Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
non-natural CO2 killing basic sealife
91 views
Skip to first unread message
Transition Zone
May 17, 2012, 2:02:58 PM5/17/12
to
-- http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
Ocean.
klattu
May 17, 2012, 2:17:41 PM5/17/12
to
klattu
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
May 17, 2012, 4:08:03 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 2:02 pm, Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected...
> --http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected...
>
> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
> Ocean.
Something else will take their place.
> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
> Ocean.
Basement Bandy
May 17, 2012, 4:20:40 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 4:08 pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
Prove it.
Eddie Haskell
May 17, 2012, 4:48:27 PM5/17/12
to
"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46d483a8-4a5f-4048...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Stop shilling for a nanny state and get a damn job for Christ's sake.
-Eddie Haskell
max headroom
May 17, 2012, 4:51:29 PM5/17/12
to
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:46d483a8-4a5f-4048...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
talk.politics.GUNS
Sam Wormley
May 17, 2012, 6:11:49 PM5/17/12
to
H2S
> Rob Dunbar: The threat of ocean acidification
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfgbVjb688
>
> Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/ocean-acidification-could-become-worst-in-at-least-300-million-years.ars
>
Scout
May 17, 2012, 6:17:10 PM5/17/12
to
"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46d483a8-4a5f-4048...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
2,000 ppm over the course of a hundred years and a large number of
generations (about 20) of krill such that they could adapt to changing
conditions....or did they just dump them into a tank?
After all, I bet you would possibly die if quickly exposed to altitude
conditions that some people who have adapted for generations to high
altitude would find merely uncomfortable.
So, clearly your study while interesting....is all but meaningless over any
longer term time scale because we don't know how much and to what extent
krill could adapt to such changing conditions. We only know they can't do so
in a very short term time scale. Therefore unless you expect the CO2
concentrations to increase drastically over a few months or even
years....it's largely a case of chicken little.
Sam Wormley
May 17, 2012, 6:24:55 PM5/17/12
to
Tom P
May 17, 2012, 6:44:49 PM5/17/12
to
On 05/17/2012 10:08 PM, $27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto wrote:
> On May 17, 2:02 pm, Transition Zone<mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> --http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected....
> On May 17, 2:02 pm, Transition Zone<mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>> Ocean.
>
> Something else will take their place.
Like in how many million years?
>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>> Ocean.
>
> Something else will take their place.
BeamMeUpScotty
May 17, 2012, 7:14:36 PM5/17/12
to
and a bloom of plankton would lower the CO2 which is what will be
happening in general as we re-introduce natures CO2, the life on the
planet will balance the Oxygen and the CO2. There is one guy that does
just that, he spreads something like iron sulfite and that depletes the
oxygen and creates a bloom of plankton that exchange CO2 for oxygen.
What has kept the CO2 and Oxygen balanced till now? It will do it in
the future.
The economy will collapse much sooner and millions of humans will
likely starve around the world..... Our carbon footprint as will our
economy, shrink and maybe even by numbers that will change the balance
of life on earth and change the rate at which CO2 and Oxygen will find
equilibrium again.
["We might also store carbon dioxide in the oceans. Already, on the
oceans’ surface, clouds of blooming plankton ingest amounts of carbon
dioxide comparable to those taken in by trees. Climos, a geo-engineering
start-up based in San Francisco, is trying to cultivate ever-bigger
plankton blooms that would suck in huge supplies of carbon. When the
plankton died, the carbon would end up on the sea floor. Climos began
with the observation that plankton bloom in the ocean only when they
have adequate supplies of iron. In the 1980s, the oceanographer John
Martin hypothesized that large amounts of oceanic iron may have produced
giant plankton blooms in the past, and therefore chilled the atmosphere
by removing carbon dioxide. Spread powdered iron over the surface of the
ocean, and in very little time a massive bloom of plankton will grow, he
predicted. “Give me half a tanker of iron,” Martin said, “and I’ll give
you the next Ice Age.” If Martin’s ideas are sound, Climos could in
effect become the world’s gardener by seeding Antarctic waters with iron
and creating vast, rapidly growing offshore forests to replace the ones
that no longer exist on land. "]
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/re-engineering-the-earth/7552/
Will economics mean that pandemics will have insufficient medicines to
stop the death. Why worry about CO2 when the BIRD FLU will kill you
next year NOT 100 years from now.
Bill Ward
May 17, 2012, 7:28:11 PM5/17/12
to
out as limestone, removing the CO2 from the liquid phase.
It's a system which has been close to equilibrium for hundreds of
millions of years. A few additional ppm of CO2 isn't likely to upset the
krill.
Catoni
May 17, 2012, 7:57:11 PM5/17/12
to
Transition Zone posted:
>" Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000..."
Don't worry fool.... contrary to your lieing post... the oceans
will NEVER become acidic.
Not to mention that krill belong to the subphylum Crustacea, which
have existed since before the end of the Cambrian. More than 488
million years ago when atmospheric CO2 was over 4000ppm.
Krill themselves have been around for at least 150 million years.
They came on the scene when atmospheric CO2 was over 2000ppm. During
the middle of the Cretaceous, 100 million years ago CO2 in the
atmosphere was something over 1000ppm.
Funny how all these crustaceans, corals, bivalves etc survived all
through that....
Even funnier are you idiots that are wringing your hands and losing
sleep over 385 - 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere... and then lying
about an impossibility... the oceans becoming acidic...
Stupid leftist Eco-socialist AGW Gorebull Warmers....
>" Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
Don't worry fool.... contrary to your lieing post... the oceans
will NEVER become acidic.
Not to mention that krill belong to the subphylum Crustacea, which
have existed since before the end of the Cambrian. More than 488
million years ago when atmospheric CO2 was over 4000ppm.
Krill themselves have been around for at least 150 million years.
They came on the scene when atmospheric CO2 was over 2000ppm. During
the middle of the Cretaceous, 100 million years ago CO2 in the
atmosphere was something over 1000ppm.
Funny how all these crustaceans, corals, bivalves etc survived all
through that....
Even funnier are you idiots that are wringing your hands and losing
sleep over 385 - 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere... and then lying
about an impossibility... the oceans becoming acidic...
Stupid leftist Eco-socialist AGW Gorebull Warmers....
Sam Wormley
May 17, 2012, 8:07:04 PM5/17/12
to
On 5/17/12 6:28 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>
> In the real ocean, CO2 reacts with Ca++ to form CaCO3, which precipitates
> out as limestone, removing the CO2 from the liquid phase.
>
> It's a system which has been close to equilibrium for hundreds of
> millions of years. A few additional ppm of CO2 isn't likely to upset the
> krill.
>
It's a bummer when the observable show you to be wrong, Bill.
>
> In the real ocean, CO2 reacts with Ca++ to form CaCO3, which precipitates
> out as limestone, removing the CO2 from the liquid phase.
>
> It's a system which has been close to equilibrium for hundreds of
> millions of years. A few additional ppm of CO2 isn't likely to upset the
> krill.
>
The ocean is buffered against pH change by CaCO3 derived from
continental erosion. Global pH can only experience a sustained
drop when the rise of atmospheric CO2 outpaces the replenishment
of the carbonate buffer. This has kept ocean pH constant over
long periods of geologic time, even during times when atmospheric
CO2 was higher than it is today. It has probably been between
3 and 30 million years since ocean pH last dropped below its
current levels.
Bill Ward
May 17, 2012, 8:44:59 PM5/17/12
to
equilibrium. More CO2 shifts the equilibrium towards precipitating
CaCO3. Why would the krill have to wait for CaCO3 to erode off the
continents, when it's already on the seabed? Ever wonder where limestone
comes from?
de...@dudu.org
May 17, 2012, 8:49:00 PM5/17/12
to
Will Janoschka
May 17, 2012, 9:15:16 PM5/17/12
to
Sam Wormley
May 17, 2012, 11:43:06 PM5/17/12
to
Marvin the Martian
May 17, 2012, 11:57:02 PM5/17/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
> --
> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
But they have no science behind this.
> to be
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> up CO2.
Cold water is less acidic.
>Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm.
Nice post hoc fallacy.
> --
> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>
> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>
> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
But they have no science behind this.
> to be
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> up CO2.
>Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm.
kym horsell
May 18, 2012, 12:26:53 AM5/18/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 8:17:10 AM UTC+10, Scout wrote:
> "Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46d483a8-4a5f-4048...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > --
> > http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
> >
> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
> > takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> > shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> > acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> > ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> > experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
> > concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
> > depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
> > important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
> > seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
> > Ocean.
>
> Question: When they did their study did they increase the concentration to
> 2,000 ppm over the course of a hundred years and a large number of
> generations (about 20) of krill such that they could adapt to changing
> conditions....or did they just dump them into a tank?
...
> "Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46d483a8-4a5f-4048...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > --
> > http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
> >
> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
> > takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> > shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> > acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> > ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> > experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
> > concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
> > depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
> > important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
> > seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
> > Ocean.
>
> Question: When they did their study did they increase the concentration to
> 2,000 ppm over the course of a hundred years and a large number of
> generations (about 20) of krill such that they could adapt to changing
> conditions....or did they just dump them into a tank?
You think they didn't?
Anyway, you seem to imagine adaptation happens in an instant. After millions of years human feet still aint right for walkin.
A guy I knew back in the 80s did a neat PhD on adaptation. He was a geneticist. The experiment dealt with the fave lab animal -- the fruit fly. Chosen because it adapts fast because of its 2-wk life cycle. Anyway, over the course of years (i.e. something like 1500 y in human terms) he tried to get them to adapt to a slightly acidic environment.
He started off slow, and the survivors were allowed to breed and some of *their* offspring brought up in a more acidic environment.
From what I gather, no adaptation apart from statistical noise was observed.
I'm sure many similar experiments have been performed and are available in the literature.
And introduced pests are another headline-grabbing example of how ecosystems find it difficult to change and accommodate things that were never dreampt of by the local ecology.
--
Top 10 Denier Myths:
10. Ice age predicted in the 70s
9. It hasn't warmed since 1998
8. Animals and plants can adapt
7. Temp record is unreliable
6. Models are unreliable
5. It's cooling
4. There is no consensus
3. It's not bad
2, It's the sun
1. The Climate's changed before
-- http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
R Kym Horsell
May 18, 2012, 12:53:27 AM5/18/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 1:57:02 PM UTC+10, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>
> > --
> > http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
> >
> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>
> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>
> But they have no science behind this.
>
> > to be
> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> > up CO2.
>
> Cold water is less acidic.
Funny. As seems characteristic of Martian predictions -- goes exactly
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>
> > --
> > http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
> >
> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>
> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>
> But they have no science behind this.
>
> > to be
> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> > up CO2.
>
> Cold water is less acidic.
against the observations. And even theory.
The wiki page on Henry's Law shows the temperature dependence of CO2
solubility in water as part of the exposition on the "constant" k_H.
For CO2 it follows that log c = const - 2400/T i.e. d(log c)/dT = -2400/T^2.
At 0C that means pH should decrease by something like .032 points per deg C,
given the water actually up-takes the CO2.
...
> Nice post hoc fallacy.
...
As usual, the term mis-applied and an apparent projection.
--
What part of "put the people who disagree with me to death", which is
what [James Hansen] said UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS, did you find to be "honest and
caring"?
-- Melvin on Mars, 11 May 2012 11:11 am
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware
of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my
opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity
and nature.
-- James Hansen, Congressional briefing, 23 Jun 2008
bjacoby
May 18, 2012, 2:54:11 AM5/18/12
to
On 5/17/2012 11:57 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>> --
>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>
> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>
> But they have no science behind this.
Key "scentific" words from article, Marvin:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>> --
>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>
> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>
> But they have no science behind this.
"is expected to be"... severely affected by acidification because cold
water more readily takes up CO2.
Say wait a minute! Is that my "soda pop" theory? I thought all warmists
totally rejected that idea as crackpot insanity. Where is that idiot
Snider when you need him?
More "science":
"could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100"
experimental results here guys. I hear that because of global warming
and an acid ocean, Santa "MAY" not arrive next December.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 18, 2012, 6:43:29 AM5/18/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
No WONDER you don't understand why the earth isn't entirely a closed
system.
[chuckle]
http://klausschadenfreude.110mb.com/closed.htm
system.
