WE ARE SCREWED!!!! No we are not. Gaia will manage the methane. Besides, we're old f*rts and it's the youngsters who are screwed if anyone is. It was good to be in the Post WW2 baby boom. Moi 1948 was a good year r > g Stop Creeping ism Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
For someone who has publicly admitted to being "somewhat more naive than average," you certainly do talk a lot, and propose what YOU so naively think are "solutions." Here's a clue: They aren't. Climate change is a massive fraud, where academics and politicians continue to rake in billions of dollars in research and grant money, and fork other billions of dollars over to third world crapholes. Then all of them take cars and jets to this convention or that Earth Day celebration, subsidizing those "greedy oil companies" they love to hate in public statements, while they use their products just like the rest of us. Hypocrites of the highest order.
THE SUBJECT of this thread is" ocean acidification." Your naivete of and prepossession with combustion chemistry is out of place and unwarranted. Create your own thread if you wish, but stop trying to derail this one. Warmer ocean temperature, less carbon dioxide. And of course the pKa of H2CO3 is so small that little of it ionizes to the bicarbonate radical plus a hydronium ion, commonly called "acid." Finally, the pH of ocean water is roughly 8.2, meaning that such water is more than 18 times more alkaline than pure water, which also is not acidic.
More CO2 in the air, more dissolved CO2. Yes, we have a supposed "Chemical Engineer" here who didn't think to factor in Henry's Law. 40% more CO2 in the air means 40% more CO2 dissolved in the oceans. A 1% rise in temp means a 1% drop. 40 is bigger than 1, hence the oceans are absorbing more CO2. A fine red herring, a deflection, not relevant to the discussion. pH 7.0 is only some kind of magic number in one type of system, pure water with strong acid/base reactions. In a multiply buffered system like the oceans, pH 7.0 means nothing. That's why, for exactly, a human can have the condition called "acidosis" when their blood pH is still 7.35, which the bad chemists would declare (incorrectly) to be "alkaline". Moreover, "Acidification" is the correct term for a lowering of pH, period. It doesn't matter what the starting and ending pH points are. And the real world says the acidification _is_ affecting the ocean life. It's not a theory or something from the past. Little shelled sea critters don't do well in waters with a lower pH. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1785/20140123
What are we supposed to do about it if the biggest polluting nations went cold turkey on fossil fuels tomorrow the climate would still likely warm for several decades and stay hot for some time until things reversed which would destroy the major economies which are energy intensive tearing apart economic systems for a long time. The clean technology other than nuclear are just not ready or good enough to replace coal and petroleum but in a couple more decades or a century they might.
Two problems with your statement. 1. Carbon dioxide does NOT make the climate warmer. The warmer climate increased carbon dioxide due to degasification from the ocean. 2. The biggest polluting nations are NOT going to go cold turkey ever. Other than that.....
Humans will be fine unless the mad neocons get us into a nuclear war with Russia over the dems losing to trump. Humans will be fine unless we get hit by a humanity destroying big space rock. Humans will be fine if the earth warms up, regardless of the causes. Humans won't be fine when the next ice ages cycles in. But we got too many of these vermin anyways. Humans will be fine unless we get invaded by ETs, who think we are dangerous to other intelligent species. And exterminate us like cockroaches.
What is not a fraud is returning carbon back into the soil where it belongs. It increases fertility, water peculation and retention, and reduces the cost of inputs for farmers.
You forgot a Massive Earth Crust Displacement event. Remember Atlantis, Mu, Fresh Water Black Sea, etc.
Between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars - Nemedia, Ophir, Brythunia, Hyperborea, Zamora with its dark-haired women and towers of spider-haunted mystery, Zingara with its chivalry, Koth that bordered on the pastoral lands of Shem, Stygia with its shadow-guarded tombs, Hyrkania whose riders wore steel and silk and gold. But the proudest kingdom of the world was Aquilonia, reigning supreme in the dreaming west. Massive Earth Crust Displacement all over again like deja vu repeating itself in a loop, over and over. PeopleKind knocked back to the stone age again and again. Few of the most ancient civilized can survive as hunter / gatherers once spoiled by civilization. A potter makes pottery he trades for items he needs to live. Knocked back to a hunter / gatherer existence I doubt he could survive. The best archeology is a couple hundred feet under water. Maybe Beringia or Doggerland where warm ocean currents created a fishery and nice living against a back drop of glaciers. A couple hundred feet depth almost anywhere. Don't under estimate the happenings of Massive Crust Displacement events. And why do you suppose dinosaurs are so embedded in ancient cultures and their monument carvings world wide? Moi r > g Viva Acadia liberte Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Making up words and reciting nonsense is so sophisticated and *scientific* of you. Better to keep your mouth shut than talk like that. Tell me where anybody "is returning carbon back into the soil" when carbon is NOT the problem, not the subject of climate change fraud. That would be carbon dioxide. It's a gas. Carbon is, well, coal, and graphite.
