Anne Burgess wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message
news:5dd6498a-The fact that the Sun is radiating less has led to
Ocean cooling.
This cooling will eventually cool the atmosphere and reduce its
CO2 content.

That is very interesting. Can you please explain to a
non-chemist the mechanism or process whereby cooling will reduce
the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

This is one example where he does have a weak point.
Solubility of gasses is higher in cold water.

But the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere means that it only
slows the rate of increase slightly but still by a measurable amount.

Warmer water has a lower solubility for gasses, especially CO2 so when
the oceans cool and there is cool surface water it is better able to
absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. A fair chunk of the CO2 we emit is
absorbed by the oceans leading to their gradual acidification and making
life more difficult for some sensitive corals.

Conversely as the oceans warm they become less able to take up CO2 and
for the same rate of global CO2 emission the atmospheric concentration
will rise more quickly.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
Anne Burgess wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message
news:5dd6498a-The fact that the Sun is radiating less has led to
Ocean cooling.
This cooling will eventually cool the atmosphere and reduce its
CO2 content.

That is very interesting. Can you please explain to a
non-chemist the mechanism or process whereby cooling will reduce
the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

This is one example where he does have a weak point.
Solubility of gasses is higher in cold water.

But the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere means that it only
slows the rate of increase slightly but still by a measurable amount.

Warmer water has a lower solubility for gasses, especially CO2 so when
the oceans cool and there is cool surface water it is better able to
absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. A fair chunk of the CO2 we emit
is absorbed by the oceans leading to their gradual acidification and
making life more difficult for some sensitive corals.

Conversely as the oceans warm they become less able to take up CO2 and
for the same rate of global CO2 emission the atmospheric concentration
will rise more quickly.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Yep. Since the oceans only remove about half the emitted CO2 now, and
emissions are rising, claims that any such mechanism will actually lower
atmospheric CO2 under current or anticipated emissions levels are fantasy.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

Anne Burgess wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message
news:5dd6498a-The fact that the Sun is radiating less has led to
Ocean cooling.
This cooling will eventually cool the atmosphere and reduce its
CO2 content.

That is very interesting. Can you please explain to a
non-chemist the mechanism or process whereby cooling will reduce
the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

This is one example where he does have a weak point.
Solubility of gasses is higher in cold water.

But the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere means that it only
slows the rate of increase slightly but still by a measurable amount.

Warmer water has a lower solubility for gasses, especially CO2 so
when the oceans cool and there is cool surface water it is better
able to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. A fair chunk of the CO2
we emit is absorbed by the oceans leading to their gradual
acidification and making life more difficult for some sensitive
corals.

Conversely as the oceans warm they become less able to take up CO2
and for the same rate of global CO2 emission the atmospheric
concentration will rise more quickly.

Meeep... wrong.

Bull****.

Oceans don't become less able to take up CO2 when warming up, they
simply release CO2.

Bull****.

You didn't understand the solubility of gasses correctly, neither you
thought over the anomaly of water.

Bull****.

Other pig-ignorant insults from this moron snipped for brevity.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

Anne Burgess wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message
news:5dd6498a-The fact that the Sun is radiating less has led to
Ocean cooling.
This cooling will eventually cool the atmosphere and reduce its
CO2 content.

That is very interesting. Can you please explain to a
non-chemist the mechanism or process whereby cooling will reduce
the CO2 content of the atmosphere?
This is one example where he does have a weak point.
Solubility of gasses is higher in cold water.

But the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere means that it only
slows the rate of increase slightly but still by a measurable amount.

Warmer water has a lower solubility for gasses, especially CO2 so when
the oceans cool and there is cool surface water it is better able to
absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. A fair chunk of the CO2 we emit is
absorbed by the oceans leading to their gradual acidification and making
life more difficult for some sensitive corals.

Conversely as the oceans warm they become less able to take up CO2 and
for the same rate of global CO2 emission the atmospheric concentration
will rise more quickly.

Meeep... wrong.

You need to learn some science.

Oceans don't become less able to take up CO2 when warming up, they simply
release CO2.

Only if the oceans are already totally saturated with CO2 (and as yet
they are not although the Southern Ocean is looking increasingly dodgy).
Science article : http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...ract/1136188v1

Original BAS press release (offline today)
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/pr...ease.php?id=89

You didn't understand the solubility of gasses correctly, neither you thought
over the anomaly of water.

Drooling kookery. It is you who does not understand.

Your statement about corals is far-fetched and devoid of basics.

More drooling kookery. There are already problems with some of the more
sensitive corals failing to fix calcium. A reasonable laymans
introduction to the ocean acidification problem is available online at
New Scientists website:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...em.html?page=2

Corals have survived over millions of years with way more worse environmental
conditions and it's proven man, evicting them now by raw sewage and killing
the natural enemies of coral enemies.
You'd better be informed correctly before posting such a crap.

So would you. Not one of your claims hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:06:42 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

Anne Burgess wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message
news:5dd6498a-The fact that the Sun is radiating less has led to
Ocean cooling.
This cooling will eventually cool the atmosphere and reduce its
CO2 content.

That is very interesting. Can you please explain to a
non-chemist the mechanism or process whereby cooling will reduce
the CO2 content of the atmosphere?
This is one example where he does have a weak point.
Solubility of gasses is higher in cold water.

But the rate we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere means that it only
slows the rate of increase slightly but still by a measurable amount.

Warmer water has a lower solubility for gasses, especially CO2 so when
the oceans cool and there is cool surface water it is better able to
absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. A fair chunk of the CO2 we emit is
absorbed by the oceans leading to their gradual acidification and making
life more difficult for some sensitive corals.

