Wow! Really, wow! Hahahaha. This is too funny! Ahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Okay, I'm calmer. GCNP, thank you for one of the most entertaining questions that I've seen in a while. Of your 10 previous answers, the 9 from deniers constitute one of the best examples yet of the general level of what passes for thought and knowledge among science deniers. I did not know you could get this high a concentration of stupid on one page. Thought you'd need actual physical space, like the House in Congress, to pack 'em in, but one simple question (hahahahaha... ahem!) has demolished any pretense that science deniers have a clue about even the simplest concepts in science. Oh, can I try to explain it? Hahahaha.
Consider the standard simple number line. It starts at zero, then extends rightward with each step being an ordinal number increasing by one. As you go to the right on this line, the numbers get bigger. As you go to the left on this line, the numbers get smaller. Do we all understand "bigger" and "smaller"? No? Well, maybe you shouldn't be discussing modern science then. Go work on "big" and "small", then when you've got the basic concept down pretty well, go on to the more advanced concept of "biggER" and "smallER". When you've got that, come back and read the next paragraph here.
Take a number line that goes from zero to fourteen. When you're on the line, if you are moving, you will be moving either toward 14, and the numbers are getting "bigger", or you will be moving toward 0, and the numbers will be getting "smaller". Now comes the tricky parts. Label the zero end of the number line "Most Acidic". Label the fourteen end "Most Basic". (Hm, do I have a problem here with "more, less" and/or "more, most"? Let's hope not, but if anyone needs an explanation, just ask.) Now, if you are on the line and moving, you will be moving toward 14, "bigger" numbers, and "more basic" pH conditions, or moving toward 0, "smaller" numbers, and "more acidic" pH.
Homework:
Label the midpoint, 7, as neutral, neither acidic nor basic.
If you are moving toward the midpoint, are you more acidic or more basic?
Explain your answer, using the additional term "less". (Hint: "less" is related to "smaller".)
When will the warmists stop this semantic word play?
I am not silly enough to assume that any language is consistent but there are problems with what you have said. If you talked about adding CO2 to the oceans and that lowered the pH then I would be happy with that.
Your argument relies on relating hot and cold to acid and alkali. This is not a good analogy because hot and cold are relative terms, as you describe. However, H2SO4 is an acid. It does not stop being an acid because you were previously thinking about HNO3. It does not become more acid if you were previously thinking about NaOH.
Maybe in a scientific context it is valid to call pH lowering, "acidification" but when related to the general public it raises alarm. Can you see why that might be the case? Remember, according to a recent Pew survey only 20% of the population know that Nitrogen makes up most of the atmosphere!
They did not ask but I would be interested to know how many of the younger generation think that CO2 is the major component of the atmosphere. They will have heard little of anything else so they will know it must be important.
Ha! Ha! What is global warming but a relative term. What impression was James Hansen trying to convey when he had the air conditioning turned off when he lied in front of Congress. He definitely wasn't try to prove a cooling effect.
What is Climate Change but a relative term. Yet the greenies make a lot of money and enact a lot of laws for these relative terms. The more general or relative their terms are, the easier it is to fool the masses and harder for honest scientists to prove them wrong.
It was James Hanse who set the original temperature norm that the IPCC accepted then he even changed that when it didn't work out so well. With acid vs. alkaline you have a specific line, as you defined, between the two. But there is no such undisputable line, to my knowledge, regarding a cold earth or a hot earth.
YA is weirding out. It showed this question as deleted. I remember working with a Jewish geologist a few years ago when I told him there were two types of Jews, acidic Jews and basic Jews. That was kind of a risky joke but he laughed and agreed that made sense. I can tell hot from cold but have a hard time telling the difference between 70 and 71 degrees
It is an ethnic joke GC but I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand the difference. Leftists such as yourself focus on race so that they can convince themselves that they are morally superior to everyone else. Race is everything to the left. It is the first thing you fill out on just about any government form.
My guess, you think nuclear spin is going to stop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%...
1. Delta T works for me
2. I'm a fluid girl in a fluid world
3. Oh! the irony of ions
4. One good theory deserves another
5. Polarity is bi.
Alarmist are always good for a laugh.
No, we don't. Nor do we have problems with ph levels moving in one direction or another.
We DO have problems with those pesky data that won't line up with the theory.
How long have we been in this down trend now?
If only it were warming. If only....
Yawn....Follow the money
Nope. I don't need a "category". Just chalk me up as someone with 2 College degrees with better things to do with my time that listen to Chicken Little's who make fallacious claims that the sky is falling while at the same time failing to offer any workable solutions to the supposed problem.
"WTA: Are either of your degrees from institutions that don't require you to draw a picture of an leprechaun as part of the entrance exam?"
As a matter of fact yes since I can't doodle worth a damn. One of them even earns me a damned fine income in the Environmental Field which is why I don't buy into the Global Warming oops forgot that's been disproven so I mean the Climate Change bullshit.
Funny how every climate alarmist fundy thinks reality looks good on paper yet real world observations are irrelevant when they contradict their reality on paper.
As shown already on this very page, they have more difficulties with the difference between truth and lies, the difference between juvenile delinquency and college degree, the difference between trend, variation and volatility, and the difference between science and anti-science deceptions of the fossil fuel industry.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-t...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib...
http://jcmooreonline.com/2013/01/31/engi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartla...
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming...
no it's more towards neutral, and is a stove really colder than the sun, thanks for that
Acidity and basicity have much in common with temperature in that like acidity, "hot" is relative. A stove burner is hot to the touch, but much colder than the surface of the sun. Similarly, liquid nitrogen is much hotter than liquid helium, and yet dry ice is much hotter than both, although we would consider all three to be cold. (The analogy also works in that pH, like temperature, is bounded (at least in terms of a minimum) by the density of matter, you can only pack so many hydrogen cations or hydroxyl anions into solution.)
Therefore, defining something as hot or cold is arbitrary and really only makes sense when you apply a subjective definition of a midpoint temperature. For example, define the volumetric mean temperature of the universe of 4 K as the temperature reference, and anything above this temperature is "hot" and anything below it is "cold." But even in doing this, we can also speak of things that have a temperature of 50 K being colder than something at 150 K, even though both are "hot" by our arbitrary definition (and make perfect sense in doing so as we did with the liquid helium/liquid nitrogen/dry ice analogy above).
Defining a solution as acidic or basic is exactly like the analogy with hot and cold, where by convention we take the electroneutrality point of pure water at 20 C to be "neutral" and pH values above that to be "basic" and pH values below that to be "acidic." But it also makes perfect sense in a formal chemical definition to speak of things with very high pH become more acidic, even though their pH remains far above 7 (Any study of standard chemistry textbooks will confirm this statement to be true), just as it makes sense to talk of very hot things getting cooler even though they remain "hot" relative to some arbitrary reference temperature.
So, given this equivalence between hot/cold and acid/base, and I am almost certain even climate skeptics get the hot/cold thing, why are climate skeptics unable to grasp the concept of acid/base? Are they stupid, ignorant, or mentally defective and simply cannot understand the concept of hotter/colder, and then see how it applies to other physical systems?
