Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Chondrally on 14/01/2017 07:59:27
-
I have carried out a multi-year study on ocean pH and have included all the relevant equations from Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow's book 'CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Isotopes,Kinetics' which contains the solubility product equations for CO2(2-),HCO2(-) and H2CO2 as well as for magnesium carbonate (magnesite) and calcium carbonate(both aragonite and calcite) buffers. I have included as much relevant chemistry in the analysis as I can including phosphorus and boron , ,sodium,chlorine and fluorine salts.
The pH equations I used are the SWS scale equations from Brookhaven National Lab which were made public by Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace who are scientists there.
I projected the CO2 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere into the future, assuming continuing industrial development and population growth and urbanization and deforestation rates remain constant. I used the Mauna Kea data set for CO2 ppm, and used a Bayesian Markov Monte Carlo simulation to project CO2 into the future. With these CO2 levels, I was able to calculate the equilibrium year by year at the surface of the ocean and with the diffusion equations I was able to solve them to depth (1000 feet) using temperature and salinity profiles that are publicly available.
This result showed me that the magnesium carbonate buffer would break in the ocean around 2021-2025 over a 2 year period, and both of the following can happen.
1) When the buffer breaks, CO2 will well up from the depths, and the ocean will off-gas CO2 into the atmosphere causing atmospheric heating due to the green house gas, and more extreme weather events with the water cycle worldwide.
2) The ocean pH could drop by as much as 1 pH level to 7.3 from 8.3 worldwide. This , along with temperature heating in the ocean, could cause the demise of the krill and phytoplankton populations that have already been decimated since 1950 by 40% due to pollution and temperature changes.
If this happens, the base of the food chain in the ocean could be at serious risk of collapse and with it , all life in the ocean. This would eventually ripple onto land food chains and might cause a collapse over the entire earth of the ecosystem food chain. This is a serious probability..
I believe both of these effects will happen to greater and lesser degree simultaneously and at different places in the worlds oceans when the ppm reaches 493 ppm approximately around 2021-2025.
I believe a real chemistry experiment needs to be done aswell, just to confirm the simulation is correct, by adding CO2 to seawater at room temperature and pressure in a closed container until the pH changes, and note the concentration of CO2 above the seawater when this happens. I predict it will be about 493 ppm CO2 for the first pH change when the magnesium carbonate buffer breaks and around 878 ppm CO2 when the second pH catastrophe occurs, and that is when the calcium carbonate buffer breaks in the seawater!
We need to act now with new technology that generates energy without emitting CO2.
I believe an efficient natural gas-solar hybrid engine that emits no CO2 and is very fuel efficient is possible
Please see the following links for more information:
Under Science Forums at TheNakedScientists.com, in Technology section the question : Can we build an efficient hybrid natural gas-solar engine that emits no CO2?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=60132.msg466461#msg466461 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=60132.msg466461#msg466461)
check out: Can we save the marine life with Ocean Engineering?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69577.msg505754#msg505754 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69577.msg505754#msg505754)
Keep in mind that 18 milliLitres of H2O = 18 grams approximately which is one Mol of H2O if it is pure and that is equal to 6.023x10^(23) molecules of H2O. Now imagine the whole Ocean. According to K. Gubbins of Cornell University even 100 molecules of water is too combinatorially explosive to calculate the quantum wavefunction of, so its impossible to predict what will happen in a LIVING OCEAN in the future! But it is best to take the side of caution and act now to remove CO2 from the Ocean!
-
Are you a betting man?
Care for a flutter?
-
I have carried out a multi-year study on ocean pH and have included all the relevant equations from Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow's book 'CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Isotopes,Kinetics' which contains the solubility product equations for CO2(2-),HCO2(-) and H2CO2 as well as for magnesium carbonate (magnesite) and calcium carbonate(both aragonite and calcite) buffers. I have included as much relevant chemistry in the analysis as I can including phosphorus and boron , ,sodium,chlorine and fluorine salts.
The pH equations I used are the SWS scale equations from Brookhaven National Lab which were made public by Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace who are scientists there.
I projected the CO2 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere into the future, assuming continuing industrial development and population growth and urbanization and deforestation rates remain constant. I used the Mauna Kea data set for CO2 ppm, and used a Bayesian Markov Monte Carlo simulation to project CO2 into the future. With these CO2 levels, I was able to calculate the equilibrium year by year at the surface of the ocean and with the diffusion equations I was able to solve them to depth (1000 feet) using temperature and salinity profiles that are publicly available.
This result showed me that the magnesium carbonate buffer would break in the ocean around 2021-2025 over a 2 year period, and both of the following can happen.
1) When the buffer breaks, CO2 will well up from the depths, and the ocean will off-gas CO2 into the atmosphere causing atmospheric heating due to the green house gas, and more extreme weather events with the water cycle worldwide.
2) The ocean pH could drop by as much as 1 pH level to 7.3 from 8.3 worldwide. This , along with temperature heating in the ocean, could cause the demise of the krill and phytoplankton populations that have already been decimated since 1950 by 40% due to pollution and temperature changes.
If this happens, the base of the food chain in the ocean could be at serious risk of collapse and with it , all life in the ocean. This would eventually ripple onto land food chains and might cause a collapse over the entire earth of the ecosystem food chain. This is a serious probability..
I believe both of these effects will happen to greater and lesser degree simultaneously and at different places in the worlds oceans when the ppm reaches 493 ppm approximately around 2021-2025.
I believe a real chemistry experiment needs to be done aswell, just to confirm the simulation is correct, by adding CO2 to seawater at room temperature and pressure in a closed container until the pH changes, and note the concentration of CO2 above the seawater when this happens. I predict it will be about 493 ppm CO2 for the first pH change when the magnesium carbonate buffer breaks and around 878 ppm CO2 when the second pH catastrophe occurs, and that is when the calcium carbonate buffer breaks in the seawater!
We need to act now with new technology that generates energy without emitting CO2.
I believe an efficient natural gas-solar hybrid engine that emits no CO2 and is very fuel efficient is possible
Please see the following links for more information:
Under Science Forums at TheNakedScientists.com, in Technology section the question : Can we build an efficient hybrid natural gas-solar engine that emits no CO2?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=60132.msg466461#msg466461 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=60132.msg466461#msg466461)
check out: Can we save the marine life with Ocean Engineering?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69577.msg505754#msg505754 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69577.msg505754#msg505754)
Keep in mind that 18 milliLitres of H2O = 18 grams approximately which is one Mol of H2O if it is pure and that is equal to 6.023x10^(23) molecules of H2O. Now imagine the whole Ocean. According to K. Gubbins of Cornell University even 100 molecules of water is too combinatorially explosive to calculate the quantum wavefunction of, so its impossible to predict what will happen in a LIVING OCEAN in the future! But it is best to take the side of caution and act now to remove CO2 from the Ocean!
That doesn't make a lot of sense.
More CO2 in the air will force more CO2 into solution in the oceans and lower the pH.
A steep rise in ocean temperature might get lots of CO2 out of it, and that's a potential issue- but not on the timescales you are using.
"The ocean pH could drop by as much as 1 pH level to 7.3 from 8.3 worldwide. "
Nope. as I said, the ocean's pH is dropping.
Also, buffers don't "break" like that.
The ocean is in equilibrium with a lot of solid calcium carbonate.
It's simplistic to say (as some might) that the pH won't change much until the white cliffs of Dover dissolve- but there's a valid point behind the assertion.
This "Keep in mind that 18 milliLitres of H2O = 18 grams approximately which is one Mol of H2O if it is pure and that is equal to 6.023x10^(23) molecules of H2O. Now imagine the whole Ocean. According to K. Gubbins of Cornell University even 100 molecules of water is too combinatorially explosive to calculate the quantum wavefunction of, so its impossible to predict what will happen "
is plainly absurd.
I can predict the outcome of a titration of 50 ml of solution in a lab because I don't know or care what the individual molecules do- I just need to know what the average does.
That actually gets more accurate when big numbers of molecules are involved.
So, if you claim something's going to happen, you need to "show your working".
At least qualitatively, you would need to show why putting more CO2 in the air won't lead to more (rather than less) CO2 dissolving in the ocean.
-
Are you a betting man?
Care for a flutter?
I am not really a betting man.
-
It really is hard to understand the ocean buffer on such a vast scale. In the shallow water near islands and coral reefs, where heat is trapped, and mixing with the larger ocean is limited and there are small local pools and microenvironments, the pH is dropping because the buffer is saturated. It has already broken at the higher temperatures. When temperatures rise, all the kinetic equations behave differently with each other and the outcomes are local and different. Its the vast buffer out in the deep ocean that i am really talking about.
bored chemist is absolutely right about this:
I can predict the outcome of a titration of 50 ml of solution in a lab because I don't know or care what the individual molecules do- I just need to know what the average does.That actually gets more accurate when big numbers of molecules are involved.
this is really true, however, its much harder to predict a titration in the entire ocean, as there are currents and life.
