Reply With Quote
Good video. The blathering drunk on the left even got better, farther in.
Are you paid for these commercials?Leading Companies Mislead Public on Climate Science, Policy
Many of the country’s leading companies have taken contradictory actions when it comes to climate change science while pumping a tremendous amount of resources into influencing the discussion, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The science advocacy group examined 28 companies in the S&P 500 that participated in climate policy debates over the past several years. All of them publicly expressed concern about climate change or a commitment to reducing emissions through websites and public statements, but half (14) also misrepresented climate science in their public communications. Many more contributed to the spread of misinformation about climate science in less direct ways, such as through political contributions, trade group memberships, and think tank funding.
“Corporations' increased ability to influence policy should come with an increased responsibility to let the public know how they are doing so,” said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program and a contributor to the report. “Companies may play a role in policy discussions, but right now, it’s simply far too easy for them to get away with misrepresenting science to achieve their goals.”
Utilizing an array of publicly available data, the report systematically examines how corporate influence fosters confusion on climate change. The analysis found that some American companies, including NRG Energy, Inc., NIKE, Inc. and AES Corporation, accept the findings of climate science and have taken actions in support of science-based policy. Other corporations, including Peabody Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Corporation, and FMC Corporation, have worked aggressively to undermine climate policies and have misrepresented climate science to do so.
Several companies stand out for taking contradictory actions on climate change. Caterpillar Inc., for instance, highlights its commitment to sustainability and climate change mitigation on its website. But the company also serves on the boards of two trade groups that regularly attempt to undermine public understanding of climate science: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Caterpillar also funds the Cato Ins ute and the Heritage Foundation, two think tanks that have misrepresented climate science.
Similarly, ConocoPhillips says on its website that it recognizes human activity is “contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” But in comments to the Environmental Protection Agency, the company criticized scientific evidence on the ways climate change can harm public health.
“The difference between what many of these companies say and what they actually do is quite stark,” said Gretchen Goldman, an analyst in the Scientific Integrity Program and a report contributor. “And because we know only limited amounts about their activities, it’s relatively simple for companies to show one face to the public and another to policymakers.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...port-0390.html
BP hyped itself as a green company for years
Good video. The blathering drunk on the left even got better, farther in.
WC vs MIT
Earlier thus year: What do we get later in the year?
It's pretty obvious he just repeats what he hears without really understanding it. You get an admission that you cannot look at things that simplistically and then turns around and does it. Thats the clarion call of dumb. DERP!!!!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.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 05-31-2012 at 04:40 PM.
This particular example though is really telling when you have the CO2 that we add can be differentiated from the "natural" CO2.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.
If you add 100 units to 10,000, you won't change that overall ratio appreciably.
If you add 100 units to 100 units, that has a much stronger affect on the ratio.
The extra CO2 is coming from somewhere. If it were coming from the ocean it would have a "natural" signal.
The scientific studies I have seen have noted that the ratio is moving towards the "man made" signature at a rate consistant with most of the CO2 increases being from mad-made sources.
All the rest, I suspect, is tap dancing by someone who wants desperately to believe something.
Perhaps you could respond to this section, and state explicitly how it supports your argument or claims.Briefly, the experiments are performed with the MIT ocean model configured in a 60° longitude by 90° la ude basin at 3° 3° resolution, with 15
vertical levels. It is overlain by an abiotic carbon cycle model which is coupled to a simple atmospheric reservoir of CO2. Carbonate chemistry is explicitly solved and the air-sea exchange of CO2 is parameterized with a uniform gas transfer coefficient. In Follows et al. (2002), we compare experiments with thermohaline forcing only to those with both thermohaline and wind forcing. The meridional overturning circulation and thermal structure of the model in these two cases is shown in Figure 2. The model resolves the ventilated thermocline reasonably well.
http://ocean.mit.edu/~mick/Papers/ItoFollows2003.pdf
Then you can maybe explain how your abiotic theory would specfically be affected by biological systems?
Unless, of course, you lack the background to be able to understand terms like "meridional overturning circulation" and "diapycnal".
How exactly do you account for the diapycnal nature of the oceans?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-31-2012 at 05:18 PM.
RG, all he is doing is latching onto something said by Glassman, the nonpeerreviewed, guy. Before the MIT report that I linked, THIS was the defining piece on ocean atmospheric exxchange modeling.
There is a blurb on p 132 says "the constants K1, K2, L .... are only functions of temperature and salinity and will be regarded as constants in the following."
That quote is what he is latching onto in making his claims that scientists do not consider them, That is clearly bull .
What he fails to acknowledge is that on step 5 and 6 of the same page, the equilibrium values divide out.
Look for yourself. pg 132.
