Page 15 of 51 FirstFirst ... 511121314151617181925 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 450 of 1508
  1. #421
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    So now you are lying about both. that's nice. You aren't fooling anyone.
    You are a drug addicted liar. I never changed anything in the main article,

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/hom...bout-greenfyre

    So you have the link that has her working with communists and a communist flag but you only call her socialists. I would have used the Norway flag myself and left out the USSR connection if i was going to make that claim. Otherwise even a 8 year old can get the implication.
    No I prefer images that piss off drug addicts but skeptics understand instantly.

    I am not mad. I am just disgusted by your tactics. You really are a coward. Edit stuff and try to play it off like it didn't happen. Still have comments saying that they were ecoterrorists and trying to play that off like thats on me.
    I've always claimed that Earth First is an eco-terrorist organization. You fricking mind is so fried it is unbelievable. You brought this up already and failed to quote where I mentioned her in anyway in my article. You are a failure. You cannot mentally argue what I said so you make up strawman arguments.

    What is transparent is how dishonest you are.

    You cannot participate in arguments because you lack the mental ability to do so.
    _____________________________
    1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

    List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies

    The Truth about Skeptical Science

    "If you take down your 'Truth' series and post an apology then I will not send the email. If you don't the email goes out tomorrow. If you put up any more 'Truth' articles then they get an email detailing what you are as well." - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins

    "I will admit that I smoke pot" - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins

  2. #422
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    Dumbass, that is the 5th report.
    i thought we were trying to get a feel for how many LA there were.

    The 4 grad students in question weren't every year.

    a) 2001
    b) 1994
    c) 2007
    d) early-1997

    IOW, for each iteration there was at most two non PhD amongst all the LA for that particular year and that only happened in 1994 and 1997. In 2001 and 2007 there were only one.

    You would make it seem that they were endemic but clearly is not the case.
    _____________________________
    "The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men." -George Ingersoll

    "Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken

    Officially Noted By Agloco

    Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas, vy65, DarrinS, Skull-1

  3. #423
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    None were from the 5th report.

  4. #424
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    Showing another heavily edited page doesn't posit much. Might want to edit in the nukes to make it more convincing.

    then you scrounge up a newspaper article from over 20 years ago that says that another one of your blogging rivals was a member of this Earth First group and then proceed to scrounge up list a whole slew of articles describing how Earth First was a bunch of eco-terrorists that have done all of these horrible things the most of egregious of which resulted in a dropped charge that you don't mention.
    Again, with your strawman argument. I never claimed this was their most egregious nor do I consider it that. I consider attempting to sabotage Nuclear power plants on a slightly higher level.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3575

    The strawman was that you never claimed it was the more egregious and you instead pointed to the nukes as being worse. You just edited them out. Just like you did with:

    I was being sarcastic and it was not meant to imply all do, rather that FuzzyLumpkins does not have a good defense for why they would be carrying around a pipebomb unless it was for a eco-terrorist plot. The fact that they blew themselves up instead of hurting an innocent person is just dumb luck.
    and

    Though I suppose it is normal behavior for environmentalists to ride around with pipe bombs.
    I also recall the maiming language that you used originally in your article.

    You of course still deny writing these words:

    React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

    Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

    Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

    Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

    Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

    Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

    Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

    Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

    Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

    Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

  5. #425
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    None were from the 5th report.
    Sure but only having one maybe two a single time out of hundreds of authors total is not very significant. Its ad hominem anyway because at no point do you even look at their work

    2007 had 1 out 450 LA.

  6. #426
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Showing another heavily edited page doesn't posit much. Might want to edit in the nukes to make it more convincing.
    Are you taking drugs as we are discussing this? I NEVER EDITED THE PAGE YOU MENTAL RETARD.

    The Nuke reference is in an update!

    http://www.populartechnology.net/201...urcewatch.html

    The strawman was that you never claimed it was the more egregious and you instead pointed to the nukes as being worse. You just edited them out. Just like you did with:
    Oh god you are mentally retarded. Yes I discussed my opinion on this issue with you but I never mentioned her or it on my page.

    I also recall the maiming language that you used originally in your article.
    Yes "maiming" is still there for tree spiking you idiot. That is what is for the first time and has not changed. Your drug addicted mind came up with the strawman argument about "pipe-bombs".