A chemical engineer would understand that carbon exists in different forms and plants convert CO2 into sugars and cellulose. Your post shows a lack of understanding and is evidence that you are not what you say you are. Are you 12 years old?
All right, my Friend, I will. You are on the right track, sort of, and you used the fancy term "stoichiometric," which I have not seen used in quite some time, so bravo! Wherever did you get the ratio of "14.7:1" I wonder, if not from the standard atmospheric pressure in pounds per square inch? As to "the most efficient mix possible," that is achieved only after the vehicle is in static equilibrium, neither accelerating nor decelerating. At this time, combustion is ~97% efficient or better, as determined by exhaust gases. Heat loss accounts for 70% or more of the energy in gasoline, and you are correct about direct injection being more efficient, and having supplanted carburetors in modern cars. Water vapor acts largely as nitrogen or carbon dioxide in accordance with the Ideal Gas Law and therefore confers no real advantage if it were to be added. Obviously water can't burn either, so this is just another attempt to badmouth those "big greedy oil companies" that the Left loves to hate. Then they drive to the nearest gas station, fill 'er up, and drive to the next environmental protest, where they can badmouth "big greedy oil companies" some more. One final note: when you step down on the gas pedal, you dramatically increase the richness of the mixture which can only provide increased power because the hydrogen atoms oxydizing from hydrocarbons provide far more energy than the carbon atoms oxydizing, and secondly, because not all the oxygen in the cylinder is used during the normal cruising cycle. My Ignore List just increased by one little "peculation".
Water absorbs co2. Most of the planets surface is water. That's why the threat isn't global warming but ocean acidification. Many animals in the ocean can't survive in acidic environment. Especially the tiny ones like plancton. The ocean ecosystem is dependent on plancton. In fact an acidic ocean is what led to mass extinctions in the past
So because some oysters survived means the the threat isn't real? I love when ignorant people laugh out in ignorance, proving their ignorance even further. It really is funny Ocean Acidification Caused The Largest Mass Extinction Ever http://www.popsci.com/ocean-acidification-caused-largest-mass-extinction-ever So my claim that ocean acidification caused mass extinction wasn't wrong. In fact it caused the largest one. Now lets take a look about my plankton claim. To see if that was wrong. Study finds many species may die out and others may migrate significantly as ocean acidification intensifies. http://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720 https://m.phys.org/news/2016-07-ocean-acidification-impact-calcareous-phytoplankton.html Acid Test: Rising CO2 Levels Killing Ocean Life http://www.livescience.com/38219-oceans-acidifying-with-rising-co2.html Reduced early life growth and survival in a fish in direct response to increased carbon dioxide http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/full/nclimate1291.html Severe tissue damage in Atlantic cod larvae under increasing ocean acidification http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/full/nclimate1324.html So we know that acidic oceans kill the young and the small. We also know that it was what drove the largest extinction. So everything I have said was factual Your ignorance is laughable
Because ocean pH levels weren't as low. That's because, if CO2 levels rise slowly, geological processes will buffer the pH change. Those processes take tens of thousands of years. If CO2 shoots up, geological processes don't have time to take effect, so pH drops fast. And of course you didn't know that. Your cult deliberately kept you ignorant of such basic science, and it's not like you look at sources outside of the cult.
Similar to the Medieval Warm Up, the CO2 Levels documented here just put the Global Warming Chicken Littles in a frenzy. One cannot debate with the faithful But, here is your reference anyways. And it lasted a long time. Lots of lag time. http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html Now you show me yours Climate. Nothing New Nor Outstandingly Different Here, Move Along. <peck> <peck> <peck> the Global Warming Chicken Littles should not win by gang pecking. Moi r > g gonna melt away
Ask the shelfish. Maybe some of them became isolated in shallow areas when water level dropped and got reintroduced into oceans when water levels rose? We can speculate all day. We do know thay 96% of all marine life became extict due to ocean acidification.
96 percent of marine species, and 70 percent of terrestrial life died off in the Permian-Triassic extinction event, as geologists know it. It is also known as The Great Dying Event for obvious reasons. "The mass extinction was likely triggered by a explosive event of volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia. These eruptions lasted for a million years and emitted enormous amounts of volatiles, such as carbon dioxide and methane, which made our planet unbearably hot." says Jochen Knies, researcher at CAGE https://phys.org/news/2016-08-arctic-clues-worst-mass-extinction.html Those volcanoes spewed out lava 2 miles thick. We now know that this was triggered by a massive meteor impacting antartica. This sent shockwaves through the crust causing a large chain of volcanoes to erupt on the other side of the world
Yes, Yes. Yes, All because of PeopleKInd created Global Warming. I refuse to feel so insignificant as to not take responsibility for all PeopleKind. Oh! There were no people then, Never mind Unfortunately too many take this pablum as gospel. I do not. Yes to History. No to HERstory.