As the ocean warms, and it has never paused warming (there has been no hiatus or let up in ocean warming):
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04062015/global-warming-great-hiatus-gets-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=Cj0KEQiA5IHEBRCLr_PZvq2_6qcBEiQAL4cQ092XNrFDzdlJO0kUxrZQmDQBG4_t0oYPKytqEHwKNnAaAlV58P8HAQ (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04062015/global-warming-great-hiatus-gets-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=Cj0KEQiA5IHEBRCLr_PZvq2_6qcBEiQAL4cQ092XNrFDzdlJO0kUxrZQmDQBG4_t0oYPKytqEHwKNnAaAlV58P8HAQ)
global warming and continuing global pollution.... which changes the chemistry even more. There are a lot of unkowns in this chemistry. However, out in the vast ocean, the temperature is relatively stable and so is the chemistry, except for life there. The life like krill and phytoplankton and algae and fish poop change the absorption rate of CO2 in shallow depths and make it so that it will take longer for the CO2 concentration in the water to pass the atmospheric critical point of 493 ppm. Even in the great ocean, there are microenvironments due to circulation and currents and geography underwater especially around islands and trenches. Mixing is varied. There is the great plastic dump in the Pacific.all that being said, in general the pH is not dropping much due to the buffering by magnesium carbonate and calcium carbonate and sodium hydrogen-carbonate. When the buffer is saturated, or 'breaks' (perhaps breaks isn't the right term, but it makes for good reading by the uninitiated and gets their attention) , then the pH can change abruptly like a step function. I am not talking about the shallow water coral areas that people mostly see, there it already has happened, but i am talking about all the vast oceans of the world way out there, 71% of the planets surface, that mostly isn't seen. When the CO2 ppm passes 493 in the water, the magnesium carbonate buffer will saturate, there may be sea snow, and the pH will change abruptly(on Geologic time scales) there by up to 1 pH value. It will suddenly over 2 years (and that is very suddenly on Geologic time scales), become in the end more acidic, but in the short term it will become more basic by 1 pH unit and oscillate. I wanted people not to panic, thats why i talked about the quantum wavefunction of a living ocean being unpredictable. The buffer saturation is predictable and if you do the real chemical experiment with seawater, i believe you will be convinced. I wanted to let people know that since we can't predict the quantum wavefunction of the living ocean, the kinetics won't be simple in reality and even the book CO2 in Seawater won't be the last answer, however i think it predicts the oscillation quite accurately. More work needs to be done on water wavefunctions, and a lot of work has to be done on ocean pollution which also may affect the outcome. But i still feel that we should err on the side of caution and remove CO2 from the deep ocean currents that are laden with CO2. Once you have survived the Nuclear Crisis, and thinking about the vastness of the living ocean helps you to survive it, you can admit that there really might not be a lot of knowledge about the buffer on such a grand scale. People still drink Soda,Coke and Perrier, instead of milk, and they drink Gin and Tonic. The blood buffer is an amazing thing that allows life to survive these insults! I realize it might all be a Moot question until it happens, because , even amongst most scientists, even chemists, there is huge amount of ignorance about the vastness of the living ocean and what it really means for the planets survival! If they collapse the wavefunction on someone, it would suffer at least an upset, and maybe death. We need to leave people a way out of certainty about their being 'wrong' about everything ,and live and let live. Its the bipolar attitude by science and math and engineering that people are 'right' or 'wrong' and they generalize about the whole person being 'right' or 'wrong' especially in politics (academic and otherwise) that has caused all the upset and problems, especially if they only made a few mistakes, and nobody can know everything.Politicians are renowned for not being creative or knowledgeable, especially about Science. They didn't give the people a choice or a dialogue, and many of them weren't capable of understanding the choice or the dialogue due to poor linguistic education. Art ultimately made people feel better for the most part than science did, except for homes and gadgets and technology that purportedly made life easier. In that sense, technology paid more money to people, but kept them paying as well! Witness Restaurants,Hollywood, Bollywood, Music, Theatre, Dance, Painting, Stories (Fiction),Comedians. Without them we would never enjoy or laugh or sing or feel joy! Politics only seems to feel good when it can predict and control or have power over things and people. Thats why people revolt against it! Science does the same thing, but in a more abstract and indirect way!
I still love Science, it was the story of Tycho Brahe and Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo and da Vinci that first got me interested in it in School. The truth is , they were all Rich men! Are Politicians like Vampires as a metaphor preying on the weak and ignorant? Its a real question! Truth alone may not be enough to survive and feel happiness! The Bible may be fiction, but You need divine fiction and love and affection too! We all need to get inficted with an infictious laugh! ;-) We have to ask if we have felt any kindness from Science or any kindness from Art or any kindness from the Economy or Medicine or Politics? Was it really all about Medici Sin and The Prince, or about the Principia or the Principle? Keep in mind that negative entropy can happen locally, but it needs a poop shute, where is it really going to go? There probably always are going to be Wars, thats where the s*!t really goes! They may need to learn General Relativity! Politics (Poly = many, and 'tics'), as i believe Winston Churchill said, is the Art of the Possible! I hope we can find a way to make distillation or reverse osmosis plants possible, taking Ocean water from deep ocean currents laden with CO2, coming preferably near the surface! The Politicians just tend to do what will increase their popularity. I realize action on this topic is not really popular ,it is difficult to understand as many people are not literate enough and would be pricey.
Thankyou for reading and listening!
-
Are you a betting man?
Care for a flutter?
I am not really a betting man.
If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.
I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?
-
Are you a betting man?
Care for a flutter?
I am not really a betting man.
If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.
I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?
A person he died and when he went up to the pearly gates he encountered St. Peter. Peter said we have a dial with a pointer on it when you tell a lie the pointer moves around the dial and he showed them the dial and pointer. For Mother Theresa and the pointer was still. The man asked about Donald Trumps dial and pointer and St Peter said we are using it for a fan!
I am not really after money as you might think and am poorer financially than you might expect. I still respect mother Theresa st Francis and st Patrick though I am not Catholic and Justin wellby
-
Are you a betting man?
Care for a flutter?
I am not really a betting man.
If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.
I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?
A person he died and when he went up to the pearly gates he encountered St. Peter. Peter said we have a dial with a pointer on it when you tell a lie the pointer moves around the dial and he showed them the dial and pointer. For Mother Theresa and the pointer was still. The man asked about Donald Trumps dial and pointer and St Peter said we are using it for a fan!
I am not really after money as you might think and am poorer financially than you might expect. I still respect mother Theresa st Francis and st Patrick though I am not Catholic and Justin wellby
I'll take that as you have no confidence on your prediction then.
-
Are you a betting man?
Care for a flutter?
I am not really a betting man.
If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.
I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?
A person he died and when he went up to the pearly gates he encountered St. Peter. Peter said we have a dial with a pointer on it when you tell a lie the pointer moves around the dial and he showed them the dial and pointer. For Mother Theresa and the pointer was still. The man asked about Donald Trumps dial and pointer and St Peter said we are using it for a fan!
I am not really after money as you might think and am poorer financially than you might expect. I still respect mother Theresa st Francis and st Patrick though I am not Catholic and Justin wellby
I'll take that as you have no confidence on your prediction then.
Not True, a true scientist would not bet money on it thats all, he or she would look at the facts and decide for himself or herself if it made sense or not. Also its an ethical conflict of interest and you got the year wrong, it wouldn`t be fair! Also a conservative person wouldn`t bet on it just out of principle, it isn`t right to bet on it! Education is the correct answer! Either i have succeeded in educating you or i haven`t! Its not WISE to bet on it! Either i have convinced you with my arguments and defense or i haven`t! And we may have to agree to disagree! I did not CHARGE you money for this contribution, you don`t have to read it if you don`t want to! I am not trying to offend anyone!
There was something to do with the extinction of phytoplankton blooms in the Cambrian-Ordovician extinction aswell 488 million years ago!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian%E2%80%93Ordovician_extinction_event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian%E2%80%93Ordovician_extinction_event)
-
Are you a betting man?
Care for a flutter?
I am not really a betting man.
If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.
I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?
A person he died and when he went up to the pearly gates he encountered St. Peter. Peter said we have a dial with a pointer on it when you tell a lie the pointer moves around the dial and he showed them the dial and pointer. For Mother Theresa and the pointer was still. The man asked about Donald Trumps dial and pointer and St Peter said we are using it for a fan!
I am not really after money as you might think and am poorer financially than you might expect. I still respect mother Theresa st Francis and st Patrick though I am not Catholic and Justin wellby
I'll take that as you have no confidence on your prediction then.
Not True, a true scientist would not bet money on it thats all, he or she would look at the facts and decide for himself or herself if it made sense or not. Also its an ethical conflict of interest and you got the year wrong, it wouldn`t be fair! Also a conservative person wouldn`t bet on it just out of principle, it isn`t right to bet on it! Education is the correct answer! Either i have succeeded in educating you or i haven`t! Its not WISE to bet on it! Either i have convinced you with my arguments and defense or i haven`t! And we may have to agree to disagree! I did not CHARGE you money for this contribution, you don`t have to read it if you don`t want to! I am not trying to offend anyone!
There was something to do with the extinction of phytoplankton blooms in the Cambrian-Ordovician extinction aswell 488 million years ago!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian%E2%80%93Ordovician_extinction_event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian%E2%80%93Ordovician_extinction_event)
Ignore the betting- it's a side issue.
You seem to have overlooked my points about the "Science" in your opening post being nonsense.
You are right about the importance of education.
Get some, and you will see that your OP didn't make sence.
