Yeah, that's what it is.
Those more comprehensive studies that consider CO2 solubility too are wrong but you have it figured all out.
It's irrefutable.
No Fuzzy.
You are just trying to dismiss reality.
What are you a scientific denier?
Yeah, that's what it is.
Those more comprehensive studies that consider CO2 solubility too are wrong but you have it figured all out.
It's irrefutable.
Are you denying that water holds more CO2 when colder than warmer?
Are you saying Climate scientists say this as well?
I a not the one making these claims.
Do you really think that they do not consider water solubility in their studies? Really?
I think that you should contact IPCC to let them know that they do not consider soot and water solubility in their conclusions. You are obviously extra-special in your intuition and should be recognized as the cutting edge of climate science.
I don't know if they do or not. It seems as though they don't. They most certainly don't acknowledge a few simple truths about the process.
have any studies to show they do properly account for the process?
Think what ever you want. I have already come to understand you are so delusional, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Besides. The IPCC has acknowledges, since AR4, that soot has a far greater forcing than previously published. I believe they have increased it's strength by a factor of three.
You are an idiot. Yeah I am delusional..... you only prove my point.
I didn't say that Yonivore or Darren ever denied that the earth's climate changes.
One of the common memes in the denier movement is that climate scientists claim that the earth will never naturally change, or that the earth has some "optimal temperature".
Neither claim is ever really made by climate scientists. THat is why the argument is what is called a "strawman"
"Oh, look at the climate alarmists, they claim that the earth's climate never changes, how dumb that is, look at how it has changed in the past!'
there are variations on that, of course.
So the CO2 did come out of the water, and that would drastically affect the mixture of carbon isotopes, given how much CO2 came out of the water.
Your hypothesis is testable, and has been found to be contradicted by the study of the isotope ratios since your theory cannot explain why the ratios are moving toward that found in the fossil fuels.
If 97% of the extra carbon was coming out of the oceans from your warming, the "natural" carbon signature would completely overwhelm the "fossil fuel" carbon signature, and the air ratios would not be changing as much as has been observed.
See, all you need is to formulate a testable hypothesis. Oh the places you will go.
Yes, it's a two way street. i think you would agree however, that "alarmist" was a term used after "denier." Seems to me it was a responsive action.
When I continue reading, am I going to find where you understand my point about temperature and solubility?
I see you still don't understand. You need to stop trying to tie an inaccurate study to this. Maybe you should see how the math pans out too.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-26-2012 at 04:50 PM.
Inaccurate how?
I explained it already. Sorry that you don't know how to read into it.
Too many variables, and different studies have been way off from each other on determined levels. They do all show the 13C/12C ratios changing, but have big discrepancies between studies.
Nobody is denying that we are changing the ratio. This is not a point worth focusing on at all. The natural and anthropogenic CO2 is all in the same bucket for exchange purposes. Just because one process prefers a particular isotope doesn't mean the process has any change.
How about trying to explain why the ratio makes a difference?
Consider this.
If I take a 100 gallon fish tank with 70 gallons of clear water in it, add 19 gallons of clear water, and add 1 gallon of water with 1 drop of dye in it, mix it up, then pour out 20 gallons to get the original 70 gallons, we will see some coloring in the water. The more we repeat this process of adding 19 clear and 1 colored, the darker the water will become, as we are slowly increasing the percentage of dye in the water.
Now consider how this applies to what we see in the isotopic ratio changes.
Why are you guys so worked up over something so simple?
So who are you talking about in this thread? As it is led, "...Climate Change Denial..." So your thread is based on a strawman?
What is the "denier movement"? This does not make any sense.
too many variable. I read that and see 'I cannot figure out what they are doing so just dismiss it.'
We don't get worked up. We just think you are a moron. There is a difference.
It has nothing to do with which isotope the system prefers and everything to do with the source of the CO2. You are obsessing with your thought experiment and refusing to acknowledge what he is talking about.
They take CO2 samples from the air and lo and behold the isotope mixture is more and more weighted to the isotopes that are found from fossil fuel burning.
You dye theory is ing stupid because in this case, the 'dye' dissolves too. The marker is the carbon in CO2. Think carbon dating. They are measuring the 'old' carbon that was burned from sitting in the ground for millions of years and the stuff that's been dynamic in the ecosystem. But even beyond that it fails to consider that its atmospheric CO2 that they are talking about.
Even then you are doing a 'thought' experiment based on ty assumptions, using ty data, and a whole lot of wishful thinking and then you 'suppose' that the outcome will prove what you want it to prove.
It's dumb.
Yay a semantic obfuscation.
I could define climate as the natural seasonal oscillations that happen without human interference at which point it would assume that the deviations from say the ENSO cycle like the BEST study correlated and demonstrated would be a climate change.
We all know that for you their is only one way to look at things only one way to define things, aspie.
I am not going to argue with you, I have read your canned answers on this particular 'refutation' of yours and have no desire to get you on another obsessing track. Go ahead and think that its really because I cannot argue your 'irrefutable' logic or rant about psychotic addicts.
With that in mind the Mayo Clininc recommends the following:
So the data that contradicts your theory is "inaccurate", but you don't have to spell out simply how that is, or show how it is based on what is in the study.
My, how convenient.
"I don't like that data, (waves hand) POOF!!, it is inaccurate"
I think your definition of "accurate" or "flawed" is anything that might contradict your theories.
Your theory sounds less and less credible the more you explain it, or attempt to explain it.
Either you can explain, very specifically, and explicitly, how the study is flawed, and show, with support, how it is in accurate, or you can't.
To really demonstrate that, you would need to dig into the dataset directly.
You are asking me to believe that someone with a scientific background and relevant degree didn't consider or minimized things that you, with no formal training, noted in their study. Futhermore, you alone found this when people far more qualified than you missed it, and didn't comment on that in the peer review process.
Does that about sum up what you are asking me to believe?
No it is completely illogical. Who denies the climate changes?
So you now have the ability to redefine words? That is not the definition,
climate change - "a change in the world's climate"
No Fuzzy, youare dumb.
Again, nobody disagrees with the fact that the isotopic ratio is changing, and why.
The disagreement is in the fact that these experiments, which have been done multiple times, keep yielding results so far off from each other, that it cannot properly be quantified. We are looking at 13C ratios around 1.1%, and trying to quantify differences made from a process that only discriminates about 20% of that.
Tell me.
Outside of us all agreeing that the isotopic ratios are changing, what significance do these numbers have? I really do not understand why you think there is anything else to see here.
Denier = pseudoscientific skeptic, generally a hack with a definite political agenda.
Deniers usually demonstrate flawed reasoning in the form of logical fallacies, as you have demonstrably done, and exhibit a rather obvious form of confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty.
There is honest skepticism, and there are deniers.
Your buddy Greenfyre and other legitimite skeptics have pointed this out.
It is VERY telling that the same groups of skeptics who generally refute the bull 9-11 truthers, lump many skeptics of AGW into this group, as I do.
Why do you think it is that the people who generally have mercilessly debunked 9-11 theories and other pseudoscientific bull , generally classify people who profess skepticism of what you term as AGW alarmism in the same manner/group as twoofers?
You ing asshole.
I am sick and tired of you reading my words so damn wrong. I know you aren't that stupid, so please stop being such an ass.
The isotope studies in no way contradicts what I said.
Again, I fail to understand why this isotope thing is something you wish to hang your hat on. It is meaningless.
Why do you think these isotope studies contradict my points?
Your failure to understand all the things going on at once, does not indicate may inability to understand.
It is you inability.
I can define "climate change denial" in the same manner as you define "alarmism".
It is a convenient short-hand, and little else. Quibbling about the semantics... is generally the mark of a sophist, IMO.
Definitions are important, generally, but people like you hyper-focus on them.
There is a point past which such quibbling serves an obvious bull purpose.
By all means, keep demonstrating that. Ask the question again.
That was a minor point, and it doesn't matter. It's so infuriating trying to reason with someone who cherry picks a point that doesn't matter anyway. These studies have nothing to do with what I say.
Again, all these studies do show the balance of 13C is changing.
So ing what?
I am not disagreeing with that.
This is illogical. Can you provide a dictionary that includes this definition?
I debunk 911 conspiracy claims as well,
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
I do not make any of these logical errors as you have.
Because they are uneducated and emotional on the subject.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)