Conversely as the oceans warm they become less able to take up CO2 and
for the same rate of global CO2 emission the atmospheric concentration
will rise more quickly.

Meeep... wrong.

You need to learn some science.

Oceans don't become less able to take up CO2 when warming up, they simply
release CO2.

Only if the oceans are already totally saturated with CO2 (and as yet
they are not although the Southern Ocean is looking increasingly dodgy).
Science article : http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...ract/1136188v1

Original BAS press release (offline today)
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/pr...ease.php?id=89

You didn't understand the solubility of gasses correctly, neither you thought
over the anomaly of water.

Drooling kookery. It is you who does not understand.

Your statement about corals is far-fetched and devoid of basics.

More drooling kookery. There are already problems with some of the more
sensitive corals failing to fix calcium. A reasonable laymans
introduction to the ocean acidification problem is available online at
New Scientists website:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...em.html?page=2

Corals have survived over millions of years with way more worse environmental
conditions and it's proven man, evicting them now by raw sewage and killing
the natural enemies of coral enemies.
You'd better be informed correctly before posting such a crap.

So would you. Not one of your claims hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

You should accustom yourself to obtain your wisdom from scientific sites, not
from press releases or stupid wannabe-scientific blogs.

--
[IPCC report] "But this report is not what it appears to be - it is
not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists
listed on the title page."
[Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy]

On Jul 15, 8:06*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

You need to learn some science.


You are a burnout from the sci.physics and sci.astro forums and would
not have been caught dead discussing terrestrial sciences a few years
ago but like many like you,have discovered that 'climate change' has
all the same advantages as the 'time travel' conclusion of relativity
in that it does not matter whether you are for or against fighting/
combating 'global warming',the damage is done by excluding planetary
dynamics as the mechanism which separates climate from weather.

Relativity is a consequence of the elaborate scheme woven around a
reckless conclusion to make terrestrial ballistics look like planetary
motion ,the can of worms created by Newton was eventually contained in
a larger relativistic can yet behind it all is the mistake made by
Flamsteed insofar as Newton built his gravitational agenda on the
calendar driven astrological framework.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality..." Newton

What Isaac is trying to define in terms of absolute/relative time is
the Equation of Time -

"... and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different
lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between
the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such
a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before)
make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the
Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be
set......But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the
Aequation" Huygens

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

All these mountebanks who once made such fuss over 'time travel' and
relativity which amounts to the destruction of astronomy are now
moving into the area of terrestrial studies with the same mantras
about 'learning science'.The truth is that none of you are reading
from the same astronomical page as I read from and without an
understanding of basic terrestrial facts such as the shape and
rotational characteristics of the Earth,all this hoopla over
'fighting' climate or dictating global temperatures via carbon dioxide
represents the lowest level yet attained by humans.






Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:06:42 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

You'd better be informed correctly before posting such a crap.

So would you. Not one of your claims hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

You should accustom yourself to obtain your wisdom from scientific sites, not
from press releases or stupid wannabe-scientific blogs.

[IPCC report] "But this report is not what it appears to be - it is
not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists
listed on the title page."
[Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy]

Taken from your sig.

I take it that you are aware that in addition to his major contribution
to solid state physics Fredrick Sietz was the original denier for hire
with RJ Reynolds to help them keep the suckers smoking tobacco and dying
of cancer for as long as possible. His methods still work.

He pioneered the technique of creating doubt in the public mind to
prevent them making rational decisions based on scientific evidence.

You can take anything he says with a very large pinch of salt.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I take it that you are aware that in addition to his major contribution
to solid state physics Fredrick Sietz was the original denier for hire
with RJ Reynolds to help them keep the suckers smoking tobacco and dying
of cancer for as long as possible. His methods still work.

He pioneered the technique of creating doubt in the public mind to
prevent them making rational decisions based on scientific evidence.

You can take anything he says with a very large pinch of salt.

Yes, there is a full account of Sietz's career as a propogandist he
The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459

But I don't suppose Herr Muehlbauer has an attention span great enough
to watch that video through to the end :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:06 am, Martin Brown
wrote:

You need to learn some science.


You are a burnout from the sci.physics and sci.astro forums and would
not have been caught dead discussing terrestrial sciences a few years
ago but like many like you,have discovered that 'climate change' has
all the same advantages as the 'time travel' conclusion of relativity
in that it does not matter whether you are for or against fighting/
combating 'global warming',the damage is done by excluding planetary
dynamics as the mechanism which separates climate from weather.

Completely insane gobbledygook.

On Jul 15, 5:06*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Alastair wrote:
I take it that you are aware that in addition to his major contribution
to solid state physics Fredrick Sietz was the original denier for hire
with RJ Reynolds to help them keep the suckers smoking tobacco and dying
of cancer for as long as possible. His methods still work.

He pioneered the technique of creating doubt in the public mind to
prevent them making rational decisions based on scientific evidence.

You can take anything he says with a very large pinch of salt.

Yes, there is a full account of Sietz's career as a propogandist he
The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459

But I don't suppose Herr Muehlbauer has an attention span great enough
to watch that video through to the end :-(

Thanks for the usual *yawn* denunciations and a link to a video.
For this you'll be included in Al Bore's prayers for sure.
Britons... *shaking head* ...

--
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the
climate change obvserved to date) to anthropogenic (manmade) causes."

[IPCC report, censored paragraph]

It wasn't a denunciation. It was a challenge. But as I suspected, it
is well beyond your capabilities.

Or perhaps it is not, and you just prefer to bury your head in the
sand rather than face up to the truth. What you are repeating is just
a bit of spin, invented by an out of work tobacco industry lobbyist.

Cheers, Alastair.