[chuckle]
http://klausschadenfreude.110mb.com/closed.htm
Bill Snyder
May 18, 2012, 9:42:46 AM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 02:54:11 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
>On 5/17/2012 11:57 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>> --
>>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>>
>>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>
>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>
>> But they have no science behind this.
(Yet they offer evidence, while shit-bot offers only mouth.)
>Key "scentific" words from article, Marvin:
>
>"is expected to be"... severely affected by acidification because cold
>water more readily takes up CO2.
>
>Say wait a minute! Is that my "soda pop" theory?
Sorry, shit-bot, but this is the sane version instead. The one
that actually matches up with that "evidence" stuff that all the
scientists in the Big Conspiracy keep blathering about.
> I thought all warmists
>totally rejected that idea as crackpot insanity. Where is that idiot
>Snider when you need him?
Right here, shit-bot, still laughing at your ignorance, arrogance,
dishonesty, and stupidity.
>More "science":
>
>"could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100"
>
>"COULD"? "Is expected to be"?
(Shit-bot never needs to use wishy-washy language like that, of
course. He *knows* that what the voices say is true.)
> Sounds like we have some really sound
>experimental results here guys. I hear that because of global warming
>and an acid ocean, Santa "MAY" not arrive next December.
That won't stop you from believing he's real, of course. Or at
least, claiming on Usenet that he's real.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
wrote:
>On 5/17/2012 11:57 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>> --
>>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>>
>>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>
>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>
>> But they have no science behind this.
>Key "scentific" words from article, Marvin:
>
>"is expected to be"... severely affected by acidification because cold
>water more readily takes up CO2.
>
>Say wait a minute! Is that my "soda pop" theory?
that actually matches up with that "evidence" stuff that all the
scientists in the Big Conspiracy keep blathering about.
> I thought all warmists
>totally rejected that idea as crackpot insanity. Where is that idiot
>Snider when you need him?
dishonesty, and stupidity.
>More "science":
>
>"could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100"
>
>"COULD"? "Is expected to be"?
course. He *knows* that what the voices say is true.)
> Sounds like we have some really sound
>experimental results here guys. I hear that because of global warming
>and an acid ocean, Santa "MAY" not arrive next December.
least, claiming on Usenet that he's real.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Marvin the Martian
May 18, 2012, 10:48:53 AM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:53:27 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> On Friday, May 18, 2012 1:57:02 PM UTC+10, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>> > --
>> > http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-
affected-
>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>> >
>> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>
>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>
>> But they have no science behind this.
>>
>> > to be
>> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>> > takes up CO2.
>>
>> Cold water is less acidic.
>
> Funny. As seems characteristic of Martian predictions -- goes exactly
> against the observations. And even theory.
>
> The wiki page on Henry's Law shows the temperature dependence of CO2
> solubility in water as part of the exposition on the "constant" k_H. For
> CO2 it follows that log c = const - 2400/T i.e. d(log c)/dT = -2400/T^2.
> At 0C that means pH should decrease by something like .032 points per
> deg C, given the water actually up-takes the CO2.
I said Cold water. Do you know the difference between cold water and
> On Friday, May 18, 2012 1:57:02 PM UTC+10, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>> > --
>> > http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-
affected-
>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>> >
>> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>
>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>
>> But they have no science behind this.
>>
>> > to be
>> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>> > takes up CO2.
>>
>> Cold water is less acidic.
>
> Funny. As seems characteristic of Martian predictions -- goes exactly
> against the observations. And even theory.
>
> The wiki page on Henry's Law shows the temperature dependence of CO2
> solubility in water as part of the exposition on the "constant" k_H. For
> CO2 it follows that log c = const - 2400/T i.e. d(log c)/dT = -2400/T^2.
> At 0C that means pH should decrease by something like .032 points per
> deg C, given the water actually up-takes the CO2.
carbonated water? Apparently not.
> ...
>> Nice post hoc fallacy.
> ...
>
> As usual, the term mis-applied and an apparent projection.
Where K = (E_0-E)*F/(2.3*R)
(Look up Nernst equation)
If T increases, pH decreases, and a lower pH is more acidic.
If T decreases, pH increases, and a higher pH is less acidic. As I said.
Was that so hard that you had to FUBAR it?
Marvin the Martian
May 18, 2012, 10:50:51 AM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 02:54:11 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
> On 5/17/2012 11:57 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>> --
>>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>>
>>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>
>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>
>> But they have no science behind this.
>
> Key "scentific" words from article, Marvin:
>
> "is expected to be"... severely affected by acidification because cold
> water more readily takes up CO2.
>
> Say wait a minute! Is that my "soda pop" theory? I thought all warmists
> totally rejected that idea as crackpot insanity. Where is that idiot
> Snider when you need him?
Haven't you killfiled Snider yet?
> On 5/17/2012 11:57 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>> --
>>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>>
>>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>
>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>
>> But they have no science behind this.
>
> Key "scentific" words from article, Marvin:
>
> "is expected to be"... severely affected by acidification because cold
> water more readily takes up CO2.
>
> Say wait a minute! Is that my "soda pop" theory? I thought all warmists
> totally rejected that idea as crackpot insanity. Where is that idiot
> Snider when you need him?
> More "science":
>
> "could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100"
>
> "COULD"? "Is expected to be"? Sounds like we have some really sound
> experimental results here guys. I hear that because of global warming
> and an acid ocean, Santa "MAY" not arrive next December.
should get a truck load of cement and ...
Bill Snyder
May 18, 2012, 10:54:49 AM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:50:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 May 2012 02:54:11 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2012 11:57 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>>>
>>>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>>
>>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>>
>>> But they have no science behind this.
>>
>> Key "scentific" words from article, Marvin:
>>
>> "is expected to be"... severely affected by acidification because cold
>> water more readily takes up CO2.
>>
>> Say wait a minute! Is that my "soda pop" theory? I thought all warmists
>> totally rejected that idea as crackpot insanity. Where is that idiot
>> Snider when you need him?
>
>Haven't you killfiled Snider yet?
Marvie/English translation: "Haven't you learned when to run
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 May 2012 02:54:11 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2012 11:57 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>>>
>>>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>>
>>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>>
>>> But they have no science behind this.
>>
>> Key "scentific" words from article, Marvin:
>>
>> "is expected to be"... severely affected by acidification because cold
>> water more readily takes up CO2.
>>
>> Say wait a minute! Is that my "soda pop" theory? I thought all warmists
>> totally rejected that idea as crackpot insanity. Where is that idiot
>> Snider when you need him?
>
>Haven't you killfiled Snider yet?
away?"
>> More "science":
>>
>> "could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100"
>>
>> "COULD"? "Is expected to be"? Sounds like we have some really sound
>> experimental results here guys. I hear that because of global warming
>> and an acid ocean, Santa "MAY" not arrive next December.
>
>And Monkeys might fly out of Worm's butt and destroy the world. Ergo, we
>should get a truck load of cement and ...
I guess that one's going *too* far . . .
erschro...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 11:46:25 AM5/18/12
to
On May 17, 8:44 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:07:04 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 5/17/12 6:28 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>
> >> In the real ocean, CO2 reacts with Ca++ to form CaCO3, which
> >> precipitates out as limestone, removing the CO2 from the liquid phase.
>
> >> It's a system which has been close to equilibrium for hundreds of
> >> millions of years. A few additional ppm of CO2 isn't likely to upset
> >> the krill.
>
> > It's a bummer when the observable show you to be wrong, Bill.
>
> > The ocean is buffered against pH change by CaCO3 derived from
> > continental erosion. Global pH can only experience a sustained drop
> > when the rise of atmospheric CO2 outpaces the replenishment of the
> > carbonate buffer. This has kept ocean pH constant over long periods
> > of geologic time, even during times when atmospheric CO2 was higher
> > than it is today. It has probably been between 3 and 30 million years
> > since ocean pH last dropped below its current levels.
>
> Cite? The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> equilibrium. More CO2 shifts the equilibrium towards precipitating
> CaCO3.
Bill, do you really think the oceans can shift in seconds? Minutes?
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:07:04 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 5/17/12 6:28 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>
> >> In the real ocean, CO2 reacts with Ca++ to form CaCO3, which
> >> precipitates out as limestone, removing the CO2 from the liquid phase.
>
> >> It's a system which has been close to equilibrium for hundreds of
> >> millions of years. A few additional ppm of CO2 isn't likely to upset
> >> the krill.
>
> > It's a bummer when the observable show you to be wrong, Bill.
>
> > The ocean is buffered against pH change by CaCO3 derived from
> > continental erosion. Global pH can only experience a sustained drop
> > when the rise of atmospheric CO2 outpaces the replenishment of the
> > carbonate buffer. This has kept ocean pH constant over long periods
> > of geologic time, even during times when atmospheric CO2 was higher
> > than it is today. It has probably been between 3 and 30 million years
> > since ocean pH last dropped below its current levels.
>
> Cite? The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> equilibrium. More CO2 shifts the equilibrium towards precipitating
> CaCO3.
Days? It can take centuries for something as massive, with as much
intertia, as the oceans to shift back to equilibrium.
erschro...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 11:48:09 AM5/18/12
to
a galvanic cell, you moron.
Gee, let's relate it to E=mc2 next. The mass of CO2 will be converted
to energy! Heck, it's halfway there -- the equation already has "c"
in it!
kym horsell
May 18, 2012, 11:53:40 AM5/18/12
to
cell analogy?
As I posted on sci.physics -- but again google seems to be refusing to x-post stuff (although it seemed to be working for a while there this week) --
the van 't Hoof form gives the correct sign. Which also agrees with this
paper I found only in the past 24 hrs in the garage:
"The temperature coefficient of the pH of seawater, calculated from existing
data on the carbonate system in seawater, is confirmed experimentally as
+0.0114 pH units per degree Celsius at 1 atm pressure. Although pH
measurements with a given system are reproducible to $\pm0.005 or \pm0.006 pH
units$; direct pH measurements on seawater are accurate only to about ± 0.02
pH units; hence computations of components of the carbonate system are
uncertain by 1% in bicarbonate and 5% in carbonate. These uncertainties can be
halved if pH values are derived from precise determination of other components
of the carbonate system, such as alkalinity and total CO2."
-- joris m gieskes,
effect of temperature on the ph of seawater
Limnology and Oceanography V 15 #5, Sep 1969
Uh, oh!
+1C -> +.01 pH points -- increase in temp -> more basic. Measured. Error bars.
Sam Wormley
May 18, 2012, 11:55:29 AM5/18/12
to
On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> equilibrium.
If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> equilibrium.
is not what I call equilibrium.
Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth is
warming rapidly due to increased greenhouse gasses.
The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
we are at equilibrium.
In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming.
erschro...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 11:45:20 AM5/18/12
to
On May 17, 7:28 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 18:17:10 -0400, Scout wrote:
> > "Transition Zone" <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 18:17:10 -0400, Scout wrote:
But to the point, that's a very slow process. Which is why the CO2
concentration in the oceans is ... increasing!
Why is it increasing, Bill?
>
> It's a system which has been close to equilibrium for hundreds of
> millions of years.
apply a stress? Answer -- it gets thrown out of equilibrium.
Eventually it will shift back to equilibrium. In a flask in the lab,
that might be quickly. In the ocean, with huge mass and slow
turnover, it will take centuries.
kym horsell
May 18, 2012, 11:56:20 AM5/18/12
to
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 1:48:09 AM UTC+10, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
...
> Gee, let's relate it to E=mc2 next. The mass of CO2 will be converted
> to energy! Heck, it's halfway there -- the equation already has "c"
> in it!
LOL.
--
[If you can just throw away enough data...]
If you throw out all the bad data, the [Mann] 'Hockey stick' disappears.
-- Melvin the Mendacious, 27 Mar 2012 12:00 pm
...
> > pH = K/T
> >
> > Where K = (E_0-E)*F/(2.3*R)
> > (Look up Nernst equation)
>
> Huh? This has nothing to do with electrochemistry. The ocean is not
> a galvanic cell, you moron.
Shit. Another sane one. This can't be alt.global-warming after all!
> >
> > Where K = (E_0-E)*F/(2.3*R)
> > (Look up Nernst equation)
>
> Huh? This has nothing to do with electrochemistry. The ocean is not
> a galvanic cell, you moron.
> Gee, let's relate it to E=mc2 next. The mass of CO2 will be converted
> to energy! Heck, it's halfway there -- the equation already has "c"
> in it!
--
[If you can just throw away enough data...]