I hope it is easier to understand than this gem:
So which quote is he latching on to?
The math I can vaguely follow, but they do factor out. Still don't ahve the time to really grind into it. Argh. Must get project update cranked out.
Aye, i was just trying to point out the mathematical justification for said independence.I hope it is easier to understand than this gem:
I love argumentation because you learn so much. i have learned so much on this specific topic but its just sad the deception that is spread and the rubes that fall victim to it.
"will be regarded as constants" and your blurb about them being independent.
The thing is, the ratios are telling different things during different studies. One study out there says there is twice as much of an indication of man made CO2 that we could have emitted.
Again, I am not denying there is an increase in such a signature. Read what I have said about this. I am claiming inconsistent measurements from study to study. I am not claiming anything contrary to this indicating the ratio of man made CO2 in the air is increasing.
Again, ask what this area of study has to do with anything I claim? I say it doesn't. I see it as another attempt to take me off my valid points.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-01-2012 at 04:15 AM.
Yes wow...I hope it is easier to understand than this gem:
"The constants K1, K2, Lp, and x are only functions of temperature and salinity and will be regarded as constants in the following."
LOL...
So they treat temperature as a constant...
LOL...
OK, this fifth link of Fuzzy's does address more of what I have been saying. However, it does not address the source and sink locations changes in temperature. As for claiming the very long cycle time for equilibrium, that is incorrect in one aspect. The primary sources and sinks are just that, and because of how they physically travel. The primary sinks do not ac ulate the ionic changes. They move the whole mass of the water, along with it's changes to the deep ocean. This is a very big fator in that these long times they speak of would be only for areas that do not travel like these areas do. this is why the North Atlantic is the primary sink. It takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere than any other location. Once the cold waters are moving downward in the Thermohaline circulation, there is no ac ulation, because these waters don't surface for hundreds of years later. The colder these waters become before their dive, the more CO2 they take with them. Just being warmer by a fraction of a degree changes their CO2 sinking ability by a notable amount. Same with the primary sourcing point in the tropical Pacific. Deep waters rise, saturated from the deep cold. the warmer the surface becomes, the more they release CO2 in the end result.
Show me where they address this in their study.
And...
LOL...
LOL...
Treating temperature as a constant...
LOL...
LOL...
Also, I see how they are getting their 12.5 factor, but I fail to understand why they use that since bicarbonates are a small part. The carbon dioxide and carbonic acid is about 90% of the carbons. The pH isn't changes enough to matter, not by that factor.
The winds make the exchange easier. there is a natural balance between the various dissolved inorganic carbons that is factually understood. Figure 1b shows the largest change around 0 by 50 because it is where the greatest amount of your "meridional overturning circulation" occurs at in the Pacific. They "diapycnal" nature is natural, cause by a combination of the winds and tidal effects. The effect by wind is clearly visible, and the tidal forces help to speed the process.
Note the extremes between the 30 in the tropical la udes vs. the -60 in the northern la udes. The -40, -50, -60 is sinking and the 30 is sourcing. These are primarily temperature dependent due to solar warming, and being different by incidental angle. Please note that the area of the 30 matches with approximately where the deep waters travel vertically up to the surface:
Please notice that these sinking and sourcing values from -60 to 30 are aligned to be temperature dependent. Of water at freezing of around -5C (or what ever salty water is at) is the -60, and warm waters at about 35 C(?) at the 30 value, then a crude slope would indicate a value change of more than 2 per degree C. Of course, this isn't linear, just a quick thing to consider.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-01-2012 at 04:47 AM.
Random, what do you think happens to net atmospheric CO2, if by figure 1B, all the values increased by one, or decreased by 1?
Global warming would dictate these values must increase. Global cooling would dictate these values must decrease.
Where to begin? Ah yes, it leaves me wondering which is more egregious, your ignorance or your stupidity.
1) You completely ignore the preceding portion that states that K is a function of temperature and ph. The reason why they hold them constant is because they are talking partial derivatives. Thats how they operate. Further you completely ignore how after the operation and some work with partial fractions the K's factor out completely.
Its not they did not consider them but rather they divided out. You see that a lot doing impedence transforms and even in very basic derivations of op amp gains. this is neither here nor there at the end of the day because that was a 1958 paper. Point out exactly where they made their mistake in their calculations. Seeing that your highest level of math is maybe Cal 1 I doubt you can conceive how to do it.Watching you muddle through partial fractions would prob be good for a laugh.
2) The 2003 MIT paper does consider K so yes that does disagree with your very central premise that climate scientists do not consider the temperature gradient which is baseless. I gave you about 6 quotes that whowed otherwise. Glassman is wrong.
