Global Warming, CO2, and Coral

[thaumaturgy]

So, have I talked "a little" about science?

Yes. A very little.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If so, why do you use 500 emotional words to reply my 5 words? I did not call you lier.

I am guessing by your strange grammar and spelling that you may not be a native english speaker and hence incapable of understanding the "subtlety" of what I wrote but let me lay it out for you in so many words:

You didn't call me a "lier". I called you a liar. And it tears me up inside to say that to anyone. Even you.

I don't feel comfortable calling anyone a liar, but I am becoming more comfortable with each passing post in declaring you just that. Or perhaps a troll. 6 of one, half dozen of another.

Post some science or just admit you are "chickening out".

 

[thaumaturgy]

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

This is now one of my favorite Juvenissun quotes. I think I need to bookmark it.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. A very little.

If so, why do you say I did not talk about any science?

 

[juvenissun]

I am guessing by your strange grammar and spelling that you may not be a native english speaker and hence incapable of understanding the "subtlety" of what I wrote but let me lay it out for you in so many words:

You didn't call me a "lier". I called you a liar. And it tears me up inside to say that to anyone. Even you.

I don't feel comfortable calling anyone a liar, but I am becoming more comfortable with each passing post in declaring you just that. Or perhaps a troll. 6 of one, half dozen of another.

Post some science or just admit you are "chickening out".

Have I posted "a very little" science?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If so, why do you say I did not talk about any science?

Have I posted "a very little" science?

are you going to start addressing our criticisms or contributing to some kind of discussion?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Have I posted "a very little" science?

Start talking science. Stop with this garbage.

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

 

[thaumaturgy]

If so, why do you say I did not talk about any science?

You've "asked questions", and you've cut-n-pasted some references and someone else's abstract. It indicates you can identify science. You've made a couple of marginal scientific statements.

If I thought for one second a "scientific discussion" with you was going to be this followed by your constant blather and whines, I would gladly have granted you your right to chicken out much earlier.

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

juvenissun, either say something constructive or i vote to no longer deal with you. no reason to feed the creature living under the bridge.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

Juvenissun, in case you aren't going to chicken out or keep up your troll game, here's some examples from my own posts on this thread where you can see what science looks like:

Explanation of calcite solubility
Post #22
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48077705&postcount=22

Calcite solubility part II:
Post #27
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48085531&postcount=27

Carbonate species as a function of pH
Post #30

DIC and the Revelle Buffer Factor (Part I)
Post #62

MY In-Depth analysis of the Tyree article listed as interest by Juvenissun himself
Post #66

MY answer to Juvenissun’s question around the source of carbonate (going back as far as I can conceivably go back:
Post #75

Revelle Buffer Factor (Part II)
Post #103

And that's just my stuff, not Vene's or Chordate's or Cactus'!

So, Juvenissun, if you want to see how scientists actually talk in a discussion, you can start there. It will certainly help you in your "parrot" game should you run into other folks who don't know science so well, but might have met a scientist or two!

(See, even though I don't really respect you, I am willing to teach you something.)

 

[juvenissun]

You've "asked questions",

Before I continue, I must make clear on what I said was science and what I said was not. So I will not talk more "trash".

Now, is "asking question" a part of science talk?

 

[juvenissun]

you've cut-n-pasted some references and someone else's abstract.

If you were an understanding person, you could tell me why did I bother to do that. (I told you I won't do that any more.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

If you were an understanding person, you could tell me why did I bother to do that. (I told you I won't do that any more.)

Presumably you cut-n-pasted because you wanted to sound like a scientist, but couldn't discuss the material you presented. You wanted to "parrot" scientists so you grabbed an article, cut 'n' pasted the abstract and thought you'd impress us.

I can cut 'n' paste too. But you'll notice in all the posts I listed above, I actually DISCUSSED the information. I didn't chicken out as you always do with your usual "dodge":

... there is no use to elaborate anything else. If you do understand, then there is no need to elaborate.

Hey, I am not playing school teacher here. I give my student a reference and I am expecting he can digest it and draw conclusion from it.

You see, troll/charlatan, that is all we see from you. You are busy calling people "I***t" or "smart guy" but you never bother to actually discuss in detail.

You want an example of something you said that was marginally "scientific"?


Initially you made the claim:

The increase of global temperature will also increase the dissolution rate of solid carbonate on land, and will thus increase the input of Mg, Ca to the ocean.

I merely asked for an explanation of the mechanism. When a scientist asks for that, usually one follows up with an explanation and supporting information. In this case you could have bothered to:

1. Discuss the relative rate of carbonate dissolution at different temperatures. This is called RATE. It can be found in both chemical and geologic literature.

2. Describe the stepwise mechanism. Remember you are talking about a specific reaction:

CaCO[sub]3[/sub] --> Ca[sup]2+[/sup] + CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup]

So presumably you can tell me about how the reaction will be modified by the change in temperature.

Perhaps you are unaware of simple Google Searches. Here's a study of reaction rate of calcium carbonate and dolomite dissolution rates in an industrial process (LINK)

Now mind you, this is a commercial process which isn't what you are talking about but in the Summary Section it says:

The dissolution rate of calcite increased with increasing temperature, from 0.38x10-3 cm/s at 5°C to 2.80x10-3 cm/s at 25°C. The apparent activation energy determined the surface reaction rate constant in the heterogeneous reaction model was 101±8 kJ/mol, a value that is significantly larger than literature values (46 to 63 kJ/mol). The apparent activation energy for the mass transfer rate constant was 17±0.3 kJ/mol, which is consistent with values in the literature for mass transfer controlled kinetics.

Now the thing that would let me know you are a scientist is if you were to propose or support your point about temperature and rate by discussing the Arrhenius Rate equation and the relationship to rate of dissolution. Note the commentary on the "Activation Energy" in the above quoted section. That is part of the Arrhenius Equation.​

I asked to learn the linkage, I wrote:​

Now I will readily grant that increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and other acid-rain components like SOx (like we humans are currently actively doing on a daily basis) may cause decreases in meteoritic pH and thus increase carbonate dissolution, and increased CO2 can cause increases in global temperatures, but that isn't what you said.

I was looking for something "scientific" about the temperature/carbonate dissolution linkage. But instead this is what you wrote:​

Increase temperature <-- more CO2 in air --> more acidic the rain, the surface water --> faster dissolution on limestone. Also, warmer temperature will also speed up the dissolution.

What else to explain?​

Now note the subtelty here. FIRST, you "toss in" the linkage I had posted but which was absent in your original statement. But then you just 'repeated' your earlier claim around the temperature linkage:​

Also, warmer temperature will also speed up the dissolution.

So you dropped the ball in the chance for you to actually talk some science. But, to be fair to you, you ham-fistedly came around to a concept in rate kinetics that is generally a "rule of thumb". Increase temperature, increase the rate.​

However, because I am unaware of the actual rate expression for carbonate dissolution, I could have learned something from you had you bothered to support your own claims with details.​

You want to know what "trash talk" is?

Try this:

I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

So, smart guy, I don't expect you give me any answer that I don't know.​

Coming from the man who almost never provides an explanation in detail, almost never supports his own claims and makes statements that don't really line up until someone else lines them up for him.​

Boy, you know I'm getting tired of showing you up repeatedly. If you aren't going to post some science and you're just going to troll around, please stop. I can keep up with you science point for science point if you start discussing science in detail.​

Oh geez.​

Thankfully I can type this stuff and research this stuff easily and quickly. I can't imagine how hard this would be for someone like you, Juvenissun.​

 

[thaumaturgy]

Before I continue, I must make clear on what I said was science and what I said was not. So I will not talk more "trash".

Now, is "asking question" a part of science talk?

Asking questions is where science begins. It is the discipline of science that shows when one attempts to understand and formulate an answer.

Anyone can ask questions. It takes discipline (science) to work toward an answer.

If I wanted to have this type of conversation, I could easily have it with a 3-year old (LINK)

 

[Vene]

Juv, I'm still waiting for an alternative mechanism to explain coral reef destruction.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

If you were an understanding person, you could tell me why did I bother to do that. (I told you I won't do that any more.)

Presumably you cut-n-pasted because you wanted to sound like a scientist, but couldn't discuss the material you presented. You wanted to "parrot" scientists so you grabbed an article, cut 'n' pasted the abstract and thought you'd impress us.

You are not an understanding person.

I pasted it because I thought you would not be able to get access to it. It is not a reference for public access.

 

[juvenissun]

Asking questions is where science begins.

So you think a mature scientist (like you) do not need to ask question.

So, I did "begin" my talk on science, and I did talk "a very little" science. If so, why do you say "all" my talks are trash?

 

[thaumaturgy]

You are not an understanding person.

I pasted it because I thought you would not be able to get access to it. It is not a reference for public access.

Look, Juvenissun, I don't care if you think I'm the least understanding person on the planet. If you can't handle a scientific discussion with some facts from your end (rather than just a cut -n-paste) I don't think you should try to make people think you can.

Besides, if you were doing me some "solid", why didn't you mention that fact?

Who cares?

You wanna discuss that reference? Is that what you are trying to say?

Please, say something. I'm getting tired of your games.

Troll

 

[thaumaturgy]

So you think a mature scientist (like you) do not need to ask question.

Did I say that?

No, What I said is a question is where science starts.

The discipline of science requires a bit more than just asking questions.

Are a toddler?

So, I did "begin" my talk on science, and I did talk "a very little" science. If so, why do you say "all" my talks are trash?

You are apparently incapable of making a scientific point complete with detailed analysis. You have questions. I can find a billion toddlers with questions and no discipline to start the answers.

Need I remind you that you have so far called scientists "i***t" "smartguy" and told me that I wasn't a scientist?

Need I remind you of the bile you spew all while never providing any evidence that you have even one iota of the scientific discipline of us scientists?

You really are boring me, troll.

If you have a scientific question, please ask it. So far pretty much every single question you've asked on this thread I have answer, or Vene has or Chordates has ...

Please keep asking. We can keep answering.

You need to learn a little science somewhere.

If you think we have failed to address your questions substatively in a scientific discussion, please point to the post or stop this silliness.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

So, I did "begin" my talk on science, and I did talk "a very little" science. If so, why do you say "all" my talks are trash?

You are apparently incapable of making a scientific point complete with detailed analysis.

You did not answer my question.

If I did a little bit science talk, would you point to me what that was?

May be you also like to point to me what science talk I made was an example of "trash"? Since you said all my science talks were trash, it must be very easy to give such an example.