If you throw out all the bad data, the [Mann] 'Hockey stick' disappears.
-- Melvin the Mendacious, 27 Mar 2012 12:00 pm
bjacoby
May 18, 2012, 12:44:06 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 9:42 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> Right here, shit-bot, still laughing at your ignorance, arrogance,
> dishonesty, and stupidity.
Yawn. Still boring with nothing intelligent to say.
> Right here, shit-bot, still laughing at your ignorance, arrogance,
> dishonesty, and stupidity.
BeamMeUpScotty
May 18, 2012, 12:50:22 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
>> equilibrium.
>
> If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> is not what I call equilibrium.
As long as it is within a range that supports life we accept many
> On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
>> equilibrium.
>
> If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> is not what I call equilibrium.
measurements to be within a range rather than a steady and exact number
to be within equilibrium.
> Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
> that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth is
> warming rapidly due to increased greenhouse gasses.
We add CO2 to growing houses to get plants to grow faster and produce
better but NOT enough to kill humans. And that is NOT outside of
limits that might be called within equilibrium.
Unless you have a specific number that is an absolute for equilibrium of
CO2 and Oxygen and the rest of what is in the atmosphere, then we will
have to use a range.
> The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
> we are at equilibrium.
> In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
> that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming.
Basement Bandy
May 18, 2012, 12:51:14 PM5/18/12
to
On May 17, 7:14 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/2012 6:44 PM, Tom P wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 05/17/2012 10:08 PM, $27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto wrote:
> >> On May 17, 2:02 pm, Transition Zone<mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> --http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected....
>
> >>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> >>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
> >>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> >>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> >>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> >>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> >>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
> >>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
> >>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
> >>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
> >>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
> >>> Ocean.
>
> >> Something else will take their place.
>
> > Like in how many million years?
>
> It seems that plankton would NOT be eaten by krill that don't survive
No scientist goes by "what seems". Its all proven and peer-critiqued.
> On 5/17/2012 6:44 PM, Tom P wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 05/17/2012 10:08 PM, $27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto wrote:
> >> On May 17, 2:02 pm, Transition Zone<mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> --http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected....
>
> >>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> >>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
> >>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> >>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> >>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> >>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> >>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
> >>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
> >>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
> >>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
> >>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
> >>> Ocean.
>
> >> Something else will take their place.
>
> > Like in how many million years?
>
> It seems that plankton would NOT be eaten by krill that don't survive
Bill Snyder
May 18, 2012, 12:51:52 PM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:44:06 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
You are indeed. Figured out why the CO2 doesn't come out of the
magic soda pop until *after* the bottle is opened yet, shit-bot?
wrote:
magic soda pop until *after* the bottle is opened yet, shit-bot?
Basement Bandy
May 18, 2012, 12:54:17 PM5/18/12
to
On May 17, 11:57 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
> > --
> >http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>
> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>
>
>
> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>
> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
Christman is irrelevant.
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
> > --
> >http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>
> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>
>
>
> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>
> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
> But they have no science behind this.
> > to be
> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> > up CO2.
>
> Cold water is less acidic.
> >Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> > shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> > acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> > ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> > experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm.
>
> Nice post hoc fallacy.
bjacoby
May 18, 2012, 12:56:18 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
>> equilibrium.
>
> If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> is not what I call equilibrium.
So an equilibrium point can't change? I'd suggest a community college
>> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
>> equilibrium.
>
> If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> is not what I call equilibrium.
course or two in science, Sam.
> Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
> that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth is
> warming rapidly due to increased greenhouse gasses.
I know of no evidence CO2 is "dumped"...however one "dumps" a gas?
2. "Earth warming "rapidly" (compared to WHAT?) Who decides here what
"rapid" means? Obviously. Sam you think that YOU do.
3. "due to greenhouse gasses" Totally speculation. There is NO evidence
except some computer models SHOWN not to predict correctly that this
theory is correct. Yet you state it as a "fact". Why?
> The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
> we are at equilibrium.
here. "estimated" might be a more correct word and then we'd all have to
ask "estimated by whom".
> In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
> that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming.
"fact"? You are extremely dishonest in this regard. You are nothing but
a major scientific political fraud.
Basement Bandy
May 18, 2012, 12:56:21 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 12:50 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
condemn endless pollution.
Figures.
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> >> equilibrium.
>
> > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > is not what I call equilibrium.
>
> As long as it is within a range that supports life we accept many
> measurements to be within a range rather than a steady and exact number
> to be within equilibrium.
So you hate written constitutions addressing the law, yet you don't
> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> >> equilibrium.
>
> > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > is not what I call equilibrium.
>
> As long as it is within a range that supports life we accept many
> measurements to be within a range rather than a steady and exact number
> to be within equilibrium.
condemn endless pollution.
Figures.
BeamMeUpScotty
May 18, 2012, 1:23:23 PM5/18/12
to
Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT. Obviously there are
other things also at work here. Fact is, you just called Global Warming
a Myth with your own "It's ALL PROVEN" statement. Obviously Global
Warming is NOT science since it's NOT "all proven".
It was also a polite euphemism to replace calling the author of that
Krill information an idiot that hasn't got a clue. And to correct the
mistaken idea that Krill embryos that don't survive will be an
unstoppable and a runaway cycle, because where you have a lack of
predation such as a lack of Krill eating plankton you get a bloom of
their food source(the plankton). More plankton would then absorb more
CO2 and we would again reach a stable point in krill evolution where
those that survive in slightly more acidic levels would continue and
flourish. The numbers need not be apocalyptic as you and others predict
for the attention and fear factor.
So what seems to you like unscientific was actually more science with
more facts than "MYTHICAL" CO2 creating Global Warming and I was using a
bit of tact while pointing it out.
But I too can point out "stupid" and be insulting when I see it...
That's just the easy way.
BeamMeUpScotty
May 18, 2012, 1:38:08 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 12:51 PM, Basement Bandy wrote:
much science I might add.
If we leave the oil where it is, How do you know it has NOT already
caused mass extinction once? If an asteroid hit earth why would all this
oil much near the surface in the pre 1900's "and it was considered poor
and useless land" not burn and burn.... Would it NOT burn all at once
and fill the air with CO2 and create a planet wide temperature change
that would bring mass extinctions from acidic oceans and Warming?
So in essence we are doing what the department of Forestry does and we
are burning the underbrush "or the easily accessible oil" before any
major cataclysmic event like an asteroid can set the planet on fire?
We may be saving a multitude of species from extinction and you want to
stop this successful Environmentally friendly work that we've been doing
for a few hundred years.
You are an evil person that HATES progress.
Will Janoschka
May 18, 2012, 2:03:24 PM5/18/12
to
computer bot that creates controversy from nonsense. Persons have
opinions,
but not Sam.
The program "Sam" only recites the nonsense that others claim as
fact.
"Sam" gives evidense of the extent to which the CO2 alarmist zelots
will
go to try to sell this nonsense!
Major scientific political fraud, yes indeed! "Sam" just has fun
with it.
The apprentice zelots here have shown that they cannot do arithmetic.
You are trying to argue "science" with juveniles, political fools, and
one
computer bot. The political fraud goes on unabated!
WrongWayWade
May 18, 2012, 2:09:49 PM5/18/12
to
Transition Zone wrote:
> --
> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>
> --
> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>
> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
> Ocean.
Typical lying headlines:
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
> Ocean.
"antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification" yet:
"Australian scientists discovered that while acidification at current levels
(380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000 ppm) did not adversely affect krill
In other words, pure hysterical speculation based on nothing.
Bill Snyder
May 18, 2012, 2:15:08 PM5/18/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty
May 18, 2012, 2:16:16 PM5/18/12
to
Transition Zone
May 18, 2012, 2:53:36 PM5/18/12
to
Transition Zone
May 18, 2012, 2:56:06 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 1:38 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
No one is saying leave it where it is. Just don't burn carbon
anymore.
> So in essence we are doing what the department of Forestry does and we
> are burning the underbrush "or the easily accessible oil" before any
> major cataclysmic event like an asteroid can set the planet on fire?
Too much of it is the issue.
> You are an evil person that HATES progress.
You can't prove that.
No one is saying leave it where it is. Just don't burn carbon
anymore.
> So in essence we are doing what the department of Forestry does and we
> are burning the underbrush "or the easily accessible oil" before any
> major cataclysmic event like an asteroid can set the planet on fire?
> You are an evil person that HATES progress.
Bill Ward
May 18, 2012, 3:43:43 PM5/18/12
to
likely to come out any time soon.
erschro...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 4:07:29 PM5/18/12
to
> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> >> equilibrium.
>
> > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > is not what I call equilibrium.
>
> As long as it is within a range that supports life we accept many
> measurements to be within a range rather than a steady and exact number
> to be within equilibrium.
Uh, that has nothing to do with it.
>
> > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> >> equilibrium.
>
> > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > is not what I call equilibrium.
>
> As long as it is within a range that supports life we accept many
> measurements to be within a range rather than a steady and exact number
> to be within equilibrium.
When a system has been in equilibrium with 280 ppm CO2 in the
atmosphere for over a million years, and in 100 or so years you
increase the CO2 by 40%, you've really thrown the system out of
equilibrium!
>
> > Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
> > that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth is
> > warming rapidly due to increased greenhouse gasses.
>
> NOT PROVEN and NOT a problem for equilibrium.....
>
> We add CO2 to growing houses to get plants to grow faster and produce
> better but NOT enough to kill humans.
> And that is NOT outside of
> limits that might be called within equilibrium.
>
> Unless you have a specific number that is an absolute for equilibrium of
> CO2 and Oxygen and the rest of what is in the atmosphere, then we will
> have to use a range.
>
> > The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
> > we are at equilibrium.
>
> The range that you consider within the usual limits is equilibrium.
>
> > In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
> > that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming.
>
> And the earth is continuing to balance and maintain equilibrium.
erschro...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 4:12:02 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 1:23 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
Then you're a moron. Go learn some science. Hint: Facts are going to
come to you in a burning bush. You've got to find scientific sources
and actually read them.
> Obviously there are
> other things also at work here.
Things no scientist has thought of?
>Fact is, you just called Global Warming
> a Myth with your own "It's ALL PROVEN" statement. Obviously Global
> Warming is NOT science since it's NOT "all proven".
It's as proven as anything ever gets in science.
>
> It was also a polite euphemism to replace calling the author of that
> Krill information an idiot that hasn't got a clue. And to correct the
> mistaken idea that Krill embryos that don't survive will be an
> unstoppable and a runaway cycle, because where you have a lack of
> predation such as a lack of Krill eating plankton you get a bloom of
> their food source(the plankton). More plankton would then absorb more
> CO2 and we would again reach a stable point in krill evolution where
> those that survive in slightly more acidic levels would continue and
> flourish. The numbers need not be apocalyptic as you and others predict
> for the attention and fear factor.
>
> So what seems to you like unscientific was actually more science with
> more facts than "MYTHICAL" CO2 creating Global Warming and I was using a
> bit of tact while pointing it out.
No, you were using a lot of stupidity. Now, go learn some basic
science.
come to you in a burning bush. You've got to find scientific sources
and actually read them.
> Obviously there are
> other things also at work here.
>Fact is, you just called Global Warming
> a Myth with your own "It's ALL PROVEN" statement. Obviously Global
> Warming is NOT science since it's NOT "all proven".
>
> It was also a polite euphemism to replace calling the author of that
> Krill information an idiot that hasn't got a clue. And to correct the
> mistaken idea that Krill embryos that don't survive will be an
> unstoppable and a runaway cycle, because where you have a lack of
> predation such as a lack of Krill eating plankton you get a bloom of
> their food source(the plankton). More plankton would then absorb more
> CO2 and we would again reach a stable point in krill evolution where
> those that survive in slightly more acidic levels would continue and
> flourish. The numbers need not be apocalyptic as you and others predict
> for the attention and fear factor.
>
> So what seems to you like unscientific was actually more science with
> more facts than "MYTHICAL" CO2 creating Global Warming and I was using a
> bit of tact while pointing it out.
science.
erschro...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 4:10:08 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 12:56 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> >> equilibrium.
>
> > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > is not what I call equilibrium.
>
> So an equilibrium point can't change? I'd suggest a community college
> course or two in science, Sam.
Huh?
> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> >> equilibrium.
>
> > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > is not what I call equilibrium.
>
> So an equilibrium point can't change? I'd suggest a community college
> course or two in science, Sam.
