THE CO2 LIE
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Eric Gisse 2007 FairBanks Alaska (UAF) with his 8-node Beowulf cluster.
Next: Hilbert vs. Einstein in GR
From: Marvin the Martian on 12 Jan 2010 20:43 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:45 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote: > So where is the CO2 coming from if not from fossil fuel emissions? Carbonate rock. You AGW frauds claim that corals are dissolving. Indeed, they are! And if calcium carbonate in corals are dissolving, releasing CO2, that means that limestone is also dissolving and giving up massive amounts of CO2. Simple chemistry: what determines the amount of CO2 in a solution in contact with carbonate rock? > Again, not the oceans -- they're gaining, not losing CO2. That's proof that it's coming from carbonate rock. You humans never made enough CO2 to put a dent in the massive amount of CO2 in the oceans. > And where is > all the CO2 from fossil fuel emissions going? That adds up to twice the > atmospheric CO2 increase. Carbonate rocks also provide sequestered carbon.
From: Marvin the Martian on 12 Jan 2010 20:46 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:44:38 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 10, 9:18 am, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: >> "Kuo et al. have shown [1] that the monthly concentration of >> atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii exhibits statistically >> significant coherences over a range of frequencies with monthly surface >> air temperatures averaged over the entire globe. The CO2 record lags >> behind the temperature record; this lag is consistent with the >> hypothesis that temperature fluctuations or associated meteorological >> changes [2] cause the short term CO2 anomalies rather than vice versa." >> >> >> >> > Q >> >> >> > Yes, the SHORT-TERM fluctuations -- the "saw-tooth" pattern in the CO2. > Not the "long-term" pattern, which is up and up. > > Do improve your word power. Your gibberish does not address the points made by Sirius. It may satisfy you, but to the observant reader, it shows you don't have a rational argument.
From: erschroedinger on 13 Jan 2010 11:46 On Jan 12, 8:43 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:45 -0800, erschroedin...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > So where is the CO2 coming from if not from fossil fuel emissions? > > Carbonate rock. You AGW frauds claim that corals are dissolving. Indeed, > they are! And if calcium carbonate in corals are dissolving, releasing > CO2, that means that limestone is also dissolving and giving up massive > amounts of CO2. > > Simple chemistry: what determines the amount of CO2 in a solution in > contact with carbonate rock? The pressure of CO2 above the solution, for one. Henry's Law. Rock is a solid. Solids don't appear in equilibrium expressions. Simple chemistry. > > > Again, not the oceans -- they're gaining, not losing CO2. > > That's proof that it's coming from carbonate rock. No, the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by only half the CO2 fossil fuel burning produces, so the rest is going into sinks, including the ocean. If carbonate rock starts to dissolve, it will be because the oceans have become acidic, something you denialists claim cannot happen. >You humans never made > enough CO2 to put a dent in the massive amount of CO2 in the oceans. > > > And where is > > all the CO2 from fossil fuel emissions going? That adds up to twice the > > atmospheric CO2 increase. > > Carbonate rocks also provide sequestered carbon. Only come back out into the ocean if the oceans become acidic.
From: erschroedinger on 13 Jan 2010 11:47 On Jan 12, 8:46 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:44:38 -0800, erschroedin...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > On Jan 10, 9:18 am, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > >> "Kuo et al. have shown [1] that the monthly concentration of > >> atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii exhibits statistically > >> significant coherences over a range of frequencies with monthly surface > >> air temperatures averaged over the entire globe. The CO2 record lags > >> behind the temperature record; this lag is consistent with the > >> hypothesis that temperature fluctuations or associated meteorological > >> changes [2] cause the short term CO2 anomalies rather than vice versa." > > >> > Q > > > Yes, the SHORT-TERM fluctuations -- the "saw-tooth" pattern in the CO2. > > Not the "long-term" pattern, which is up and up. > > > Do improve your word power. > > Your gibberish does not address the points made by Sirius. It may satisfy > you, but to the observant reader, it shows you don't have a rational > argument. His point was about short-term oscillations -- didn't you read what he posted?
From: Marvin the Martian on 13 Jan 2010 19:45
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:08:26 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 11, 5:41 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:50:19 -0800, erschroedin...(a)gmail.com wrote : >> >> >> What is sure is that increasing ocean temperature cause a release of >> >> CO2 in atmosphere. >> >> > So why are the oceans gaining CO2? Are you like the White Queen -- >> > you can believe impossible things? >> >> Possible. >> Oceans contain CO2 in solution but it does not stop here. CO2 + H2O + >> Ca2+ <=> CaCO3 + 2 H+ >> >> http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm >> >> "Furthermore, this carbonate buffer is not the only buffer active in >> the atmosphere / hydrosphere / lithosphere system. The Earth has a set >> of other buffering mineral reactions. The geochemical equilibrium >> system anorthite CaAl2Si2O8 - kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 has by the pH of >> ocean water a buffer capacity which is thousand times larger than a >> 0.001 M carbonate solution (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). In addition we have >> clay mineral buffers, and a calcium silicate + CO2 <-> calcium >> carbonate + SiO2 buffer (MacIntyre, 1970; Krauskopf, 1979). These >> buffers all act as a "security net" under the most important buffer: >> CO2 (g) <-> HCO3- (aq) <-> CaCO3 (s). All together these buffers give >> in principle an infinite buffer capacity (Stumm & Morgan, 1970)." >> >> >> >> >>As ocean have a great thermal inertia. The lag between >> >> temperature increases and CO2 increases seems to be of the order of >> >> 800 years. >> >> As we can not cool the oceans, there is nothing that can be done to >> >> curb this increase in CO2 concentration. >> >> > Again, why are the oceans gaining CO2? Hint: they're not saturated. >> >> Why is CO2 in atmosphere increasing ? Hint : slight ocean temperature >> increase, and the solubility of carbon dioxide & oxygen increases with >> decreasing temperatures. > > > Which would mean the oceans would be LOSING CO2 and they're gaining it. > Why are you this dense? There are two equilibriums in play, oh ironically dense one! There is the atmosphere to water dissolved equilibrium. Simply put, the equilibrium constant is K_1 = [CO2_air]/[CO2_water]. This constant increases with temperature. Higher temperatures shifts the ratio for more CO2 in the air. The second equilibrium is between carbonate rock and CO2 in the water. The equilibrium constant for this reaction is simply K_2 = [CO2_water] The concentration of CO2 in the water is thus set by TEMPERATURE ALONE. You can add all the CO2 to the system you want; if you add too much it will precipitate out. Take too much out and you cause carbonate rock to dissolve. Right now, carbonate rocks are dissolving. This K_2 constant ONLY changes with temperature. > And all the gigatons of CO2 fossil fuel burning just disppears into > another universe? Nope. Actually, it help stop carbonate rocks and corals from dissolving. Sorry chemistry is so difficult for you, but if you understood this, you wouldn't be a rabid AGW fraud. |