AGW Theory - Discussion

No, it's dismissing your attempts to bait me into an argument about nothing. Exactly the kind of crap that Rooks was talking about. Give it up and get back on topic.

I kind of am...

not in the mystical / spiritual / book of revelations sense...

but more in the anti as in opposite way... in that I hate people and I would like them to all die for me rather than me to die for them....or turn my thermostat down so much as one degree in the winter time...

Seven billion...

That is the answer to your next question "how many people would have to die before I lifted *** cheek one to help anybody anything" this planet would be way better without all the people and animals pooping on stuff and throwing cigarette butts on the curb.

AGW is WAY TOO SLOW we will never turn cleveland into a palm lined surfers paradise in time for me to enjoy it.

so now I have been trying to come up with a way to touch off the yellowstone super volcano...

but if you need help tempting people to commit sin or something I can see what I can do....

Whatever you say bub.

Protip: That post I asked you about, it was aggressive. Just because you made it doesn't automatically mean it's not aggressive.

Hey! The gun control thread is over there.

You've made up your mind before knowing the facts. Denier mentality in a nutshell.
Wtf does your napkin math have to do with conduction or thermodynamics? For that matter, what did Saevel's post have to do with them?

Quick, someone please tell me the gaseous composition of air, too.

Savs post referenced the capacity of the ocean to absorb thermal energy, last time I checked that was right up the alley of thermodynamics. The ocean is far more massive than the atmosphere, influencing it's temperature requires alot more energy than it does to influence the temperature of the atmosphere. To the extent the ocean could soak up excess energy and stabilize the climate, the extent would be enormous. Except of course in the world of the alarmist where CO2 gas is going to kill us all and we should all abandon any notion of air conditioning, carnivorous diets, and of course having children.

Talking with you sometimes is like talking to a illogical robot who's running outside it's design and is just randomly generating insults lol.

Even if probably sarcastic, I just can't make sense of these statements.

Moderation is hard.

All measures the alarmists have advocated for in order to fight the release CO2.

Air conditioning uses a large amount of electricity releasing tons of CO2 just to be comfortable.

Raising beef for consumption is extremely carbon intensive eating a vegan generates far less greenhouse gasses.

More people means more carbon, restricting population reduces carbon emissions.

Have you really never heard these points advocated for before?

No.

The problem with the way Nausi and Saevel are viewing the ocean as a giant heat and CO2 sink is that it's not just a giant empty tank of water in a lab. Increased water temperature and acidity from both kill off fish, plankton, etc as well as disrupt the various current systems. The effects here definitely have impacts we can see, including biodiversity loss and an increased intensity and exposure to storms.

As for the plastic, the problems it causes are already known. I've personally dissected turtles, fish, and other marine life and found their stomachs filled with plastic. In the case of turtles, they'll see a plastic shopping bag thinking it's a jellyfish, eat it, and die. The result is you're losing one of the main predators of jellyfish.

It was mostly about pH and ocean acidification and he threw out numbers with no justification. These systems are much more complex than "lol it's big!" so reducing them down in such a way is completely illogical. Do you think the ocean is like one giant homogenous and salty glass of water?

I know the ocean can act as a buffering system, but what we're doing is changing basic ocean properties which have been consistent for thousands of years. Ocean temperatures have risen as well as overall pH.Do you think this has no consequences? These are completely observable changes that deniers simply blow off as nothing (or in Saevel's case, just deny them as well).

You characterize my understanding of it as "lol it's big" as in I don't know enough about a complex system to participate in the discussion.

But then you assume it's not so big as to be above your understanding of it. All while assuming a post touching on thermal energy had nothing to do with thermodynamics.

Classic.

What?

My "T" part of the screen on my phone is crap! Sorry!

The post was much better that way anyway.

The post was about ocean pH.

You want to participate in the conversation but all you're doing is overgeneralizing and oversimplifying every concept. Then when I or someone else corrects you, you get defensive or throw out some other random talking point. Participating includes listening. Did the data I posted or questions I asked register at all?

is there any chance the answer is banana?

Coconut. The answer is coconut.

But is the coconut's atmosphere becoming warmer?

I claim Pineapple.

It's the climate, you and the rest of the alarmists do not know how it works beyond an over simplified understanding of it yourself. This is quite evident by just about every prediction you've ever made being grossly incorrect.

Here we go. Exhibit A, a national geographic article that comes up when I google "ocean PH".

This article says, and I paraphrase:

'hey the oceans have been pretty stable for the past 300 million years, keeping an average of 8.2 on the ph scale but we're dumping so much co2 out that we're slowly making the ocean into acid. That's bad and we should feel bad.'

Atmospheric co2 over the last 300 million years has been as much as 5-10 times what it currently is today. Does that mean that the oceans were acid when they were? According to the article they weren't. Any reasonable person can come to the conclusion of:

If the co2 levels have been 5-10 times what they are today yet the ocean ph has remained relatively stable over the time (according to the article), then the co2 in the atmosphere ISN'T really turning the oceans into acid. By that I mean the effect is negligible.

42.

l2paraphrase
300 myo coincides with the explosion of photosynthetic activity that transformed the atmosphere into a more oxygenated one at the expense of CO2. There have been spikes in both CO2 concentrations and ocean acidity since then, but both have been relatively stable since the Neogene period (~20 myo).

The only thing you disproved was your ability to comprehend a simple NatGeo article.

What about that isn't sinking in? Over the past 300 million years, the ocean has been slightly basic, averaging an 8.2 ph level. What range of PH do you think they're referencing? one that swings from 6-10 but averages at 8.2? Can't be if it's always been slightly basic.

Oh look it's a scam too

sigh lol

I wouldn't trust you to take care of a hot-tub based on this statement.