Ice-free ocean may not absorb CO2, a component in global warming

Athens, Ga. A- The summer of 2010 has been agonizingly hot in much of the continental U.S., and the record-setting temperatures have refocused attention on global warming.

[frank miller]

You frigging idiots, CO2 is *3 times more soluble
in cold [OC/32F] than at [25C/77F] waters in which at ~77F it's 0.15 % by weight in 1 mile to 6 miles deep oceans!!*0.3346gm/100 gms.H2O @ 0C {32F} and 0.1449gm/100 gms.H2O @ 25C[77F}!! Reference: page 1100, Lange's Handbook of Chemistry Co. 1934 to this 1967. Norbet Adolph Lange, PhD Chemistry. Gordon M. Forker, B.S.{Chem.Eng} Revised 10th. Edition Mc.Graw-Hill Book Company New York San Francisco Toronto London Sydney!
Who keeps posting these stupid nonsensical Topix Abstracts????
F.M.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

frank miller wrote:

You frigging idiots, CO2 is *3 times more soluble
in cold [OC/32F] than at [25C/77F] waters in which at ~77F it's 0.15 % by weight in 1 mile to 6 miles deep oceans!!*0.3346gm/100 gms.H2O @ 0C {32F} and 0.1449gm/100 gms.H2O @ 25C[77F}!! Reference: page 1100, Lange's Handbook of Chemistry Co. 1934 to this 1967. Norbet Adolph Lange, PhD Chemistry. Gordon M. Forker, B.S.{Chem.Eng} Revised 10th. Edition Mc.Graw-Hill Book Company New York San Francisco Toronto London Sydney!
Who keeps posting these stupid nonsensical Topix Abstracts????
F.M.

If you had a clue you would see that the story is posted by 'roboblogger' a web robot that goes out and searches relevant stories from news and media sites.

And the issue of ocean chemistry is hardly as simple as you say. Expecially arctic ocean CO2 chemistry.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-0...
Teh issue is that the arctic ocean has ALREADY maxed out on CO2 and cannot absorb more. That is, the acidification is already too much for most carbonate shelled organisms to sequester any CO2.

[Earthling]

Hey there LessFact, do you really believe roboblogger is a robot?
How about Santa Claus, what goodies did he bring you last year?

[frank miller]

Look you frigging insolent unducated STALKER BITCH 'LessHypeMoreFact Toronto Canada #2, I forgot more chemistry than you or anyone else on this anonymous Internet ever learned [everyone knows my credentials/background by now, as I have been a significant breath of fresh air on this once very ambiguous fairy tale Al Gore/IPCC CO2 caused AGW, having followed all of it since the December 1997 Kyoto Summit, and beyond with very convincing erudite novel, clear, cogent and concise
very well referenced with University textbooks, not "Chemistry For Dummies" answers to 35 to 45 Topix threads abstracts, be they roboblogger, or what not!
If it's you who does this CRAP posting, and I have
a feeling it may be, because as soon as I challenge the Al Gore/IPCC concept, and it's many
derivative consequences, a new one pops up, essentially contradicting me, not with text books
references but with obvious corrupted PAROTTED, garbage-in/garbage-out http sources!!
Now get your ars off this Internet, or I'll have you arrested for peddling FRAUDULENT SCIENCE, without a relevant formal degree to boot, you frigging MALICIOUS spoiler!!
F.M.

[Earthling]

frank miller wrote:

I forgot more chemistry than you or anyone else on this anonymous Internet ever learned

Maybe that's your problem, why not go back and take a refresher course?

You certainly haven't forgotten how to use insults, so no need for any more schooling in that.

[frank miller]

Thanks 'Eartling #5' for a self-admitted asbestos
exposed evidently high-school drop-out laborer, all his life, smoking cigarettes, and having unprotected sex with God's knows what gender, as one of your 2009 bragadocio response to another poster, bragging about showing no ill effects, I doubt you have any credibility in all this! If you want you can get on 'Facebook', and piddle around as if anybody cared! So get lost knucklehead TROLL!
F.M

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Earthling wrote:

Hey there LessFact, do you really believe roboblogger is a robot?
How about Santa Claus, what goodies did he bring you last year?

"web robot"s are not 'robots' in the conventional sense. Sometimes they are also called 'web spiders' but maintly they are programs that search the web to automatically find keywords, articles, etc.

It is because they are autonomous and automatic that they get the term 'robot'. A hint should have been the name 'robo-blogger'.

Did you think it was a person???