3) You have no understanding whatsoever with the manner CO2 dissociates in water. This is clear in your statement "I fail to understand why they use that since bicarbonates are a small part. The carbon dioxide and carbonic acid is about 90% of the carbons. The pH isn't changes enough to matter, not by that factor." CO2 breaks down into ratios of the various ionic compounds. Those ratios are an equilibrium themselves and when you whack that out with ph and the production of CaCO3 you don't just get to dissolve/effervesce more. It becomes a limiting factor. And they do the calculations to show it. Your dumbass doesn't get to just assert without mathematical justification that they are wrong. They don't 'suppose' its true; they show its true.
4) So you have both the chemistry as well as deep ocean pump that act as buffers and limiters to atmospheric/oceanic CO2 as does surface wind act as a limiter.
You solubility chart suck because it in now way considers ph nor other chemically active compounds that are plentiful and your ocean as soda model sucks in every way demonstrated.
Your 1000 units and a solubility chart can go suck a , .
Inconsistant does not mean invalid, goober. That is what data aggregation is for, to remove outlier effects, and that would be something you would understand, if you had a grasp of statistics.
I think it has a lot to do with your claim, since you are, in essence, saying that the majority of the extra CO2 in the atmophere is coming out of the oceans, or that the oceans ability to absorb it is being affected by temperature.
This would mean that the increases in CO2 due to human actions are a lot more than 10ppm "at most".
And so they do, as, in the aggregate, they don't change appreciably. That seems appropriate.
You do understand that the oceans are really, really big, right? What does this imply for thermal inertia in the short term?
I try not to render opinions about things that I do not fully understand, which is why I stick to economic and finance topics.
I can honestly say "I don't know". Fully understanding it involves a good chunk of time to dig into that I don't have at the moment.
On that note... gotta go.
Top US companies s ing out to block action on climate change
Some of America's top companies are spending heavily to block action on climate change or discredit climate science, despite public commitments to sustainable and green values, a new report has found.
An analysis of 28 Standard & Poor 500 publicly traded companies by researchers from the Union of Concerned Scientists exposed a sharp disconnect in some cases between PR message and less visible activities, with companies quietly lobbying against climate policy or funding groups which work to discredit climate science.
The findings are in line with the recent expose of the Heartland Ins ute. Over the years, the ultra-conservative organisation devoted to discrediting climate science received funds from a long list of companies which had public commitments to sustainability.
The disconnect in this instance was especially stark in the researchers' analysis of oil giants ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, and the electricity company DTE energy.
But even General Electric Company, which ranks climate change as a pillar of its corporate policy on its website, had supported trade groups and thinktanks that misrepresent climate science, the researchers found.
Caterpillar Inc, despite its public commitment to sustainability, also worked behind the scenes to block action on climate change. The company spent more than $16m (£10.3m) on lobbying during the study, with nearly five times as much of that spent lobbying to block climate action than on pro-environmental policies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change
This analysis is pretty funny, if you actually read it. In some ways, it's almost a parody of what it's supposed to be illuminating.
"This figure, which quantifies the statements and actions taken by companies across multiple venues, allows us to categorize company behavior on climate science and science-based policy. all statements and actions included in this figure are weighted
equally under our methodology, though we recognize that they are not equal in terms of their degree of influence on the climate
discussion.
Take a page out of Heritage's playbook.
hey wc, george needs you!
You still misunderstand my point. Forget the 13C measurements. I am saying they don't matter as to showing actual man made levels in the atmosphere, because of the inconsistencies. They only agree man made levels are increasing as a percentage, and I agree with this. They do is try to pinpoint the percentage in the atmosphere between man made and natural. Just because biological plant processes prefer 12C doesn't mean they don't use 13C, and the change is small. The solubility of the ocean doesn't care to any degree that this part of the science matters.
My claim about the 10 ppm is net gain, and I'm flexible on the number. It's just simply not the 100+ we see in the atmosphere. I am claiming the other 90 is because of ocean surface temperature changes. We have easily put so much more into the atmosphere than that by at least a factor of 100. The reason why I claim a smaller number is because the ocean should absorb in the neighborhood of 98% of what we add. I don't have the sum total of our additions to the atmosphere, but it is probably about 500 GtC, which means if the ocean surface did not increase in levels, it should absorb about 490 of it, leaving 10 (~5ppm). Now this is not instantaneous, and takes several years to achieve. The decay for balance is roughly exponential, and there are inconsistent estimates of the half-life as well.
I don't get why you are focusing on 13C. It doesn't matter. It could all be 13C, or it could all be 12C, and there would not be any differences in the carbon cycle that mater at the levels we are speaking of.
You are throwing out my argument when you make temperature a constant. My claim is based on the fact that the global warming is real. To make temperature constant is to deny global warming.
Who's the denier?
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
