|
|
Post by Ariete on Sept 19, 2019 10:21:56 GMT -5
Delicious. Bernie, Greta, AGW and strikes in one post. *TRIGGER WARNING*
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Sept 19, 2019 11:06:38 GMT -5
Fortunately only 38% of Americans are getting fooled by the circus. Here's some more comic relief, alarmist doomsayer caught in lies live:
In other news, Swiss climate terrorists did this in the house of parliament today:
16 months, lol. We should start making bets on these predictions, I have a feeling I'd be making a lot of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Sept 19, 2019 14:58:35 GMT -5
Fortunately only 38% of Americans are getting fooled by the circus. Here's some more comic relief, alarmist doomsayer caught in lies live: Poor conference chair, that's a nightmare situation... I don't want to address the purely climate change part in the second part of the video because I saw that it is completely useless, but I want to at least make some comments on the chemistry discussion at the beginning. To me all the contestant at the beginning appears completely trivial, it is common practice to say that a solution became more acidic when its pH lowered. I think that the info to be checked should be instead: "we lost 2-3 pH units in the last 4 decades", even if he wasn't left much time to comment it further. Anyway, even without considering what that guy was saying, if we look on wikipedia (lazy source of info for everyone) [1] we can see that it looks like the oceans average pH passed from 8.25 ti 8.14. Like this it doesn't seem much, but we can try to apply some basic chemistry and use the definition of pH: pH = -Log 10[H +] ( [] means "concentration measured in mol/L") You can see that there is a logarithm in there, which means that a decrease of pH of 1 units corresponds to a factor x10 on the concentration of H + ions. So, in terms of concentration of H + ions, the change in the oceans pH corresponds to: [H +] 1700 = 10 -8.25 = 5.6234 * 10 -9 M [H +] 1990 = 10 -8.14 = 7.2443 * 10 -9 M [H +] 1990 - [H +] 1700 = (7.2443 - 5.6234) * 10 -9 M = 1.6209 * 10 -9 M So the percentage increase of [H +] in comparison with 1700 values is (1.6209 * 10 -9 M *100) / 5.6234 * 10 -9 M = 28.8% (almost as wikipedia says) Now, some of you guys could dislike climate change in general, but the effect of the acidification of oceans is very straightforward to understand and its relation with the concentration of CO 2 in the air is described by very basic chemistry. The only relatively difficult part is the fact that there are quite a lot of equilibria process linked one to the other, more precisely: CO 2(g) + H 2O ⇄ H 2CO 3(sol) H 2CO 3(sol) ⇄ H +(sol) + HCO 3-(sol) HCO 3-(sol) ⇄ H +(sol) + CO 32-(sol) CO 32-(sol) +Ca 2+(sol) ⇄ CaCO 3(s)(all passages are written in the easiest way possible) Even without making all the calculations (it takes some time, I tried once and it's deadly boring), knowing a little about chemical equilibria make it evident that increasing the CO 2 concentration will generate more H + ions into that solution, and so the pH decreases a little. It's not even a matter of climate change, it's just a straightforward consequence of the chemistry of CO 2, and at this point I doubt that anyone can contest the fact that CO 2 concentration has been increasing. The effect of the decrease of the pH on the marittime organism producing carbonate shells, which seemed to be the original topic of the guy in the video, is described mostly by the last equilibrium instead. By decreasing the pH the equilibrium will reverse and carbonates (CO 32-,(which are insoluble solids) are more likely to be protonated and return in the form of bicarbonates (HCO 3-, soluble). This is quite problematic for a lots of marittime organisms, which are facing more and more problems at maintaining their carbonate structure and avoid them to dissolve because of an acid base reaction. (Uhm, I probably wrote too much...) |
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Sept 19, 2019 15:05:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Sept 19, 2019 15:28:29 GMT -5
Fortunately only 38% of Americans are getting fooled by the circus. Here's some more comic relief, alarmist doomsayer caught in lies live: Poor conference chair, that's a nightmare situation... I don't want to address the purely climate change part in the second part of the video because I saw that it is completely useless, but I want to at least make some comments on the chemistry discussion at the beginning. To me all the contestant at the beginning appears completely trivial, it is common practice to say that a solution became more acidic when its pH lowered. I think that the info to be checked should be instead: "we lost 2-3 pH units in the last 4 decades", even if he wasn't left much time to comment it further. Anyway, even without considering what that guy was saying, if we look on wikipedia (lazy source of info for everyone) [1] we can see that it looks like the oceans average pH passed from 8.25 ti 8.14. Like this it doesn't seem much, but we can try to apply some basic chemistry and use the definition of pH: pH = -Log 10[H +] ( [] means "concentration measured in mol/L") You can see that there is a logarithm in there, which means that a decrease of pH of 1 units corresponds to a factor x10 on the concentration of H + ions. So, in terms of concentration of H + ions, the change in the oceans pH corresponds to: [H +] 1700 = 10 -8.25 = 5.6234 * 10 -9 M [H +] 1990 = 10 -8.14 = 7.2443 * 10 -9 M [H +] 1990 - [H +] 1700 = (7.2443 - 5.6234) * 10 -9 M = 1.6209 * 10 -9 M So the percentage increase of [H +] in comparison with 1700 values is (1.6209 * 10 -9 M *100) / 5.6234 * 10 -9 M = 28.8% (almost as wikipedia says) Now, some of you guys could dislike climate change in general, but the effect of the acidification of oceans is very straightforward to understand and its relation with the concentration of CO 2 in the air is described by very basic chemistry. The only relatively difficult part is the fact that there are quite a lot of equilibria process linked one to the other, more precisely: CO 2(g) + H 2O ⇄ H 2CO 3(sol) H 2CO 3(sol) ⇄ H +(sol) + HCO 3-(sol) HCO 3-(sol) ⇄ H +(sol) + CO 32-(s) (all passages are written in the easiest way possible) Even without making all the calculations (it takes some time, I tried once and it's deadly boring), knowing a little about chemical equilibria make it evident that increasing the CO 2 concentration will generate more H + ions into that solution, and so the pH decreases a little. It's not even a matter of climate change, it's just a straightforward consequence of the chemistry of CO 2, and at this point I doubt that anyone can contest the fact that CO 2 concentration has been increasing. The effect of the decrease of the pH on the marittime organism producing carbonate shells, which seemed to be the original topic of the guy in the video, is described mostly by the last equilibrium instead. By decreasing the pH the equilibrium will reverse and carbonates (CO 32-,(which are insoluble solids) are more likely to be protonated and return in the form of bicarbonates (HCO 3-, soluble). This is quite problematic for a lots of marittime organisms, which are facing more and more problems at maintaining their carbonate structure and avoid them to dissolve because of an acid base reaction. (Uhm, I probably wrote too much...)
This is why he doesn't want women to have the right to vote. They might know stuff better than him!
Now go back into the kitchen and plop out some babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Sept 19, 2019 16:07:20 GMT -5
The chemistry put forth is undoubtedly correct, but the problem is...it's merely theoretical, as usual.
In this thread, I have not seen a single, adequate counter-argument against the observational evidence—comprising chiefly that of which is (still) hosted by BOM's and NOAA's historical climate archives, as well as that of the CET record (1659-2019). Non-standard equipment (i.e. lack of Stevenson Screens)—the spear-heading excuse put forth by myriads of meteorological instutions surrounding historical climate adjustments/homogenisations—has been ultimately laid moot by the fact that Stevenson Screens were installed for much of the late 19th Century; in Australia, introduced in 1887, and largely installed up until 1898.
Concludingly, if the historical records are so "unreliable", then why does the IPCC and/or WMO consistently preach their "it is [insert figure] warmer today than it was during the start of the Industrial Revolution"—how do they yield the accurate raw data, yet the BOM or NOAA don't? These vital questions lay un-answered, by which they still remain to this very day. Farthermore, "the start of the Industrial Revolution", was an era well before the invention of the Stevenson Screen.
Beating-around-the-bush with theoretical evidence, is utterly futile; it ain't changing the observational evidence. To quote his splendour, Richard P. Feynman — "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Sept 20, 2019 0:45:08 GMT -5
The chemistry put forth is undoubtedly correct, but the problem is...it's merely theoretical, as usual. In this thread, I have not seen a single, adequate counter-argument against the observational evidence—comprising chiefly that of which is (still) hosted by BOM's and NOAA's historical climate archives, as well as that of the CET record (1659-2019). Non-standard equipment (i.e. lack of Stevenson Screens)—the spear-heading excuse put forth by myriads of meteorological instutions surrounding historical climate adjustments/homogenisations—has been ultimately laid moot by the fact that Stevenson Screens were installed for much of the late 19th Century; in Australia, introduced in 1887, and largely installed up until 1898. Concludingly, if the historical records are so "unreliable", then why does the IPCC and/or WMO consistently preach their "it is [insert figure] warmer today than it was during the start of the Industrial Revolution"—how do they yield the accurate raw data, yet the BOM or NOAA don't? These vital questions lay un-answered, by which they still remain to this very day. Farthermore, "the start of the Industrial Revolution", was an era well before the invention of the Stevenson Screen. Beating-around-the-bush with theoretical evidence, is utterly futile; it ain't changing the observational evidence. To quote his splendour, Richard P. Feynman — "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."Have you noticed that the last chemistry post I wrote was about the acid-base equilibria in oceans and it was not even related to temperature/climate? Also all the part on raw data would deserve some attention, but now I definitely not have the time for it. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Sept 20, 2019 17:42:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Sept 20, 2019 20:07:19 GMT -5
knotI liked this comment: "In the grand scheme of things, it’s meta-models of meta-data for extracting meta-trends confirming the meta-models. What a meta-mess." Garbage in, garbage out...strewth...
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Sept 20, 2019 20:15:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Sept 21, 2019 7:28:14 GMT -5
Heatwaves are Becoming More Frequent and Severe™ — US Edition Shows a very obvious upwards trend, eh lads?
This can be directly traced to the Dust Bowl, different agricultural methods and wheat production turning to corn. And less grazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Sept 21, 2019 16:47:11 GMT -5
This can be directly traced to the Dust Bowl, different agricultural methods and wheat production turning to corn. And less grazing. And may that explain the sharply-decreased frequency and length of heatwaves, as well? The two, uppermost graphs that began my previous post displayed both the length/frequency and the magnitude of heatwaves; heatwaves are not only less potent in much of the States nowadays, but also less frequent and less prolonged. |
|
|
|
Post by srfoskey on Sept 22, 2019 1:47:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Sept 22, 2019 2:15:13 GMT -5
That map is sorrowfully wrong for much of Australia and the Southern Hemisphere, I'm afraid—in fact, much of that map's "data" isn't even measured at all, such as that of South America and Africa, and that of the oceans; merely computer-simulated via faulty modelling.  Whoops-a-daisy! Better luck next time, lad. |
|
|
|
Post by srfoskey on Sept 22, 2019 2:53:01 GMT -5
That map is sorrowfully wrong for much of Australia and the Southern Hemisphere, I'm afraid—in fact, much of that map's "data" isn't even measured at all, such as that of South America and Africa, and that of the oceans; merely computer-simulated via faulty modelling. Whoops-a-daisy! Better luck next time, lad. What's the y-axis on that plot supposed to represent? |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Sept 22, 2019 3:51:12 GMT -5
What's the y-axis on that plot supposed to represent? The deviation of annual mean temperature; collected and compiled from 52 stations astride NSW, VIC, SA, and TAS; South-Eastern Australia. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on Sept 22, 2019 4:00:13 GMT -5
More plainly observed in this South American graph, the scale is measured in °K:  Regions of South America whereby the data were collected and compiled; regional representation in %:  |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Sept 24, 2019 0:40:04 GMT -5
She looks like a spoiled little brat. What I'd give to wipe that pompous smug look off that ghastly little extraterrestrial's face... Huh, she actually does have a sort of "ET" look about her... |
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on Sept 24, 2019 1:29:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Sept 24, 2019 1:32:57 GMT -5
|
|