-
Insults now| I wondered about the kindness of Science. Bored Chemist has assured me he is not kind or forgiving and he has not realized it does make sense. When the buffer saturates,
The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas. if it saturates at depth, this is a progressive process that takes a few years Geologically speaking. Bored Chemist seems to be missing the visual knowledge and background about the ocean necessary to comment fully. He is acting like it is not worth his time, a common ploy amongst those in Science with egos that feel threatened.
Learn to educate in the free flow of ideas.... what exactly doesn`t make sense to you specifically. to just say the whole thing doesn`t make sense is an ignorant response. if you really believed in education you would tackle the specifics and make points about them one by one if you cared. but all you can do is not be nice and throw insults. it really is a shame cambridge has come to this!
Do you respect that i worked on this for years, i don`t expect you to understand it in a quick read even if you have made many posts before. judging by the quality of your posts it is dubious any of them made any sense other than to bait people to make them look foolish. you haven`t read the book CO2 in Seawater or studied the visual basic of Doug Wallace and Ernie Lewis from Brookhaven. I bet you can`t even program. most chemists can`t. Can you? Do you understand the diffusion equations and how they can be solved to depth with an equilibrium at the surface. Do you understand how to forecast CO2 concentrations at sea level from Mauna Kea with something more intelligent than a polynomial? Bet you won`t enter into a serious dialogue. bet you and tim plumber are the same person.The baby exists, therefore chmistry and math don`t. It is the belief of your mother! Every baby hopefully has five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot. She visualizes them during pregnancy! 5,10,15 and 20 exist and all the numbers in between as integers!
-
Insults now| I wondered about the kindness of Science. Bored Chemist has assured me he is not kind or forgiving and he has not realized it does make sense. When the buffer saturates,
The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas. if it saturates at depth, this is a progressive process that takes a few years Geologically speaking. Bored Chemist seems to be missing the visual knowledge and background about the ocean necessary to comment fully. He is acting like it is not worth his time, a common ploy amongst those in Science with egos that feel threatened.
Learn to educate in the free flow of ideas.... what exactly doesn`t make sense to you specifically. to just say the whole thing doesn`t make sense is an ignorant response. if you really believed in education you would tackle the specifics and make points about them one by one if you cared. but all you can do is not be nice and throw insults. it really is a shame cambridge has come to this!
Do you respect that i worked on this for years, i don`t expect you to understand it in a quick read even if you have made many posts before. judging by the quality of your posts it is dubious any of them made any sense other than to bait people to make them look foolish. you haven`t read the book CO2 in Seawater or studied the visual basic of Doug Wallace and Ernie Lewis from Brookhaven. I bet you can`t even program. most chemists can`t. Can you? Do you understand the diffusion equations and how they can be solved to depth with an equilibrium at the surface. Do you understand how to forecast CO2 concentrations at sea level from Mauna Kea with something more intelligent than a polynomial? Bet you won`t enter into a serious dialogue. bet you and tim plumber are the same person.The baby exists, therefore chmistry and math don`t. It is the belief of your mother! Every baby hopefully has five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot. She visualizes them during pregnancy! 5,10,15 and 20 exist and all the numbers in between as integers!
Pointing out that you are wrong is not an insult- or at least, it's no more of one than you saying "Either i have succeeded in educating you or i haven`t! ".
(Incidentally, you might want to learn to use capital letters when telling people that you are educating them.)
It is not sufficient for you to restate your unsupported opinion that "The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas".
If you want to be taken seriously you need to explain why. (And it would be good if you learned to use capitals here too- at the moment your post refers to diaotmic cobalt vapour- rather an unusual material)
In particular, you need to explain why a law of physics that has stood the test of a couple of centuries will suddenly fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle)
The problem isn't my lack of vision, nor my ego.
You are the one claiming that you- and only you- know what's going to happen.
That's a fairly egoistical claim.
You may well have worked on this for years. that doesn't mean you got it right.
I'm a chemist according to the subject I studied at university, but I currently earn a living as a software tester and programmer.
You need to stop making assumptions like "I bet you can`t even program. " which are both irrelevant and likely to make you look foolish when the turn out to be stupidly wrong.
About the only thing that Tim and I are likely to agree on is that this " [/size]bet you and tim plumber are the same person."is hilariously funny
-
Insults now| I wondered about the kindness of Science. Bored Chemist has assured me he is not kind or forgiving and he has not realized it does make sense. When the buffer saturates,
The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas. if it saturates at depth, this is a progressive process that takes a few years Geologically speaking. Bored Chemist seems to be missing the visual knowledge and background about the ocean necessary to comment fully. He is acting like it is not worth his time, a common ploy amongst those in Science with egos that feel threatened.
Learn to educate in the free flow of ideas.... what exactly doesn`t make sense to you specifically. to just say the whole thing doesn`t make sense is an ignorant response. if you really believed in education you would tackle the specifics and make points about them one by one if you cared. but all you can do is not be nice and throw insults. it really is a shame cambridge has come to this!
Do you respect that i worked on this for years, i don`t expect you to understand it in a quick read even if you have made many posts before. judging by the quality of your posts it is dubious any of them made any sense other than to bait people to make them look foolish. you haven`t read the book CO2 in Seawater or studied the visual basic of Doug Wallace and Ernie Lewis from Brookhaven. I bet you can`t even program. most chemists can`t. Can you? Do you understand the diffusion equations and how they can be solved to depth with an equilibrium at the surface. Do you understand how to forecast CO2 concentrations at sea level from Mauna Kea with something more intelligent than a polynomial? Bet you won`t enter into a serious dialogue. bet you and tim plumber are the same person.The baby exists, therefore chmistry and math don`t. It is the belief of your mother! Every baby hopefully has five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot. She visualizes them during pregnancy! 5,10,15 and 20 exist and all the numbers in between as integers!
Pointing out that you are wrong is not an insult- or at least, it's no more of one than you saying "Either i have succeeded in educating you or i haven`t! ".
(Incidentally, you might want to learn to use capital letters when telling people that you are educating them.)
It is not sufficient for you to restate your unsupported opinion that "The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas".
If you want to be taken seriously you need to explain why. (And it would be good if you learned to use capitals here too- at the moment your post refers to diaotmic cobalt vapour- rather an unusual material)
In particular, you need to explain why a law of physics that has stood the test of a couple of centuries will suddenly fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle)
The problem isn't my lack of vision, nor my ego.
You are the one claiming that you- and only you- know what's going to happen.
That's a fairly egoistical claim.
You may well have worked on this for years. that doesn't mean you got it right.
I'm a chemist according to the subject I studied at university, but I currently earn a living as a software tester and programmer.
You need to stop making assumptions like "I bet you can`t even program. " which are both irrelevant and likely to make you look foolish when the turn out to be stupidly wrong.
About the only thing that Tim and I are likely to agree on is that this " bet you and tim plumber are the same person."is hilariously funny
Le Chatelier's principle describes the qualitative behavior of systems where there is an externally induced, instantaneous change in one parameter of a system; it states that a behavioural shift occurs in the system so as to oppose (partially cancel) the parameter change. The duration of adjustment depends on the strength of the negative feedback to the initial shock. Where a shock initially induces positive feedback (such as thermal runaway), the new equilibrium can be far from the old one, and can take a long time to reach. In some dynamic systems, the end-state cannot be determined from the shock. The principle is typically used to describe closed negative-feedback systems, but applies, in general, to thermodynamically closed and isolated systems in nature, since the second law of thermodynamics ensures that the disequilibrium caused by an instantaneous shock must have a finite half-life.[3] The principle has analogs throughout the entire physical world.
The principle while well rooted in chemical equilibrium and extended into economic theory, can also be used in describing mechanical systems in that the system put under stress will respond in a way such as to reduce or minimize that stress. Moreover, the response will generally be via the mechanism that most easily relieves that stress. Shear pins and other such sacrificial devices are design elements that protect systems against stress applied in undesired manners to relieve it so as to prevent more extensive damage to the entire system, a practical engineering application of Le Chatelier's principle
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature, not to a vast open system like the Ocean. It applies in a lab in a closed titration, but not to a vast open system.. Similarly the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not necessarily hold locally. Negative entropy can occur locally, as long as the entropy of the universe is increasing. We may put entropy into black holes, and then the whole universe might grow and evolve, there may be other universes, and Hawking has talked about putting entropy into them. But we may be in a Baby Universe ourselves that is only 13.8 billion years old!.Your assertion that the titration of the Ocean has to follow Le Chateliers principle is flawed!
I have studied Control Theory and understand negative feedback systems and positive feedback systems. I have studied Chaos theory and nonequilibrium dynamics as well as equilibrium dynamics and nonlinear dynamical systems....
The reason my post did`t make sense was because it was NOT funded work. No government knows about it, no university knows about it until now. The equations are speaking , and they are telling me there may be a problem
with saturation of the magnesium carbonate buffer and more importanly later on at 878 ppm CO2 near 2068 with the calcium carbonate buffer. I don`t think the equatios are lying. If you did the analysis and if you do the CO2 test
in a lab with seawater, i am sure the pH will change abruptly! please respond to that! Also it is not valid to apply it to Economic Systems as they are not closed, isolated systems in nature either! Science was applying leChateliers law to people. It was always an opposing force, never any positive feedback, always negative feedback.... it was seeking to control and contain and predict, without being human or giving any sustenance or joy. It didn`t allow fictions unless they were approved to make money, like the pharmaceutical industry and side effects. MEDICAL ISOTOPES. Cb-Cb. Chalk River where did all the blackboards and chalk go! it is a vast conspiracy.
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. However the equilibrium at the surface is vast and open and is not an isolated system.
Many parallel paths from the depths to the surface exist. And if one avenue or street is shut off or cut off, the gas will find another route nearby. CO2 will off gas from the ocean surface when the magnesium buffer is saturated.under pressure from the depths. Deep Ocean currents will well to the surface and the equilibrium at the surface will be broken, and CO2 will off gas. It is a nonlinear phenomenon and only occurs on a large scale. it might not be apparent in a lab. Often nonlinear phenomena don`t scale from the lab to a vast open system like the ocean, and that is what causes the surprise. that is the surprise i predict. no human being has evcr seen it in their lifetime. at the very least the pH will oscillate when the buffer saturates, maybe more like the off gasing due to pH changes and pressure. The world is the OYSTER.
-
...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature, not to a vast open system like the Ocean.
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...
Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
You can stop now.
-
...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice. You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction. Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true. And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth, not one or the other. You don`t understand wavefunctions!
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature, not to a vast open system like the Ocean.
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...
Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
You can stop now.
-
...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature, not to a vast open system like the Ocean.
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...
Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
You can stop now.
You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice. You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction. Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true. And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth, not one or the other. You don`t understand wavefunctions!
-
...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature, not to a vast open system like the Ocean.
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...
Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
You can stop now.
You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice. You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction. Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true. And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth, not one or the other. You don`t understand wavefunctions!
Science isn't "kind" or unkind.
It just dismisses things that are shown to be wrong.
I see you think you can play the "quantum woo" card on a science site.
Science is about to dismiss that idea too.
And, for the record, I'm a chemist- of course I understand wave functions.
Once someone observed them the superposition collapses to one state or the other. Guess what? I observed your post (though I doubt many others are still reading this thread) so you are wrong. (Actually, you were already wrong when you posted it- but that's hardly the point).
Now, perhaps you would like to get back to explaining how putting more CO2 in the ocean will lead to there being less CO2 in the ocean.
-
...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
You are saying give up and don`t do any calculation at all.... i still think the calculation is valid and that it should be respected. You haven`t even examined it in detail so you are in no position to comment!
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature, not to a vast open system like the Ocean.
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...
Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
You can stop now.
You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice. You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction. Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true. And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth, not one or the other. You don`t understand wavefunctions!
Science isn't "kind" or unkind.
It just dismisses things that are shown to be wrong.
I see you think you can play the "quantum woo" card on a science site.
Science is about to dismiss that idea too.
And, for the record, I'm a chemist- of course I understand wave functions.
Once someone observed them the superposition collapses to one state or the other. Guess what? I observed your post (though I doubt many others are still reading this thread) so you are wrong. (Actually, you were already wrong when you posted it- but that's hardly the point).
Now, perhaps you would like to get back to explaining how putting more CO2 in the ocean will lead to there being less CO2 in the ocean.
Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part. You would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid. you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language. Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!
-
...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
You are saying give up and don`t do any calculation at all.... i still think the calculation is valid and that it should be respected. You haven`t even examined it in detail so you are in no position to comment!
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature, not to a vast open system like the Ocean.
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...
Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
You can stop now.
You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice. You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction. Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true. And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth, not one or the other. You don`t understand wavefunctions!
Science isn't "kind" or unkind.
It just dismisses things that are shown to be wrong.
I see you think you can play the "quantum woo" card on a science site.
Science is about to dismiss that idea too.
And, for the record, I'm a chemist- of course I understand wave functions.
Once someone observed them the superposition collapses to one state or the other. Guess what? I observed your post (though I doubt many others are still reading this thread) so you are wrong. (Actually, you were already wrong when you posted it- but that's hardly the point).
Now, perhaps you would like to get back to explaining how putting more CO2 in the ocean will lead to there being less CO2 in the ocean.
Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part. You would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid. you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language. Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!
It does not matter how hurt you feel about the comments of others who actually know what they are talking about.
You are wrong clearly. You fully understand this as shown by, amongst other things like it being utterly obvious, your unwillingness to put your money where your mouth is.
In science there are any number of wrong answers. The correct answer is the one that predicts correctly.
-
Hi Tim,
I just wonder what you made of his post that you and I are the same person?
... bet you and tim plumber are the same person.
-
Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part. You would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid. you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language. Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!
I'm not saying that I'm superior; I'm just pointing out that your ideas are wrong.
There isn't a baby- just a lot of dirty water.
Wavefunctions apply to many thing and, as I said, they collapse when someone finds out what reality is.
Science didn't try to dismiss it - you may not have realised, but it was science which noticed wavefunctions in the first place.
"The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. "
really?
Name a few?
"you fail to see that people can have win win."
Nonsense, but posting stuff that's just plain wrong doesn't let anyone win. You don't get to learn better and other people mightmistake the nonsense for truth. That's lose lose rather than win win.
"I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar"
Nice diagnosis; are you qualified to make it? The reason I ask is that it's plain wrong. I have a cousin with bipolar disorder and believe me, you can tell us apart. (Incidentally, you should use a spell checker).
You are also (as seems to happen a lot) flat out wrong- you didn't mention it.
..."and see things in black and white"
Only if they are.
For example the idea that adding CO2 to the ocean will make it have less CO2 in it is a black and white issue. It's plain wrong.
"Chemists are not being subtle about language."
That's a remarkable slur on many people.
So to follow it with "Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!" is remarkably ironic.
Any chance that you will stop wasting time on my use of language while making daft assertions and actually answer the fundamental point.
You have made some remarkable, but baseless, claims.
Prove them.
Show some evidence
Show your working
Show something, but don't expect us to just believe that you are right and science has been wrong since Le Chatelier's day
-
Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part. You would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid. you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language. Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!
I'm not saying that I'm superior; I'm just pointing out that your ideas are wrong.
There isn't a baby- just a lot of dirty water.
Wavefunctions apply to many thing and, as I said, they collapse when someone finds out what reality is.
Science didn't try to dismiss it - you may not have realised, but it was science which noticed wavefunctions in the first place.
"The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. "
really?
Name a few?
"you fail to see that people can have win win."
Nonsense, but posting stuff that's just plain wrong doesn't let anyone win. You don't get to learn better and other people mightmistake the nonsense for truth. That's lose lose rather than win win.
"I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar"
Nice diagnosis; are you qualified to make it? The reason I ask is that it's plain wrong. I have a cousin with bipolar disorder and believe me, you can tell us apart. (Incidentally, you should use a spell checker).
You are also (as seems to happen a lot) flat out wrong- you didn't mention it.
..."and see things in black and white"
Only if they are.
For example the idea that adding CO2 to the ocean will make it have less CO2 in it is a black and white issue. It's plain wrong.
"Chemists are not being subtle about language."
That's a remarkable slur on many people.
So to follow it with "Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!" is remarkably ironic.
Any chance that you will stop wasting time on my use of language while making daft assertions and actually answer the fundamental point.
You have made some remarkable, but baseless, claims.
Prove them.
Show some evidence
Show your working
Show something, but don't expect us to just believe that you are right and science has been wrong since Le Chatelier's day
I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal. Thats not science
you wanted to bet money. thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is , deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface. They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis, if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, people have seen it and analyzed it,. the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help! I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side! probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!
-
Hi Tim,
I just wonder what you made of his post that you and I are the same person?
... bet you and tim plumber are the same person.
To be frank I missed it. I kind of stopped reading the junk after the first few lines.
You are far more dilligent than me. I will decied that something is drivel quickly just because of the way it is presented.
You should try poker at the pub. Both very interesting and educational. Makes you good at spotting either fools (good for winning by) or bad liars. And very good at understanding that when somebody is bullying or evading they know they are out of anything better.
-
Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part. You would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid. you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language. Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!
I'm not saying that I'm superior; I'm just pointing out that your ideas are wrong.
There isn't a baby- just a lot of dirty water.
Wavefunctions apply to many thing and, as I said, they collapse when someone finds out what reality is.
Science didn't try to dismiss it - you may not have realised, but it was science which noticed wavefunctions in the first place.
"The truth is there are many contradictions in the world. "
really?
Name a few?
"you fail to see that people can have win win."
Nonsense, but posting stuff that's just plain wrong doesn't let anyone win. You don't get to learn better and other people mightmistake the nonsense for truth. That's lose lose rather than win win.
"I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar"
Nice diagnosis; are you qualified to make it? The reason I ask is that it's plain wrong. I have a cousin with bipolar disorder and believe me, you can tell us apart. (Incidentally, you should use a spell checker).
You are also (as seems to happen a lot) flat out wrong- you didn't mention it.
..."and see things in black and white"
Only if they are.
For example the idea that adding CO2 to the ocean will make it have less CO2 in it is a black and white issue. It's plain wrong.
"Chemists are not being subtle about language."
That's a remarkable slur on many people.
So to follow it with "Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!" is remarkably ironic.
Any chance that you will stop wasting time on my use of language while making daft assertions and actually answer the fundamental point.
You have made some remarkable, but baseless, claims.
Prove them.
Show some evidence
Show your working
Show something, but don't expect us to just believe that you are right and science has been wrong since Le Chatelier's day
I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal. Thats not science
you wanted to bet money. thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is , deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface. They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis, if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, people have seen it and analyzed it,. the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help! I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side! probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!