  7. #427
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    I'll bet he doesn't know the difference between FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4, and AR5...

    That is...

    Wait...

    I'll bet he's googling hard right now.
    Its more like it was an assumption on my part that you had found this issue with the most recent incarnation. There were 1 or 2 out of 400ish lead authors in previous years and none in the one under production.

    Despite the few grad students involved the NAS still concurred with their findings.

  8. #428
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Sure but only having one maybe two a single time out of hundreds of authors total is not very significant. Its ad hominem anyway because at no point do you even look at their work

    2007 had 1 out 450 LA.
    It demonstrates the IPCC's incompetence as they did not even check the credentials of their Lead Authors let alone the peer-review status of the references they use.

  9. #429
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

    Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

    Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

    Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

    Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

    Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

    Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

    Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

    Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

    Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.
    Just like I am delusional about you writing this too?

  10. #430
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Just like I am delusional about you writing this too?
    No such page exists.

  11. #431
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    It demonstrates the IPCC's incompetence as they did not even check the credentials of their Lead Authors let alone the peer-review status of the references they use.
    You have any proof that they didn't know they were grad students or that the other cited works were not peer reviewed.

    If you use other people's works you cite them. Grad students often work with professors in publishing; it happens in every college department in every school every year.

    I don't see what the problem is. You certainly do not point to any false information

    They still had over 13,000 peer reviewed citations.

    Just seems like looking for something to bitch about. At no point do we actually talk about the science.

  12. #432
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    No such page exists.
    Did you write it then edit it to something else?

  13. #433
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,256
    You have created an entirely illogical thread and cannot define the words you used improperly.


    When you cannot debate logically you always fall back to this smear.


    I have not "withdrawn" as in accepted your argument, I just have not bothered to read it recently. My arguments on the issue have not changed.
    There is a vast gulf between "cannot" and "will not".

    I am fairly sure I have given a working definition of "denier", but since you want to harp on it, and it appears to be important for whatever reason:


    "climate change denier" is a short hand for "a self-professed skeptic of the theory that humans, through their burning of fossil fuels, are both increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and therefore causing the earth to be generally warmer than it might otherwise be, and who generally believes, despite available evidence that this will have no harmful effects, and approaches the subject with flawed thinking due to confirmation bias that filters out evidence supporting AGW theory"


    Generally, a "denier" is, in my mind, someone who is skeptical of AGW and the potential harmful changes this may be driving, but who is not an honest skeptic.

    As I have said before, there a deliniation between an honest skeptic, and a denier, who generally uses arguments that attempt to construct what amounts to a conspiracy theory that there is some vast network of left-leaning scientists suppressing the "real truth".

    Your buddy greenfyre has gone one at great length about it.

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/

    You may also want to read for some background:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming

    I have now, twice, given you some working, general guidelines.

    If you want more, google is that way----------------------->
    _____________________________
    Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
    "it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."

    post6568713

    q: So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and someone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?
    vy65: "no, we cannot"

    QUOTE=vy65;6952966] I don't think harming other people is immoral. [/QUOTE

  14. #434
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,256
    No matter the order of the phrase, it's definition is illogical in it's application. I ask again, Who denies the climate changes?
    No one. Here is at least one of the quotes with Darrin directly implying that scientists are foolish to believe that our climate never changes.

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=278

    Funny thing is, climate change would occur even if the Earth had no human population. So, really, the AGW crowd are the climate change deniers.
    Climate scientists never have claimed that our climate would never change.


    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=286
    With all the "overwheming evidence" to support AGW, a sci-fi docudrama by a Nobel-winning ex vice president, and a more than willing mainstream media, you'd think that more than a third of the population would believe that humans cause climate change.

    Why is getting harder and harder to sell this ROCK SOLID science?

  15. #435
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,256
    The IPCC is so incompetent they cannot even get basic credentials of their lead authors correct.
    That isn't really a point.

    Any large report that is a summary of a state of the science in a particular field will have some in accuracies when you are attempting to figure out everyone that contributed.

    Pointing out minor mistakes in a scientific report, does not change the underlying validity of a field of study, or the conclusions.

    Can the conclusions and assertions of the IPCC concerning climate science be logically dismissed because they made a mistake concerning creditials in the forward?

