WetEV said:
Someone unwilling to learn isn't useful to teach. You really want to learn? Then follow up on the topic.
No , no, no... you have got this all screwed up. YOU people are saying this stuff exists, then when I go look I can't find it and YOU then tell me that you don't know where it is and that's my fault.
If you haven't seen it before yourself then don't claim it exists. If you know where it is then it's for you to show it, if your claims depend on it.
Just like any published paper, then give references.
As I have clarified, the chemistry of CO2 in seawater is very complicated, and is more than just a quantity in a given volume. I KNOW that because I WENT looking for it before posting. HENCE why I said it was complicated and gave a first-degree approximation instead, which I doubt is too far from reality and generally sufficient to get a feel for the quantities involved.
YOU asked me for my calculation and I gave it. It is for YOU to say why it is not correct, not simply to say 'NO'. Yes, I agree, assuming a ppm of molar concentration is a coarse interpretation, if you know it is wrong by a large factor they either say that it is, and reference it, or say, 'well, I really don't know'.
You people would prefer to gnaw off your own knee caps than give a hint of anything that you have any doubts of that might conflict with what you THINK the 'consensus' is.
I'm done here, because whatever is put forward that you can't explain, you say someone else has done it, even though you've never seen it. Not a hint of self-doubt. Then you ask for me to back up something, I do, and then you simply say 'NO'.
As I said some time back, if that is the level of dialogue that 'the consensus' is also trying to use to persuade others of the issues, then it is not remotely surprising that a significant fraction resist what is being preached to them.