Wow!!
For clarity;
The plumber is the one who is happy to tell you to your face that you are a nut job who should not talk about science because you don't know anything at all and will also arrange a bet with you to take what money you have if any at all.
The Chemist is the nice middle class bloke who will point out that you are talking gibberish in a less inpolite manner without the attempt to take money from a fool. And he can spell better than me as well.
P.S. Sook harder.
-
I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal. Thats not science
you wanted to bet money. thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is , deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface. They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis, if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, people have seen it and analyzed it,. the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help! I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side! probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!
OK, since Le Chatelier's principle says that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have the direct effect of pushing more CO2 into solution you are, in fact, saying Le Chatelier is wrong.
My attacks are essentially on what you say- it's just wrong. That's not personal, it's just that you are taking it personally.
well scientists are not meant to get personally attached to their conjectures.
If you get upset when I point out that your idea is wrong, then it's you who is being unscientific.
I didn't offer to bet- I'm the one who told you to ignore the bets.
It's another example of your ideas being wrong.
"you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority."
Given that I think your ideas a re total nonsense, why would I steal them?
If I did try to nick them it would be because I thought that your ideas, and you, were superior.
"Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. "
I haven't said anything of the sort .
If you think I have, quote me saying it.
"show me your calculation."
I don't have one- but if you insist, it's this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law)
"And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile"
Sceptical people are the best audience to show your work to. They help you refine it by pointing out the flaws.
However if you refuse to say what you have actually done then there's nothing to debate and that pretty much closes the thread.
" and obviously have a vendetta against me personally!"
That's absurd- I don't have a clue who you are. I just pointed out the problems with your claim.
You taking it personally, while a very human trait, isn't scientific.
" you sound vicious!"
That's getting fairly close to another personal insult.
"I believe you need professional help! "
That's even closer in most contexts, but following it with "I have sook professional help myself!" probably counts as an extenuating circumstance.
"Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control."
That's nice. So what?
"I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side! "
I thought you didn't like betting. Anyway, as I said I'm a chemist working in s/w testing and programming.
" probably working for an oil company!"
Not even close- I did do a piece of work as part of a contract with an oil company about 5 years ago- but I was analysing nonanitro meta terphenyl. I don't see how it's relevant.
"You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!"
Why?
I mean, I'm sure they are nice people- but surely they have better things to do.
"Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!"
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, you forgot to put enough verbs in that.
-
I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal. Thats not science
you wanted to bet money. thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is , deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface. They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis, if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, people have seen it and analyzed it,. the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help! I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side! probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!
OK, since Le Chatelier's principle says that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have the direct effect of pushing more CO2 into solution you are, in fact, saying Le Chatelier is wrong.
My attacks are essentially on what you say- it's just wrong. That's not personal, it's just that you are taking it personally.
well scientists are not meant to get personally attached to their conjectures.
If you get upset when I point out that your idea is wrong, then it's you who is being unscientific.
I didn't offer to bet- I'm the one who told you to ignore the bets.
It's another example of your ideas being wrong.
"you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority."
Given that I think your ideas a re total nonsense, why would I steal them?
If I did try to nick them it would be because I thought that your ideas, and you, were superior.
"Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. "
I haven't said anything of the sort .
If you think I have, quote me saying it.
"show me your calculation."
I don't have one- but if you insist, it's this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law)
"And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile"
Sceptical people are the best audience to show your work to. They help you refine it by pointing out the flaws.
However if you refuse to say what you have actually done then there's nothing to debate and that pretty much closes the thread.
" and obviously have a vendetta against me personally!"
That's absurd- I don't have a clue who you are. I just pointed out the problems with your claim.
You taking it personally, while a very human trait, isn't scientific.
" you sound vicious!"
That's getting fairly close to another personal insult.
"I believe you need professional help! "
That's even closer in most contexts, but following it with "I have sook professional help myself!" probably counts as an extenuating circumstance.
"Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control."
That's nice. So what?
"I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side! "
I thought you didn't like betting. Anyway, as I said I'm a chemist working in s/w testing and programming.
" probably working for an oil company!"
Not even close- I did do a piece of work as part of a contract with an oil company about 5 years ago- but I was analysing nonanitro meta terphenyl. I don't see how it's relevant.
"You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!"
Why?
I mean, I'm sure they are nice people- but surely they have better things to do.
"Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!"
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, you forgot to put enough verbs in that.
I'm not saying Le Chatelier is wrong.... I'm saying it doesn't apply to a big nonlinear vast open ocean!
Your attacks are personal. Thats not science
you wanted to bet money. thats not science
you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority.
the fact is , deep ocean currents will well up from the depths and break the equilibrium at the surface. They already do.
Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. show me your calculation.
I did a nonlinear anlysis, if you want to learn systems theory read Fritjof Capra's The Systems View of Life!
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, people have seen it and analyzed it,. the equations are correct.
And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile and obviously have a vendetta against me personally! you sound vicious!
I believe you need professional help! I have sook professional help myself!
Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control.
I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side! probably working for an oil company!
You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!
Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!
OK, since Le Chatelier's principle says that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have the direct effect of pushing more CO2 into solution you are, in fact, saying Le Chatelier is wrong.
My attacks are essentially on what you say- it's just wrong. That's not personal, it's just that you are taking it personally.
well scientists are not meant to get personally attached to their conjectures.
If you get upset when I point out that your idea is wrong, then it's you who is being unscientific.
I didn't offer to bet- I'm the one who told you to ignore the bets.
It's another example of your ideas being wrong.
"you've proved you are trying to steal my ideas and claim superiority."
Given that I think your ideas a re total nonsense, why would I steal them?
If I did try to nick them it would be because I thought that your ideas, and you, were superior.
"Your are saying the calculation is wrong and that we should attempt not to do any calculation at all. "
I haven't said anything of the sort .
If you think I have, quote me saying it.
"show me your calculation."
I don't have one- but if you insist, it's this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law)
"And no i won't show it to you because you are hostile"
Sceptical people are the best audience to show your work to. They help you refine it by pointing out the flaws.
However if you refuse to say what you have actually done then there's nothing to debate and that pretty much closes the thread.
" and obviously have a vendetta against me personally!"
That's absurd- I don't have a clue who you are. I just pointed out the problems with your claim.
You taking it personally, while a very human trait, isn't scientific.
" you sound vicious!"
That's getting fairly close to another personal insult.
"I believe you need professional help! "
That's even closer in most contexts, but following it with "I have sook professional help myself!" probably counts as an extenuating circumstance.
"Richard C. Dorf and Bishop have a good book called Modern Control Systems, and it alludes to nonlinear control."
That's nice. So what?
"I bet you are a lawyer after money and not on my side! "
I thought you didn't like betting. Anyway, as I said I'm a chemist working in s/w testing and programming.
" probably working for an oil company!"
Not even close- I did do a piece of work as part of a contract with an oil company about 5 years ago- but I was analysing nonanitro meta terphenyl. I don't see how it's relevant.
"You will have to talk to Greenpeace lawyers, Amnesty International and Avaaz and the UN Human Rights , UNICEF!"
Why?
I mean, I'm sure they are nice people- but surely they have better things to do.
"Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek!
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Secrets Act, and the Constitution!"
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, you forgot to put enough verbs in that.
if the pH drops in the ocean the co2 concentration will rise and the surface will have to find a new equilibrium and in the process it will off gas it is so obvious you weren't helpful and don't know what you are talking about
at last i can trust you but not tim the plumber
-
Gibberish isn't so bad, Josiah Willard Gibbs and rich at the same time? Who could argue with that?
Josiah was the first to explain Gibbs Free Energy and Entropy and started the whole World War I along with Maxwell!
if you respond to chondrally@gmail.com i can send you my spreadsheet so you can critique it.
You are correct, a skeptical audience with a good conscience is best to refine it and improve it.
You may need to refer to Intro to Visual BASIC and Doug Wallaces and Ernie Lewis' Brookhaven code and software,
and you would also need to refer to CO2 in Seawater: Kinetics,Isotopes and Equilibrium
many thanks for the interest and surviving my own paranoia. i've never had the pleasure of such contact before.
Thankyiou for staying with the thread.... i had to make sure it wasn't an enemy of Science and Humanity
I hope your cousin will feel better.
-
if the pH drops in the ocean the co2 concentration will rise and the surface will have to find a new equilibrium and in the process it will off gas it is so obvious you weren't helpful and don't know what you are talking about
at last i can trust you but not tim the plumber
Why would the pH drop?
-
if the pH drops in the ocean the co2 concentration will rise and the surface will have to find a new equilibrium and in the process it will off gas it is so obvious you weren't helpful and don't know what you are talking about
at last i can trust you but not tim the plumber
Why would the pH drop?
First the pH will rise when the magnesium buffer saturates and then it will drop due to the calcium carbonate buffer.
