Global Warming HOAX Unravels

Obama refocused NASA’s main mission towards two major priorities: Global Warming – and a Muslim outreach program

a reply to: Agartha

Agartha

If you know anything about chemistry then you know that CO2 dissolved in sea water ends up as both carbonic acid and carbonates and bicarbs

The formation of carbonic acid is very weak

antoine.frostburg.edu...

How does CO2 dissolve in water? Here is a sketchy outline of the process. As with the O2, the CO2 must cross the surface of the liquid:

CO2(g) CO2(aq)

It's a little easier for the CO2 to do so than for oxygen, because the oxygen ends of the molecule have a partial negative charge are better able to hydrogen-bond to the water as a result. The CO2 rather slowly acquires a shell of water molecules. A fraction of these hydrated carbon dioxide molecules react with the water to produce carbonic acid (H2CO3):
CO2(aq) + H2O H2CO3(aq)

The equilibrium constant for this reaction is about 1.6×10-3 around room temperature, which means that most of the dissolved carbon dioxide is present as hydrated CO2. Only about 16% reacts with water to form carbonic acid. The reaction is rather slow. It involves bending a stable, linear CO2 molecule (with a water parked oxygen-down over the carbon) into a Y-shaped O=C(OH)2 molecule.
The carbonic acid is a weak acid, and it can dissociate to form bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) and (in basic solution) carbonate ion: (CO32-):

H2CO3(aq) H+(aq) + HCO3-(aq)
HCO3-(aq) H+(aq) + CO32-(aq)

Since seawater is alkaline ....well most of the carbonic acid ends up as bicarb which is very good for constructing shells

Read your links again

Link 2

We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

The links you provided are all speculation, no hard research.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Agartha
The more molecules of gas = the greater the partial pressure = the more of that gas dissolves in the water (to keep the equilibrium solubility of a gas described in Henry's law).

But I know you are going to disagree and accuse me of of not understanding or something of the sort, so let's just leave it at that. It gets boring after a while.

No...actually, I saw that logic exception right after I posted, decided to leave it to see how you would react...well done. That's my bad. I would still have serious issue, however, with the magnitudes involved.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Is proving "global warming" is a hoax make things better, I wonder. My husband's family just sold the family farm that they homesteaded in the 1870's. Because the weather patterns have most definitely changed in the last 5 years. It will take new people with new ideas to adapt now.

Sorry to hear that.

Only another farmer can understand your loss. It is much more than the emotions that follow a change of occupation. Selling and making a clean break is far more desirable than becoming involved in the "stewardship" program that is quietly assuming control over considerable rural areas in our country.

A farmer that is struggling to hold on might be tempted when an offer with several zeros is dangled in front of him but, in my opinion after digging through pages of restrictions, it's a deal with the Devil. Under ordinary circumstances I would say that the government should be required to ensure that the land owner be fully educated on what he's signing, but these aren't ordinary circumstances. The program is being actively promoted by our government in conjunction with a multi-national agenda. Far better to sell your farm and move on than to be right there and have virtually anything you want to do require prior approval from a chain of bureaucrats.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
And if you knew anything about chemistry than you would realize the change in PH is significant in a very sensitive environment.

The ocean is becoming more acidic as a result of the excessive CO2. This means the H+ ion concentration is increasing....hence the term more acidic.

To claim that overall, more CO2 is a good thing, tells me you are lacking marine bio and oceanographic chemistry awareness.

Human beings are arguing about a consideration that has formed in front of your eyes....UFO and fall out of our atmosphere as an actual witnessed event.

Then we have the changed spiritual condition of our brain chemicals so that we now see new images in our dreams/thoughts and presence. These presences have been known to alter our physical senses and skin...as evidence.

We live in a natural atmosphere that has been changed....it once existed with the support of both uranium fused crystal sound and also plutonium.

Both products converted and then burnt.

We then see all of the events that happened since science allowed the condition to attack us, and now they are making inane statements on forums as if there is something to consider.........what about self destruction, something scientists seemingly believe that they can control....since when can you control Nature?

If you live on a Planet that is natural and then you change the natural product and then destroy the natural product what would obviously happen?

a reply to: jrod

No, it isn't becoming more acidic. You can't use the term acidic until the PH drops below 7. I thought you took chemistry? In chemistry a ph level above or below 7 and moving towards 7 is always described as becoming more neutral or less basic/acidic.

An acidic compound with a ph of 6 that moves to 6.4 is not said to become more basic/alkaline and vice versa. You are using terminology that does not exist outside of media and was completely invented for ocean acidicfication. As I stated the term ocean acidification was invented recently.

If you did learn that in college you must be very young and gone to a great community college.

Source

the less basic it will be.

a reply to: jrod

Can you explain how PH of the oceans are measured?

And since the pH has varied by only 0.1 and you seem to think this is partiularly alarming - what is considered the natural variation of the ocean's ph

Since you claim to be so knowledgeable and all - I assume you would not mind sharing

Tired of Control freaks

I shouldn't have made a comment about education. It came off wrong. I was making a jab at education the days. I tried to edit it but passed my window. Apologies.

a reply to: raymundoko

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

Can you explain how PH of the oceans are measured?

And since the pH has varied by only 0.1 and you seem to think this is partiularly alarming - what is considered the natural variation of the ocean's ph

Since you claim to be so knowledgeable and all - I assume you would not mind sharing

Tired of Control freaks

Seawater pH is typically limited to a range between 7.5 and 8.4. However, there is no universally accepted reference pH-scale for seawater and the difference between measurements based on different reference scales may be up to 0.14 units.

-- en.wikipedia.org...

Finding this was an interesting exercise; most of the easy to find references were heavily obfuscated with "Ocean Acidification" rhetoric.

But, as you can see there is no accepted reference, and the existing references can vary by some more than this "alarming acidification" of the Oceans. This kind of invalidates the whole notion of "acidification".

a reply to: tanka418

yeah I thought so when I found out that they are only able to measure the surface layer of the ocean and the chemical breakdown of CO2 is carbonate and bicarbanate then carbolic acid.

The fact that plankton blooms have increased by 20 % is a pretty good indication of a healthy ocean

Tired of Control Freaks

Why does everyone think the planet warming is a bad thing?

-Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a non-toxic, non-irritating, and natural component of the atmosphere. Long-term CO2 enrichment studies confirm the findings of shorter-term experiments, demonstrating numerous growth-enhancing, water-conserving, and stress-alleviating effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants growing in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
-There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefiting from rising agricultural productivity around the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
-Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.
-A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than are lost due to excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases.

Source

a reply to: tanka418

Thank you. Why do you have an issue with the magnitudes involved?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

The fact that plankton blooms have increased by 20 % is a pretty good indication of a healthy ocean

Actually it's not, it may be an indication of the increasing CO2 in the oceans as coccolithophores have thrived during very warm + high CO2 periods. Plankton love CO2 and its fast growth shows that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen dramatically. Oceans are also getting warmer which is not suitable for most sea life, but plankton love it. Plankton is like the canary in the mine: it's telling us that the ecosystems are changing, and fast.

www.sciencemag.org...

originally posted by: Vector99
Why does everyone think the planet warming is a bad thing?

Well, I could discuss every point you made but one thing worries the most: its speed. The rate at which global temperature is rising has never been experienced by mankind before, it is unprecedented.

a reply to: Agartha

Agartha

Plankton is part of the feed back system for dealing with CO2. Its how CO2 gets sequestered at the bottom of the ocean. Its how CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere. It shows that everything is working exactly as it should.

As in the ocean - so on land. CO2 is a fantastic fertilizer and our planet is greener and more vibrant than it was 100 years ago.

www.nature.com...

Are you seriously suggesting that more plant life is a bad thing?

First you were concerned about pH - that was pretty thoroughly discussed and the issue of Ocean Acidification was found to be an alarmist position.

We have discussed that the extent of the warming experienced since the 1980s is not UNPRECEDENTED. Global temperatures were warmer during the Medieval Warming Period. This is clearly evidenced by tree line growths being revealed by retreating glaciers.

Now you bring up the rate of warming. But the rate of warming is measured by NOAA on a thirty year basis The rate of warming that you are alarmed about happened for about 30 years but ended in the 1990s. The rate of warming has slowed dramatically for the last 20 years. Which means when NOAA next calculates the rate of warming for the 30 years from about 1995 to 2006, the rate of warming will be much lower that the rate you are alarmed about.

here read this article

www.globalresearch.ca...

You will see why some scientists are now predicting global cooling again.

Every thing is operating as it should but if you put enough negative spin on things you can alarm anyone about anything.

That is why we are calling this the Global Warming Hoax. Its more than discovering that CO2 is rising in the atmosphere and presenting a theory as to its cause. That is science.

Its spinning every aspect as negatively as possible so you can impose taxes on a frightened population begging to be saved.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

They (pro-AGW0 are spinning every part of their theory into a fear induced response . The fear is always focused on the future but even if some of it was true to the extent we know has existed in the past then it would be easy to embrace it in a positive way . Take the Arctic that was once a large vast territory of grass lands that many species thrived and would have been habitable for humans . Think of the land with lots of fresh waters and a ocean to transit from east to west . The sheer money that could be saved in transporting goods would be phenomenal . The land that could produce food for the rest of the world would be a plus .

Imagine heading north to vacation and swim in some of the most pristine waters on the face of the earth . Sure there would be places that once thrived like the Maya but had to move on to greener pastures but these things are really what the earth decides not man. Man can only get out what is there to get .We see mans ability to adapt to very harsh places on the earth in the past ,the present and will in the future .

Is that something we should fear or should we embrace it . The AGW crowd run on fear and will never be able to think clearly in order to make the best decisions . Heck them deciding to bring together 1000's of people to talk about it has left a very big carbon foot print on the earth when they could have used the technology of today with skype to talk about it . All their talk will still not get either the paperwork they want and will only add to the temperature they fear .

Will humans change without fear? We need to change and unfortunately fear is what policy makers (both political and private) think is their only option to sway public opinion. It's working too.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The Medieval Warming Period was 3 or 4 degrees warmer than current temperatures. It was a Golden Age for mankind. Civilizations thrived, education, art, culture. There was bountiful food.

oh God - lets not do that again!

NOAA calculates the rate of warming on a 30 year period for a planet that is millions of years old. Surely if we expand the period for which we calculate the rate of warming, it would be more representative. What is the value and rational for the 30 year period?

What is the perfect global temperature? What is the perfect rate of warming/cooling? Atmospheric CO2 have been astronomically higher in the past. What the perfect concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is the perfect level of variation in all of these factors?

What is so special about the 1970s that we must preserve all factors that relate to global climate to that exact level?

Glaciers have expanded and shrunk in the past. What is the perfect mass of glaciers on the planet?

If these questions can't be answered....then we simply have no reference point from which to judge whether current climate conditions are good or bad. Yes some parts of the world are warmer ....but other parts are colder. Some win, some lose.

Refugees .....Seriously? Millions and millions of refugees came from the Old World to the new. I am sure that the natives bemoaned their fate but I am confident that the refugees are happy that they came. The developed world has a population problem. We aren't breeding fast enough to keep our populations numbers level. Underdeveloped world has a population problem. Too much breeding and population growth is unsustainable. We are due for another mass migration! Some will win, some will lose. As it ever was and ever will be!

Aren't you just sick and tired of being controlled by fear and alarmism. Can you not just let the universe unfold as it should?

Hence my screen name

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

But we are suppose to be smarter now. We know about atoms and protons and such. This change will effect the food supply. How many raise there own food nowadays. That is a full time job in itself, producing enough food for a family. But I understand how fear paralyzes some.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Set the sail ,and use a tack ,steady as she goes . As the great ice sheets melted in the past ,humans expanded north .Is it done ? don't know ,but I hope not . I have a picture of the Garden of Eden that doesn't require shoving snow . Imaging the amount of fossil fuel I wouldn't have to burn in my snow blower :>) win win ....great post , starr for you good mind .

a reply to: MOMof3

Russia seems to embrace the possibility of being able to increase their food production in the future and are moving towards that . China is taging up with them as they see the realistic benefits . More CO2 in the atmosphere will increase yields until the lower levels start to reduce because of plant starvation ....think of the kid's for peat sake ...:>)