>
> > Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
> > that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth is
> > warming rapidly due to increased greenhouse gasses.
>
> 1. Humans producing CO2 a valid fact. (Note use of loaded word "dumping"
> I know of no evidence CO2 is "dumped"...however one "dumps" a gas?
>
> 2. "Earth warming "rapidly" (compared to WHAT?)
>Who decides here what
> "rapid" means? Obviously. Sam you think that YOU do.
>
> 3. "due to greenhouse gasses" Totally speculation. There is NO evidence
> except some computer models SHOWN not to predict correctly that this
> theory is correct. Yet you state it as a "fact". Why?
why every national science academy, every scientific organization, and
97% of climate scientists accept it. It's as much a fact as evolution
or the Big Bang.
>
> > The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
> > we are at equilibrium.
>
> Again, more opinion stated as "fact". The word "is" would be the problem
> here. "estimated" might be a more correct word and then we'd all have to
> ask "estimated by whom".
>
> > In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
> > that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming.
>
> So why to you present "estimates" and "guesses" and "speculation" as
> "fact"? You are extremely dishonest in this regard. You are nothing but
> a major scientific political fraud.
with you?
(Bet you won't answer that.)
erschro...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 4:12:34 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 2:03 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
So why do almost all the world's scientists agree with Sam and not
with you?
Answer that.
with you?
Answer that.
Bill Ward
May 18, 2012, 4:39:23 PM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:48:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:53:27 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:53:27 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 18, 2012 1:57:02 PM UTC+10, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-
> affected-
>>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>> >
>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-
> affected-
>>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>> >
>>> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>>>
>>> But they have no science behind this.
>>>
>>>
>>> But they have no science behind this.
>>>
>>> > to be
>>> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>>> > takes up CO2.
>>>
>>> > severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>>> > takes up CO2.
>>>
>>> Cold water is less acidic.
>>
>>
>> Funny. As seems characteristic of Martian predictions -- goes exactly
>> against the observations. And even theory.
>>
>> The wiki page on Henry's Law shows the temperature dependence of CO2
>> solubility in water as part of the exposition on the "constant" k_H.
>> For CO2 it follows that log c = const - 2400/T i.e. d(log c)/dT =
>> -2400/T^2. At 0C that means pH should decrease by something like .032
>> points per deg C, given the water actually up-takes the CO2.
>
> I said Cold water. Do you know the difference between cold water and
> carbonated water? Apparently not.
>
>> ...
>>> Nice post hoc fallacy.
>> ...
>>
>> As usual, the term mis-applied and an apparent projection.
>
>> against the observations. And even theory.
>>
>> The wiki page on Henry's Law shows the temperature dependence of CO2
>> solubility in water as part of the exposition on the "constant" k_H.
>> For CO2 it follows that log c = const - 2400/T i.e. d(log c)/dT =
>> -2400/T^2. At 0C that means pH should decrease by something like .032
>> points per deg C, given the water actually up-takes the CO2.
>
> I said Cold water. Do you know the difference between cold water and
> carbonated water? Apparently not.
>
>> ...
>>> Nice post hoc fallacy.
>> ...
>>
>> As usual, the term mis-applied and an apparent projection.
>
> pH = K/T
>
> Where K = (E_0-E)*F/(2.3*R)
> (Look up Nernst equation)
>
>
> Where K = (E_0-E)*F/(2.3*R)
> (Look up Nernst equation)
>
> If T increases, pH decreases, and a lower pH is more acidic. If T
> decreases, pH increases, and a higher pH is less acidic. As I said.
>
> Was that so hard that you had to FUBAR it?
Horsell seems to like to try to bluff. He "knows" more than he
> decreases, pH increases, and a higher pH is less acidic. As I said.
>
> Was that so hard that you had to FUBAR it?
understands, and doesn't realize just how obvious he is.
When you said cold water is less acidic, if he actually understood pH,
he might have thought:
1) Hmmm, pH is related to the [H+] concentration.
2) In cold water there's less energy to disassociate (ionize) water
3) Less ionization means less H+
4) Less H+ means less acidic
5) Marvin must be right
Instead, he starts spinning equations he apparently thinks look
impressive, gets himself thoroughly wrapped around the axle, and proudly
presents us with the wrong answer to three decimal places..
It's not the first time, either. It'll be interesting to see how he
tries to handle this. I wonder if he's related to TomP.
Dawlish
May 18, 2012, 4:49:15 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 9:12 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> Answer that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
He hasn't. Denier's never can. Same with the poster above.
>
> - Show quoted text -
He hasn't. Denier's never can. Same with the poster above.
Will Janoschka
May 18, 2012, 6:37:48 PM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 20:12:34, "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 2:03ĸpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:56:18, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> > > >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> > > >> equilibrium.
> >
> > > > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > > > is not what I call equilibrium.
> >
> > > So an equilibrium point can't change? I'd suggest a community college
> > > course or two in science, Sam.
> >
> > > > Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
> > > > that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth is
> > > > warming rapidly due to increased greenhouse gasses.
> >
> > > 1. Humans producing CO2 a valid fact. (Note use of loaded word "dumping"
> > > I know of no evidence CO2 is "dumped"...however one "dumps" a gas?
> >
> > > 2. "Earth warming "rapidly" (compared to WHAT?) Who decides here what
> > > "rapid" means? Obviously. Sam you think that YOU do.
> >
> > > 3. "due to greenhouse gasses" ĸTotally speculation. There is NO evidence
> > computer bot that creates controversy from nonsense. ĸPersons have
> > opinions, but not Sam.
> >
> > The program "Sam" ĸonly recites the nonsense that others claim as
"Climate Scientists"
like Rev. Hansen, that have ever agreed with the computer program
"Sam Wormley".
No scientist would accept the wourd "climate" from anyone except
a realtor trying to sell a house!
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 2:03ĸpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:56:18, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> > > >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> > > >> equilibrium.
> >
> > > > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > > > is not what I call equilibrium.
> >
> > > So an equilibrium point can't change? I'd suggest a community college
> > > course or two in science, Sam.
> >
> > > > Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
> > > > that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth is
> > > > warming rapidly due to increased greenhouse gasses.
> >
> > > 1. Humans producing CO2 a valid fact. (Note use of loaded word "dumping"
> > > I know of no evidence CO2 is "dumped"...however one "dumps" a gas?
> >
> > > 2. "Earth warming "rapidly" (compared to WHAT?) Who decides here what
> > > "rapid" means? Obviously. Sam you think that YOU do.
> >
> > > except some computer models SHOWN not to predict correctly that this
> > > theory is correct. Yet you state it as a "fact". Why?
> >
> > > > The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
> > > > we are at equilibrium.
> >
> > > Again, more opinion stated as "fact". The word "is" would be the problem
> > > here. "estimated" might be a more correct word and then we'd all have to
> > > ask "estimated by whom".
> >
> > > > In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
> > > > that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming..
> > > theory is correct. Yet you state it as a "fact". Why?
> >
> > > > The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
> > > > we are at equilibrium.
> >
> > > Again, more opinion stated as "fact". The word "is" would be the problem
> > > here. "estimated" might be a more correct word and then we'd all have to
> > > ask "estimated by whom".
> >
> > > > In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
> >
> > > So why to you present "estimates" and "guesses" and "speculation" as
> > > "fact"? ĸYou are extremely dishonest in this regard. You are nothing but
> > > So why to you present "estimates" and "guesses" and "speculation" as
> > > a major scientific political fraud.
> >
> > Ben, You are again assuming a person ĸ Sam Wormley is not! ĸ"Sam" is a
> >
> > computer bot that creates controversy from nonsense. ĸPersons have
> > opinions, but not Sam.
> >
> > The program "Sam" ĸonly recites the nonsense that others claim as
> > fact. "Sam" gives evidense of the extent to which the CO2 alarmist zelots
> > will go to try to sell this nonsense!
> >
> > Major scientific political fraud, yes indeed! ĸ "Sam" just has fun
> > will go to try to sell this nonsense!
> >
> > with it. The apprentice zelots here have shown that they cannot do arithmetic.
> >
> > You are trying to argue "science" with juveniles, political fools, and
> > one ĸcomputer bot. ĸThe political fraud goes on unabated!
> >
> > You are trying to argue "science" with juveniles, political fools, and
>
> So why do almost all the world's scientists agree with Sam and not
> with you?
>
> Answer that.
Please supply the name of any scientist except some of the fake
> So why do almost all the world's scientists agree with Sam and not
> with you?
>
> Answer that.
"Climate Scientists"
like Rev. Hansen, that have ever agreed with the computer program
"Sam Wormley".
No scientist would accept the wourd "climate" from anyone except
a realtor trying to sell a house!
Sam Wormley
May 18, 2012, 7:25:55 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/12 12:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
for more than 100 years. Do a bit of self-education from these two
references:
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
Furthermore, it's a fact that humans ARE dumping CO2 into the
atmosphere and the earth is warming rapidly due to increased
greenhouse gasses.
greenhouse gasses.
The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
we are at equilibrium.
we are at equilibrium.
Sam Wormley
May 18, 2012, 7:32:42 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/12 11:50 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
>> we are at equilibrium.
>
> The range that you consider within the usual limits is equilibrium.
>
>
Equalibrium -- when the difference between energy in and energy out
> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
>> we are at equilibrium.
>
> The range that you consider within the usual limits is equilibrium.
>
>
is 0 W/m^2.
BeamMeUpScotty
May 18, 2012, 8:21:00 PM5/18/12
to
pol·lu·tion
(p-lshn)
n.
1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted,
especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the
discharge of harmful substances.
2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutants:
...]
I suspect your definition won't match it.... and if anyone includes CO2
as pollution, they need to make sure that science isn't their intended
career.
If Carbon is pollution then we being carbon based life are also human
pollution and if you're proposing that we are pollution YOU ARE LOONIER
THAN A SHIT HOUSE RAT.
To label us as pollution because we are released into the atmosphere and
live our lives in the atmosphere and we are steadily climbing in the
actual saturation of the atmosphere would mean that we can be stopped
from reproducing by the EPA and their regulations. Tell us about your
plans to stop humans from polluting (discharging harmful substances
known as human life) the planet with this human pollution?
kym horsell
May 18, 2012, 8:28:28 PM5/18/12
to
> When you said cold water is less acidic, if he actually understood pH,
> he might have thought:
>
> 1) Hmmm, pH is related to the [H+] concentration.
> 2) In cold water there's less energy to disassociate (ionize) water
> 3) Less ionization means less H+
> 4) Less H+ means less acidic
> 5) Marvin must be right
>
> Instead, he starts spinning equations he apparently thinks look
> impressive, gets himself thoroughly wrapped around the axle, and proudly
> presents us with the wrong answer to three decimal places..
>
> It's not the first time, either. It'll be interesting to see how he
> tries to handle this. I wonder if he's related to TomP.
Neither you nor the physics consultant can google the math, appatently.
"The temperature coefficient of the pH of seawater, calculated from existing
data on the carbonate system in seawater, is confirmed experimentally as
+0.0114 pH units per degree Celsius at 1 atm pressure. Although pH
measurements with a given system are reproducible to $\pm0.005 or \pm0.006 pH
units$; direct pH measurements on seawater are accurate only to about ± 0.02
pH units; hence computations of components of the carbonate system are
uncertain by 1% in bicarbonate and 5% in carbonate. These uncertainties can be
halved if pH values are derived from precise determination of other components
of the carbonate system, such as alkalinity and total CO2."
-- joris m gieskes
effect of temperature on the ph of seawater
Limnology and Oceanography V 15 #5, Sep 1969
+1C -> +.0114+-.006 pH units i.e. more heat -> more basic.
Uh, oh!
--
And those that can't do science, throw shit like a monkey.
-- Melvin the Martinete@CO <mel...@ontomars.org>, 16 Mar 2012 06:59 -0500
BeamMeUpScotty
May 18, 2012, 8:44:33 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 7:25 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/18/12 12:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
>> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
>
> Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> for more than 100 years. Do a bit of self-education from these two
> references:
>
>>
>> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
>> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
>
>
> Furthermore, it's a fact that humans ARE dumping CO2 into the
> atmosphere and the earth is warming rapidly due to increased
> greenhouse gasses.