  16. #436
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,256
    Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.
    Again, as a general question:

    If a scientist expresses a belief that a non-scientific theory has the same credibility as a scientific one, does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?

    (still waiting on an answer form Poptech for this question)

  17. #437
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,417
    Moved from the other "pseudoscience" thread.

    Random...

    You explain complain about PopTech ignoring questions, how about a review of this, or are you a hypocrite?
    I have simply stopped trying to read much into your explanations. When I have in the past, they always turn out to be flawed thinking in some manner, usually because of your marked confirmation bias, and inability to sift out how that bias affects your starting assumptions.

    At this point I assume that if you can't explain it easily, simply, and coherently, you are wrong.

    From what I have seen, you are contradicting yourself.

    Again, I could very well be wrong about that, I have not taken the time to dig into it.

    It isn't really my intention to be obtuse, or an asshole here. I will drop it, since it is upsetting you, and go back into it when I have the time.

    Please accept my apologies for being a bit frustrating, it is merely due to my unwillingness to spend the time fully understanding your argument, and that is more on me, than you. (edit) I will go in and do some reading on the studies and get back to you on that.
    Excuses, excuses.

    I make simplified explanations so anyone with basic science skills can understand. I'm not quantifying the CO2 between the actual ocean and air here, just simplifying the way it works. Why is this so difficult?

    Post #144, an example of how temperature alone, CO2 alone, and both change a mixture.

    Using easier numbers just for an example. Let's assume we have balance of 98:2. We have 10,000 units. We have 9,800 units in water and 200 units in the air above the water. If we increase the temperature of the water enough to change the calculated balance to 97.6:2.4, then the system will equalize to that. Equalization will occur when the water has 9,760 units and the air has 240 units. We didn't add the 40 units. It was achieved by the change in temperature

    Now let's use the same 10,000 units and keep the temperature stable. Let's add another 100 units (man-made) into the system. Our 10,000 number now becomes 10,100. Since the equilibrium is at 98:2, the water will absorb 98 units leaving 2 in the air. Our new mix is now 10,098 to 202. We added 100, but 98% of it was dissolved.

    Now we do both. We increase temperature and we add 100 units. We have 10,100 units at a 97.6:2.4 ratio for equilibrium. We now have 9,857.2 units in the water and 242.4 units in the air. Only 2.4 more units out of 100 than if we didn't add the 100.
    Consider this. The 70 gallons is the atmosphere, the 19 gallons is the ocean sourcing, and the 1 gallon is the human emission. Pouring the 20 back out is the ocean sinking.

    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.
    What needs to be explained farther?
    _____________________________
    I carry a gun, because a police officer is too heavy.

  18. #438
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,748
    Hey guys, say I have a 10 gallon tank of water in a room with 9.82 gallons in the tank. The air around the water has water vapor in it, so the ratio of water form air is 98.2 and there is a full 10 gallons in the room. So, if I add 10 gallons of water to the room, the 10 gallon tank will then hold 18.4 gallons of water!

    SCIENCE!!!!
    _____________________________


  19. #439
    Troll
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    383
    Hey guys, say I have a 10 gallon tank of water in a room with 9.82 gallons in the tank. The air around the water has water vapor in it, so the ratio of water form air is 98.2 and there is a full 10 gallons in the room. So, if I add 10 gallons of water to the room, the 10 gallon tank will then hold 18.4 gallons of water!

    SCIENCE!!!!
    This is funny, but it's sad at the same time.


    China and other Asian countries are going to dominate us, and it won't be because of the Kyoto protocal, illegal immigrants, spending, etc.

    It will be because of idiotic good ole boy conservatives placed in positions of power. You could explain this 100 different ways, and they will ignore it and claim faith in something else..like Ronald Reagan or White pigmented Jesus.

    Oil is a dead end, end of story. Most of these fools will be dead in 30 yrs, so it likely doesn't matter to them.

    All this concern coming from them about our children and deficit spending is nonsense. The dollar is connected to oil and it will fail in catastrophic fashion if nothing is done.

  20. #440
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    17,963

    China and other Asian countries are going to dominate us, and it won't be because of the Kyoto protocal, illegal immigrants, spending, etc.

    It will be because of idiotic good ole boy conservatives placed in positions of power. You could explain this 100 different ways, and they will ignore it and claim faith in something else..like Ronald Reagan or White pigmented Jesus.

    Yep, makes perfect sense.

  21. #441
    Troll
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    383
    Yep, makes perfect sense.
    I doubt it does to you. Co2 promotes plant growth dontcya know?


  22. #442
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,256
    Moved from the other "pseudoscience" thread.

    Random...

    You explain complain about PopTech ignoring questions, how about a review of this, or are you a hypocrite?

    Excuses, excuses.
    Leave it to you to shit on an outstretched hand.



    Every fucking time I try to build up some modicum of respect for you, you go off and say something stupid or counterproductive.

    If you want to be a complete shit about it, I will keep putting off re-reading it all.

    I made the promise to view it, and I will get to it.

    I place how soon that happens in your hands. Be a shit and wait, or drop the hostility and get an answer sooner.

    Your call.

  23. #443
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,256
    This is funny, but it's sad at the same time.


    China and other Asian countries are going to dominate us, and it won't be because of the Kyoto protocal, illegal immigrants, spending, etc.

    It will be because of idiotic good ole boy conservatives placed in positions of power. You could explain this 100 different ways, and they will ignore it and claim faith in something else..like Ronald Reagan or White pigmented Jesus.

    Oil is a dead end, end of story. Most of these fools will be dead in 30 yrs, so it likely doesn't matter to them.

    All this concern coming from them about our children and deficit spending is nonsense. The dollar is connected to oil and it will fail in catastrophic fashion if nothing is done.
    We will have oil for a long time, to be sure. But that is probably a better question for the "hydocarbon" thread.

  24. #444
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    31,944
    Global Temperatures Rising on a Devastating Trajectory


    UXBRIDGE, Canada, May 25, 2012 (IPS) - Climate-heating carbon emissions set a record high in 2011, in a 3.2 percent increase over the previous year, the International Energy Agency reported this week. The main reason for this dangerous increase is that governments are failing to implement policies to prevent catastrophic increases of global temperatures.

    A new report released on the last days of international climate talks in Bonn, Germany this week reveals that the planet is heading to a temperature rise of at least 3.5 degrees Celsius, and likely more, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), despite an international agreement to keep global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.

    Not only are pledges inadequate, but countries are unable to fulfill even those pledges, a new CAT analysis shows. CAT is a joint project of Dutch energy consulting organisation Ecofys, Germany's Climate Analytics, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

    "When we compared the emission reduction pledges of countries like Brazil, Mexico and the U.S., we found they did not have the policies in place to meet those pledges," said Niklas Höhne, director of energy and climate policy at Ecofys.


    http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=107928

    =======

    You right-wingers keep rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, and stuffing the boilers full of BigCoal's shit.'

  25. #445
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,748
    Well, to be fair the US's emissions actually dropped due to our move away from coal.

  26. #446
    Troll
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    383
    We will have oil for a long time, to be sure. But that is probably a better question for the "hydocarbon" thread.
    That depends on how much people are willing to pay. You can get oil out of peanuts too for eternity. But it's pretty expensive.

    At some point, peanut oil will be cheaper. Never mind the massive risk of screwing up our water table with all of this shale exploration

  27. #447
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,417
    That depends on how much people are willing to pay. You can get oil out of peanuts too for eternity. But it's pretty expensive.

    At some point, peanut oil will be cheaper. Never mind the massive risk of screwing up our water table with all of this shale exploration
    As the natural supply and demand moves the cost, there will be real need to develop other options.

  28. #448
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    We will have oil for a long time, to be sure. But that is probably a better question for the "hydocarbon" thread.
    With consistent population growth and declining production, I would not be so sure of that.

    Even with rising prices, population out of control and more and more of the world --most notable recent example: China-- is becoming dependent and highly functional in a fossil fuel economy.

    We are creating pipelines to export our excess production to China and Europe all so industrialist can become further entrenched as 'elites.'

    Most of the rhetoric in terms of projections does not consider population growth. If you want to think of it in terms of our lifetimes then sure we probably will not be faced with that but what about our kids?

  29. #449
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,381
    Leave it to you to shit on an outstretched hand.