Ca reacts with CO2(2-) , taking it out of solution, causing the HCO2(-) to dissociate and become CO2 (2-) and H+ and causing the H2CO2 to become HCO2 (-) and H+ increasing the H+ concentration and raising the CO2 concentration eventually as well and lowering the pH. Its the complicated nonlinear interaction between all the positive and negative ion species in the water. You would have to calculate the concentrations from the equations
to know for sure what the end state is, and i have done this in my Excel Spreadsheet which you are welcome to examine. It is a bit like the moon's orbit with all the forces of gravity acting on from the sun, mercury, venus, Earth, Mars , Jupiter, Saturn Uranus Neptune and pluto plus all the satellites and asteroids plus the gravity of the milky way all of this acting on the moon instantaneously and its all nonlinear also the centripetal force mv^2/r.
and solar wind, and magnetic flux from the earth if the moon contains any magnetic compounds. I'm just saying to really understand why the pH would drop and you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean, you need to understand all the buffers at play and model them with their nonlinear kinetics equations until equilibrium is found, remember it is always dynamic and equilibriums are transient... they don't always stay put. The whole system reacts and interacts constantly but the key to solving it is CO2 concentration along with the buffers and carbonic acid HCO2(-) and H2CO2 and NaHCO2 and MgCO2 and CaCO2 and Mg(HCO2)2 and Ca(HCO2)(2) all these forms of calcite and aragonite and magnesite must be included and all their equations are nonlinear and interacting with pH. Nonlinear Fluid Flow and Fluid Dynamics is probably one of the toughest things to predict but now they have a chance with the Density Functional Stock Forecasting and its application to Air Turbulence in jet airplanes! And i am using Henry's Law in my modeling!
http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/9086/ (http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/9086/)
Fitting the Task to the Man, Grandjean
A holistic approach is better, Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, The Systems View of Life!
-
OK, I have spotted the first mistakes
Firstly you think that removing calcium carbonate from solution reduces the calcium carbonate concentration.
It does not because the solution was, and remains, saturated.
Secondly you think that removing carbon from the solution by precipitation of a carbonate will lead to carbon dioxide offgassing.
It won't- simply because there's less CO2 there.
Fundamentally, you are muddling cause and effect.
The only reason that more calcium carbonate would precipitate would be if something were making the ocean more alkaline.
But we are not; we are adding acid- specifically CO2.
So, once again (and if you can answer the question rather than prattling about non linear systems that will help)
Why would the pH drop?
-
OK, I have spotted the first mistakes
Firstly you think that removing calcium carbonate from solution reduces the calcium carbonate concentration.
It does not because the solution was, and remains, saturated.
Secondly you think that removing carbon from the solution by precipitation of a carbonate will lead to carbon dioxide offgassing.
It won't- simply because there's less CO2 there.
Fundamentally, you are muddling cause and effect.
The only reason that more calcium carbonate would precipitate would be if something were making the ocean more alkaline.
But we are not; we are adding acid- specifically CO2.
So, once again (and if you can answer the question rather than prattling about non linear systems that will help)
Why would the pH drop?
I have told you already, The HCO2 dissociates to form H+ and CO2(2-) so the final concentration of CO2(2-) is not less at the end state. It is more.
Also Calcium carbonate buffer is not saturated , the magnaesium buffer is, there is a difference.
i should point out that adding Co2 gas to water is more alkaline, but when it combines with H+ to form both HCO2(-) and H2CO2 (carbonic acid) it is taking H+ out of solution and raising the pH
What keeps the pH stable is the calcium and magnesium carbonate buffers, that take CO2 out of solution by binding with them.
I am not muddling cause and effect. Its just that i have memories and am not German!
The buffer goes both ways dynamically. If there is more CO2, the magnesium and calcium in solution bind with it and form sea snow (precipitate) which falls
to a deeper depth and redissolves under pressure, where it makes CO2 concentrations higher and then forms HCO2(-) and H2CO2 binding with H+ and raising pH.
At the shallower waters, where the CO2 concentration suddently decreases due to precipitate (sea snow) HCO2(-) dissociates into CO2 and H+ and H2CO2 dissociates into
H+ and HCO2(-) increasing H+ and lowering pH and rebalancing the CO2 concentration. It is a nonlinear system. and it can go both ways. It always tends toward equilibrium by Le Chateliers law.
If one concentration changes, all the other concentrations change.
but the equations tell me that when pH lowers the final concentration of CO2 will be higher.
To truly understand it you have to solve the kinetic equations... read CO2 in Seawater by Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow .
https://www.elsevier.com/books/co2-in-seawater-equilibrium-kinetics-isotopes/zeebe/978-0-444-50946-8 (https://www.elsevier.com/books/co2-in-seawater-equilibrium-kinetics-isotopes/zeebe/978-0-444-50946-8)
I hope bored chemist goes out to the Pub with his friends and ridicules them and gets ridiculed back, all in fun!
I think the German has no memories of a good time with his mates!
Thanks for the banter Bored Chemist!
All the kids know I always tell a lie! Sometimes its funny!
I'll never forget the John Cleese skit on Fawlty Towers, where the Germans come to stay at the hotel!
Or the one where the Psychiatrist comes to stay!
-
No.
You have not told me what event you believe is causing the change in pH.
Why would the pH drop?
-
It's a chicken and egg problem. Assume enough carbonic acid has already formed and both buffers are not saturated then the pH would not driop because the buffer is active.
When the magnesium carbonate buffer is saturated co2 disappears out of solution and forms sea snow rereleasing at greater depth. In the shallow water. The carbonic acid buffer reacts and hco2(-)andh2co2 both dissociate to form extra h+ which lowers the pH and will raise the co2 concentration you really have to do the math to know what for a fixed co2 level the final ph is! I can't help you anymore if you are too lazy to do the math. The pH would rise in deep water and drop in shallow water! You haven't described yourself how you think the buffer operates. I'd like to hear your description when it is not saturated, when the magnesium buffer is saturated but the calcium buffer is not saturated, and when both of them are saturated? And diffusion of all these species occurs simultaneously plus the Coriolus force and centripetal forces and pressure and temperature At depth! and in the case of ferrous sulphate some magnetic forces as well! The living fish absorb o2 and give off co2 and have magnetic fields due to their blood the hemoglobin and th fish poop is magnesite and aragonite and calcite and fish behaviour matters it brings magnesium and calcium to shallow waters! The phytoplankton and algae absorb CO2 and give off oxygen in the shallow water! Jacques and Jean- Michel Cousteau!
-
Well, I went to the pub, and I came back
And you still have not yet answered a simple question.
Here's a hint.
Do you think that the changes we have recorded in the concentration of CO2 in the air will make a difference to things like the pH, and carbonate concentration of the oceans?
-
Well, I went to the pub, and I came back
And you still have not yet answered a simple question.
Here's a hint.
Do you think that the changes we have recorded in the concentration of CO2 in the air will make a difference to things like the pH, and carbonate concentration of the oceans?
Yes, but not as much as you think. For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean, so far, but that can change in the future.
You still haven't been doing any thinking! you've been trying to make me do it all. The ball is now in your court. what do you think is happening and how would you describe the buffer!
you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean. please tell me where and by how much?
I forecasted the CO2 in the atmosphere, used Henry's law and equilibrium and diffusion to calculate ocean concentrations of CO2 and computed the equilibrium in the water and pH in the top 1000 feet of the water. I did not model Sea Snow admittedly, but i know about it. Can you predict how deep sea snow will fall before it redissolves? What are the equations for this? Do you know? In fact in microenvironments like coral reefs, the sea snow doesn't redissolve because it doesn't get to go deep enough! It forms coral instead!
-
Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law
"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean. please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.
-
Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law)
"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean. please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.
You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
You are supposed to be a chemist or scientist not agreeing with populist
Jargon and epithets! A Semiotician would applaud you for appealing to a mass audience that didn't know the difference!its a good tease if we care about education!
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
And why do you call co2 acid?
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous. This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not? Where do the two electrons come from? And what happens to pH when co2 (2-) reacts with pure h2o? Please carry out this experiment in a lab with distilled water and tell me what the resultant pH is? Please add co2 to mineral water and tell me what the resultant pH is? I predict the pH will be raised in the distilled water and lowered in the mineral water! I predict the electrons in the ocean come from lightning! To properly do the experiment in the lab with distilled water you might need to add a source of current to it! What happens when you add co2 to distilled water with and without a source of electrons? By the way distilled water doesn't conduct electricity very well!
It's only when co2 diffuses into mineral water that carbonic acid makes it more acidic!
A couple of decades ago a baby cow was born and they measured the amount of calcium and magnesium in it at birth. They measured all the calcium and magnesium content of its food and how much it ate and all the calcium and magnesium content of all the milk it ever produced and the content when it passed. They reckoned there was evidence that it produced more than it consumed! This is an apocryphal story told to me by 94 year old man!
By the way it DOES MATTER if they feel hurt by science!
You might need selenium, vitamin b12 , vitamin E and vitamin C
-
Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law)
"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean. please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.
You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
I just have a more complete picture of it than you
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous. This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not?
No.
Of course I do not agree with it.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water and some of it reacts to form H2CO3 which is an acid.
CO2 + H2O --> HCO3- + H+
The fact that it gives H+ as a product means two things
One, it's an acid and two
you don't know what you are talking about and should apologise.
It's an oversimplification of mine, perhaps, to say we are putting acid into the air. We are putting an acid anhydride into the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_anhydride
-
Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law)
"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean. please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.
You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
You are supposed to be a chemist or scientist not agreeing with populist
Jargon and epithets! A Semiotician would applaud you for appealing to a mass audience that didn't know the difference!its a good tease if we care about education!
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
And why do you call co2 acid?
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous. This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not? Where do the two electrons come from? And what happens to pH when co2 (2-) reacts with pure h2o? Please carry out this experiment in a lab with distilled water and tell me what the resultant pH is? Please add co2 to mineral water and tell me what the resultant pH is? I predict the pH will be raised in the distilled water and lowered in the mineral water! I predict the electrons in the ocean come from lightning! To properly do the experiment in the lab with distilled water you might need to add a source of current to it! What happens when you add co2 to distilled water with and without a source of electrons? By the way distilled water doesn't conduct electricity very well!
It's only when co2 diffuses into mineral water that carbonic acid makes it more acidic!
A couple of decades ago a baby cow was born and they measured the amount of calcium and magnesium in it at birth. They measured all the calcium and magnesium content of its food and how much it ate and all the calcium and magnesium content of all the milk it ever produced and the content when it passed. They reckoned there was evidence that it produced more than it consumed! This is an apocryphal story told to me by 94 year old man!
By the way it DOES MATTER if they feel hurt by science!
You might need selenium, vitamin b12 , vitamin E and vitamin C
The thing is with this one that;
1, The Chemist is not stupid.
2, You have less idea about Chemistry than me. And I did not take it after the age of 13 and could not do it then. CO2 is not Co2 or co2.
3, You have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law)
"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean. please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.
You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
You are supposed to be a chemist or scientist not agreeing with populist
Jargon and epithets! A Semiotician would applaud you for appealing to a mass audience that didn't know the difference!its a good tease if we care about education!
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
And why do you call co2 acid?
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous. This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not? Where do the two electrons come from? And what happens to pH when co2 (2-) reacts with pure h2o? Please carry out this experiment in a lab with distilled water and tell me what the resultant pH is? Please add co2 to mineral water and tell me what the resultant pH is? I predict the pH will be raised in the distilled water and lowered in the mineral water! I predict the electrons in the ocean come from lightning! To properly do the experiment in the lab with distilled water you might need to add a source of current to it! What happens when you add co2 to distilled water with and without a source of electrons? By the way distilled water doesn't conduct electricity very well!
It's only when co2 diffuses into mineral water that carbonic acid makes it more acidic!
A couple of decades ago a baby cow was born and they measured the amount of calcium and magnesium in it at birth. They measured all the calcium and magnesium content of its food and how much it ate and all the calcium and magnesium content of all the milk it ever produced and the content when it passed. They reckoned there was evidence that it produced more than it consumed! This is an apocryphal story told to me by 94 year old man!
By the way it DOES MATTER if they feel hurt by science!
You might need selenium, vitamin b12 , vitamin E and vitamin C
The thing is with this one that;
1, The Chemist is not stupid.
2, You have less idea about Chemistry than me. And I did not take it after the age of 13 and could not do it then. CO2 is not Co2 or co2.
3, You have no idea what you are talking about.
You failed to look at the quantitative spreadsheet. You will see that wherever i used CO2(2-) in the above it was really CO3(2-)
I apologize. I had an error of memory. Human memory is not infallible. and that goes for tim and bored chemist too.
You are both insulting in your language and never examined the original work that was done starting in 2007!
Alas this is the internet and it is the domain of instant gratifiacation and instant put downs, rather than serious work! Very Childish! Does anybody take the internet seriously anyway!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate)
Now we can rectify the problem.
The ocean will get more acidic due to the acid anydride, you have convinced me. I don't necessarily believe everything everybody says and obviously that goes true for Tim and BC.
H2CO2 and HCO2 and CO2(2-) do not exist, but HCO3 (-) and H2CO3 and CO3(2-) do exist and are valid.
and still my calculation is valid. just look at the spreadsheet for gods sake, i did it years ago and i did not train as a chemist. however it includes henrys law, Revelle and diffusion and the atmosphere and the ocean down to 1000 feet.
you won't appreciate it just by arguing on the internet. at the end of the day you have to do some math!
i respect BC CO2 and co2 and Co2 can all be understood to be CO2 and the case is irrelevant. if you understood math the symbols are clear enough capitals or no.
Gaseous CO2 and acqueous CO2 are still both gases, one is dissolved according to henrys law thats all.
Do either of you have a sense of humour? or respect?
Calling the chemist stupid isn't absolute, its like calling your brother stupid for calling you an as&h%^le.
i know hes not stupid, but his posts are minimalistic and not very meaty. tim can't say anything
The buffer still prevents the pH from falling too much
Mg(2+) +CO3(2-) -> MgCO3
and Mg
HCO3 dissociates and makes the water more acidic
MgCO3 -> CO3(2-) + Mg(2+)
this causes
CO3(2-) +H+ -> HCO3(-)
HCO3(-)+H+ -> H2CO3
which takes H+ out of solution and makes it more alkaline!
the buffer responds
CO2+ H2O -> HCO3(-) + H+
makes the water more acidic
so CO2 added to distilled H2O makes it more acidic for sure.
I apologize for my mistake BC, its been many years and i had a brain fart!
best wishes
Whether the ocean will off gas or not is still an open question
The co2 and co3(2-) will have higher concentrations when the pH is lower
So I would guess it will but I am no longer absolutely sure because it is a living ocean. And all its life might respond with the will to survive the most basic instinct of all life on Earth! It's the will to survive that science can't predict!
-
You failed to look at the quantitative spreadsheet. You will see that wherever i used CO2(2-) in the above it was really CO3(2-)
I apologize. I had an error of memory. Human memory is not infallible. and that goes for tim and bored chemist too.
You are both insulting in your language and never examined the original work that was done starting in 2007!
Alas this is the internet and it is the domain of instant gratifiacation and instant put downs, rather than serious work! Very Childish! Does anybody take the internet seriously anyway!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate)
Now we can rectify the problem.
The ocean will get more acidic due to the acid anydride, you have convinced me. I don't necessarily believe everything everybody says and obviously that goes true for Tim and BC.
H2CO2 and HCO2 and CO2(2-) do not exist, but HCO3 (-) and H2CO3 and CO3(2-) do exist and are valid.
and still my calculation is valid. just look at the spreadsheet for gods sake, i did it years ago and i did not train as a chemist. however it includes henrys law, Revelle and diffusion and the atmosphere and the ocean down to 1000 feet.
you won't appreciate it just by arguing on the internet. at the end of the day you have to do some math!
i respect BC CO2 and co2 and Co2 can all be understood to be CO2 and the case is irrelevant. if you understood math the symbols are clear enough capitals or no.
Gaseous CO2 and acqueous CO2 are still both gases, one is dissolved according to henrys law thats all.
Do either of you have a sense of humour? or respect?
Calling the chemist stupid isn't absolute, its like calling your brother stupid for calling you an as&h%^le.
i know hes not stupid, but his posts are minimalistic and not very meaty. tim can't say anything
The buffer still prevents the pH from falling too much
Mg(2+) +CO3(2-) -> MgCO3
and Mg
HCO3 dissociates and makes the water more acidic
MgCO3 -> CO3(2-) + Mg(2+)
this causes
CO3(2-) +H+ -> HCO3(-)
HCO3(-)+H+ -> H2CO3
which takes H+ out of solution and makes it more alkaline!
the buffer responds
CO2+ H2O -> HCO3(-) + H+
makes the water more acidic
so CO2 added to distilled H2O makes it more acidic for sure.
I apologize for my mistake BC, its been many years and i had a brain fart!
best wishes
Whether the ocean will off gas or not is still an open question
The co2 and co3(2-) will have higher concentrations when the pH is lower
So I would guess it will but I am no longer absolutely sure because it is a living ocean. And all its life might respond with the will to survive the most basic instinct of all life on Earth!
Nice rant, but it was a bit long so I didn't really read it.
CO2 is an acid no matter what you may say.
Have you realised that now?
-
Creation and Healing Intent
When one first approahces a possible source or drain, one does not know a priori whether that source is benevolent and benign or dangerous and deceitful in its intent. The best possible strategy, is to have a healing intent, but be uncommitting in terms of ones life energy at first. Just to be peaceful at the cellular level witha moist perhaps lightly sweaty glow, which is the healing intent. If one has prior intellignece about the source or the moment then one angles at with metaphorical intent as well as the cellular glow.
Then one uses ones consciousness to hear and see what if any semiotic symbols arrive upon the brain/mind/body, and deeply sense the meanings, build defense against the negative and enjoy the positive. Strive to look more deeply than the surface impressions , strive to turn the negative into positive with humour and perspective, and hence enjoy them; strive to see the negative in the positive and hence defend oneself against that also. The 2nd moment can play to higher levels yet , and serves as a neutral perceptually coded defense system for oneself, establishes a sense of humour and compassion, and starts the dialog witha a potential source. This is how communication proceeds and how sources recognize one another and steer two consciousnesses towards the light and away from the too dark. It establishes that you can heal them psychologically and we all need that.
We have all heard of the music of the spheres of ancient Greece, the muse , as it were. Well the spehre visted my apartment not so long ago , and if indeed it held the power of life and death over me, it certainly seemed that way. Seeing a spider on the Kitchen wall, and remembering the story of Robert the Bruce, after the first battle loss, and before the 2nd battle success, Robert was holed up in a cave , saw a spider , perhaps blown by the wind, its first web destroyed, its 2nd web destroyed., etc.., finally on its 4th or 5th try it succeeded in making the web, and waited for its supper. He was heartened and realized that to succeed one has to be determined and make sure the odds at each attempt were in as much your favour and as little your opponents as possible. But more importantly, the struggle towards success, you need friends, and must be as signle minded as the spider sometimes if your friends agree, and as little upset by turn arounds as much as possible.
Nowadays , hardly anyoune is an enemy, unless they are attempting to do malicious harm or destruction or to propagate darkness amongst the rest of us for their own gain. Even then they must be approached, psychologically , as aware and worth saving, and one must try to educate them. There are limits however, and if too much destruction is occuring or darkness is being propagated and not joy, it must be limited one way or the other.
It's the dental hygienist change all the threes to twos
-
Word salad.
In particular, the sort of word salad that makes me think you should seek therapy.
-
Word salad.
In particular, the sort of word salad that makes me think you should seek therapy.
You8r just jealous cause you don't have the words and you don't understand it
By the way CO2 is a GAS, not an acid.
You'd try and eat the flesh of anybody!
-
Word salad.
In particular, the sort of word salad that makes me think you should seek therapy.
You8r just jealous cause you don't have the words and you don't understand it
By the way CO2 is a GAS, not an acid.
You'd try and eat the flesh of anybody!
Why do you think a gas can't be an acid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_gas
-
Progress at last!
" For every ton of CO2 emitted, about 1/3 ends up dissolved in the ocean"
Why does that happen (here's another hint)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law)
"you have asserted you think the pH is dropping in the ocean. please tell me where and by how much?"
Sure, it's not as if I'm the only one saying it.
It's kind of obvious- put more acid in teh air and the sea ends up getting acidified.
There are some data for the measured change in pH here
It's not just an assertion of mine; I have access to evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
Do you see the difference here; I have actual evidence for my claims- whereas you don't.
You are being stupid I think it's a misunderstanding we are both saying the same thing
You are supposed to be a chemist or scientist not agreeing with populist
Jargon and epithets! A Semiotician would applaud you for appealing to a mass audience that didn't know the difference!its a good tease if we care about education!
Please tell me why you think they are putting acid in the air.
And why do you call co2 acid?
When co2 first goes into water, it forms Co2 (2-) acqueous. This is an alkaline molecule. Please tell me if you agree with that or not? Where do the two electrons come from? And what happens to pH when co2 (2-) reacts with pure h2o? Please carry out this experiment in a lab with distilled water and tell me what the resultant pH is? Please add co2 to mineral water and tell me what the resultant pH is? I predict the pH will be raised in the distilled water and lowered in the mineral water! I predict the electrons in the ocean come from lightning! To properly do the experiment in the lab with distilled water you might need to add a source of current to it! What happens when you add co2 to distilled water with and without a source of electrons? By the way distilled water doesn't conduct electricity very well!
It's only when co2 diffuses into mineral water that carbonic acid makes it more acidic!
A couple of decades ago a baby cow was born and they measured the amount of calcium and magnesium in it at birth. They measured all the calcium and magnesium content of its food and how much it ate and all the calcium and magnesium content of all the milk it ever produced and the content when it passed. They reckoned there was evidence that it produced more than it consumed! This is an apocryphal story told to me by 94 year old man!
By the way it DOES MATTER if they feel hurt by science!
You might need selenium, vitamin b12 , vitamin E and vitamin C
The thing is with this one that;
1, The Chemist is not stupid.
2, You have less idea about Chemistry than me. And I did not take it after the age of 13 and could not do it then. CO2 is not Co2 or co2.
3, You have no idea what you are talking about.
You failed to look at the quantitative spreadsheet. You will see that wherever i used CO2(2-) in the above it was really CO3(2-)
I apologize. I had an error of memory. Human memory is not infallible. and that goes for tim and bored chemist too.
You are both insulting in your language and never examined the original work that was done starting in 2007!
Alas this is the internet and it is the domain of instant gratifiacation and instant put downs, rather than serious work! Very Childish! Does anybody take the internet seriously anyway!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate)
Now we can rectify the problem.
The ocean will get more acidic due to the acid anydride, you have convinced me. I don't necessarily believe everything everybody says and obviously that goes true for Tim and BC.
H2CO2 and HCO2 and CO2(2-) do not exist, but HCO3 (-) and H2CO3 and CO3(2-) do exist and are valid.
and still my calculation is valid. just look at the spreadsheet for gods sake, i did it years ago and i did not train as a chemist. however it includes henrys law, Revelle and diffusion and the atmosphere and the ocean down to 1000 feet.
you won't appreciate it just by arguing on the internet. at the end of the day you have to do some math!
i respect BC CO2 and co2 and Co2 can all be understood to be CO2 and the case is irrelevant. if you understood math the symbols are clear enough capitals or no.
Gaseous CO2 and acqueous CO2 are still both gases, one is dissolved according to henrys law thats all.
Do either of you have a sense of humour? or respect?
Calling the chemist stupid isn't absolute, its like calling your brother stupid for calling you an as&h%^le.
i know hes not stupid, but his posts are minimalistic and not very meaty. tim can't say anything
The buffer still prevents the pH from falling too much
Mg(2+) +CO3(2-) -> MgCO3
and Mg
HCO3 dissociates and makes the water more acidic
MgCO3 -> CO3(2-) + Mg(2+)
this causes
CO3(2-) +H+ -> HCO3(-)
HCO3(-)+H+ -> H2CO3
which takes H+ out of solution and makes it more alkaline!
the buffer responds
CO2+ H2O -> HCO3(-) + H+
makes the water more acidic
so CO2 added to distilled H2O makes it more acidic for sure.
I apologize for my mistake BC, its been many years and i had a brain fart!
best wishes
Whether the ocean will off gas or not is still an open question
The co2 and co3(2-) will have higher concentrations when the pH is lower
So I would guess it will but I am no longer absolutely sure because it is a living ocean. And all its life might respond with the will to survive the most basic instinct of all life on Earth! It's the will to survive that science can't predict!
i did it years ago and i did not train as a chemist
And therein lies the trouble.
I will never look at any silly spread sheet you have done.
If you were to go to the sea side and do experiments that showed this you might have a point but then I would need to see them. I would look at such.
P.S. What is CO3 ? And how do you get out of subscript damn it!
-
There's another reaon why you won't comment on his spreadsheet Tim,
He refuses to let us see it.
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, ...
And no i won't show it to you because ...
-
There's another reaon why you won't comment on his spreadsheet Tim,
He refuses to let us see it.
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, ...
And no i won't show it to you because ...
Well that would make it tricky.
I have to ask why this hoped to be respected science forum does allow the mad and utterly stupid to post.
I am not against this per say but surely it should be coralled in it's own section?
-
Word salad.
In particular, the sort of word salad that makes me think you should seek therapy.
You8r just jealous cause you don't have the words and you don't understand it
By the way CO2 is a GAS, not an acid.
You'd try and eat the flesh of anybody!
Why do you think a gas can't be an acid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_gas)
Ok it's often called an acid gas because it is acidic when it comes into contact with water
-
There's another reaon why you won't comment on his spreadsheet Tim,
He refuses to let us see it.
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, ...
And no i won't show it to you because ...
You are quoting out of context if you want to see it contact me at chondrally@ gmail.com
-
Word salad.
In particular, the sort of word salad that makes me think you should seek therapy.
You8r just jealous cause you don't have the words and you don't understand it
By the way CO2 is a GAS, not an acid.
You'd try and eat the flesh of anybody!
Why do you think a gas can't be an acid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_gas
CO2 is not an acid gas either and you know it
It is an acid gas. Why do you think it is not?
That wiki page about acid gases cites CO2 as an example.
Strictly speaking (as I said before) it's an acid anhydride if you use one of the more common definitions of acids and bases..
Unless you are using the Lux Flood acid base model, in which case it is unequivocally an acid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction#Lux.E2.80.93Flood_definition
How long is it going to take you to realise that you are wrong?
-
There's another reaon why you won't comment on his spreadsheet Tim,
He refuses to let us see it.
I have offered my spreadsheet to the community, ...
And no i won't show it to you because ...
You are quoting out of context if you want to see it contact me at chondrally@ gmail.com
NOAA gave Mauna Loa data in 2007 to the public that had a safety factor built in!
In 2004-2007 when i first did my analysis of the ocean and atmosphere and pH, the CO2 atmospheric data for Mauna Loa was different than it is today. Back then, they were basically forecasting 480 ppm for 2017 and the data for 1990 through 2007 was off. They gave data with a safety factor built in to the public, not the true data!
I still don't know if they are giving the true data to the public or not, so i will refrain from using that public data source this time around. The critical points of 493 ppm and 878 ppm for the saturation of the magnesium and calcium carbonate buffers are not erroneous, and warnings remain. It is just the timing of when they will occur that is off. They will happen later this century and next century respectively, unless action is taken to prevent them. We have a little extra time, but not much, and with a Trump Administration in the US that is determined to ignore almost all scientific evidence, we may have to wait 4 to 8 years before we can see some real progress there. The good news is that many americans, those that supported the Democrats and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore are still pushing, and the news that a Judge has blocked the travel ban for Visa travellers, bodes well that checks and balances are in place and that some Common Sense still remains. Lets hope Greedy Businessmen and War Mongerers and Profiteers can be thwarted by decent people action!
-
You keep talking about buffers saturating: they don't.