NO.... they're unrelated and you have zero scientific proof that one is
> On 5/18/12 12:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
>> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
>
> Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> for more than 100 years. Do a bit of self-education from these two
> references:
>
>>
>> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
>> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
>
>
> Furthermore, it's a fact that humans ARE dumping CO2 into the
> atmosphere and the earth is warming rapidly due to increased
> greenhouse gasses.
causing the other. How do you calculate global temperature, I have a
freezer in my house, what if a test point is NOT in my freezer? Do you
have 100 million year old satellites? What is your margin of error? 2/3
of the planet is covered by oceans did you have ocean censors more than
100 years ago? When did man first set foot on the Antarctic and when
did man measure the temperature there? Why do OZONE HOLES become larger
when the air is colder?
> The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
> we are at equilibrium.
year depending on cloud cover etc. and if it were heating then the
atmosphere would be expanding its volume as it heats. Where is that
expanding atmosphere? If it can't expand then the atmospheric pressure
would rise, where is that rise in Global Atmospheric pressure?
Physics basic rules are NOT functioning in the universe of Global
Warming? Imagine that?
> In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
> that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming.
extra heat to make free electricity...... you have found the heat and
space has the cold so the potential difference can be used to create
electric.
You should use your spare time for productive stuff and design that
perpetual motion electric generator to pull the heat out of the
atmosphere and make electric for third world NATIONS.
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
Bill Ward
May 18, 2012, 9:20:23 PM5/18/12
to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH>
"The pH of pure water decreases with increasing temperatures. For
example, the pH of pure water at 50 °C is 6.55."
Do I need to explain that means that Marvin (and the Nernst equation) is
right, cooler water has a higher pH?
Or were you trying to change the subject away from water to seawater?
You should have learned by now that doesn't work. Marvin explicitly said
"cold water", not "cold seawater".
You bluffed again and got caught, again. That doesn't help your
credibility, no matter how long-winded and tedious your posts are. Try
understanding the material well enough to explain it in simple terms
before you post. Science involves clear, coherent explanation, not
confusion and intimidation. That's the sure mark of an insecure faker.
Sam Wormley
May 18, 2012, 9:29:24 PM5/18/12
to
links I have posted in this thread to bolster your climate science
background.
Also these are good to listen to while gardening:
> Global Warning Podcasts by Professor John Chiang
> http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Environment/Global-Warming-Podcast/21917
>
> This lower division course introduces global warming as both a scientific and social issue. We will introduce the physical science that sets the stage for the problem, from the basic concepts of climate (carbon cycle, greenhouse effect, climate feedbacks) through to the climate model projections of future climate changes and their impacts. Social scientific perspectives will be integrated throughout, including the history of climate science, the geographical and political-economic implications of fossil fuels and industrial production, and the challenges posed to existing regulatory and governance systems by the current and prospective impacts of global warming. Several guest lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues, potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate ongoing developments and (often heated) deba
tes surrounding global climate change.
>
> Podcast Website:
> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425
>
Scout
May 18, 2012, 9:32:48 PM5/18/12
to
"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f4bbcc2-f142-4272...@ec4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 1:38 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>> If we leave the oil where it is,
>
> No one is saying leave it where it is. Just don't burn carbon
> anymore.
Maybe you should start by holding your breath....
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>> If we leave the oil where it is,
>
> No one is saying leave it where it is. Just don't burn carbon
> anymore.
Scout
May 18, 2012, 9:34:53 PM5/18/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vf-dnWoF0rUqRyvS...@mchsi.com...
> On 5/18/12 12:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
>> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
>
> Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> for more than 100 years.
Bullshit.
>> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
>> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
>
> Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> for more than 100 years.
Oh, and why is it then they have since (less than 100 years) discovered that
CO2 TRAILS temperature increases.
The science would suggest that global warming causes CO2....not the other
way around.
Sam Wormley
May 18, 2012, 9:38:46 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/12 8:34 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vf-dnWoF0rUqRyvS...@mchsi.com...
>> On 5/18/12 12:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
>>> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
>>
>> Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
>> for more than 100 years.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Oh, and why is it then they have since (less than 100 years) discovered
> that CO2 TRAILS temperature increases.
CO2 is driving increasing temperature currently. That's an observable.
>
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vf-dnWoF0rUqRyvS...@mchsi.com...
>> On 5/18/12 12:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
>>> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
>>
>> Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
>> for more than 100 years.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Oh, and why is it then they have since (less than 100 years) discovered
> that CO2 TRAILS temperature increases.
Gray Guest
May 18, 2012, 9:50:09 PM5/18/12
to
Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:46d483a8-4a5f-4048-906d-
9055ac...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
>
>
My advice to you, you simpleton, is to stop exhaling.
--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.
What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.
http://nukeitfromorbit.com/
9055ac...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
>
>
My advice to you, you simpleton, is to stop exhaling.
--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.
What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.
http://nukeitfromorbit.com/
kym horsell
May 18, 2012, 9:37:32 PM5/18/12
to
> You bluffed again and got caught, again. That doesn't help your
> credibility, no matter how long-winded and tedious your posts are. Try
> understanding the material well enough to explain it in simple terms
> before you post. Science involves clear, coherent explanation, not
> confusion and intimidation. That's the sure mark of an insecure faker.
It appears you are confusing the equipartition theorem with the virial
theorem. The virial theorem is quite general, as it simply shows the
average potential energy is twice the kinetic energy for gravitationally
or electromagnetically bound (F=1/r^2) systems of particles. Specific
heat is not relevant.
-- Bill Ward, 16 May 2012
An isolated self-gravitating system such as a star obeys the virial
theorem 2F + V = 0 where F is the kinetic and V the potential energy.
For a perfect gas energy is proportional to temperature and F = 3/2
NkT. From the virial theorem we therefore find E = F + V = -F = -3/2
NkT. The the heat capacity is -3/2 N k. Lynden-Bell & Wood showed
that [adding a confinement term] does not remove the negative heat capacity[.]
-- Lynden-Bell D & RM, "On the negative specific heat paradox",
Monthly notices of the RAS vol 181, Nov 1977, p 405-419.
kym horsell
May 18, 2012, 9:57:47 PM5/18/12
to
Yea. So like consultant jr you are saying the sea can't be getting more acidic because it's made of pure water and there is no CO2 to dissolve in it.
Apart from that the van 't Hoof model predicts colder water will allow more CO2 to dissolve and be associated with a decrease in pH. And, on top of that, we have actual measurements for seawater -- the salinity also gets in on the act as per various texts on Henry's Law and allied -- where they find at 1 atm .0114+-.0006 pH points per deg C. I.e. higher temp -> more basic; lower temp -> more acidic.
You both tried to divert the ocean acidification to a simplistic model that has nothing to do with the situation.
As you project -- you tried a bluff and it didn't work.
--
It appears you are confusing the equipartition theorem with the virial
theorem. The virial theorem is quite general, as it simply shows the
average potential energy is twice the kinetic energy for gravitationally
or electromagnetically bound (F=1/r^2) systems of particles. Specific
heat is not relevant.
-- Bill Ward, 16 May 2012
According to the virial theorem, for a self-gravitating body [...] the average potential energy UPot and the average kinetic energy UKin are locked together in the relation
U_Pot = -2 U_Kin,
The total energy U (= UPot + UKin) therefore obeys
U = - U_Kin,
If the system loses energy, for example by radiating energy away into space, the average kinetic energy and with it the average temperature actually increases. The system therefore can be said to have a negative heat capacity.
-- Wikipedia/Heat_capacity
Marvin the Martian
May 18, 2012, 11:32:59 PM5/18/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:54:17 -0700, Basement Bandy wrote:
> On May 17, 11:57 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>> > --
>> >http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>>
>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>
>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>
> Christman is irrelevant.
That went right over your head, didn't it?
One can expect whatever one wants... that doesn't mean that the
expectation was derived from the scientific method or logical reasoning.
>> But they have no science behind this.
>
> How the heck would you know?
Oh. You're one of those quick quip assholes.
> On May 17, 11:57 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700, Transition Zone wrote:
>> > --
>> >http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
>>
>> by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected
>>
>> LOL! They can "expect" Santa Clause on Christmas.
>
That went right over your head, didn't it?
One can expect whatever one wants... that doesn't mean that the
expectation was derived from the scientific method or logical reasoning.
>> But they have no science behind this.
>
Oh. You're one of those quick quip assholes.
Marvin the Martian
May 18, 2012, 11:35:21 PM5/18/12
to
Will Janoschka
May 18, 2012, 11:46:19 PM5/18/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 01:38:46, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/12 8:34 PM, Scout wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:vf-dnWoF0rUqRyvS...@mchsi.com...
> >> On 5/18/12 12:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >>> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
> >>> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
> >>
> >> Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> >> for more than 100 years.
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > Oh, and why is it then they have since (less than 100 years) discovered
> > that CO2 TRAILS temperature increases.
At about 100 years ago the whole Greenhouse Effect was thrown away,
> On 5/18/12 8:34 PM, Scout wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:vf-dnWoF0rUqRyvS...@mchsi.com...
> >> On 5/18/12 12:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >>> Yet I see no proven facts listed to prove that CO2 creates Global
> >>> Warming since CO2 is rising but Temperature is NOT.
> >>
> >> Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> >> for more than 100 years.
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > Oh, and why is it then they have since (less than 100 years) discovered
> > that CO2 TRAILS temperature increases.
along, with Corpuscular Heat, Caloric theory, and the Aether, And
replaced by
the Laws of Thermodynamics, by earthlings that had more agreement,
inteligence,
work ethic, and integrity than this world has ever had since.
>
> CO2 is driving increasing temperature currently. That's an observable.
"That's an observable." , observable by whom, when, using what
instrumentation. with what
accuracy, calibrated how? Your observable seems to be an erronious
calculation.
Currently is how current? "Now", atmospheric CO2 increasing a
liddle. land suface temperature
dropping a liddle. Ocean surface temperature saying "Wad da Fuck---
Over".
As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
makup plays
NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
Sam Wormley
May 18, 2012, 11:50:07 PM5/18/12
to
with the best insults.
Will Janoschka
May 18, 2012, 11:59:28 PM5/18/12
to
At about 100 years ago the whole Greenhouse Effect was thrown away,
along, with Corpuscular Heat, Caloric theory, and the Aether, And
replaced by
the Laws of Thermodynamics, by earthlings that had more agreement,
inteligence,
work ethic, and integrity than this world has ever had since. -will-
along, with Corpuscular Heat, Caloric theory, and the Aether, And
replaced by
the Laws of Thermodynamics, by earthlings that had more agreement,
inteligence,
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 12:08:17 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/18/12 10:46 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
Cold chocolate milk absorb photons of the right wavelengths
> As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
Cold CO2 absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
Cold Water Vapor (H2O) absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
Whatever gave you cause to doubt that?
Will--read these resources:
>
> Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
>
> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
>
> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
> http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
Bill Ward
May 19, 2012, 12:54:02 AM5/19/12
to
3) Less ionization means less H+.
>> >> 4) Less H+ means less acidic.
>> >> 5) Marvin must be right.
less acidic", which is true, despite your attempts to confuse the issue
by pretending seawater was involved. Your bluff was called, again, and
you lost, again. Give it a rest. It's not working.
Will Janoschka
May 19, 2012, 1:15:43 AM5/19/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:21:00, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 2:53 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> > On May 18, 2:16 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2012 12:56 PM, Basement Bandy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 18, 12:50 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> >>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >>>>>> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> >>>>>> equilibrium.
> >>
> >>>>> If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> >>>>> is not what I call equilibrium.
> >>
> >>>> As long as it is within a range that supports life we accept many
> >>>> measurements to be within a range rather than a steady and exact number
> >>>> to be within equilibrium.
> >>
> >>> So you hate written constitutions addressing the law, yet you don't
> >>> condemn endless pollution.
> >>
> >> Define pollution
> >
> > You too lazy to look it up?
> >
> > (dictionary.com)
> [...
> polÀluÀtion
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 2:53 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> > On May 18, 2:16 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2012 12:56 PM, Basement Bandy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 18, 12:50 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> >>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >>>>>> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> >>>>>> equilibrium.
> >>
> >>>>> If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> >>>>> is not what I call equilibrium.
> >>
> >>>> As long as it is within a range that supports life we accept many
> >>>> measurements to be within a range rather than a steady and exact number
> >>>> to be within equilibrium.
> >>
> >>> So you hate written constitutions addressing the law, yet you don't
> >>> condemn endless pollution.
> >>
> >> Define pollution
> >
> > You too lazy to look it up?
> >
> > (dictionary.com)
> [...
> (p-lshn)
> n.
> 1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted,
> especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the
> discharge of harmful substances.
> 2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutants:
> ....]
> n.
> 1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted,
> especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the
> discharge of harmful substances.
> 2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutants:
>
>
>
>
> I suspect your definition won't match it.... and if anyone includes CO2
> as pollution, they need to make sure that science isn't their intended
> career.
>
> If Carbon is pollution then we being carbon based life are also human
> pollution and if you're proposing that we are pollution YOU ARE LOONIER
> THAN A SHIT HOUSE RAT.
Why are you being so derogatory of a SHIT HOUSE RAT? Those varments,
>
>
>
> I suspect your definition won't match it.... and if anyone includes CO2
> as pollution, they need to make sure that science isn't their intended
> career.
>
> If Carbon is pollution then we being carbon based life are also human
> pollution and if you're proposing that we are pollution YOU ARE LOONIER
> THAN A SHIT HOUSE RAT.
tho ugly, have not sunk to the level of a CAGW CO2 alarmist! -will-
Bill Ward
May 19, 2012, 1:15:55 AM5/19/12
to
cheap.
> Apart from that the van 't Hoof model predicts colder water will allow
> more CO2 to dissolve and be associated with a decrease in pH. And, on
> top of that, we have actual measurements for seawater -- the salinity
> also gets in on the act as per various texts on Henry's Law and allied
> -- where they find at 1 atm .0114+-.0006 pH points per deg C. I.e.
> higher temp -> more basic; lower temp -> more acidic.
>
> You both tried to divert the ocean acidification to a simplistic model
> that has nothing to do with the situation.
">> >> >> The wiki page on Henry's Law shows the temperature dependence of
>> >> >> CO2 solubility in water as part of the exposition on the
>> >> >> "constant" k_H. For CO2 it follows that log c = const - 2400/T
>> >> >> i.e. d(log c)/dT = -2400/T^2. At 0C that means pH should decrease
>> >> >> by something like .032 points per deg C, given the water actually
>> >> >> up-takes the CO2."
seawater ploy.
The fact is the ocean is, and has been, in dynamic equilibrium with CO2
in the air and CaCO3 on the seafloor for hundreds of millions of years.
If excess CO2 appears in the atmosphere, it's absorbed by the ocean and
deposited on the seafloor as CaCO3, as required by the equilibrium
constants. You get so confused by assumptions, equations and models you
miss the big picture.
Plugging numbers into equations you don't understand and can't explain
often gets you the wrong answer with high confidence.
> As you project -- you tried a bluff and it didn't work.
exactly what you're doing. Alinsky doesn't work here anymore.
Catoni
May 19, 2012, 1:20:02 AM5/19/12
to
erschroedinger posted:
>"The earth is not a greenhouse"
This from the guy that loves to use stupid analogies that make
much less sense than earth as a greenhouse. But when it suits them,
AGW Eco-socialists use the very same analogy of Earth as a greenhouse.
Ef en AGW Eco-socialist hypocrite morons.
>"The earth is not a greenhouse"
This from the guy that loves to use stupid analogies that make
much less sense than earth as a greenhouse. But when it suits them,
AGW Eco-socialists use the very same analogy of Earth as a greenhouse.
Ef en AGW Eco-socialist hypocrite morons.
Catoni
May 19, 2012, 1:20:53 AM5/19/12
to
On May 18, 4:12 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 2:03 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>
> > computer bot that creates controversy from nonsense. Persons have
> > opinions,
> > but not Sam.
>
> > The program "Sam" only recites the nonsense that others claim as
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 2:03 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:56:18, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> > > >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> > > >> equilibrium.
>
> > > > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > > > is not what I call equilibrium.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:56:18, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > On 5/18/2012 11:55 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 5/17/12 7:44 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> > > >> The ocean is in contact with solid CaCO3, so the system is in
> > > >> equilibrium.
>
> > > > If some quantity is increasing or decreasing over time, that
> > > > is not what I call equilibrium.
>
> > > So an equilibrium point can't change? I'd suggest a community college
> > > course or two in science, Sam.
>
> > > > Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
> > > > that humans are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth is
> > > course or two in science, Sam.
>
> > > > Speaking of equilibrium, actually the lack thereof, the fact is
> > > > warming rapidly due to increased greenhouse gasses.
>
>
> > > 1. Humans producing CO2 a valid fact. (Note use of loaded word "dumping"
> > > I know of no evidence CO2 is "dumped"...however one "dumps" a gas?
>
> > > 2. "Earth warming "rapidly" (compared to WHAT?) Who decides here what
> > > "rapid" means? Obviously. Sam you think that YOU do.
>
> > > 3. "due to greenhouse gasses" Totally speculation. There is NO evidence
> > > I know of no evidence CO2 is "dumped"...however one "dumps" a gas?
>
> > > 2. "Earth warming "rapidly" (compared to WHAT?) Who decides here what
> > > "rapid" means? Obviously. Sam you think that YOU do.
>
> > > except some computer models SHOWN not to predict correctly that this
> > > theory is correct. Yet you state it as a "fact". Why?
>
> > > theory is correct. Yet you state it as a "fact". Why?
>
> > > > The earth is absorbing (currently) 0.6 W/m^2 and will warm until
> > > > we are at equilibrium.
>
> > > > we are at equilibrium.
>
> > > Again, more opinion stated as "fact". The word "is" would be the problem
> > > here. "estimated" might be a more correct word and then we'd all have to
> > > ask "estimated by whom".
>
> > > here. "estimated" might be a more correct word and then we'd all have to
> > > ask "estimated by whom".
>
> > > > In the mean time humans continue (and at an increasing rate) activity
> > > > that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming.
>
> > > > that will further skew the energy imbalance resulting in more warming.
>
> > > So why to you present "estimates" and "guesses" and "speculation" as
> > > "fact"? You are extremely dishonest in this regard. You are nothing but
> > > a major scientific political fraud.
>
> > Ben, You are again assuming a person Sam Wormley is not! "Sam" is a
>
>
> > computer bot that creates controversy from nonsense. Persons have
> > opinions,
> > but not Sam.
>
> > The program "Sam" only recites the nonsense that others claim as
> > fact.
> > "Sam" gives evidense of the extent to which the CO2 alarmist zelots
> > will
> > go to try to sell this nonsense!
>
> > Major scientific political fraud, yes indeed! "Sam" just has fun
> > "Sam" gives evidense of the extent to which the CO2 alarmist zelots
> > will
> > go to try to sell this nonsense!
>
> > with it.
> > The apprentice zelots here have shown that they cannot do arithmetic.
>
> > You are trying to argue "science" with juveniles, political fools, and
> > one
> > computer bot. The political fraud goes on unabated!
> > The apprentice zelots here have shown that they cannot do arithmetic.
>
> > You are trying to argue "science" with juveniles, political fools, and
> > one
>
> So why do almost all the world's scientists agree with Sam and not
> with you?
>
> So why do almost all the world's scientists agree with Sam and not
> with you?
>
> Answer that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cite ? ?
>
> - Show quoted text -
kym horsell
May 19, 2012, 1:25:24 AM5/19/12
to
Great.
It turns out a sealed galvanic cell with unspecified eletrolyte and potentials
is not a predictor of how samples of ocean from the WOD behave in terms of
temperature and pH.
A sealed bottle of distilled water turns out not to be a good predictor
of the behavior of an open flask of salt water.
As it turns out modeling what happens in the ocean was the OT of these lame diversions.
But it also turns out even a K12 student could fix the problem using van 't Hoof and simple differentiation. And a little arithmetic.
Whine all you like. I'm sure it's good for you.
--
It appears you are confusing the equipartition theorem with the virial
theorem. The virial theorem is quite general, as it simply shows the
average potential energy is twice the kinetic energy for gravitationally
or electromagnetically bound (F=1/r^2) systems of particles. Specific
heat is not relevant.
-- Bill Ward, 16 May 2012
kym horsell
May 19, 2012, 1:12:39 AM5/19/12
to
Great.
A sealed galvanic cell with unknown electrolyte or potentials turns out
to not predict the behavior of the ocean vis a vis temperature vs pH.
A sealed bottle of distilled water does not predict the behavior
of a heated test-tube of seawater.
The models are -- in Melvin's words -- "bad analogies" of the topic
under discussion. The declining pH of the world's oceans and the distribution
of pH and temperatures therein.
Whine all you like.
--
If you think that an chart of "billion dollar damages" is scientific
evidence, you discredit yourself.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Here you go. If you're any kind of honest to your principles, you're not
going to say that the lack of pirates is causing global warming..
Hell, the lack of warming over the last 15 years is even explained by the
upsurge in piracy off the coast of East Africa, which is a damned lot
better than your AGW hypothesis predicted.
-- Marvin the Monotreme <mar...@ontomars.org>, 16 Mar 2012 06:59 -0500
Will Janoschka
May 19, 2012, 1:46:47 AM5/19/12
to
sensible heat, race, religion, color, or creed!
Sam how do you ever put gas into the gastank?
The Earth does a well controled approach to equalibria, but never gets
there for very useful reasons! Always approaching, never diverging.
All is well!.
R Kym Horsell
May 19, 2012, 1:48:38 AM5/19/12
to
Bill Ward <bw...@ix.removethisnetcom.com> wrote:
[... Bill, pure distilled Bill... ]
> to be
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> up CO2.
Cold water is less acidic.
-- Marvin the Marvin@CO, May 18, 2012 1:57:02 PM UTC+10
Huh? This has nothing to do with electrochemistry. The ocean is not
a galvanic cell, you moron.
-- erschro...@gmail.com, May 19, 2012 1:48:09 AM UTC+10
example, the pH of pure water at 50 ?C is 6.55.
-- Bill "I can't do math" Ward@Tor, 19 May 2012 11:20:23 AEST
--
It appears you are confusing the equipartition theorem with the virial
theorem. The virial theorem is quite general, as it simply shows the
average potential energy is twice the kinetic energy for gravitationally
or electromagnetically bound (F=1/r^2) systems of particles. Specific
heat is not relevant.
-- Bill Ward, 16 May 2012
[... Bill, pure distilled Bill... ]
> to be
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> up CO2.
Cold water is less acidic.
Huh? This has nothing to do with electrochemistry. The ocean is not
a galvanic cell, you moron.
-- erschro...@gmail.com, May 19, 2012 1:48:09 AM UTC+10
example, the pH of pure water at 50 ?C is 6.55.
-- Bill "I can't do math" Ward@Tor, 19 May 2012 11:20:23 AEST
--
It appears you are confusing the equipartition theorem with the virial
theorem. The virial theorem is quite general, as it simply shows the
average potential energy is twice the kinetic energy for gravitationally
or electromagnetically bound (F=1/r^2) systems of particles. Specific
heat is not relevant.
-- Bill Ward, 16 May 2012
R Kym Horsell
May 19, 2012, 1:48:42 AM5/19/12
to
In alt.global-warming WrongWayWade <rl31...@excite.com> wrote:
> Transition Zone wrote:
>> --
>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> Transition Zone wrote:
>> --
>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>> Ocean.
>
> Typical lying headlines:
> "antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification" yet:
>
> "Australian scientists discovered that while acidification at current levels
> (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000 ppm) did not adversely affect krill
> embryos...."
>
> In other words, pure hysterical speculation based on nothing.
...
except the death of krill embryos when concentrations reached 2000 ppm.
Under what temperature and pressure might those conditions be reached
even today?
--
>Marvin, the fact is that many species that are at home in the oceans
>now will not survive the ongoing lowering of ocean pH. This will have
>some effect on human diet.
I pointed out that's a bad analogy fallacy. WHOOSH!! That went right over your
head, and you offered a begging the question fallacy to support your argument.
-- Melvin on Mars@CO, 6 May 2012
Bill Ward
May 19, 2012, 1:50:04 AM5/19/12
to
Nice snipping, BTW. Ya think anyone will notice?
Peter Webb
May 19, 2012, 1:55:51 AM5/19/12
to
"WrongWayWade" <rl31...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:jp638u$j00$1...@dont-email.me...
> Transition Zone wrote:
>> --
>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
>> --
>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>> Ocean.
>
> Typical lying headlines:
> "antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification" yet:
>
> "Australian scientists discovered that while acidification at current
> levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000 ppm) did not adversely affect
> krill embryos...."