    Every fucking time I try to build up some modicum of respect for you, you go off and say something stupid or counterproductive.

    If you want to be a complete shit about it, I will keep putting off re-reading it all.

    I made the promise to view it, and I will get to it.

    I place how soon that happens in your hands. Be a shit and wait, or drop the hostility and get an answer sooner.

    Your call.
    I will help you out. You have seen WC's method: a single scalar temperature value and a solubility chart.

    I present to you MIT's version of a simplified ocean-atmosphere transfer model: http://ocean.mit.edu/~mick/Papers/ItoFollows2003.pdf

    I actually recommend reading it. Its fairly easy to follow, thorough and insightful to the mechanics of what goes on in the ocean. They assume a fixed pH and an abiotic system so as to simplify the mechanics as that in addition to temperature changes drastically changes the CO2 solubility state. thus this is their version of 'simple.'

    They model a system of varying temperature where the warmer water of the surface mixes and subducts with the lower layer through changes in density, how circulation of the ocean furthers this mixing and models how the various CO2 concentrations move within the ocean. It breaks down into a quadratic and if you are familiar with how to analyze them they break down when various extremes occur and make the of ther factor statistically insignificant. For example

    Weak wind forcing and slow transport, or
    Strong wind forcing and rapid transport.

    Salient quotes from the study:

    Why does the deep ocean carbon reservoir show such a small change in C? The deep
    waters do indeed become increasingly undersaturated as the wind-stress forcing increases
    since the shorter surface residence time also impacts the subpolar region (Fig. 11). In the
    deep ocean, however, the enhanced undersaturation, C, is almost completely compensated
    by the increase in Ceq, the saturation C, due to the increase in pCO2
    at. Globally,
    changes in ocean C are buffered, stabilizing the ocean-atmosphere carbon partitioning

    see, for example (Bolin and Eriksson, 1959).
    A simple ocean and atmosphere box model illustrates the compensation of Ceq and C
    which must hold for the global ocean. We define the global mean ocean C concentration
    C  (VdCd  VthCth)/(Vd  Vth) (see Fig. 3). From this and (1) we may relate C and
    pCO2
    at through mass balance. They must obey, MpCO2
    at  VC  constant, where M is the
    number of moles of gas in the atmosphere, and V  Vd  Vth is the total volume of the
    ocean. Consider small perturbations in atmospheric pCO2 and mean ocean C concentration.
    MpCO2
    at  VC  0. (27)
    Following (6), a perturbation in C must be the sum of perturbations in Ceq and C in the
    abiotic limit.
    C  Ceq  C. (28)
    Combining (28) with the definition of the Revelle or buffer factor (Bolin and Eriksson,
    1959), (pCO2
    at/pCO2
    at)/(Ceq/Ceq)  Bu O(10) we find an expression for the change
    in global mean C:
    C   Ceq
    BupCO2
    atpCO2
    at  C. (29)
    Combining (29) with the linearized mass balance (27) we can evaluate the sensitivity of the
    ocean mean carbon concentration, C , to the saturation state, C:
    C
    C
     1 
    1
    1 
    MBupCO2
    at
    VCeq
     0.2. (30)
    This relationship tells us that, in the globally averaged, steady state, a change in saturation
    state, C, must be largely compensated by a corresponding change in the saturation
    carbon concentration, Ceq due to increasing atmospheric pCO2. Hence the resulting
    change in C is moderate. C = 0.2C.
    A lot of the symbology doesn't copy over

    Here is the conclusion:

    The theory and models suggest a dominant and significant role for the upper ocean in
    modulating the response of atmospheric pCO2 to changes in the wind stress forcing, as has
    occurred in past climate changes. Doubling the wind-stress leads to an increase in
    atmospheric pCO2 of as much as 30 ppmv in this model.
    Interestingly, this infers a
    mechanism which would increase atmospheric CO2 during glacial climates where hemispheric
    temperature gradients and mid-latitude westerlies would likely be increased.
    Compare that with the delta C from fantasy land numbers of 142 from Dr EZ Bake Oven.

  30. #450
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    31,944
    Well, to be fair the US's emissions actually dropped due to our move away from coal.
    Coalition for Clean Coal ads exhorting people to tell their Congresscriter to kill the new EPA emission rules.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •