Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

There is No Point....has there ever been on one of these MMGWH Threads?
No, which is why they are so fun and frustrate those that think otherwise.

Is a Hunter a Blue Water Boat...

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

On this we agree.

Originally Posted by GordMay

But, not to worry. As long as some of us have ice cream, we're all good. Right?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm seeing a lot of awfully troubling agreement here. I mean everyone seems to agree that 3D's reefers do a great job of keeping ice cream frozen. Now if we could only stop being so frustrated & worried about all those cows producing more CO2 than cars, 3D could feel a lot less guilty about hitting the taco stands.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why? What makes you think we can't make reasonably accurate determinations of CO2 levels (or temperature) 200 years back, or longer?


Ice core basics

yep you keep touting ice cores but plant stomata show a much different picture



Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...plant-stomata/


It also covers the inaccuracies in the co2 data in the ice cores

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by newhaul

yep you keep touting ice cores but plant stomata show a much different picture



Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...plant-stomata/


It also covers the inaccuracies in the co2 data in the ice cores

kinda throws the 40% co2 increase schitck into the circular good doesn't it

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

first off its not at 410 it is extremely variable from 397 ( the lowest I found today) around the great lakes region. To 490 ppm close to the equator deep in the Amazon jungle .

Which would you prefer to use?
Btw the estimated co2 I would say was 295 ppm
Now as to your question .

1900 about 295 ppm = .0295%
Now about 410 ppm = .0410%
An increase of 115 ppm =.0115%
Which is about 40% increase in a miniscule percentage when you consider the total in actual scientific terms .
The problem is that it is never stated correctly .
As a side note you do realise that co2 is at ir saturation right which means we need An approx 800 ppm to have any measurable additional ir heating from the co2 .

But in the meantime plants love it .

Do you see now with the facts spelled out for you how your bathtub analogy was so wrong and misleading .
Truth is that in your bathtub it would amount to adding about a half cup of water.
But I would not expect any less from a card carrying MMGWC member.

The total being the entire atmosphere, correct? Are these percentages significantly disputed within the science?

[Group9]

We're all going to die again, aren't we?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

We're all going to die again, aren't we?

Of frustration or boredom.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

The total being the entire atmosphere, correct? Are these percentages significantly disputed within the science?

that is correct I should have stated that in my post
Apologies for the omission

As to the numbers I used LE's numbers . From ice core data but I'm sure by now you have seen the post about the ppm calculated from plant stomata .
Which puts it as high at times as it is in places today .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Group9

We're all going to die again, aren't we?

eventually yes we are .
Myself it will be a rogue wave in the middle of the pacific in about 40 years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Of frustration or boredom.

admit it you are having fun

I know I am

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

admit it you are having fun

I know I am

I honestly think something this important shouldn't be a source of amusement, nor is there anything very noble in trolling, or not debating it in good faith.

There is something compelling in the mechanics of debate, but not many payoffs here. More like whack-a-mole.

Maybe it's the same sort of fun as being hit with a hammer. Feels so good when it stops.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I honestly think something this important shouldn't be a source of amusement, nor is there anything very noble in trolling, or not debating it in good faith.

There is something compelling in the mechanics of debate, but not many payoffs here. More like whack-a-mole.

Maybe it's the same sort of fun as being hit with a hammer. Feels so good when it stops.

dude this is a sailing forum .
If its so painful for you then why do you keep posting ?????????????????

[GordMay]

1900 about 295 ppm = .0295%
Now about 410 ppm = .0410%
An increase of 115 ppm =.0115%
Which is about 40% increase in a miniscule percentage when you consider the total in actual scientific terms.
The problem is that it is never stated correctly .
As a side note you do realise that co2 is at ir saturation right which means we need An approx 800 ppm to have any measurable additional ir heating from the co2 .
But in the meantime plants love it .
Do you see now with the facts spelled out for you how your bathtub analogy was so wrong and misleading .
Truth is that in your bathtub it would amount to adding about a half cup of water.