>
> In other words, pure hysterical speculation based on nothing.
>
Krill evolved 130 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were about
>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>> Ocean.
>
> Typical lying headlines:
> "antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification" yet:
>
> "Australian scientists discovered that while acidification at current
> levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000 ppm) did not adversely affect
> krill embryos...."
>
> In other words, pure hysterical speculation based on nothing.
>
2,000 ppm - five times what they are today.
Obviously they won't be hurt by the tiny contribution of anthropogenic CO2.
Bill Ward
May 19, 2012, 1:57:50 AM5/19/12
to
thermo or kinetic theory, so it means nothing.
>
> A sealed bottle of distilled water turns out not to be a good predictor
> of the behavior of an open flask of salt water.
Another strawman. If you can't rebut the argument, then you just make up
> A sealed bottle of distilled water turns out not to be a good predictor
> of the behavior of an open flask of salt water.
one you can. Trouble is, normal people see right through it.
>
> As it turns out modeling what happens in the ocean was the OT of these
> lame diversions.
>
> But it also turns out even a K12 student could fix the problem using van
> 't Hoof and simple differentiation. And a little arithmetic.
>
> Whine all you like. I'm sure it's good for you.
You seem to be the expert whiner. Go with your strength.
> As it turns out modeling what happens in the ocean was the OT of these
> lame diversions.
>
> But it also turns out even a K12 student could fix the problem using van
> 't Hoof and simple differentiation. And a little arithmetic.
>
> Whine all you like. I'm sure it's good for you.
kym horsell
May 19, 2012, 1:58:40 AM5/19/12
to
[... bill, pure distilled bill... ]
How to Stop Whining
For a Nation of Whiners, Therapists Try Tough Love
Elizabeth Bernstein
WSJ
May 15, 2012
Therapists say "stop whining about your problems." Elizabeth Bernstein on
Lunch Break looks at why we are whining more these days and the need to cut it
out.
Sharon Rosenblatt was talking to her therapist fast and furiously about her
dating life, when the woman suddenly interrupted her. "Haven't we heard this
before?" the therapist asked.
Was Ms. Rosenblatt offended? Not at all. The 23-year-old, who works in
business development for an information technology company, says she
specifically sought out a tough-love therapist after graduating from college
and moving to Silver Spring, Md., 2 y ago.
'No more complaints. I don't want to hear about this one more day.'
--DOUGLAS MAXWELL, New York
"When there's unconditional love from my therapist, I'm not inclined to
change," Ms. Rosenblatt says. Previous therapists, she says, would listen
passively while she complained unchallenged.
Whining, as defined by experts--the therapists, spouses, co-workers and others
who have to listen to it--is chronic complaining, a pattern of negative
communication. It brings down the mood of everyone within earshot. It can hold
whiners back at work and keep them stuck in a problem, rather than working to
identify a solution. It can be toxic to relationships.
How do you get someone to stop the constant griping? The answer is simple, but
not always easy: Don't listen to it.
Moms, and bosses, are good at this. Some therapists are refusing to let
clients complain endlessly, as well--offering up Tough Love in place of the
nurturing gaze and the question "How does that make you feel?"
They're setting time limits on how long a client can stay on certain topics
and declaring some topics off-limits altogether. Some are even taping clients
so they can hear how they sound and firing clients who can't stop complaining.
"Talking endlessly about your problems isn't going to help," says Christina
Steinorth, a marriage and family therapist in Santa Barbara, Calif. She tells
her patients in the 1st session: "If you are looking for the type of therapy
where I am going to nod my head and affirm what you are feeling, this isn't
the place to come."
When clients whine, Ms. Steinorth has them make a list of how their life could
improve if they stopped complaining and started working to solve their
problems. She suggests they set aside a 10-minute window every day and do all
their whining then. For clients who still won't stop, she suggests they
consider discontinuing therapy until they are ready to move forward.
'I want whiners to ask themselves: "Would I hang out with this person?"'
--JULIE HANKS, Salt Lake City
Sometimes it feels like we're a nation of whiners. Many of us learned this
behavior as children, when we got what we wanted by wearing our parents
down. In adulthood, whining--or venting, as I like to call it when I'm doing
it--can be a coping mechanism, allowing us to let off steam.
"A lot of whiners don't know they whine," says Julie Hanks, a licensed
clinical social worker who has a therapy clinic in Salt Lake City. "I want
them to ask themselves, 'Would I want to hang out with this person?' "
Television encourages us to whine, thanks to shows like WE tv's "Bridezillas"
or A&E's "Monster In-Laws," about people who do almost nothing
else. Technology, meanwhile, has trained us to expect instant gratification
and become frustrated when we have to be patient. Facebook can make us feel
that everyone else has it easier.
According to the Seattle-based Gottman Institute, married couples who flourish
have a 5-to-1 ratio of positive-to-negative interactions within "conflict
conversations." In couples who divorce, the ratio is less than 5 to 1.
The good news is that it is possible to get whiners to stop. Ms. Hanks, who
takes a tough stance on whining, says it is critical to build a rapport with a
client. She often challenges patients to go an entire session without talking
about pet topics, such as their mother or their ex. You can ban overvisited
topics at home, too, she says, as long as you pay attention to real
problems. She sometimes audiotapes sessions, so clients can hear themselves
whine. She has even taped herself at home, to learn how she relates to family
members.
'Sooner or later, the listener tunes out your whining.'
--FRAN WALFISH, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Ms. Hanks says it is important for the listener to understand that whining
masks a deeper, more vulnerable emotion. For example, a person might complain
about a boss, but what he is really feeling is fear that his career is
stalled. "Whining is just a powerless complaint," she says. Understand this
and you can get to the root of what is wrong.
Fran Walfish, a Beverly Hills, Calif., licensed psychotherapist, has a
three-step stop-whining program. First, she points out the behavior, sometimes
mirroring it back to a client, using both the same words and tone.
"The goal is to create self-awareness," Dr Walfish says, and in a neutral way.
Next, she points out that there's a pattern to the complaining. Finally, she
asks the whiner what he or she plans to do about it.
"When someone whines to you, it is an indirect way of saying, 'You fix it,' "
Dr Walfish says. "You want to put the responsibility back where it belongs, in
the whiner's lap."
Some people create a no-whining zone.
Douglas Maxwell, a licensed psychoanalyst in Manhattan and president of the
National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, says constant
complaining is often a "resistance," and the person whining is often unaware
of it.
With a client who gripes incessantly about a problem without making progress,
he will say: "Stop. No more complaints. I don't want to hear about this one
more day. You must talk about something else."
Often, clients don't take this so well, Mr Maxwell says. They resist his
attempt to break through their barriers and even transfer their anger onto
him. But he holds his ground--and says he is prepared to repeat his ban as
often as he has to.
Sometimes, Mr Maxwell will use humor. "Here we go again," he might tease a
patient.
"Once you draw the line in the sand, you have to hold that line," he
says. "Otherwise, anything you say as a therapist loses its effect."
Crybabies, Be Gone!
Often, people don't realize they are whining. The trick: Raise their
self-awareness without using accusatory or sarcastic language.
Go gently: Even therapists say this conversation sometimes ends with the
client walking out. Start by telling the person who is whining how much you
appreciate him or her.
Use a tone of genuine curiosity. You want to get to the bottom of the problem
together. You may want to mirror the negative communication. 'I don't know if
you hear yourself, but listen to what you just said.'
Point out there's a pattern. Say, 'Do you realize it's the 5th night in a row
you've talked about this?' Offer to tape future conversations so the person
can hear for him or herself.
Open up the conversation. A person whining about work may be feeling unwell,
or stuck in his career. Ask, 'Is there something else that's wrong?' Explain
that it is hard for you to hear the real issue because the person's tone and
attitude are getting in the way.
Ask the person what he or she plans to do about the problem. Hold them
accountable.
Suggest alternatives. The person might want to write down a list of complaints
and leave it in a drawer. Or keep a journal and circle repeated complaints in
red pen. Or spend an hour at the gym, or do something outdoors with you.
Set a time limit. For 10 minutes a day, the person can whine unfettered--and
you will listen. Then time is up. Do this once a day, once a week--or
challenge the person to a 'whine-free day.'
Give positive reinforcement. Say, 'I love to hear good things about your job.'
Praise each increment toward healthy communication.
--
[Goes on to equate ocean with sealed container of distilled water].
How to Stop Whining
For a Nation of Whiners, Therapists Try Tough Love
Elizabeth Bernstein
WSJ
May 15, 2012
Therapists say "stop whining about your problems." Elizabeth Bernstein on
Lunch Break looks at why we are whining more these days and the need to cut it
out.
Sharon Rosenblatt was talking to her therapist fast and furiously about her
dating life, when the woman suddenly interrupted her. "Haven't we heard this
before?" the therapist asked.
Was Ms. Rosenblatt offended? Not at all. The 23-year-old, who works in
business development for an information technology company, says she
specifically sought out a tough-love therapist after graduating from college
and moving to Silver Spring, Md., 2 y ago.
'No more complaints. I don't want to hear about this one more day.'
--DOUGLAS MAXWELL, New York
"When there's unconditional love from my therapist, I'm not inclined to
change," Ms. Rosenblatt says. Previous therapists, she says, would listen
passively while she complained unchallenged.
Whining, as defined by experts--the therapists, spouses, co-workers and others
who have to listen to it--is chronic complaining, a pattern of negative
communication. It brings down the mood of everyone within earshot. It can hold
whiners back at work and keep them stuck in a problem, rather than working to
identify a solution. It can be toxic to relationships.
How do you get someone to stop the constant griping? The answer is simple, but
not always easy: Don't listen to it.
Moms, and bosses, are good at this. Some therapists are refusing to let
clients complain endlessly, as well--offering up Tough Love in place of the
nurturing gaze and the question "How does that make you feel?"
They're setting time limits on how long a client can stay on certain topics
and declaring some topics off-limits altogether. Some are even taping clients
so they can hear how they sound and firing clients who can't stop complaining.
"Talking endlessly about your problems isn't going to help," says Christina
Steinorth, a marriage and family therapist in Santa Barbara, Calif. She tells
her patients in the 1st session: "If you are looking for the type of therapy
where I am going to nod my head and affirm what you are feeling, this isn't
the place to come."
When clients whine, Ms. Steinorth has them make a list of how their life could
improve if they stopped complaining and started working to solve their
problems. She suggests they set aside a 10-minute window every day and do all
their whining then. For clients who still won't stop, she suggests they
consider discontinuing therapy until they are ready to move forward.
'I want whiners to ask themselves: "Would I hang out with this person?"'
--JULIE HANKS, Salt Lake City
Sometimes it feels like we're a nation of whiners. Many of us learned this
behavior as children, when we got what we wanted by wearing our parents
down. In adulthood, whining--or venting, as I like to call it when I'm doing
it--can be a coping mechanism, allowing us to let off steam.
"A lot of whiners don't know they whine," says Julie Hanks, a licensed
clinical social worker who has a therapy clinic in Salt Lake City. "I want
them to ask themselves, 'Would I want to hang out with this person?' "
Television encourages us to whine, thanks to shows like WE tv's "Bridezillas"
or A&E's "Monster In-Laws," about people who do almost nothing
else. Technology, meanwhile, has trained us to expect instant gratification
and become frustrated when we have to be patient. Facebook can make us feel
that everyone else has it easier.
According to the Seattle-based Gottman Institute, married couples who flourish
have a 5-to-1 ratio of positive-to-negative interactions within "conflict
conversations." In couples who divorce, the ratio is less than 5 to 1.
The good news is that it is possible to get whiners to stop. Ms. Hanks, who
takes a tough stance on whining, says it is critical to build a rapport with a
client. She often challenges patients to go an entire session without talking
about pet topics, such as their mother or their ex. You can ban overvisited
topics at home, too, she says, as long as you pay attention to real
problems. She sometimes audiotapes sessions, so clients can hear themselves
whine. She has even taped herself at home, to learn how she relates to family
members.
'Sooner or later, the listener tunes out your whining.'
--FRAN WALFISH, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Ms. Hanks says it is important for the listener to understand that whining
masks a deeper, more vulnerable emotion. For example, a person might complain
about a boss, but what he is really feeling is fear that his career is
stalled. "Whining is just a powerless complaint," she says. Understand this
and you can get to the root of what is wrong.