[Earthling]

LessFact, a mine of useful, albeit commonly known information, but he can't find one link to prove that forty is, as he calls it, an American spelling.
He's easily confused and thought Samuel L Jackson, the black Hollywood actor, was Samuel Johnson, the 18th century Englishman who compiled a dictionary.
Of course, LessFact then decided that Johnson must have made a spelling error, or was it Jackson?

LaughAMinuteFacts strikes again.

[Blunt Mocker]

yes, Lessfacts thinks he knows better than the author of the first dictionary of English. He's not just a scientist, he's all kinds of Ologists as well. On top of all this, he can't even spell with a spelling-checker. He also thinks "erudite" is a type of glue.

[Earthling]

Blunt Mocker wrote:

yes, Lessfacts thinks he knows better than the author of the first dictionary of English. He's not just a scientist, he's all kinds of Ologists as well. On top of all this, he can't even spell with a spelling-checker. He also thinks "erudite" is a type of glue.

In 1582, Richard Mulcaster wrote the first known English dictionary, but it wasn't alphabetical and as one can imagine, quite hard to find words in.
Before alphabetical listings, dictionaries were organized by topic, i.e. a list of animals all together in one topic.
The first English dictionary written alphabetically was by Robert Cawdrey in 1604, but it only contained a few thousand words.

Dr Samuel Johnson's dictionary is considered to be the best of the early dictionaries.
Of course we could all be wrong, maybe Samuel L Jackson was responsible for the first English dictionary.:D

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Blunt Mocker wrote:

yes, Lessfacts thinks he knows better than the author of the first dictionary of English.

I have never claimed to be an epystimologist. If you READ my posts, I have only claimed to have learned the correct English spelling from both school and dictionaries about the 1960 in Ontario. They held Fourty to be the correct English spelling ( among many other corrections to U.S.'quirks').

It is amazing how 'converts' are often more religious and dogmatic than the original thinkers. I wonder when the next texting shorthand will become the next 'correction'? L8r

[Earthling]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

I have never claimed to be an [epystimologist].

Probably a good thing, especially as you can't spell epistemologist.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

If you READ my posts, I have only claimed to have learned the correct English spelling from both school and dictionaries about the 1960 in Ontario.

Your confused, no English dictionary exists that contains 'fourty' as the spelling of forty.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

They held Fourty to be the correct English spelling ( among many other corrections to U.S.'quirks').

The word forty was included in Johnson's dictionary 135 years after the Mayflower landed, long before any 'American' had considered writing a dictionary.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

It is amazing how 'converts' are often more religious and dogmatic than the original thinkers.

Even more amazing how one colonial can be so dogmatic in the face of historical fact.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

I wonder when the next texting shorthand will become the next 'correction'? L8r

That's for the future, nothing to do with your bad education in English.

[Earthling]

Correction: You're confused.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Earthling wrote:

That's for the future, nothing to do with your bad education in English.

When we start using the 'new english' you will claim to have had a 'bad education' becuase you spell later 'later' instead of L8r?

And the overwhelming evidence that I have seen shows that poor eduction is primariliy in the UK and US, where there are two 'classes' of school. A destitute 'state' school system stumbling along with limited funds, and wealthy 'private' schools for the aristocracy ( or moneyed elite if you will).

Canada, on the other hand, has upheld fairly strong and uniform education standards.

One can see this is the polls of U.S. citizens who back 'intelligent design' and other religious absurdities, or who were taken in by simple propaganda such as Saddam Hussein being behind 9/11. I once saw a 'makeup test' for a U.S. state university entrance that looked about right for grade EIGHT.

[Earthling]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

When we start using the 'new english' you will claim to have had a 'bad education'[becuase] you spell later 'later' instead of L8r?

When will this new English (Capital E) take over?
Not in your lifetime, that's 4sure.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

And the overwhelming evidence that I have seen shows that poor eduction is primariliy in the UK and US, where there are two 'classes' of school.

Where's your evidence for this?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

A destitute 'state' school system stumbling along with limited funds, and wealthy 'private' schools for the aristocracy ( or moneyed elite if you will).

I see you not only have issues concerning class, but also of wealth.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Canada, on the other hand, has upheld fairly strong and uniform education standards.

Did you fall through a crack in it when it came to learning English?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

One can see this is the polls of U.S. citizens who back 'intelligent design' and other religious absurdities, or who were taken in by simple propaganda such as Saddam Hussein being behind 9/11. I once saw a 'makeup test' for a U.S. state university entrance that looked about right for grade EIGHT.

Now you're rambling.