Here’s a different analogy:
Potassium has several important functions in the body. It is essential for the normal functioning of the muscles, heart, and nerves.
The normal potassium level in the blood is 3.5-5.0 per liter (mmol/L or mEq/L). A potassium level that is too high (hyperkalemia) or too low (hypokalemia) can be serious.
Potassium levels below 2.5 millimoles per litre (mmol/L) are considered to be serious (hypokalemia). Potassium levels above 7 mEq/L reflect severe hyperkalemia.
So, as you can see, a change of something on the order of 1 to 2 mmol/L is a very serious blood chemistry problem (I know, I’m treated for severe idiopathic hypokalemia).

A mole is an amount of a substance that contains a large number (6 followed by 23 zeros) of molecules or atoms. A millimole is one-thousandth of a mole (138 zeroes).
A litre measures fluid volume. It is a little bigger than a quart.
Most sources state the volume of blood in an average human adult, who is between 150 to 160 pounds, as between 4.7 and 5 liters, although some more recent sources state the volume of blood in an average adult as 4.7 liters (7-8% of the body mass).

I'll let someone else calculate the percentage of "the total in actual scientific terms".
Hint: it's miniscule (but, potentially FATAL) compared to Newhaul's flawed .0115%)

CO2 IR “saturation” is a flawed, and disproved theory, in this application.

[Lake-Effect]

As usual, Gord nails it. (My granny had a potassium issue too)

To use Gord's analogy to also make my point about CO2 source: If someone deliberately eats X bananas and their potassium level spikes to a dangerous level, nobody stops to wonder whether they're sick because of the potassium atoms from the bananas, or the atoms from the more normal meals you ate yesterday. Too much potassium is the immediate problem. Period. Full stop.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Here’s a different analogy:
Potassium has several important functions in the body. It is essential for the normal functioning of the muscles, heart, and nerves.
The normal potassium level in the blood is 3.5-5.0 per liter (mmol/L or mEq/L). A potassium level that is too high (hyperkalemia) or too (hypokalemia) low can be serious.
Potassium levels below 2.5 millimoles per litre (mmol/L) are considered to be serious (hypokalemia). Potassium levels above 7 mEq/L reflect severe hyperkalemia.
So, as you can see, a change of something on the order of 1 to 2 mmol/L is a very serious blood chemistry problem (I know, I’m treated for severe idiopathic hypokalemia).

A mole is an amount of a substance that contains a large number (6 followed by 23 zeros) of molecules or atoms. A millimole is one-thousandth of a mole (138 zeroes).
A litre measures fluid volume. It is a little bigger than a quart.
Most sources state the volume of blood in an average human adult, who is between 150 to 160 pounds, as between 4.7 and 5 liters, although some more recent sources state the volume of blood in an average adult as 4.7 liters (7-8% of the body mass).
I'll let someone else calculate the percentage of "the total in actual scientific terms".

Hint: it's miniscule (but, potentially FATAL) compared to Newhaul's flawed .0115%)

CO2 IR “saturation” is a flawed, and disproved theory, in this application.

Apples to oranges.


https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/co...df?MOD=AJPERES

10,000 ppm (1.0%) Typically no effects, possible drowsiness

15,000 ppm (1.5%) Mild respiratory stimulation for some people

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

The total being the entire atmosphere, correct? Are these percentages significantly disputed within the science?

Amazing...

There is very good agreement in the *science* world about the history of CO2 over the last 800k years. There is good agreement that the co2 has increased from 280 to 440 and is headed to doubling to 560 in the next 30-50 years. When discussing the *change* in an amount is usually discussed as a ratio of the original to the new amount so 280/440 yields a ratio in percent of 40% *change*. Newhaul is trying to confuse the issue by doing a subtraction instead. We are at 40% now but as I opined in an earlier post, even if we hit the brakes hard now we will probably still double the co2 from pre-industrial levels.