Fran Walfish, a Beverly Hills, Calif., licensed psychotherapist, has a
three-step stop-whining program. First, she points out the behavior, sometimes
mirroring it back to a client, using both the same words and tone.
"The goal is to create self-awareness," Dr Walfish says, and in a neutral way.
Next, she points out that there's a pattern to the complaining. Finally, she
asks the whiner what he or she plans to do about it.
"When someone whines to you, it is an indirect way of saying, 'You fix it,' "
Dr Walfish says. "You want to put the responsibility back where it belongs, in
the whiner's lap."
Some people create a no-whining zone.
Douglas Maxwell, a licensed psychoanalyst in Manhattan and president of the
National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, says constant
complaining is often a "resistance," and the person whining is often unaware
of it.
With a client who gripes incessantly about a problem without making progress,
he will say: "Stop. No more complaints. I don't want to hear about this one
more day. You must talk about something else."
Often, clients don't take this so well, Mr Maxwell says. They resist his
attempt to break through their barriers and even transfer their anger onto
him. But he holds his ground--and says he is prepared to repeat his ban as
often as he has to.
Sometimes, Mr Maxwell will use humor. "Here we go again," he might tease a
patient.
"Once you draw the line in the sand, you have to hold that line," he
says. "Otherwise, anything you say as a therapist loses its effect."
Crybabies, Be Gone!
Often, people don't realize they are whining. The trick: Raise their
self-awareness without using accusatory or sarcastic language.
Go gently: Even therapists say this conversation sometimes ends with the
client walking out. Start by telling the person who is whining how much you
appreciate him or her.
Use a tone of genuine curiosity. You want to get to the bottom of the problem
together. You may want to mirror the negative communication. 'I don't know if
you hear yourself, but listen to what you just said.'
Point out there's a pattern. Say, 'Do you realize it's the 5th night in a row
you've talked about this?' Offer to tape future conversations so the person
can hear for him or herself.
Open up the conversation. A person whining about work may be feeling unwell,
or stuck in his career. Ask, 'Is there something else that's wrong?' Explain
that it is hard for you to hear the real issue because the person's tone and
attitude are getting in the way.
Ask the person what he or she plans to do about the problem. Hold them
accountable.
Suggest alternatives. The person might want to write down a list of complaints
and leave it in a drawer. Or keep a journal and circle repeated complaints in
red pen. Or spend an hour at the gym, or do something outdoors with you.
Set a time limit. For 10 minutes a day, the person can whine unfettered--and
you will listen. Then time is up. Do this once a day, once a week--or
challenge the person to a 'whine-free day.'
Give positive reinforcement. Say, 'I love to hear good things about your job.'
Praise each increment toward healthy communication.
--
> to be severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> up CO2.
Cold water is less acidic.
[Goes on to equate ocean with galvanic cell with unspecified electrodes or eletrolyte].
> up CO2.
Cold water is less acidic.
-- Marvin the Marvin@CO, May 18, 2012 1:57:02 PM UTC+10
Huh? This has nothing to do with electrochemistry. The ocean is not
a galvanic cell, you moron.
-- erschro...@gmail.com, May 19, 2012 1:48:09 AM UTC+10
example, the pH of pure water at 50 ?C is 6.55.
Huh? This has nothing to do with electrochemistry. The ocean is not
a galvanic cell, you moron.
-- erschro...@gmail.com, May 19, 2012 1:48:09 AM UTC+10
[Goes on to equate ocean with sealed container of distilled water].
Bill Ward
May 19, 2012, 2:06:21 AM5/19/12
to
had it, or is it something new?
Not that I really care, just keep your whining out of the NG or you'll
continue to look silly.
Will Janoschka
May 19, 2012, 2:32:29 AM5/19/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 04:08:17, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/12 10:46 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> > makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
>
> Cold chocolate milk absorb photons of the right wavelengths
> Cold CO2 absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
> Cold Water Vapor (H2O) absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
>
> Whatever gave you cause to doubt that?
I do not doubt that. I measure that. Unlike you!
> On 5/18/12 10:46 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> > makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
>
> Cold chocolate milk absorb photons of the right wavelengths
> Cold CO2 absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
> Cold Water Vapor (H2O) absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
>
> Whatever gave you cause to doubt that?
Cold "things" sometimes receive energy from warmer "things". Cold
"things"
do not transfer energy "to" warm "things" without lotsa help. That
help
comes from some "thing" that has more energy than either the cold
"thing"
or the warm "thing" Second Law of Thermodynamics, which disallows
perpetual motion. You claim perpetual motion
>
>
> Will--read these resources:
> >
> > Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
> >
> > Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> > http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
> >
> > Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
> > http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
> >
> > Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
> > http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
> >
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
Why ! They all claim perpetual motion.
>
> Will--read these resources:
> >
> > Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
> >
> > Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> > http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
> >
> > Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
> > http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
> >
> > Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
> > http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
> >
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
"Cold chocolate milk" can spontaniouly transfer heat only "to"
colder
stuff including the quite cold CMB. Rinse repeat!
kym horsell
May 19, 2012, 2:18:15 AM5/19/12
to
--
> to be
> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily takes
> up CO2.
Cold water is less acidic.
-- Marvin the Marvin@CO, May 18, 2012 1:57:02 PM UTC+10
Huh? This has nothing to do with electrochemistry. The ocean is not
a galvanic cell, you moron.
-- erschro...@gmail.com, May 19, 2012 1:48:09 AM UTC+10
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH>
The pH of pure water decreases with increasing temperatures. For
example, the pH of pure water at 50 ?C is 6.55.
Huh? This has nothing to do with electrochemistry. The ocean is not
a galvanic cell, you moron.
-- erschro...@gmail.com, May 19, 2012 1:48:09 AM UTC+10
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH>
The pH of pure water decreases with increasing temperatures. For
example, the pH of pure water at 50 ?C is 6.55.
kym horsell
May 19, 2012, 2:39:31 AM5/19/12
to
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 4:32:29 PM UTC+10, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 04:08:17, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/18/12 10:46 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > > As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> > > makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
> >
> > Cold chocolate milk absorb photons of the right wavelengths
> > Cold CO2 absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
> > Cold Water Vapor (H2O) absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
> >
> > Whatever gave you cause to doubt that?
>
> I do not doubt that. I measure that. Unlike you!
>
> Cold "things" sometimes receive energy from warmer "things". Cold
> "things"
> do not transfer energy "to" warm "things" without lotsa help. That
> help
> comes from some "thing" that has more energy than either the cold
> "thing"
> or the warm "thing" Second Law of Thermodynamics, which disallows
> perpetual motion. You claim perpetual motion
...
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 04:08:17, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/18/12 10:46 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > > As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> > > makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
> >
> > Cold chocolate milk absorb photons of the right wavelengths
> > Cold CO2 absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
> > Cold Water Vapor (H2O) absorbs photons of the right wavelengths
> >
> > Whatever gave you cause to doubt that?
>
> I do not doubt that. I measure that. Unlike you!
>
> Cold "things" sometimes receive energy from warmer "things". Cold
> "things"
> do not transfer energy "to" warm "things" without lotsa help. That
> help
> comes from some "thing" that has more energy than either the cold
> "thing"
> or the warm "thing" Second Law of Thermodynamics, which disallows
> perpetual motion. You claim perpetual motion
Heard of the sun, Will?
Just checking.
--
[P]lease show the mechanism by wich increasing atmospheric CO2
Increases atmospheric temperature or surface temperature without
violating the second law of thermodynamics.
-- Will Janoschka <wil...@nospam.pobox.com>, 13 Mar 2012 03:47 -0500
[In what way?]
Can not transfer hear spontaniously to somthing warmer. 2nd law!!
-- Will Janpschka, 17 Apr 2012 17 Apr 2012 20:25 -0500
Bill Ward
May 19, 2012, 8:30:49 AM5/19/12
to
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
May 19, 2012, 8:53:31 AM5/19/12
to
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH>
> The pH of pure water decreases with increasing temperatures. For
> example, the pH of pure water at 50 ?C is 6.55.
> [Goes on to equate ocean with sealed container of distilled water].
> -- Bill "I can't do math" Ward@Tor, 19 May 2012 11:20:23 AEST
its very simple, some of the denialists cannot take what they dish
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH>
> The pH of pure water decreases with increasing temperatures. For
> example, the pH of pure water at 50 ?C is 6.55.
> [Goes on to equate ocean with sealed container of distilled water].
> -- Bill "I can't do math" Ward@Tor, 19 May 2012 11:20:23 AEST
out, and bill is one of the biggest offenders.
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 9:18:06 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/12 1:32 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>
> As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
>
Perhaps you miss the point that an energized greenhouse gas
>
> As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
>
molecule isn't "cold". We're not talking kinetic energy here,
Will, but vibrational and rotational mode energy. If you would
*read the references*, you might start to understand that.
Just to be clear, *some* of that vibrational and rotational mode
energy can and is transferred to N2 and O2 in the atmosphere via
collisions on the order of 10^9/s.
kym horsell
May 19, 2012, 10:15:10 AM5/19/12
to
--
[After bringing up Miskolczi for the 100th time:]
I respect repeatable data and logical explanation. Expert opinion I can
do without. If you're forced to rely on them, that's your problem, not mine.
-- Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>, 26 Apr 2012 19:11:06 -0500
Transition Zone
May 19, 2012, 11:22:06 AM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 9:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/12 1:32 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>
> > As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> > makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
>
> Perhaps you miss the point that an energized greenhouse gas
> molecule isn't "cold".
That's precisely the problem with rightwing deniers. All they do is
> On 5/19/12 1:32 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>
> > As long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, atmospheric
> > makup plays NO part in Earth radiative heat transfer to the CMB.
>
> Perhaps you miss the point that an energized greenhouse gas
> molecule isn't "cold".
"miss the point".
Marvin the Martian
May 19, 2012, 12:21:12 PM5/19/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:09:49 -0400, WrongWayWade wrote:
> Transition Zone wrote:
>> --
>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
> Transition Zone wrote:
>> --
>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>
>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>> Ocean.
>
> Typical lying headlines:
> "antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification" yet:
>
> "Australian scientists discovered that while acidification at current
> levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000 ppm) did not adversely
> affect krill embryos...."
>
> In other words, pure hysterical speculation based on nothing.
It is based on less than nothing; it is based on contradicting known
>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>> Ocean.
>
> Typical lying headlines:
> "antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-by-ocean-acidification" yet:
>
> "Australian scientists discovered that while acidification at current
> levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000 ppm) did not adversely
> affect krill embryos...."
>
> In other words, pure hysterical speculation based on nothing.
scientific findings.
Marvin the Martian
May 19, 2012, 12:25:47 PM5/19/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:24:55 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/17/12 1:17 PM, klattu wrote:
>>
>>
> Nope--Scientific observation.
You really have no damned clue at all the difference between a non-
science hypothesis and an observation. I thought maybe you were being
obtuse, but you really truly are just ignorant as all hell.
That's not an "observation", that's a hypothesis, and not even a
scientific one. The krill ain't dead yet, you moron, so it can't be an
observation.
GEEZEZ!!!
> On 5/17/12 1:17 PM, klattu wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:02:58 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
>> <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>>
>>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
>>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>>> Ocean.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Chicken Little" loose again??
>> <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> http://e360.yale.edu/digest/antarctic-krill-embryos-severely-affected-
by-ocean-acidification/2639/
>>>
>>> The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, is expected to be
>>> severely affected by acidification because cold water more readily
>>> takes up CO2. Acidic seawater inhibits the formation of shells of the
>>> shrimp-like krill, and Australian scientists discovered that while
>>> acidification at current levels (380 ppm) and moderate levels (1,000
>>> ppm) did not adversely affect krill embryos, none of the embryos in an
>>> experimental tank survived when concentrations reached 2,000 ppm. CO2
>>> concentrations increase in deeper waters, and carbon dioxide levels at
>>> depth could rise to 1,400 ppm by 2100. Antarctic krill are the most
>>> important food for the hundreds of millions of penguins, seabirds,
>>> seals, and whales that live and breed in Antarctica and the Southern
>>> Ocean.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Nope--Scientific observation.
You really have no damned clue at all the difference between a non-
science hypothesis and an observation. I thought maybe you were being
obtuse, but you really truly are just ignorant as all hell.
That's not an "observation", that's a hypothesis, and not even a
scientific one. The krill ain't dead yet, you moron, so it can't be an
observation.
GEEZEZ!!!
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages