the pH to drop again and become more acidic in a feedback loop. So the rise and fall in pH will oscillate in actual fact and the ppm of the atmosphere will oscillate over relatively short time scales (days and weeks), thus establishing a break in the magnesite buffer. Similarly when the pH is 7.9, there would be more carbonic acid in the ocean, sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Once the magnesite buffer is broken, the ppm in the atmosphere directly above and locally will decrease, causing a change in the equilibrium, and the ocean will off gas, increasing the ppm of the atmosphere, and decreasing the CO2 concentration in the ocean, increasing alkalinity and pH in a feedback loop. The ppm and pH will oscillate back and forth in different regions once the feeback loop has started operating and equilibrium would be broken, confirming the break in the magnesite buffer. Unstable ppm and pH levels are dangerous for aquatic species of plants and animals, and the rapid cycling would weather them and perhaps cause an inability to adapt over those time scales involved, resulting in a die off of marine life. The pH could vary by as much as 1 pH over the SWS scale over relatively short times like a week or a few days. The feedback loop is practically continuous in time and space. The living ocean is a concept that should not be underestimated. |
| 19-12-2014 14:48 | |
Abraham3 ★★☆☆☆(256) |
Neither is consistent line spacing |
| 19-12-2014 17:26 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
most co2 in our atmosphere comes from our oceans..and 96%of Co2 comes from natural causes not manmade emissions. The oceans would have to warm signifigantly or be holding wam water deep down as some climate pushers would claim. to be a forseeable issue with increased co2..tranfer to the atmosphere... Neither are true at all.. ocean temperature have been properly monitored globally and in the deep oceans since 2003. before then it was only conjecture on global ocean temperature...since 2003 there has been no change in global sea temperature in any significant way..in fact it has been reported of some cooling but it is almost unmeasurable http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025 this is Npr a news soucse with liberal and enviromental bias that is even reporting this..of course you can get the raw data yourself in a simple google search Edited on 19-12-2014 17:29 |
| 19-12-2014 19:20 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Did you note the date on the NPR story to which you linked? 2008. Since that time, a calibration error was discovered in the ARGO fleet. Here is the most current data: This is from a combination of ARGO and XBT data. If you just use the ARGO data, it shows the oceans to have gotten even warmer. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/grl.50382/asset/image_n/grl50382-fig-0001.png?v=1&t=i3vtmlay&s=25857f2d3a3628fb08ff0e335df7daf8be3a0510 Edited on 19-12-2014 19:40 |
| 20-12-2014 00:09 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
calibration error is just one of the many fabricated fudge factors used when plain data doesn't support a agw conclusion. did you notice at the end of the article the would try to make excuses as to why the data wouldn't support the agw theory..they even gave incorrect data on gmsl rise. there is no calibration error..there never was. atmospheric temperature data has been manipulated as well. i don't know why you seem to accept any strange thing like a supposed calibration error that somehow after years of not being able to explain non rising global sea temperature..there was suddenly discovered a calibration error that somehow was overlooked and somehow will change the data just enough to keep this lie going......not suspicious at all because all this unbias funded research would never try to get a certain conclusion for any reason..this is honest ethical science...the data didn't support their pre made conclusion..they ran out of ridiculous ideas or time..that is all it is..if you are willing to keep posting these kind of graphs...and support such lies as a calibration error in global sea temperature measurements....you have made your mind up a long time ago and you are practicing a religion and not a science |
| 20-12-2014 00:18 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
You describe yourself and what you do to a 't'.
Edited on 20-12-2014 00:25 |
| 20-12-2014 01:22 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
No i actually used to believe in agw..so that wouldn't describe me. I know where you get your graphs..all of them. i wrote this post to the original poster to ease his mind over carbon dioxide coming from the ocean..you see it doesn't matter because if I showed sources from all of my information some of which even coming from private conversations from scientists at Princeton University you would just tell me that is fraud funded by oil companies..i will agree that big oil has funded research for this issue by skeptics...but the ratio of money from environmental groups and political organizations that that currently benefit from agw theory and their interest is to keep the lie going...Here you are talking about a ratio of about 50,000 to 1 in funding,,yet you want to tell me the oil companies are the scam artists here? or perhaps right wing conspiracy no-gooders? the game is rigged..The information you are using is fraud..you told me you don't want to investigate the ipcc because it doesn't do any of it's own science....that is incorrect...it creates reports and projections..it also controls which data it uses.. i only asked you to investigate a little even if it goes against your belief. or gives you a bad taste in your mouth..at least do that....you can't produce the study i asked...you are not going to accept any sources i can give you...so we don't have to play that little game..right? what is soo wrong with investigating the organization that controls virtually all the information on climate change. not to mention almost all of the propaganda.is that too much to ask?
Edited on 20-12-2014 02:13 |
| 20-12-2014 15:32 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote: I was referring to holding conclusions in opposition to overwhelming evidence. mywifesatan wrote: Since I provide links to their sources, that's not particularly surprising. mywifesatan wrote: An admirable goal I suppose, but I'd be more than a little surprised to find you were successful. mywifesatan wrote: It most certainly does matter. It is a common courtesy and a standard practice in discussions of science. Your continued reticence to identify reference sources for the claims you make leads unavoidably to the conclusion that you have none. mywifesatan wrote: Oh please.... Without any reference source or other substantiation, you have claimed: 1) There is no evidence of "human-caused global warming" 2) "The real data doesn't suggest the average temperature hasn't [sic] changed in any drastic way throughout the last century and into this century" 3) The IPCC never makes their process public and does not record their meetings 4) That you have "done the research and the logarithms pertaining to the greenhouse effect myself" 5) That you have "made calculation on average temperature increase throughout throughout recorded history" 6) That NASA and NOAA "monopolize" their climate data 7) That a ".8 centigrade in 130 years increase of average global temperature is nothing to be alarmed about,,it is hysteria" 8) That I have taken you to task with a self-proclaimed superior opinion 9) That other posters here have constantly insulted you and wished death among your family 10) That you've read "the IPCC report... yes, all of it" (there have been five assessment reports so far and each composed of several sections. They are each thousands of pages long) 11) That the claim of 97% support for AGW among active climate scientists comes from a group of specialists half of which weren't scientists but engineers and that they were rewarded financially for their signatures 12) That the leading (but unnamed) climatologists at MIT and Princeton, who may be the best two climatologists in the world, "outwardly refute" AGW 13) That the claim that 97% support for AGW among active climate scientists "came from the ipcc..there was no monitored pole" [sic] 14) That this IPCC figure is a fraud - that multiple reports have been written by "attendees" complaining of the IPCC's fabrication of this number 15) That the "Cook survey from Australia" [that would be "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce] was "completely fabricated" and that you could prove this to us 16) That we should not be concerned about CO2 in the ocean because "most co2 in our atmosphere comes from our oceans" and that "96% of Co2 comes from natural causes not manmade emissions" 17) Before 2003, global deep ocean temperatures were only conjectural 18) Since 2003 there has been no significant change in global ocean temperature - in fact, there have been reports of slight cooling 19) Calibration error is one of many "fabricated fudge factors" used by AGW supporting climate scientists to compensate for data that doesn't support AGW 20) That my claim that a calibration issue was discovered in the ARGO buoy system which was responsible for its failure to detect warming consistent with GCM models assuming AGW was a lie mywifesatan wrote: That several oil companies were conducting a disinformation campaign is an established and confessed fact. That they still are has a very high likelihood. The fossil fuel industry has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations and individuals whose openly stated goals are to convince the public that there is no scientific consensus on AGW, that AGW is not real and that there is nothing to be worried about. However, since you have attributed no specific comment to the leading Princeton or MIT climatologists with whom you claim to have had personal conversations, it is difficult for me (much less you) to know how I would respond. mywifesatan wrote: Not skeptics. Deniers. There's a difference. mywifesatan wrote: What lie would that be? mywifesatan wrote: Really? Per the Drexel University study on "dark money" funding climate change denial (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/), 140 different conservative and fossil-fuel connected organizations have provided in excess of $558 million dollars to lobbying efforts (not research) to suppress the science and convey a false impression that AGW is not well supported by the evidence or the opinions of the experts. A 50,000:1 ratio would mean you claim that environmental and political organizations have contributed in excess of $27.9 trillion to the opposing causes. mywifesatan wrote: The fossil fuel industry is conducting a disinformation campaign. THEY are the ones who perceive, rightly, that a widespread public concern about AGW is a threat to their financial future just as research on the effects of smoking was a threat to the financial future of the tobacco industry. The resulting strategic response is the same.
Perhaps mywifesatan wrote: So you have said, but you have yet to provide a shred of evidence supporting your claims mywifesatan wrote: I did not. I said the best way to investigate them is to do our own review of the current state of climate science to see if the IPCC has accurately described its findings. mywifesatan wrote: Creating reports is not conducting scientific climate research, it is research into the research. That is their charter. The IPCC has not produced projections. As with all the rest, those are the product of independent climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. mywifesatan wrote: I have read significant portions of the IPCC's assessment reports. I have read numerous peer reviewed studies on global warming's effects and its causes outside the IPCC. I have also read numerous articles and blogs claiming bias, dishonesty, bad science and corruption in the IPCC. My conclusions should be obvious. mywifesatan wrote: I provided you a link to an article from the American Institute of Physics which described and discussed numerous experiments regarding CO2 and the greenhouse effect. If that doesn't satisfy you, I can only conclude that you have either made up your mind despite the evidence or that you did not read the article. mywifesatan wrote: HaHaHahaaaaaa.... Well, we certainly aren't going to know until you've given us some. mywifesatan wrote: Providing reference sources is not a game. It is the practice of reasonable, educated and honest adults. mywifesatan wrote: They don't control any of it. They don't fund research. They don't control publication. And the selection of material included in their assessment reports is the work of the many scientists asked to serve in their working groups - not of some fixed, high-ranking cabal of fraudsters. And many of those volunteers have been skeptical of AGW; membership in the IPCC is not restricted to those who accept AGW. A majority of IPCC members accept AGW because that is the conclusion of a vast majority of the climate science looking into that question. mywifesatan wrote: What propaganda? mywifesatan wrote: I have done what you've asked long before we ever met. Now it is your turn. We would very much like to see some substantive references and support for the 20 claims you've made which I listed above plus the several new unsubstantiated assertions you've made here. Edited on 20-12-2014 15:37 |
| 20-12-2014 16:00 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
i asked you numerous times to give me that study? This is a study that would use the exact ratio of c02 currently in our atmosphere and show it's effect on temperature pertaining to the greenhouse effect...this has nothing to do with if the greenhouse effect is valid...you know this..what you gave me doesn't have anything to do with what i asked. that would be like saying drinking 20 beers will have an effect on somebodies mental process..so having a teaspoon of beer probably would too and we will just leave it at that..we don't need any studies..the proof is in conjecture and consensus..you cannot see that? i don't ask for much..i will even give you all my sources..all my answers that you will most likely refute...just give me that...forget the Ipcc..your naive stand point on that is that all their report is from peer reviewed literature...30% is proven to be from non-peer reviewed literature..that means it can be completely fabricated.. that is only one of the many problems with this organization....i'm sorry if i don't feel like listing sources and explaining what is wrong with your standpoint..if anything its naive.i suppose that has nothing to do with your political standpoint...if you just give me that one study or admit it doesn't exist..you will have the pleasure of reading all my sources...getting mad and refuting them with all your misinformation....so the ball was in your court a long time ago |
| 20-12-2014 17:55 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
I am naive and a liar? What happened to no personal attacks? Sorry, but you don't give sources because you have none. That was obvious from the start. I've had enough of this. If you feel like ponying up with some actual references, I would be glad to resume this conversation. But, till then, I am done. |
| 20-12-2014 20:34 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
If he comes back at all, I suspect the chances are very good that one of his references (if he provides any at all) will be our 'friend' Watt. By the way, and just making an observation/question here. What ethical person creates and then disseminates a user name that denigrates one's wife? "mywifesatan"? How sad.
Edited on 20-12-2014 20:37 |
| 21-12-2014 00:18 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Yeah. I noticed. But I manage to stay nice right to the end, didn't I? I'll see you in PM in a second. |
| 21-12-2014 15:14 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
no beef with either of you...just give me that study or admit it doesn't exist. you were done before you started. anybody can give sources. I need to know you guys want to debate and not preach. I'm sorry if I was nasty but in all fairness both of guys started it..so lets not call the kettle black ok..I believe you have good intentions and believe you need to fight and preach this to save the world...i get it..as i said about 5 times now all i need is that study or for you to admit it doesn't exist...that is a very simple request...this is my last offer...if you start talking down to me like you have with everybody here from the beginning....well then i'm never coming back here...but i think you might ante up here..so i'm giving you one more chance |
| 21-12-2014 15:42 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
You began this conversation with a number of extraordinary claims for which you have never provided a single shred of supporting evidence. Until that failing is rectified, I'm still done with you. |
| 21-12-2014 15:47 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
i began asking you that question...but it's all good..you don't want to debate.....merry christmas. |
| 21-12-2014 19:14 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
You did not begin with requests for that experiment. You posted everything below before ever asking about an experiment to which I had never referred.justsayin / wifeissatan said Edited on 21-12-2014 19:40 |
| 21-12-2014 19:42 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
i said it on my second post..but you erased that part.so knock it off..look if i take the time to explain this to you and give you sources will you at least do what I asked? I'm going to have to take your word for it....you have backed out of that 5 times now...will you at least do that..if i take the time..do i have your word for that? and if you honestly don't want to do that ..exactly what i asked...please tell me that and save me the time |
| 21-12-2014 21:05 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Ask me after you've posted your sources. And your second post is quoted in full.
Edited on 21-12-2014 21:10 |
| 21-12-2014 22:21 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
this is my second post.. thank you for being civil but i honestly don't have the energy to discuss this any further..i certainly don't have the energy to explain to you how and why the ipcc is unethical and not practicing science with any kind of integrity. now of course either are some of the monkeys on the other side...you seem like a reasonable person. I would only ask you to do a little research on the ipcc itself..not the science they throw out in their reports and projections..leave the climate debate out of it for a moment and just research how this organization came about..how it operates..and how it forms consensuses..who is on the panels..who writes the reports..how they pick people to invite to these tours and what the ipcc dropouts and vets say about their expeirence I am too curious to let this go... I f you can prove to me that the amount of c02 currently in our atmosphere was able to be proven to demonstrate a warming effect attributed to the greenhouse effect in a controlled study using that exact co2 ratio i will not disagree with you. If it is a valid study that has nothing to do with conjecture or consensus science but just the greenhouse effect in controlled conditions....a study from the scriips institute or MIT would be great...I haven't found any. there are variables and negative outputs in our atmosphere that we can't duplicate in this setting but i still will accept such a finding you forgot the whole second paragraph...now maybe that was a mistake..but if you are willing to lie about something like that..then..well you know. there is no deal sir....you lost your chance..and it was on you....happy preaching |
| 22-12-2014 04:36 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
This was your second post here: well for some reason I can't login with my old screename justsayin. Here is the thing I don't really care to debate this anymore because the hate mongering around this issue is so thick and it has nothing to do with the science..it's about world politics and ideolgeis. how this got all wrapped up in a scientific issue is a complicated thing but i don't have the energy to discuss that now...I know you have great faith in the Ipcc...I can see that. you trust them.. i don not. they never make public thier process or record thier meetings...never.just put them on c-span..i will watch if nobody else... . I also have done the research and the logarithms pertaining to the greenhouse effect myself. i have also made calculations on average temperature increase throughout recorded temperature history myself.. i know you are no dummy..you know that this data in monopolized by Nasa and Noaa...but even with their data temperature hasn't increased more then .8 centigrade in the last 130 years..even the Ipcc panel agrees to that. ..without discussing the problems with the miniscule amount of co2 in our atmosphere and the greenhouse efffect and how they can't possibly know the effect of it...i will simply tell you that .8 centigrade in 130 years increase of average global temperature is nothing to be alarmed about,,it is hysteria..and as far as their being more natural disasters or more intense ones...well the evidence falls completely flat on that...if you love the ipcc and think they are ethical..fine..that is your opinion and I respect that..please respect my opinion which has nothing to do with politics.. special interests or whether I care about the environment..of course I care. i am a surfer and a avid fisherman.....im not a person that watches fox news with my johnson out..so you can forget about that....if you feel the need to take me to task with your self proclaimed surperior opinion..don't bother..i am done with discussing environmental issues...i will only research them.. and about the melting glaciers...i'll just ask you honestly do your own research indepedent of bias news sources,,by that i mean all news sources....it's not easy..but you can find the truth....respectfully yours.....denier |
| 22-12-2014 04:51 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
yes..if you count the original post which i posted ages ago. one post to another poster...then another one about agreeing on deforestgation.actually i had many posts before that on other threads.. my fifth post then as a posted..really my fourth post since having the pleasure of meeting you...was once again.. thank you for being civil but i honestly don't have the energy to discuss this any further..i certainly don't have the energy to explain to you how and why the ipcc is unethical and not practicing science with any kind of integrity. now of course either are some of the monkeys on the other side...you seem like a reasonable person. I would only ask you to do a little research on the ipcc itself..not the science they throw out in their reports and projections..leave the climate debate out of it for a moment and just research how this organization came about..how it operates..and how it forms consensuses..who is on the panels..who writes the reports..how they pick people to invite to these tours and what the ipcc dropouts and vets say about their expeirence I am too curious to let this go... I f you can prove to me that the amount of c02 currently in our atmosphere was able to be proven to demonstrate a warming effect attributed to the greenhouse effect in a controlled study using that exact co2 ratio i will not disagree with you. If it is a valid study that has nothing to do with conjecture or consensus science but just the greenhouse effect in controlled conditions....a study from the scriips institute or MIT would be great...I haven't found any. there are variables and negative outputs in our atmosphere that we can't duplicate in this setting but i still will accept such a finding now you lied about taking out the second paragraph or at least you aren't admitting to that error...and now you are trying to wiggle out of that...with yet another diversion post..so you can't even admit you left that paragraph out? you really blowing me away here with your tactics... Edited on 22-12-2014 05:15 |
| 22-12-2014 05:27 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
anyway deal is off...i'm not tracking this anymore...find someone else to preach to |
| 22-12-2014 10:15 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
I'm guessing he couldn't find a valid link so he gave up. No surprises there, is there, Abe? |
| 22-12-2014 20:50 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
On two of his posts, in two different threads, I did cut them: at the point at which he first made the demand; and I quoted nothing further in each of those threads. I was attempting to include all the unsubstantiated assertions he had made prior to demanding that experiment since he was claiming in effect that the demand was the first thing he'd done in our conversation.
Edited on 22-12-2014 20:51 |
| 22-12-2014 21:01 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
Usually, before one demands that an experiment be conducted, it is reasonable to demand that a thorough review of the scientific literature be conducted to ensure that such an experiment hasn't already been carried out. So guy with the satanic wife, got anything like that? |
| 22-12-2014 23:12 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
that is another lie abraham...you sure a a wiggler... |
| 23-12-2014 00:12 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
mywifesatan wrote: Usually, before one demands that an experiment be conducted, it is reasonable to demand that a thorough review of the scientific literature be conducted to ensure that such an experiment hasn't already been carried out. So guy with the satanic wife, got anything like that? 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens |
| 23-12-2014 00:23 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
do your own homework....i have no power to conduct such a study..either do you..the study doesn't exist..you know that..you are really running out of tactics..this and personal insults..bravo |
| 23-12-2014 12:59 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
mywifesatan wrote: So you are saying that you don't know how to use a library card? Oh dear. 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens |
| 23-12-2014 18:21 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote: And we are done. And as long as I'm signing out of any further conversation with you, allow me to point out before I leave that it has been blatantly obvious to everyone here that you're knowledge of science is abysmal. Your claims would be humorous were they not so sad. Sorry Branner. Buh-bye. |
| 23-12-2014 19:59 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
to end your highly intelligent debate from the florida engineer with surperior knowledge of science.. You don't know what I do..what my education is..or what I know about science......you cannot produce that study or admit it doesn't exist...you think posting graphs or illustrations about the formulas used in the greenhouse effect will make you look smart...The fact is you can't produce the formula for the current makeup of our atmosphere to prove warming....Your tactic is to talk down to me and then post graphs and illustrations that quite frankly you have no idea what they mean because then you would know they don't prove anything.....you think by believing in agw and being a liberal make you smarter then anybody on the other side of politics or the science. You probably think you are "progressive" but you are the exact opposite....you started out talking down to me and everybody else here..I did not..you lied on your last post..that is a fact. you end the debate with a personal attack....there is really nothing more I can say then you are not worthy of holding a debate.
Edited on 23-12-2014 20:09 |
| 24-12-2014 06:20 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
mywifesatan wrote: Wait. What's that I hear? It's a tiny violin playing my heart bleeds for you. Oh dear. 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens |
| 29-01-2015 12:39 | |
| greyviper☆☆☆☆☆ (44) |
Hey guys, I found out about this new collaborative project which aims to come up with solutions and workarounds to the current problems our world faces nowadays such as global warming, climate change, pollution and the like. Although the project is still in its infancy, I find it unique because it presents problems on a tree like manner wherein users can ask a main problem question and then that main problem can be broken down into several sub issues and then eventually come up with little solutions that could contribute to the whole thing. Why not try to check erissolver (dot) com and lets all have a brainstorming with today's pressing issues. No single solution can solve a big problem, but if we try to break it down into smaller pieces then we just might be able to improve and eventually resolve the main issue step by step, little by little by our combined efforts, ideas and suggestions. Remember, the more minds are better than one. |
Join the debate Would the magnesium carbonate buffer in the ocean break as CO2 increases,When?:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification | 324 | 18-04-2024 05:35 |
| Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean | 405 | 20-12-2023 09:14 |
| Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium.. | 392 | 01-12-2023 21:58 |
| Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat | 326 | 07-11-2023 19:16 |
| Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity | 2 | 13-07-2023 15:50 |