Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1 [Archive] - Page 2

RandomGuy

05-25-2012, 10:00 PM

So you can't prove your claim that I am a relgious bigot?

I already did.

No, you didn't really. You demonstrated no reasonable defintion of the term, nor did you match anything I have ever said to that reasonable definition.

You just waved your bloody arms like a looney and said "yes I did".

It's like talking to the shop keeper who sold a dead parrot to Mr. Cleese...

----------------------------------

Randomguy enters the forum.

Randomguy: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(PopTech does not respond.)

Randomguy: 'Ello, Miss?

PopTech: What do you mean "miss"?

Randomguy: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

PopTech: We're irretuably closin' for lunch.

Randomguy: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this claim what I saw you make not half an hour ago from this very forum.

PopTech: Oh yes, the, uh, the claim about your logical fallacy?...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Randomguy: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's stupid, that's what's wrong with it!

PopTech: No, no, 'e's uh,...it's right, ‘cuase I said it was.

Randomguy: Look, matey, I know a stupid claim when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

PopTech: No no it's not stupid, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable claim, the Ad Populum, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! [/indent]

Randomguy: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone stupid.

PopTech: Nononono, no, no! it's right!

Randomguy: All right then, if it’s right, I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Polly Ad Poppulum! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...

(PopTech hits the quote button)

PopTech: There, it moved!

Randomguy: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the quote button!

PopTech: I never!!

Randomguy: Yes, you did!

PopTech: I never, never irrefutably did anything... [/indent]

Randomguy: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes claim out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

Randomguy: Now that's what I call a stupid argument.

PopTech: No, no.....No, it's stunned!

Randomguy: STUNNED?!?

PopTech: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Ad Populums stun easily, major.

Randomguy: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That claim is definitely moron, and when I read it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

PopTech: Well, it's...it’s, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Randomguy: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

PopTech: The Ad Populum prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable claim, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

Randomguy: Look, I took the liberty of examining that claim when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its post in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

PopTech: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that claim to my computer screen, it would have nuzzled up to those pixels, bent 'em apart with its stupidity and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Randomguy: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this claim wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

PopTech: No no! it's pining!

Randomguy: it's not pinin'! it's s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet its’ maker! its a stiff! Bereft of intelligence, its rests in peace! It is so stupid it burns my brains! If you hadn't nailed 'im to your monitor 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS A STUPID CLAIM!!

(pause)

PopTech: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, I’m right out of claims that aren’t stupid.

Randomguy: I see. I see, I get the picture.

PopTech: I got a creationist scientist.

(pause)

Randomguy: Pray, does it believe in evolution?

PopTech: Nnnnot really.

Randomguy: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

PopTech: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

RandomGuy

05-25-2012, 10:08 PM

Your picture does not make any sense. I am here to defend my preciousss lissssst

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1702

I would not want to take your precious list from you. :lol

By all means defend away.

RandomGuy

05-25-2012, 10:13 PM

The only reason I posted to the topic was to correct the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments state about the list. Exposing your constant use of logical fallacies (including those in your opening post) was just a bonus. Your thread actually makes no sense and is completely illogical,

Who denies the climate changes?

I don't know. Who does?

I have seen Yonivore and Darrin claim that climate scientists seem to think that. I can probably find the links to their posts if you want.

RandomGuy

05-25-2012, 10:16 PM

Where have I denied the climate changes?

Your question doesn't really make any sense.

You ok?

You are wise to change the subject.

[snark redacted-- posting while tired and grumpy will do that, argh]

RandomGuy

05-25-2012, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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?

Where does Dr. Spencer compare creationism to climate science?

Answering a question, with a question.

Extra weasel points.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1684

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 02:25 AM

Its not a matter of scale. The domains are simply shifted. Celsius has an endpoint of -273 whereas Kelvin has an endpoint of zero. AFAIK the positive end is openended. -273 C = 0 K and as they increase they increase at exactly the same scale ie -272 C = 1 K.

The kelvin is simply a domain shifted function of C ie F(C) = C + 273.
It makes a difference any time you wish to multiply or divide.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 02:28 AM

:lmao

http://s15.postimage.org/fsc0q5wmz/newspaper.jpg
That's good.

I would ask who did such a fine photoshop job, but Fuzzy's so paranoid, it's probably real!

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 02:33 AM

I don't know. Who does?

I have seen Yonivore and Darrin claim that climate scientists seem to think that. I can probably find the links to their posts if you want.
I have never seen them say they deny climate change, nor do I.

It's this chronic lying you guys do that pisses us off. You paint us a lunatics when we are skeptics.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 04:00 AM

Random...

Do you now understand my point about the CO2 and ocean thing yet?

I gave it one more attempt to answer your question, now you're silent.

Did I waste my time?

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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 04:30 AM

It makes a difference any time you wish to multiply or divide.

Not when you are taking a difference which is the whole point of the graph. If you build a system such that it take measurements in kelvin and you feed it celsius readings instead it will fuck up unless of course you are taking the difference of two measurements.

We are not even feeding back into systems, the graph is a plot of difference in temperature for both kelvin and celsius. You are doing this again:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

You learned something and you are trying to apply it it to anything you can but it doesn't apply here.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 04:38 AM

Random...

Do you now understand my point about the CO2 and ocean thing yet?

I gave it one more attempt to answer your question, now you're silent.

Did I waste my time?

You wasted your time using simple solubility charts again, yes.

There have been studies on this. MiG has mocked you with them for quite some time. They actually take into account relative salinity, chlorophyll amounts, thermal layers etc in their analysis.

Your Dr. EZ-bake napkin math does not trump their work.

Whats interesting is that what you are describing here is at the heart of the feedback cycle. Its why they call it a feedback. You increase temperature and more CO2 is released which is the feedback and that in turn increases temperate etc.

As for your 'equilibrium' the ocean is not a lab. You cannot keep it as a closed controlled system. You keep talking about the exact same shit we have been making fun of you about for years. You act all indignant when MiG and others just blow you off but shit like this is why.

It's the exact same bullshit AGAIN.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 05:04 AM

Not when you are taking a difference which is the whole point of the graph. If you build a system such that it take measurements in kelvin and you feed it celsius readings instead it will fuck up unless of course you are taking the difference of two measurements.

Changeing the argument huh. Think back about when i originally brought up kelvin.

We are not even feeding back into systems, the graph is a plot of difference in temperature for both kelvin and celsius. You are doing this again:

You learned something and you are trying to apply it it to anything you can but it doesn't apply here.

You are assuming the worse in people. You really should stop that. I'll bet you have no friends. I find it really stupid on your part that you are attempting there is no place for kelvin.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 05:07 AM

You wasted your time using simple solubility charts again, yes.

There have been studies on this. MiG has mocked you with them for quite some time. They actually take into account relative salinity, chlorophyll amounts, thermal layers etc in their analysis.

Your Dr. EZ-bake napkin math does not trump their work.

Whats interesting is that what you are describing here is at the heart of the feedback cycle. Its why they call it a feedback. You increase temperature and more CO2 is released which is the feedback and that in turn increases temperate etc.

As for your 'equilibrium' the ocean is not a lab. You cannot keep it as a closed controlled system. You keep talking about the exact same shit we have been making fun of you about for years. You act all indignant when MiG and others just blow you off but shit like this is why.

It's the exact same bullshit AGAIN.
Sorry , you can't dismiss real chemistry that easily. The surface temperatures of the oceans are warmer at the places they source and sink both. There is no way you can accurately argue that this does not increase the sourcing and decrease the sinking. To do show proves you don't understand this at all.

We can argue about the value of the flux, but the fact remains. Sinking and sourcing do change with the surface temperature of the water.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 05:20 AM

Changeing the argument huh. Think back about when i originally brought up kelvin.

You are assuming the worse in people. You really should stop that. I'll bet you have no friends. I find it really stupid on your part that you are attempting there is no place for kelvin.

Oh I am sure that you have brought it up before. You have been aching to bring up linear systems ever since I mocked you about it last year. I don't care about all of your other shenanigans. I am referring to you talking about it in reference to the graph.

I am not saying that there is no place for kelvin measurements. I am just saying that we aren't talking about super symmetry or astrophysics. If you want to start a crusade to have the world convert to kelvin, I could even get behind that. It would help make the world more intuitive in terms of its vernacular.

I am not assuming the worst in people. I am talking about you. I guess you could say that I am assuming the worst in you but I say its just me having watched how you operate for years now.

I realize you would just love to be a guy like Sherwood Idso or the like testing hypothesis to disprove AGW to confirm your bias but you do not even do that. Its "I suppose this" or "I bet if this were true" or some supposition based on an obnoxious oversimplification like your ocean as solubility chart equilibrium talk.

As for the last, I don't treat everyone like you. I don't suffer fools.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 05:30 AM

Sorry , you can't dismiss real chemistry that easily. The surface temperatures of the oceans are warmer at the places they source and sink both. There is no way you can accurately argue that this does not increase the sourcing and decrease the sinking. To do show proves you don't understand this at all.

We can argue about the value of the flux, but the fact remains. Sinking and sourcing do change with the surface temperature of the water.

That Bert quote has a purpose. What you are doing here is fixating on a single aspect so you can understand it.

As I said, there have been several studies on this topic and they discuss all the factors not just the one. They don't conclude what you would like though so you just stick with the simplification.

This is not new hat for you.

I know that I am derisive of you but I do empathize to a certain extent. I know that it upsets you when people just blow you off. No one likes that. That is why I am trying to tell you why they blow you off.

MiG has not only read but has extensively studied the studies that I am referring to. when you come at him with this simplification, its not compelling whatsoever.

RG actually tries to humor you. The man has an immense amount of patience with you and all he says when you come out with your half-baked ideas is that you should try to prove them through experiment. You just stick with the simplification and supposition so we make fun of you. Well he doesn't. Mostly.

You should try a different approach. If you really want to convince us, you are not doing a very good job of it. That should be quite evident. More of the same is not working.

Get some new material.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 05:42 AM

No Fuzzy.

You are just trying to dismiss reality.

What are you a scientific denier?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 06:02 AM

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.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 06:38 AM

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?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 06:43 AM

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?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 06:48 AM

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 07:22 AM

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 07:23 AM

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.
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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 08:24 AM

I realize you would just love to be a guy like Sherwood Idso or the like testing hypothesis to disprove AGW to confirm your bias but you do not even do that. Its "I suppose this" or "I bet if this were true" or some supposition based on an obnoxious oversimplification like your ocean as solubility chart equilibrium talk.

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.

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.

RandomGuy

05-26-2012, 03:37 PM

I have never seen them say they deny climate change, nor do I.

It's this chronic lying you guys do that pisses us off. You paint us a lunatics when we are skeptics.

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.

RandomGuy

05-26-2012, 03:46 PM

Random...

Do you now understand my point about the CO2 and ocean thing yet?

I gave it one more attempt to answer your question, now you're silent.

Did I waste my time?

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.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 04:00 PM

"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!'

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?

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 04:44 PM

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.
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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 05:44 PM

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.

Inaccurate how?

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 06:04 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?

Poptech

05-26-2012, 06:28 PM

I don't know. Who does?

I have seen Yonivore and Darrin claim that climate scientists seem to think that. I can probably find the links to their posts if you want.

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"
So who are you talking about in this thread? As it is titled, "...Climate Change Denial..." So your thread is based on a strawman?

What is the "denier movement"? This does not make any sense.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 06:39 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 06:51 PM

So who are you talking about in this thread? As it is titled, "...Climate Change Denial..." So your thread is based on a strawman?

What is the "denier movement"? This does not make any sense.

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:

Medication
There are no medications that specifically treat Asperger's syndrome. But some medications may improve specific symptoms — such as anxiety, depression or hyperactivity — that can occur in many children with Asperger's syndrome. Examples include:

Aripiprazole (Abilify). This drug may be effective for treating irritability related to Asperger's syndrome. Side effects may include weight gain and an increase in blood sugar levels.

Guanfacine (Intuniv). This medication may be helpful for the problems of hyperactivity and inattention in children with Asperger's syndrome. Side effects may include drowsiness, irritability, headache, constipation and bedwetting.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Drugs such as fluvoxamine (Luvox) may be used to treat depression or to help control repetitive behaviors. Possible side effects include restlessness and agitation.

Risperidone (Risperdal). This medication may be prescribed for agitation and irritability. It may cause trouble sleeping, a runny nose and an increased appetite. This drug has also been associated with an increase in cholesterol and blood sugar levels.

Olanzapine (Zyprexa). Olanzapine is sometimes prescribed to reduce repetitive behaviors. Possible side effects include increased appetite, drowsiness, weight gain, and increased blood sugar and cholesterol levels.

Naltrexone (Revia). This medication, which is sometimes used to help alcoholics stop drinking, may help reduce some of the repetitive behaviors associated with Asperger's syndrome. However, the use of low-dose naltrexone — in doses as low as two to four mg a day — has been gaining favor recently. But, there's no good evidence that such low doses have any effect on Asperger's syndrome.

RandomGuy

05-26-2012, 07:29 PM

I explained it already. Sorry that you don't know how to read into it.

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?

Poptech

05-26-2012, 07:34 PM

Yay a semantic obfuscation.
No it is completely illogical. Who denies the climate changes?

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.
So you now have the ability to redefine words? That is not the definition,

climate change - "a change in the world's climate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate+change)"

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 07:34 PM

:lol 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 fucking 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 shit 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 shitty assumptions, using shitty 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.
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.

RandomGuy

05-26-2012, 07:37 PM

So who are you talking about in this thread? As it is titled, "...Climate Change Denial..." So your thread is based on a strawman?

What is the "denier movement"? This does not make any sense.

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 bullshit 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 bullshit, generally classify people who profess skepticism of what you term as AGW alarmism in the same manner/group as twoofers?

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 07:37 PM

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.

You fucking 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.

RandomGuy

05-26-2012, 07:42 PM

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 (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate+change)"

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 bullshit purpose.

By all means, keep demonstrating that. Ask the question again.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 07:43 PM

"I don't like that data, (waves hand) POOF!!, it is inaccurate"

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 fucking what?

I am not disagreeing with that.

Poptech

05-26-2012, 07:44 PM

Denier = pseudoscientific skeptic, generally a hack with a definite political agenda.
This is illogical. Can you provide a dictionary that includes this definition?

It is VERY telling that the same groups of skeptics who generally refute the bullshit 9-11 truthers, lump many skeptics of AGW into this group, as I do.
I debunk 911 conspiracy claims as well,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html)

I do not make any of these logical errors as you have.

Why do you think it is that the people who generally have mercilessly debunked 9-11 theories and other pseudoscientific bullshit, generally classify people who profess skepticism of what you term as AGW alarmism in the same manner/group as twoofers?
Because they are uneducated and emotional on the subject.

Poptech

05-26-2012, 07:48 PM

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.
It is illogical as you have worded it. I am defining "ACC/AGW Alarm" not "Climate Change Alarm".

Getting the definition of words correct is not semantics it is important for communication. Your statement is illogical and wrong.

Your carelessness at using words properly is very revealing about your arguments in general.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 07:50 PM

Random...

Tell me.

Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 07:51 PM

We all know that for you their is only one way to look at things only one way to define things, aspie.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 07:52 PM

Fuzzy...

Tell me.

Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.

RandomGuy

05-26-2012, 07:52 PM

You fucking 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 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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 07:54 PM

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.

What he said.

Poptech

05-26-2012, 07:55 PM

There is honest skepticism, and there are deniers.

Your buddy Greenfyre and other legitimite skeptics have pointed this out.
Is Greenfyre honest?

Who is a "legitimate" skeptic?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 07:56 PM

double double toil and trouble

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 07:56 PM

Fuzzy...

Tell me.

Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.

They disagree with the conclusion of your Dr. EZ-Bake Dumbass 'thought experiment.'

The ocean is like a BIG SODA!!

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 07:58 PM

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

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.

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?

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 08:00 PM

They disagree with the conclusion of your Dr. EZ-Bake Dumbass 'thought experiment.'

The ocean is like a BIG SODA!!
I see...

You have no evidence I'm wrong, so you resort to such bullshit again.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 08:02 PM

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 (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate+change)"

Reordering the adjective and subject is fun I guess. You suck at arguing semantics.

RandomGuy

05-26-2012, 08:12 PM

It is illogical as you have worded it. I am defining "ACC/AGW Alarm" not "Climate Change Alarm".

Getting the definition of words correct is not semantics it is important for communication. Your statement is illogical and wrong.

Your carelessness at using words properly is very revealing about your arguments in general.

Meh.

I don't think you are all that capable of constructing a logical argument, and in the same manner, recognizing one when it is presented to you.

Although I am not going to hammer on it as much as Fuzzy is, I genuinely think you are a broken mind.

Further, the way I think you are broken would lead you to be somewhat sociopathic to people you are antagonisitic to.

It was interesting to me to engage you on a topic in which I truly consider myself an expert in, i.e. the hydrocarbon thread, but you seem to recognize the asymetry and have withdrawn from that.

Your narcissism will not let you place yourself in a position to be "shown up" by those you consider inferior, so I don't expect that to change.

Given that I don't think you are capable of recognizing a logical argument, and I genuinely believe your mind is dysfunctional, what possible motivation would I have to humor your request?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 08:15 PM

I see...

You have no evidence I'm wrong, so you resort to such bullshit again.

Why do i have to prove something wrong when you have not even proven it right in the first place?

I get that there might be some play as you increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and alter the solubility of the ocean.

But so far you have used made up numbers, a fresh water solubility chart, and napkin math. I'm not even sure you've used the chart this time. It looks like you are just pulling figures out of your ass.

You are just going to have to accept that is not good enough to prove a point when you are talking about the behavior of any ocean much less all of them. Quantifying empirical observations and using empirically demonstrated solubility figures from the actual ocean would be compelling.

That's what the scientists that you claim are 'innacurate.' Its really easy to be accurate when you just make shit up as you go along.

Quite frankly I have seen much better analysis from middle schoolers. If nothing else, they do not make up shit and fill in the gaps gratuitously

RandomGuy

05-26-2012, 08:18 PM

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?

What needs to be explained farther?

You are letting your anger drive, here. That generally doesn't help decent conversations.

:yield

As I said, I haven't spent the time to get into it. I think you know me well enough to know I have "basic science skills", so I can let that go as frustration and not meant too seriously.

I am tired. I am going to wander to the corner store, get a beer and watch a movie with the wife. You have my promise to get to it when I can.

Take care.

Poptech

05-26-2012, 08:36 PM

Reordering the adjective and subject is fun I guess. You suck at arguing semantics.
No matter the order of the phrase, it's definition is illogical in it's application. I ask again, Who denies the climate changes?

Poptech

05-26-2012, 08:39 PM

I don't think you are all that capable of constructing a logical argument, and in the same manner, recognizing one when it is presented to you.
You have created an entirely illogical thread and cannot define the words you used improperly.

Although I am not going to hammer on it as much as Fuzzy is, I genuinely think you are a broken mind.

Further, the way I think you are broken would lead you to be somewhat sociopathic to people you are antagonisitic to.
When you cannot debate logically you always fall back to this smear.

It was interesting to me to engage you on a topic in which I truly consider myself an expert in, i.e. the hydrocarbon thread, but you seem to recognize the asymetry and have withdrawn from that.
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.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 08:41 PM

Why do i have to prove something wrong when you have not even proven it right in the first place?

I get that there might be some play as you increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and alter the solubility of the ocean.

But so far you have used made up numbers, a fresh water solubility chart, and napkin math. I'm not even sure you've used the chart this time. It looks like you are just pulling figures out of your ass.

You are just going to have to accept that is not good enough to prove a point when you are talking about the behavior of any ocean much less all of them. Quantifying empirical observations and using empirically demonstrated solubility figures from the actual ocean would be compelling.

That's what the scientists that you claim are 'innacurate.' Its really easy to be accurate when you just make shit up as you go along.

Quite frankly I have seen much better analysis from middle schoolers. If nothing else, they do not make up shit and fill in the gaps gratuitously

That's OK Fuzzy. I'm tired of you purposely skewing things. I tried to open a dialog with you again, but you simply refuse to acknowledge valid points. You continue to do so in rather obnoxious ways. I get pissed at random as well, but at least after a while, he "gets it." I'll probably put you on IGNORE again, and never take you off. You will never simply change your stance once you are shown to be wrong. Before I do so, please remember:

You don't have to prove I'm wrong? I think you mean you are incapable of proving I am wrong, because solubility determined by partial pressure and temperature is an undisputed science. No skeptics in this part of science, except it appears you are a denier.

Fresh water chart? Liar. I have furnished in the past and used a chart that applies to the oceans. It shows solubility in a matrix by temperature and salinity. Again, a known proven aspect of science, not in dispute, except for your denial of real science.

Quantifying? I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a difficult task. Again, my examples are not trying to quantify real world situations. I am only showing those with basic understandings how these function.

The inaccuracies I claim are fact. Of the several studies done of atmospheric 13C, the results from one study to another are all over the place. The only consistency is that they all show the same direction of ratio changes. The magnitudes are really far off though. Again how do these studies matter?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 08:41 PM

It is illogical as you have worded it. I am defining "ACC/AGW Alarm" not "Climate Change Alarm".

Getting the definition of words correct is not semantics it is important for communication. Your statement is illogical and wrong.

Your carelessness at using words properly is very revealing about your arguments in general.

The definitions of words is semantics.

Quite frankly who gives a shit what you are defining? This is not the 'Let's phrase things for easy interpretation for Poptech's mentally disordered mind.' thread. If you are confused by what he means by 'climate change' then ask him.

If you are confused by it then that's your problem.No one else is having this problem. Have you considered that maybe YOU are the problem in your lack of understanding? Nope, its always someone else lying or otherwise maligning your 'irrefutable' interpretations.

Its also very transparent that this is one of your narcissistic ploys. If the wording doesn't match YOUR definition then you can just discount it.

You don't even live up to that as I have seen you argue that if the climate has changed it has only been insignificant and you are not even convinced of that.

You are a cliche at this point.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 09:14 PM

That's OK Fuzzy. I'm tired of you purposely skewing things. I tried to open a dialog with you again, but you simply refuse to acknowledge valid points. You continue to do so in rather obnoxious ways. I get pissed at random as well, but at least after a while, he "gets it." I'll probably put you on IGNORE again, and never take you off. You will never simply change your stance once you are shown to be wrong. Before I do so, please remember:

You don't have to prove I'm wrong? I think you mean you are incapable of proving I am wrong, because solubility determined by partial pressure and temperature is an undisputed science. No skeptics in this part of science, except it appears you are a denier.

Fresh water chart? Liar. I have furnished in the past and used a chart that applies to the oceans. It shows solubility in a matrix by temperature and salinity. Again, a known proven aspect of science, not in dispute, except for your denial of real science.

Quantifying? I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a difficult task. Again, my examples are not trying to quantify real world situations. I am only showing those with basic understandings how these function.

The inaccuracies I claim are fact. Of the several studies done of atmospheric 13C, the results from one study to another are all over the place. The only consistency is that they all show the same direction of ratio changes. The magnitudes are really far off though. Again how do these studies matter?

All of them show an upward trend but you get to simply dismiss that by claiming that the magnitudes are 'wildly all over the place' asif you have even attempted to demonstrate that.

:lol matrix. Sure seems like simultaneous functions to me. Its a chart. It's a chart of seawater tested in a lab its not describing the behavior of the ocean with all its thermal layers, salinity gradients, ocean currents algae plumes and other assorted wildlife.

The problem with your :lol matrix is the solubility formulas for CO2 and the actual mechanism. You are dumbing it down here. In essence what youa re claiming is that the sea temperature changes and poof the ocean fizzes out CO2.

Again

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Even then, the notion that climate science does not consider this is prima facia stupid but further it is easily demonstrable that they do. The IPCC details scientific work on it from 10 years ago in their 2001 report.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/104.htm

The annual two-way gross exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and surface ocean is about 90 PgC/yr, mediated by molecular diffusion across the air-sea interface. Net CO2 transfer can occur whenever there is a partial pressure difference of CO2 across this interface. The flux can be estimated as the product of a gas transfer coefficient, the solubility of CO2, and the partial pressure difference of CO2 between air and water. The gas transfer coefficient incorporates effects of many physical factors but is usually expressed as a non-linear function of wind speed alone. There is considerable uncertainty about this function (Liss and Merlivat, 1986; Wanninkhof, 1992; Watson et al., 1995). Improvements in the ability to measure CO2 transfer directly e.g., Wanninkhof and McGillis, 1999) may lead to a better knowledge of gas transfer coefficients.

Despite extensive global measurements conducted during the 1990s, measurements of surface water pCO2 remain sparse, and extensive spatial and temporal interpolation is required in order to produce global fields. Takahashi et al. (1999) interpolated data collected over three decades in order to derive monthly values of surface water pCO2 over the globe for a single "virtual" calendar year (1995). A wind speed dependent gas transfer coefficient was used to calculate monthly net CO2 fluxes. The resulting estimates, although subject to large uncertainty, revealed clear regional and seasonal patterns in net fluxes.

Regional net CO2 transfers estimated from contemporary surface water pCO2 data should not be confused with the uptake of anthropogenic CO2. The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is the increase in net transfer over the pre-industrial net transfer, and is therefore superimposed on a globally varying pattern of relatively large natural transfers. The natural transfers result from heating and cooling, and biological production and respiration. Carbon is transferred within the ocean from natural sink regions to natural source regions via ocean circulation and the sinking of carbon rich particles. This spatial separation of natural sources and sinks dominates the regional distribution of net annual air-sea fluxes.

CO2 solubility is temperature dependent, hence air-sea heat transfer contributes to seasonal and regional patterns of air-sea CO2 transfer (Watson et al., 1995). Net cooling of surface waters tends to drive CO2 uptake; net warming drives outgassing. Regions of cooling and heating are linked via circulation, producing vertical gradients and north-south transports of carbon within the ocean (e.g., of the order 0.5 to 1 PgC/yr southward transport in the Atlantic Basin; Broecker and Peng, 1992; Keeling and Peng, 1995; Watson et al., 1995; Holfort et al., 1998).

They quite obviously have extensively looked into it.

What you are missing about the partial pressures is that CO2 doesn't just dissolve. It dissociates into a couple of different compounds and there are chemical reactions in the ocean that happen. This phenomenon is ongoing.

HERE (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.5189&rep=rep1&type=pdf) is a study that tries to discuss the empirical observations of said behavior, quantification thereof. Below is a discussion of some of the feedbacks involved.

The chemistry of carbon dioxide in seawater has been the
subject of considerable research and has been summarized
by Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow [2]. Dissolved inorganic
carbon can be present in any of 4 forms, dissolved carbon
dioxide (CO2), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate ions
(HCO3
) and carbonate ions (CO32). Addition of CO2 to
seawater, by air–sea gas exchange due to increasing CO2
in the atmosphere, leads initially to an increase in dissolved
CO2 (equation 8.1). This dissolved carbon dioxide
reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid (equation 8.2).
Carbonic acid is not particularly stable in seawater and
rapidly dissociates to form bicarbonate ions (equation 8.3),
which can themselves further dissociate to form carbonate
ions (equation 8.4). At a typical seawater pH of 8.1
and salinity of 35, the dominant DIC species is HCO
3
with only 1% in the form of dissolved CO2. It is the relative
proportions of the DIC species that control the pH of
seawater on short to medium timescales.
CO2(atmos) ⇔ CO2(aq) (8.1)

CO2 H2O ⇔ H2CO3 (8.2)

H2CO3 ⇔ H HCO3 (8.3)

HCO3 ⇔ H CO3
2 (8.4)
It is also important to consider the interaction of calcium
carbonate with the inorganic carbon system. Calcium
carbonate (CaCO3) is usually found in the environment
either as calcite or less commonly aragonite. Calcium
carbonate dissolves in seawater forming carbonate ions
(CO3
2) which react with carbon dioxide as follows:
CaCO3 CO2 H2O ⇔ Ca2 CO3

2 CO2 H2O ⇔ Ca2 2HCO3 (8.5)

This reaction represents a useful summary of what happens
when anthropogenic carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater.
The net effect is removal of carbonate ions and production
of bicarbonate ions and a lowering in pH. This in turn will
encourage the dissolution of more calcium carbonate.
Indeed, the long-term sink for anthropogenic CO2 is dilution
in the oceans and reaction with carbonate sediments.

The science is so obviously so far beyond your Dr. EZ Bake Optics analysis and quite frankly you of all people thinking you got one over on the entirety of the scientific community is laughable.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 09:51 PM

What you are missing about the partial pressures is that CO2 doesn't just dissolve. It dissociates into a couple of different compounds and there are chemical reactions in the ocean that happen. This phenomenon is ongoing.

Yes, I know the CO2 changes form. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know about it. They have equilibrium as well based on pH, temperature, etc. This is one of my biggest dislike about you. You automatically assume things and respond with your inaccurate assumption, instead of asking. You make calloused remarks based on your ignorance of what other people know. Do you have any redeeming qualities as a person, or are you a waste of flesh?

It does not change the fact the CO2 is both sinked and sourced with the ocean, and that the balance changes with temperature, salinity, etc.

Are you going to deny that the warming of the ocean changes this balance?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 09:59 PM

Yes, I know the CO2 changes form. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know about it. They have equilibrium as well based on pH, temperature, etc. This is one of my biggest dislike about you. You automatically assume things and respond with your inaccurate assumption, instead of asking. You make calloused remarks based on your ignorance of what other people know. Do you have any redeeming qualities as a person, or are you a waste of flesh?

It does not change the fact the CO2 is both sinked and sourced with the ocean, and that the balance changes with temperature, salinity, etc.

Are you going to deny that the warming of the ocean changes this balance?

Whatever you claim to know or not know you do not even attempt to account for them in any way shape or form. I think you are pretty stupid and have demonstrated it time and again. If you cannot deal with it then put me on ignore because unless you demonstrate something significantly different, i will continue to do so.

Additionally you have been claiming that the scientists do not consider this 'important scientific fact.' I just showed you where they had in their conferences. A simple google search pulled it up multiple times. That shows me that you are unwilling to even research what you claim but rather would 'suppose' or guess.' You have demonstrated that time and again as well.

I deny that the scientific evidence does not consider it and that you're attempts to show otherwise have been anything other than shitty. Quit supposing and start proving empirically and I will treat you differently.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 10:04 PM

within post # 413 of the original thread:

Solution:

CO2(atmospheric) ⇌ CO2(dissolved)

Conversion to carbonic acid:

CO2(dissolved) + H2O ⇌ H2CO3

First ionization:

H2CO3 ⇌ H+ + HCO3− (bicarbonate ion)

Second ionization:

HCO3− ⇌ H+ + CO3−− (carbonate ion)

Also in the thread, posted by me:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Carbonate_system_of_seawater.svg/500px-Carbonate_system_of_seawater.svg.png

Please note that more than 90% of the carbon is in either CO2, or carbonic acid. They freely equalize as the conditions change.

You need to really stop thinking other people are beneath you. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know of them. It's still part of the 98% balance.

You need to start giving people a little more credit as to their knowledge and ask for clarification rather than accuse.

I really don't see how you could possible have any friends in real life.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 10:11 PM

Whatever you claim to know or not know you do not even attempt to account for them in any way shape or form.
And you do?

I think you are pretty stupid and have demonstrated it time and again. If you cannot deal with it then put me on ignore because unless you demonstrate something significantly different, i will continue to do so.

No, I put you on IGNORE because you are impossible to reason with.

Additionally you have been claiming that the scientists do not consider this 'important scientific fact.' I just showed you where they had in their conferences.
The linked materiel also supported what I said, yet you deny it.

A simple google search pulled it up multiple times. That shows me that you are unwilling to even research what you claim but rather would 'suppose' or guess.' You have demonstrated that time and again as well.

Which claim and I trying to quantify? I am showing why skepticism is proper. When have i said i try to quantify? I don't need to pull up studies that quantify when that isn't my goal. If you want that, find them yourself.

I deny that the scientific evidence does not consider it and that you're attempts to show otherwise have been anything other than shitty. Quit supposing and start proving empirically and I will treat you differently.

I not sure what you are referring to here. How about refreshing my memory. I believe the last time I used such a meaning was saying they do not count the indirect solar energy in greenhouse gas forcing. Increases in solar energy directly increase the forcing of greenhouse gasses, but instead of assigning the extra forcing to the sun, they assign the extra forcing to the gasses.

We are talking about solubility right now, right?

Poptech

05-26-2012, 10:16 PM

The definitions of words is semantics.

Quite frankly who gives a shit what you are defining?
Failure to properly define and use words means a failure to communicate. If the goal is to be incoherent then you have succeeded. Either provide a definition from a dictionary for the context of the words "Climate Change Deniers" or this thread is falsified as incoherent.

If you are confused by what he means by 'climate change' then ask him.

If you are confused by it then that's your problem.No one else is having this problem. Have you considered that maybe YOU are the problem in your lack of understanding? Nope, its always someone else lying or otherwise maligning your 'irrefutable' interpretations.
Psychotic drug addict, I have no confusion about words that only have a certain range of definitions.

If the wording doesn't match YOUR definition then you can just discount it.
Please provide a definition from a dictionary of these words in the context used here. So far no such definition has been provided and the thread has been falsified as incoherent.

You don't even live up to that as I have seen you argue that if the climate has changed it has only been insignificant and you are not even convinced of that.

You are a cliche at this point.
What?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 11:04 PM

Words have different meanings. Sorry that you cannot understand that. Its quite obvious that you are mentally ill. You can look at them as a whole, as distinct, etc. Instead you want me to show you a specific definition form a dictionary that is exactly in the form that you want it to be in.

I am not going to play this asinine game with you.

If you cannot figure out what 'climate' 'change' and 'denial' could be interpreted as to the topic thats your problem. If you want to use that as an excuse to discount the discussion then go right ahead. If you don't have that excuse then you will have another one soon enough.

:lol irrefutable

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 11:20 PM

And you do?

:lol I am not the one making the argument that climate science do not consider CO2 solubility in their analysis.

The linked material was describing their consideration of what you are talking about. That's the point, dolt. You keep saying they don't consider it but they very much so do.

The disconnect here is that you don't like what their calculations result in or conclude so instead use a gross simplification. They talk about non-linear functions of windspeed, chemical reactions taking place, ocean currents and biological activity. They say stuff like:

The annual two-way gross exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and surface ocean is about 90 PgC/yr, mediated by molecular diffusion across the air-sea interface. Net CO2 transfer can occur whenever there is a partial pressure difference of CO2 across this interface. The flux can be estimated as the product of a gas transfer coefficient, the solubility of CO2, and the partial pressure difference of CO2 between air and water. The gas transfer coefficient incorporates effects of many physical factors but is usually expressed as a non-linear function of wind speed alone. There is considerable uncertainty about this function (Liss and Merlivat, 1986; Wanninkhof, 1992; Watson et al., 1995). Improvements in the ability to measure CO2 transfer directly e.g., Wanninkhof and McGillis, 1999) may lead to a better knowledge of gas transfer coefficients.

Despite extensive global measurements conducted during the 1990s, measurements of surface water pCO2 remain sparse, and extensive spatial and temporal interpolation is required in order to produce global fields. Takahashi et al. (1999) interpolated data collected over three decades in order to derive monthly values of surface water pCO2 over the globe for a single "virtual" calendar year (1995). A wind speed dependent gas transfer coefficient was used to calculate monthly net CO2 fluxes. The resulting estimates, although subject to large uncertainty, revealed clear regional and seasonal patterns in net fluxes.

Regional net CO2 transfers estimated from contemporary surface water pCO2 data should not be confused with the uptake of anthropogenic CO2. The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is the increase in net transfer over the pre-industrial net transfer, and is therefore superimposed on a globally varying pattern of relatively large natural transfers. The natural transfers result from heating and cooling, and biological production and respiration. Carbon is transferred within the ocean from natural sink regions to natural source regions via ocean circulation and the sinking of carbon rich particles. This spatial separation of natural sources and sinks dominates the regional distribution of net annual air-sea fluxes.

CO2 solubility is temperature dependent, hence air-sea heat transfer contributes to seasonal and regional patterns of air-sea CO2 transfer (Watson et al., 1995). Net cooling of surface waters tends to drive CO2 uptake; net warming drives outgassing. Regions of cooling and heating are linked via circulation, producing vertical gradients and north-south transports of carbon within the ocean (e.g., of the order 0.5 to 1 PgC/yr southward transport in the Atlantic Basin; Broecker and Peng, 1992; Keeling and Peng, 1995; Watson et al., 1995; Holfort et al., 1998).

Biological processes also drive seasonal and regional distributions of CO2 fluxes (Figure 1c). The gross primary production by ocean phytoplankton has been estimated by Bender et al. (1994) to be 103 PgC/yr. Part of this is returned to DIC through autotrophic respiration, with the remainder being net primary production, estimated on the basis of global remote sensing data to be about 45 PgC/yr (Longhurst et al., 1995; Antoine et al., 1996; Falkowski et al., 1998; Field et al., 1998; Balkanski et al., 1999). About 14 to 30% of the total NPP occurs in coastal areas (Gattuso et al., 1998). The resulting organic carbon is consumed by zooplankton (a quantitatively more important process than herbivory on land) or becomes detritus. Some organic carbon is released in dissolved form (DOC) and oxidised by bacteria (Ducklow, 1999) with a fraction entering the ocean reservoir as net DOC production (Hansell and Carlson, 1998). Sinking of particulate organic carbon (POC) composed of dead organisms and detritus together with vertical transfer of DOC create a downward flux of organic carbon from the upper ocean known as "export production". Recent estimates for global export production range from roughly 10 to 20 PgC/yr (Falkowski et al., 1998; Laws et al., 2000). An alternative estimate for global export production of 11 PgC/yr has been derived using an inverse model of physical and chemical data from the world's oceans (Schlitzer, 2000). Only a small fraction (about 0.1 PgC) of the export production sinks in sediments, mostly in the coastal ocean (Gattuso et al., 1998). Heterotrophic respiration at depth converts the remaining organic carbon back to DIC. Eventually, and usually at another location, this DIC is upwelled into the ocean's surface layer again and may re-equilibrate with the atmospheric CO2. These mechanisms, often referred to as the biological pump, maintain higher DIC concentrations at depth and cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be about 200 ppm lower than would be the case in the absence of such mechanisms (Sarmiento and Toggweiler, 1984; Maier-Reimer et al., 1996).

Marine organisms also form shells of solid calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that sink vertically or accumulate in sediments, coral reefs and sands. This process depletes surface CO32-, reduces alkalinity, and tends to increase pCO2 and drive more outgassing of CO2 (see Box 3.3 and Figure 3.1). The effect of CaCO3 formation on surface water pCO2 and air-sea fluxes is therefore counter to the effect of organic carbon production. For the surface ocean globally, the ratio between the export of organic carbon and the export of calcium carbonate (the "rain ratio") is a critical factor controlling the overall effect of biological activity on surface ocean pCO2 (Figure 3.1; Archer and Maier-Reimer, 1994). Milliman (1993) estimated a global production of CaCO3 of 0.7 PgC/yr, with roughly equivalent amounts produced in shallow water and surface waters of the deep ocean. Of this total, approximately 60% accumulates in sediments. The rest re-dissolves either in the water column or within the sediment. An estimate of CaCO3 flux analogous to the export production of organic carbon, however, should include sinking out of the upper layers of the open ocean, net accumulation in shallow sediments and reefs, and export of material from shallow systems into deep sea environments. Based on Milliman's (1993) budget, this quantity is about 0.6 PgC/yr (± 25 to 50 % at least). The global average rain ratio has been variously estimated from models of varying complexity to be 4 (Broecker and Peng, 1982), 3.5 to 7.5 (Shaffer, 1993), and 11 (Yamanaka and Tajika, 1996). (It should be noted that rain ratios are highly depth dependent due to rapid oxidation of organic carbon at shallow depth compared to the depths at which sinking CaCO3 starts to dissolve.) If one accepts an organic carbon export production value of 11 PgC/yr (Schlitzer, 2000), then only Yamanaka and Tajika's (1996) value for the rain ratio approaches consistency with the observation-based estimates of the export of CaCO3 and organic carbon from the ocean surface layer.

The overall productivity of the ocean is determined largely by nutrient supply from deep water. There are multiple potentially limiting nutrients: in practice nitrate and/or phosphate are commonly limiting (Falkowski et al., 1998; Tyrell, 1999). Silicate plays a role in limiting specific types of phytoplankton and hence in determining the qualitative nature of primary production, and potentially the depth to which organic carbon sinks. A role for iron in limiting primary productivity in regions with detectable phosphate and nitrate but low productivity (HNLC or "high nutrient, low chlorophyll regions") has been experimentally demonstrated in the equatorial Pacific (Coale et al., 1996) and the Southern Ocean (Boyd et al., 2000). In both regions artificial addition of iron stimulated phytoplankton growth, resulting in decreased surface-water pCO2. In HLNC regions, the supply of iron from deep water, while an important source, is generally insufficient to meet the requirements of phytoplankton. An important additional supply of iron to surface waters far removed from sediment and riverine sources is aeolian transport and deposition (Duce and Tindale, 1991; Fung et al., 2000; Martin, 1990). This aeolian supply of iron may limit primary production in HNLC regions, although the effect is ultimately constrained by the availability of nitrate and phosphate. Iron has been hypothesised to play an indirect role over longer time-scales (e.g., glacial-interglacial) through limitation of oceanic nitrogen fixation and, consequently, the oceanic content of nitrate (Falkowski et al., 1998; Broecker and Henderson, 1998; Box 3.4). The regional variability of oceanic nitrogen fixation (Gruber and Sarmiento, 1997) and its temporal variability and potential climate-sensitivity have recently become apparent based on results from long time-series and global surveys (Karl et al., 1997; Hansell and Feely, 2000).

Carbon (organic and inorganic) derived from land also enters the ocean via rivers as well as to some extent via groundwater. This transport comprises a natural carbon transport together with a significant anthropogenic perturbation. The global natural transport from rivers to the ocean is about 0.8 PgC/yr, half of which is organic and half inorganic (Meybeck 1982, 1993; Sarmiento and Sundquist 1992; Figure 3.1). Additional fluxes due to human activity have been estimated (Meybeck, 1993) to be about 0.1 PgC/yr (mainly organic carbon). Much of the organic carbon is deposited and/or respired and outgassed close to land, mostly within estuaries (Smith and Hollibaugh, 1993).The outgassing of anthropogenic carbon from estuaries can be a significant term in comparison with regional CO2 emissions estimates (e.g., 5 to 10% for Western Europe; Frankignoulle et al., 1998). The natural DIC transport via rivers, however, is part of a large-scale cycling of carbon between the open ocean and land associated with dissolution and precipitation of carbonate minerals. This natural cycle drives net outgassing from the ocean of the order 0.6 PgC/yr globally, which should be included in any assessment of net air-sea and atmosphere-terrestrial biosphere transfers (Sarmiento and Sundquist, 1992) and ocean transports (e.g., Holfort et al., 1998).

Which is a huge collaborative synthesis from scientists across the world. Citations and references indicating the work of many scientists.

You have a solubility chart and a ph chart from wikipedia to go along with made up numbers.

Damn straight I am going to be unreasonable.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-26-2012, 11:32 PM

You need to really stop thinking other people are beneath you. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know of them. It's still part of the 98% balance.

You need to start giving people a little more credit as to their knowledge and ask for clarification rather than accuse.

I really don't see how you could possible have any friends in real life.

You cannot possibly see a whole manner of things.

You are not 'people' You are one individual and I will give credit where credit is due, Dr. Optics. You do the same thing over and over again. You act like you have not been making these exact same claims for the past several years.

Which claim and I trying to quantify? I am showing why skepticism is proper. When have i said i try to quantify? I don't need to pull up studies that quantify when that isn't my goal. If you want that, find them yourself.

I just showed you where they talked about everything you claimed they did not account for. Partial pressures, solubility, temperature effects, etc. they also talk about and cite a whole manner more than that. You cannot do a single calculation that uses empirical data that disputes that and think that's justification for skepticism.

Wild Cobra

05-26-2012, 11:51 PM

[IPCC]

Which is a huge collaborative synthesis from scientists across the world. Citations and references indicating the work of many scientists.
----
Damn straight I am going to be unreasonable.
LOL...

You are going to believe an organized political body that has a set agenda...

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 12:00 AM

LOL...

You are going to believe an organized political body that has a set agenda...

You were flatass wrong about what they consider in their analysis so this ad hominem is of little surprise. It's little surprise that you resort to it rather than admit tehy consider each and everyone of those things you claimed they didn't. You obviously never even looked.

I will believe the IPCC over a stupid human being with a set agenda.

If nothing else I can look up their citations where with you I can expect solubility charts and no citations.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 12:49 AM

You were flatass wrong about what they consider in their analysis so this ad hominem is of little surprise. It's little surprise that you resort to it rather than admit tehy consider each and everyone of those things you claimed they didn't. You obviously never even looked.

I will believe the IPCC over a stupid human being with a set agenda.

If nothing else I can look up their citations where with you I can expect solubility charts and no citations.
I'm sorry that you believe that bunch of liars.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 01:33 AM

Words have different meanings. Sorry that you cannot understand that. You can look at them as a whole, as distinct, etc. Instead you want me to show you a specific definition form a dictionary that is exactly in the form that you want it to be in.

I am not going to play this asinine game with you.
I am well aware some words can have different meanings but no combination of all the available definitions for the words, "climate change denial" support the implied usage here. Thus, this thread has been falsified as incoherent.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 01:50 AM

I am well aware some words can have different meanings but no combination of all the available definitions for the words, "climate change denial" support the implied usage here.

And this of course is irrefutable!

What's you view of the IPCC?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 02:01 AM

I a not the one making these claims.

Do you really think that they do not consider water solubility in their studies? Really?

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?

Net CO2 transfer can occur whenever there is a partial pressure difference of CO2 across this interface. The flux can be estimated as the product of a gas transfer coefficient, the solubility of CO2, and the partial pressure difference of CO2 between air and water. The gas transfer coefficient incorporates effects of many physical factors but is usually expressed as a non-linear function of wind speed alone. There is considerable uncertainty about this function (Liss and Merlivat, 1986; Wanninkhof, 1992; Watson et al., 1995). Improvements in the ability to measure CO2 transfer directly e.g., Wanninkhof and McGillis, 1999) may lead to a better knowledge of gas transfer coefficients.

I'm sorry that you believe that bunch of liars.

You are such a discerner of truth.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 02:21 AM

Oh and aspie, can you tell us again what your opinion is on whether or not the Earth is warming?

Poptech

05-27-2012, 03:05 AM

And this of course is irrefutable!
You can prove me wrong at any time by citing a dictionary that supports the implied usage.

What's you view of the IPCC?
It is a biased, flawed and politically motivated organization that does not accurately interpret and represent the science on climate change.

5,587 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report are not peer-reviewed (http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php)

Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F' (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/) (Fox News, April 19, 2010)
U.N. Hires Grad Students to Author Key Climate Report (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/un-hired-grad-students-to-author-major-climate-reports/) (Fox News, November 2, 2011)
Almost Nothing We've Been Told About the IPCC Is Actually True (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/07/almost-nothing-weve-been-told-about-ipcc-is-actually-true/) (Fox News, November 07, 2011)

Poptech

05-27-2012, 03:12 AM

can you tell us again what your opinion is on whether or not the Earth is warming?
Drug addict, there has been no warming for the last 14 years,

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1998/to:2012/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2012/trend

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 04:46 AM

Drug addict, there has been no warming for the last 14 years,

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1998/to:2012/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2012/trend

So for the last 14 years the climate hasn't changed in terms of temperature?

Also BEST disagrees with you.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 04:49 AM

You can prove me wrong at any time by citing a dictionary that supports the implied usage.

It is a biased, flawed and politically motivated organization that does not accurately interpret and represent the science on climate change.

5,587 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report are not peer-reviewed (http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php)

Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F' (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/) (Fox News, April 19, 2010)
U.N. Hires Grad Students to Author Key Climate Report (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/un-hired-grad-students-to-author-major-climate-reports/) (Fox News, November 2, 2011)
Almost Nothing We've Been Told About the IPCC Is Actually True (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/07/almost-nothing-weve-been-told-about-ipcc-is-actually-true/) (Fox News, November 07, 2011)

So you deny anything from the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE?

Its actually funny watching you go robot, aspy.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 04:56 AM

And I have to say, when I want to know the current trends in science fuck scientific journals I go to Fox News. After all reports of grades from the Heartland Institute and bloggers is where i find my truths from.

And crediting grad students that work with professors at Universities is the best basis for criticism.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 05:10 AM

Oh, and monkey, Sherwood Idso gets money from oil companies.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 05:34 AM

So for the last 14 years the climate hasn't changed in terms of temperature?
It's trended cooler.

Also BEST disagrees with you.
Yes they believe that the global temperature trend has come to a standstill,

Best Confirms Global Temperature Standstill (http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230-best-confirms-global-temperature-standstill.html) (GWPF, October 29, 2011)

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 05:37 AM

:lol GWPF

“In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of it having slowed down. Now the evidence which shows that it has been stopped is a combination of land and ocean data. The oceans do not heat as much as the land because it absorbs more of the heat and when the data are combined with the land data then the other groups have shown that when it does seem to be leveling off. We have not seen that in the land data.”

Yeah that quote sure says that... :rolleyes

Poptech

05-27-2012, 05:40 AM

So you deny anything from the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE?
I do not deny you made a strawman argument.

And I have to say, when I want to know the current trends in science fuck scientific journals I go to Fox News. After all reports of grades from the Heartland Institute and bloggers is where i find my truths from.

And crediting grad students that work with professors at Universities is the best basis for criticism.
No, you get your "science" from reports written by students that cite 5,587 press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. :lmao

Poptech

05-27-2012, 05:41 AM

:lol "BEST"

Poptech

05-27-2012, 05:41 AM

Sherwood Idso gets money from oil companies.
Drug addict, we covered this already. Can you provide evidence of corruption?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 05:42 AM

What you got on the NAS?

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies. As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute both by continuing to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change, and by improving and expanding the options available to limit the magnitude of climate change and adapt to its impacts. To make this possible, the nation needs a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible climate change research enterprise that is closely linked with action-oriented programs at all levels.

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Advancing-Science-Climate-Change/12782

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 05:43 AM

Drug addict, we covered this already. Can you provide evidence of corruption?

How your same brain can get this to jive with the arguments you have been making about the IPCC is just hilarious.

Sophist aspie are you.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 05:48 AM

What you got on the NAS?
What about it?

Poptech

05-27-2012, 05:50 AM

How your same brain can get this to jive with the arguments you have been making about the IPCC is just hilarious.
Drug addict, I can actually support my claims.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:05 AM

What about it?

The National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government, on Wednesday issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind's role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects.

The report, requested by Congress 2008, essentially supports the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body whose most recent report released in 2007 was criticized for containing several errors.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704691304575254691763608402.html

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:07 AM

Drug addict, I can actually support my claims.

On the basis of a double standard sure.

IPCC uses grad students under professors in accreditation and is 'politicized' but someone having a conflict of interest by taking money from the oil lobby gets a pass. Its called cognitive dissonance and its typical of those with your disorder. You have your preset conclusions and you will get to them 'logically' any way you can.

You are a case study on abnormal psychology.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:10 AM

It's trended cooler.

Yes they believe that the global temperature trend has come to a standstill,

Best Confirms Global Temperature Standstill (http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230-best-confirms-global-temperature-standstill.html) (GWPF, October 29, 2011)

That link says that the gradient is zero. You say its trending cooler. So is the link wrong or are you wrong?

I mean if you are going to post contradictory things try not doing it in the exact same post.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 06:12 AM

On the basis of a double standard sure.

IPCC uses grad students under professors in accreditation and is 'politicized' but someone having a conflict of interest by taking money from the oil lobby gets a pass. Its called cognitive dissonance and its typical of those with your disorder. You have your preset conclusions and you will get to them 'logically' any way you can.

You are a case study on abnormal psychology.
So a group of scientists, selected by the democrat held congress of the time, when the democrats want to have more authoritarian control over us, is your proof?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:19 AM

So a group of scientists, selected by the democrat held congress of the time, when the democrats want to have more authoritarian control over us, is your proof?

So you are saying not to trust the National Academy of Sciences?

You guys are unbelievable.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:24 AM

Oh and dumbass, it was requested by Congress. They did not select the scientists.

PNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Skip to main page content

Info for Authors
Editorial Board
About
Subscribe
Advertise
Contact
Feedback
Site Map

Election to the National Academy of Sciences: Pathways to membership

Bruce Alberts , President

National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences, and Publisher, PNAS

Kenneth R. Fulton , Executive Director

Every spring, in late April or early May, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) elects new members. Membership in the NAS is a widely recognized sign of excellence in scientific research, but most scientists are not familiar with the process by which members are elected. This lack of information is certainly not intentional; no one gains when the elections are shrouded in mystery. However, the election's successive ballots have become more complicated over time, in part reflecting the rapid expansion of scientific fields. The complexity reflects a consensus process designed to ensure that an individual, or small group of individuals, cannot have an undue influence on the election. In this editorial, we attempt to shed some light on this poorly understood process. In addition, we describe recent efforts to make it more welcoming, especially to women and to younger scientists.

Consideration of a candidate begins with his or her nomination. Although many names are suggested informally, a formal nomination can be submitted only by an Academy member. Each nomination includes a brief curriculum vitae plus a 250-word statement of the nominee's scientific accomplishments— the basis for election—and a list of not more than 12 publications. The latter limit helps to focus on the quality of a nominee's work, rather than the number of publications. Once a nomination has been prepared, it is sent to the chair of one of the Academy's 31 discipline-based Sections, e.g., chemistry, cellular and developmental biology, or mathematics (for a complete list, see www.nas.edu/sections).

Each Section has its own procedures for identifying potential candidates and for winnowing the list through successive ballots of Section members. Some of these procedures are simple and straightforward; others are lengthy and complex, involving screening panels, caucus ballots, and other mechanisms. And variations occur when candidates are nominated by two (or more) Sections. But, as illustrated in Fig. 1, all Section procedures culminate in two mandatory ballots—named, for reasons lost in history, the “Informal” and “Formal” ballots. Successful candidates then go forward as nominees for consideration by increasingly broad segments of the membership, beginning with the six discipline-based Classes into which Sections are grouped.
Fig. 1.
View larger version:

In this window

Download as PowerPoint Slide

Fig. 1.

Flow chart of the member nomination and election process. 1, Optional, as specified by Sectional procedures; 2, subject to modification by Sectional procedures; 3, an intersectional candidate must receive at least 25% on each Section's Informal Ballot to advance to Formal Ballot and at least 50% of total Formal Ballot vote to become a Nominee; 4, Voluntary Nominating Group (VNG); 5, Temporary Nominating Group (TNG), which conducts informal and formal ballots subject to the same rules as Sections.

Candidates can also be nominated by a group of members by petition (a Voluntary Nominating Group or VNG) or by a special group appointed by the NAS Council to search for candidates in a specific field or set of fields (a Temporary Nominating Group or TNG). In 2003, on the recommendation of the ad hoc Committee on Nomination and Election in the 21st Century, the Council appointed six of these TNGs—one for each of the six Classes: Physical and Mathematical Sciences; Biological Sciences; Engineering and Applied Sciences; Biomedical Sciences; Behavioral and Social Sciences; and Applied Biological, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. These TNGs were charged with identifying and nominating younger candidates, both men and women; the work of the TNGs also has stimulated the nomination of women and younger members among the Sections.

The Academy's bylaws specify the maximum number of members who can be elected annually (currently 72), and each year the NAS Council determines the number of members that can be elected from each Class. In allocating these Class quotas, the Council takes into account the current size of the Academy and the areas in which it might grow.

In early February, six Class Membership Committees—each of which is composed of representatives of all Sections in that Class—meet to discuss the relative merits of all of the nominees who have survived voting in the Sections. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the nominees of VNGs and TNGs are also placed in the mix.

The end product from each Class Membership Committee is a rank-ordered list of nominees, composed of 150% of the total number of members that the Class is permitted to elect. Nominees who cannot be placed on the list because of this upper limit will be automatically considered again by the appropriate Section for the next year's election.

The rank-ordered lists of nominees for the six Classes comprise a “Preference Ballot,” which is sent to all Academy members in early March, along with each nominee's biographical material and information about his or her standing on the Formal Ballot. Members are required to vote for a minimum number of candidates in all six Classes— not just their own—for their ballot to be valid. The results are tabulated for presentation during the business session at the Academy's annual meeting in late April. Members attending the annual meeting vote on the “Final Ballot,” which contains the names of the 72 nominees who received the highest number of votes on the preference ballot, up to the maximum number permitted in each Class. The remaining nominees appear on a second list and—like those not ranked by the membership committees earlier in the process—are automatically reconsidered the following year by their nominating sections.

Although the final list is voted on as a group, any member at the meeting may request that a name be removed for discussion and a subsequent separate vote. Such “challenges” are very rare.

The new members elected each year are introduced and welcomed to the Academy by their colleagues at the annual meeting the following April. For the past 2 years, newly elected members have been 56 years old, on average. A list of the members elected this year can be found in the supporting information, which is published on the PNAS web site.

One might ask whether the end result of this election process is worth the large amount of time and effort that is devoted it. Why does it matter that the 2,000 members of the Academy are so carefully chosen? There are at least two answers to this important question. First, in principle, each member should serve as a role model for defining excellence in science for the next generation of scientists in his or her field. Second, it is this Academy—along with its sister organizations, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine—that supports the enormous public service efforts of the National Research Council, our “operating arm.” Known as the National Academies, this four-part organization is chartered to provide extensive policy advice to our national and state governments. The issues addressed cover a vast range—from stem cell research and the status of postdoctoral fellows and young investigators in the biological sciences to the dangers of arsenic in drinking water and of future climate change. By producing an average of more than one report every working day, the National Academies have greatly increased the wisdom of public policymaking.

Election to the NAS confers editorial responsibilities for this, the Academy's official journal, established in 1914 as a journal for members to publish their own important work and the work of others. In 1995, PNAS introduced direct manuscript submission, whereby any author—member or nonmember—can submit his or her work directly to the journal. All papers published in PNAS are evaluated and approved by an NAS member; the PNAS editorial office secures the appropriate editor for direct submissions.

To honor newly elected members, the journal publishes brief biographies that accompany a research report in the journal, thus providing examples of role models of excellence in science. The journal has an open archive policy, with all articles made freely available to everyone on the web 6 months after publication. The PNAS web site receives nearly 2 million hits per week and conveys groundbreaking research to the scientific community and the lay public.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/21/7405.full

You two disgust me.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 06:25 AM

So you are saying not to trust the National Academy of Sciences?

You guys are unbelievable.
They are like paid expert witnesses in court. They provided what they were asked to provide. You can find experts that will disagree with them. They are not unbiased scientists.

They get their money from partisan political players.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:27 AM

They are like paid expert witnesses in court. They provided what they were asked to provide. You can find experts that will disagree with them. They are not unbiased scientists.

You're an idiot. You have no clue and are just making shit up.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 06:28 AM

You're an idiot. You have no clue and are just making shit up.
They get their money from partisan political players.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 06:31 AM

This doesn't look unbiased to me:

Election to the National Academy of Sciences: Pathways to membership (http://www.pnas.org/content/102/21/7405.full)

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:35 AM

They get their money from partisan political players.

:lol

The National Academy of Sciences members do no cush thing. this is fucking ignorant and baseless.

I just showed you how they were selected and you will note Congress is not in the article. The salaries paid out by the NAS are independent of Congress and are paid out by the Academy.

This is just stupid, WC, and for all of your talk of how I should expect better of people you should do better than this.

Its shameful. Its one thing to be stupid but being without honor is contemptible.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:38 AM

This doesn't look unbiased to me:

Election to the National Academy of Sciences: Pathways to membership (http://www.pnas.org/content/102/21/7405.full)

I just posted that, dolt.

Biased to what? All the scientists in the Academy? I just posted that and point to me the part of the selection process that says 'political.'

You started off saying Congress picks them. Show me that part.

When it comes to scientific integrity, the Academy is the standard.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 06:44 AM

"National" Academy...

Considering this has been a very partisan issue, do you really believe they are going to bite the hand that asked them for the work?

They were given a task that already started with a biased premise.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:49 AM

"National" Academy...

Considering this has been a very partisan issue, do you really believe they are going to bite the hand that asked them for the work?

This is fucking dumb.

They don't have to care. It was founded by Abe Lincoln and is not going anywhere.

They could have come back and said that AGW was a crock of shit and that would have been the scientific standard. Congresses and presidents come and go but the Academy remains.

They have even less of a conflict than SCOTUS because their membership and selection process is completely independent of any branch of government.

You are grasping at straws because you do not want to accept what they are saying but when people talk about AGW consensus they are the American standard.

It is what it is.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 06:56 AM

They were given a task that already started with a biased premise.

They were asked to review the state of climate science. They did and said it was right on.

Deal with it.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 07:15 AM

They were asked to review the state of climate science. They did and said it was right on.

Deal with it.
I read it was something more pointed.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 07:29 AM

I read it was something more pointed.

I take it was from the same place you read that Congress selected scientists for the Academy?

They were asked what research indicated and what should we do about it.

NAS could have said we should do nothing. they could have said research indicated that there was no AGW.

They didn't.

Further you need to look again at the 2008 Congress that requested the NAS to do the review and make recommendations.

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't a Dem majority.

But by all means keep on trying to throw shit against the wall.

Even the DoD which is not exactly known for its liberal bias holds the same position as the academy:

The generals and admirals there already see how climate change is affecting their operations and their strategic planning. The Navy sees melting ice caps as both a threat to security and an opportunity for increased mobility. The Marines see rising sea levels and increased coastal storm activity as complications to amphibious landing plans. Army and Air Force training on land and in the air are affected by the devastating wildfires that have been ravaging the Western U.S.

The Southwest region of the U.S. in particular is a critical zone for Defense Department readiness, providing large land areas for its installations and a climate amenable to year-round exercises on land, sea and air.

But this region faces a wide range of likely interacting threats from climate change -- including higher temperatures in an already hot area, increased severity of droughts and floods, radically altered fire regimes and sea-level rise on the California coast -- that make it particularly important to train Defense Department managers on how to prepare for and adapt to the changing operational environment. The department got a preview of this in summer 2011 when Arizona's Monument Fire burned right up to the doorstep of the Army's Fort Huachuca. In short, the Southwest presents an intensified suite of climate-change impacts that Defense Department facilities are likely to experience.

Researchers from a wide range of fields at the University of Arizona -- from computer climate modeling and fire ecology to hydrology and social sciences -- have recently been selected by the Defense Department to help managers at Southwestern Defense facilities understand the risks they face with a changing climate and learn how to adapt to these risks. In a way, our approach is just a modern version of the agricultural extension model that was developed for land-grant universities such as UA. In this case, instead of working with farmers and sharing the latest crop-science research, we are working with base commanders sharing the latest regional climate-change information.

At the same time, we will never be able to provide perfect forecasts of the coming climate-change effects. Defense Department managers will need to deal with this constant uncertainty by becoming more adaptable. There is support for thinking about how to be more adaptable at high levels in the Pentagon, but there isn't a lot of clarity on exactly how to be adaptable.

As a biologist, I know something about adaptability from studying the 3.5 billion-year history of dealing with unpredictable threats and changes by life-forms on Earth, and I've been asked to share some of the unclassified secrets of natural adaptability with security agencies such as the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

Fortuitously, Defense now has a well-trained force for implementing adaptable strategies among its ranks in the form of the young officers who have led soldiers and Marines into battle almost continuously for the last 10 years.

To these officers, the need to adapt to climate change won't seem foreign, but simply another challenge they need to overcome to survive and thrive. The job for scientists working on climate-change issues will be to provide these adaptable leaders the tools they need to make the decisions that will allow their forces to continue to adapt in the future.

Rafe Sagarin is an ecologist at the University of Arizona. He is a Guggenheim Fellow and a former AAAS Congressional Science Fellow. His books, "Natural Security" (2008, University of California Press) and "Learning From the Octopus" (April 2012, Basic Books), outline in full the multidisciplinary development of the linkages between biological evolution, adaptation and security.

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Editorial/2012-04-23-PNI0423opi-sagarinPNIBrd_ST_U.htm

You need to wake the hell up.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 07:42 AM

Further you need to look again at the 2008 Congress that requested the NAS to do the review and make recommendations.

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't a Dem majority.

LOL...

Par for the course, getting your facts wrong again.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 07:46 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Editorial/2012-04-23-PNI0423opi-sagarinPNIBrd_ST_U.htm

And who is their Commander-in-Chief?

Do you even know?

Poptech

05-27-2012, 07:48 AM

On the basis of a double standard sure.

IPCC uses grad students under professors in accreditation and is 'politicized' but someone having a conflict of interest by taking money from the oil lobby gets a pass.
My argument about using students was not one of corruption but rather incompetence. I can only imagine what someone like you would say if we presented a "science" report written by students that cited 5,587 press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by energy advocacy groups.

Do you have any evidence of corruption with Dr. Idso's non-profit organization?

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 07:49 AM

They were asked what research indicated and what should we do about it.

NAS could have said we should do nothing. they could have said research indicated that there was no AGW.

They didn't.

Why would they say do nothing, and risk their jobs? Climatologists that go against the flow of politics get fired.

Why would they say their is no AGW when there is?

The $64 million dollar question is how much of GW is AGW. Not if AGW is real or not. We all know it's real.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 07:50 AM

All the scientists in the Academy?
All the scientists in the academy signed that report?

Poptech

05-27-2012, 07:52 AM

You are grasping at straws because you do not want to accept what they are saying but when people talk about AGW consensus they are the American standard.

They were asked to review the state of climate science. They did and said it was right on.
How many did this? Your "consensus" represents how many scientists?

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 07:56 AM

You are grasping at straws because you do not want to accept what they are saying but when people talk about AGW consensus they are the American standard.
How many did this? Your "consensus" represents how many scientists?
LOL...

Consensus...

LOL...

I missed that.

Fuzzy...

Scientific consensus once had it that the world was flat. The heretics who challenged the accepted political view were treated real harsh. I'll bet today, if you disagree with the idea that AGW is the cause of our seen warming, that you cannot get work at any government subsidized facility as a climate scientist.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:13 AM

All the scientists in the academy signed that report?

All the scientists of the academy vote on membership. Try harder to keep up next time.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 08:15 AM

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 08:17 AM

All the scientists of the academy vote on membership. Try harder to keep up next time.
Yep.

That way they keep the "right type" of religious belief of science in check.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 08:20 AM

All the scientists of the academy vote on membership. Try harder to keep up next time.

That is not what I asked. Did all the scientists in the academy sign the Climate Change report? How many signed the report?
His question is valid Fuzzy.

How manyof the scientists agreed with the conclusion of the report sent to congress?

100%?

90%?

51%?

Did you figure out who was Speaker of the House, and Senate President in 2008 yet?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:25 AM

My argument about using students was not one of corruption but rather incompetence. I can only imagine what someone like you would say if we presented a "science" report written by students that cited 5,587 press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by energy advocacy groups.

Do you have any evidence of corruption with Dr. Idso's non-profit organization?

That was not the only argument you made and grad students at least have an undergraduate degree.

it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how research is done at colleges. Its a collaboration of professors and their grad students. That some of them were credited demonstrates nothing.

Further it was ONE grad student amongst 800+ authors.

and you sure like putting up numbers as if its meaningful.

There were what 13,000 peer reviewed citations and further the attack on the citation is ad hominem. It includes no context of what the citations were or how they were incorrect. Its just a mindless smear.

13,000 peer reviewed citation is overwhelming. In contrast you have come up with what? 1000? Many of which --like the Callon paper-- conclude that warming is the reality.

And my point of asking about Idso was to get you to parrot your response, aspie. You OCD is amusing to manipulate though. Remember when you asked me why I asked you to spell it out when it was all on your site? think about it.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:33 AM

Dick Cheney was the VP in 2008, dumbass. 2009 was Bidens first year in office.

The Senate was split and the NAS is still an independent agency.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:36 AM

That is not what I asked. Did all the scientists in the academy sign the Climate Change report? How many signed the report?

The NAS president supported it strongly.

As for the membership? I am not sure but I can guess what the assumption that you want to make is though. I however will not pull numbers out of my ass.

That is the official position of the Academy. Why don't you shit all over them too?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:38 AM

Yep.

That way they keep the "right type" of religious belief of science in check.

This was a really intelligent comment. I mean it makes sense that the Academy should find people that don't believe in science......

You are so mindnumbingly stupid.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:39 AM

That is not what I asked. Did all the scientists in the academy sign the Climate Change report? How many signed the report?

When I said 'all the scientists' from what you quoted that's what i was talking about.

I realize you like pulling quotes out of context, as evidenced by your list but whatevs.

I never said all the scientists signed off on it. It seems like that is quite a mischaracterization of how the project was managed.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:43 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:45 AM

I have an idea?

How about you guys show me one NAS scientist that disputed the report.

Just one.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 08:46 AM

That was not the only argument you made and grad students at least have an undergraduate degree.
Is the public under the impression that the IPCC report was written by "the world's leading scientists" who all have Ph.Ds or students?

it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how research is done at colleges. Its a collaboration of professors and their grad students.
:lmao My father is a research scientist at a university, I am more than familiar with how research is done at universities. Research can be done just by a single research scientist.

That some of them were credited demonstrates nothing.

Further it was ONE grad student amongst 800+ authors.
It was not just one and they were lead authors,

U.N. Hires Grad Students to Author Key Climate Report (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/un-hired-grad-students-to-author-major-climate-reports/) (Fox News, November 2, 2011)

The book names nearly half a dozen lead authors involved in the IPCC’s reports over the years who were barely out of college when tapped to author the final word on the effects of climate change:

* One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master's degree while on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.

* Another lead author in 1994 earned his master's only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.

* An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 -- despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.

* Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old -- six years prior to completing his PhD.

Laframboise claims in the book that “neither [Klein's] youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts.”

Klein confirmed in an email to FoxNews.com that he had not yet turned 25 when he was selected to author a portion of the report that would shape the world's climate policy.

“I am happy to leave it to others to reflect on the fact that I was 24 when I was lead author of an IPCC chapter for the first time, and that it was two years after I did a three-month work placement at Greenpeace,” Dr. Klein wrote.

There were what 13,000 peer reviewed citations and further the attack on the citation is ad hominem. It includes no context of what the citations were or how they were incorrect. Its just a mindless smear.
You support the use of grey literature to reach scientific conclusions?

13,000 peer reviewed citation is overwhelming. In contrast you have come up with what? 1000? Many of which --like the Callon paper-- conclude that warming is the reality.
Yes only over a 1000 so far much more to come. The Caillon paper is used only for the specific quote that supports skeptic arguments that CO2 lags temperature changes.

And my point of asking about Idso was to get you to parrot your response.
Drug addict, then you failed.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 08:47 AM

Dick Cheney was the VP in 2008, dumbass. 2009 was Bidens first year in office.

The Senate was split and the NAS is still an independent agency.
You're right about Cheny, but the democrats had control in both houses.

Pelosi was Speaker, and Byrd was Senate Pres. pro tem, which is what I meant to ask. Sorry I made a mistake.

However, the fact is, you said the democrats did not control congress in 2008.

They did, but your ego doesn't allow you to admit a mistake.

Now, do you know who is Commander in Chief of the generals calling for fighting AGW? Any idea what happens to a general who doesn't follow his CinC's agenda?

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 08:50 AM

I have an idea?

How about you guys show me one NAS scientist that disputed the report.

Just one.
Why would one risk losing his job?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:54 AM

I got you to repeat the same exact thing. How is that failure?

You started off with the exact same canned 'corruption' argument. it was nice to compare and contrast with your argument that the IPCC was politically influenced.

So you show 4 out of 800?

And gray is just a term of ridicule. There are still 13000 works that were peer reviewed.

For your Callon piece it specifically talks about how their data demonstrated the CO2 feedback mechanism.

Its very akin to you failing to neglect that the girl you accused of maiming people was not only found not guilty but won a civil suit against the state. Or pulling 'All the scientists' out of my post talking about how they elected members.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:55 AM

Why would one risk losing his job?

So then you cannot find any?

Can you describe to me the process for removing a NAS member? Do you even know?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 08:57 AM

You're right about Cheny, but the democrats had control in both houses.

Pelosi was Speaker, and Byrd was Senate Pres. pro tem, which is what I meant to ask. Sorry I made a mistake.

However, the fact is, you said the democrats did not control congress in 2008.

They did, but your ego doesn't allow you to admit a mistake.

Now, do you know who is Commander in Chief of the generals calling for fighting AGW? Any idea what happens to a general who doesn't follow his CinC's agenda?

The Senate was 49-49.

The DoD policy started long before 2009. But can you show me where the Obama ordering the policy was reported or is this another one of your 'I suppose' moments?

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 08:59 AM

For your Callon piece it specifically talks about how their data demonstrated the CO2 feedback mechanism.

I don't remember the paper by name, reading it again, I had the wrong paper in mind.

Sorry, been up all night.

I was thinking of the paper that you presented that concluded CO2 lagged temperature. Their methodology was idiotic.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 09:02 AM

I don't remember the paper by name, reading it again, I had the wrong paper in mind.

Sorry, been up all night.

I was thinking of the paper that you presented that concluded CO2 lagged temperature. Their methodology was idiotic.

I was talking to aspie.

Also you have put forth the 'CO2 lags by 800 years' argument yourself. They are idiotic yet you cite them. That's nice.

I never presented any paper in the last few days but the one talking about ocean ph. You are once again demonstrating stupidity.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 09:02 AM

The Senate was 49-49.
And the vote gave power to the democrats.

The DoD policy started long before 2009. But can you show me where the Obama ordering the policy was reported or is this another one of your 'I suppose' moments?
Only because of the scientific consensus, and Obama does not need to order shit. The generals know better than to cross their leader, and he has the power to replace them.

Ever been in the military?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 09:05 AM

That link says that the gradient is zero. You say its trending cooler. So is the link wrong or are you wrong?

I mean if you are going to post contradictory things try not doing it in the exact same post.

Aspie, in debate, in debate when you drop something that means you concede the point.

So we can conclude that you are a full of shit sophist that will say anything that supports what you want to conclude even if it directly contradicts the very next thing you say.

Bravo!

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 09:08 AM

And the vote gave power to the democrats.

Only because of the scientific consensus, and Obama does not need to order shit. The generals know better than to cross their leader, and he has the power to replace them.

Ever been in the military?

What vote? cheney voted in case of a tie, dumbass.

My family has a long West Point military tradition, and obviously this is another one of your 'suppose' moments.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 09:17 AM

I got you to repeat the same exact thing. How is that failure?

You started off with the exact same canned 'corruption' argument. it was nice to compare and contrast with your argument that the IPCC was politically influenced.
I didn't, my original reply included a link and quote. Thus you failed. The IPCC is politically influenced, it is called the, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

So you show 4 out of 800?
What?

And gray is just a term of ridicule. There are still 13000 works that were peer reviewed.
That grey literature represents 30% of the "science" in the report. Are you claiming that 30% of the IPCC report was not peer-reviewed?

For your Callon piece it specifically talks about how their data demonstrated the CO2 feedback mechanism.
Is that what is quoted?

Its very akin to you failing to neglect that the girl you accused of maiming people was not only found not guilty but won a civil suit against the state. Or pulling 'All the scientists' out of my post talking about how they elected members.
You already stated this lie. Please quote where I named any such girl. I did not pull that out of your post, I used it to ask a different but relevant question.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 09:19 AM

What vote? cheney voted in case of a tie, dumbass.

49 republicans and 49 democrats. The two independent voted democrat. It was not 50/50.

As for you beloved NAS:

The National Academy of Blacklists (http://american.com/archive/2010/july/the-national-academy-of-blacklists/)

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 09:34 AM

4 non PhDs out of 800 authors.

You parroted the same argument just because it wasn't verbatim doesn't mean it wasn't the same thing.

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.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5849646&postcount=3584

And you cannot go back and edit that one out, aspie. You are a real scumbag.

their defense was good enough for both criminal and civil court as they won both cases. At least you took it down from your site.

As for what was quoted: what part of context do you not understand. I say this paper supports skepticism but ignore the part where it demonstrates how the lag is demonstrative of the CO2 feedback cycle.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 09:36 AM

Also you have put forth the 'CO2 lags by 800 years' argument yourself. They are idiotic yet you cite them. That's nice.

Yes, I did. Numerous studies have different numbers, but they are in the hundreds of years.

I never presented any paper in the last few days but the one talking about ocean ph. You are once again demonstrating stupidity.
It was well over a few days ago. I'm talking about the one that concluded temperature lagged CO2. Maybe I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure you introduced it. Maybe it was Random or Manny.

You like consensus...

One paper says temperature lags CO2, when so many others say the opposite.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 09:48 AM

49 republicans and 49 democrats. The two independent voted democrat. It was not 50/50.

As for you beloved NAS:

The National Academy of Blacklists (http://american.com/archive/2010/july/the-national-academy-of-blacklists/)

Can you point me to the part of that blog where they talk about a scientist actually being blackballed or otherwise maltreated?Calling a list a blacklist is fun and all...

As for the other two members: 'show some evidence that they voted Dem as a block. I get real tired of your 'suppose moments. Lieberman is all over the place. Supports free trade, hates the Iraq war, supports censorship, pro choice, etc.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 09:49 AM

Yes, I did. Numerous studies have different numbers, but they are in the hundreds of years.

It was well over a few days ago. I'm talking about the one that concluded temperature lagged CO2. Maybe I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure you introduced it. Maybe it was Random or Manny.

You like consensus...

One paper says temperature lags CO2, when so many others say the opposite.

Quit fucking supposing and find out. That was not me. Is that how you live your life? Guessing what you want things to be?

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 09:52 AM

As for the other two members: 'show some evidence that they voted Dem as a block.
They normally did vote democrat, and the did vote for Byrd.

Why can't you admit you were in error?

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 09:53 AM

Quit fucking supposing and find out. That was not me. Is that how you live your life? Guessing what you want things to be?
OK fine. Thought it was.

Not that important. We all know CO2 lags temperature over the ice core history.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 09:56 AM

They normally did vote democrat, and the did vote for Byrd.

Why can't you admit you were in error?

Because you haven't shown their voting records and I know for a fact that Lieberman does not vote straight Democrat.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 10:03 AM

PopTech...

Have you ever seen Dr. Glassman's work?

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2
SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html)

ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html)

SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE
THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT
OF EL NIÑO (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/solar_wind.html)

INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT
TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html)

THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html)

Poptech

05-27-2012, 10:39 AM

4 non PhDs out of 800 authors.
Lead Authors, how many lead authors were there?

You parroted the same argument just because it wasn't verbatim doesn't mean it wasn't the same thing.
I did not make an argument, I asked a question.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5849646&postcount=3584

their defense was good enough for both criminal and civil court as they won both cases. At least you took it down from your site.

As for what was quoted: what part of context do you not understand. I say this paper supports skepticism but ignore the part where it demonstrates how the lag is demonstrative of the CO2 feedback cycle.
Your drug addicted mind prevents your from following conversations. That reply was a discussion of an incident YOU brought up. It had nothing to do with the irrefutable fact that I never accused her of ANYTHING in ANY of my articles anywhere.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 10:44 AM

PopTech...

Have you ever seen Dr. Glassman's work?
Yes but he never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal so I never bothered.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 10:51 AM

Yes but he never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal so I never bothered.
This is true, but nobody has been able to discredit him that I know of either.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 11:02 AM

The NAS president supported it strongly.

As for the membership? I am not sure but I can guess what the assumption that you want to make is though. I however will not pull numbers out of my ass.
The NAS president is 1 scientist, is this your "consensus"?

I never said all the scientists signed off on it. It seems like that is quite a mischaracterization of how the project was managed.
So You cannot claim the entire NAS membership body endorsed the conclusions of that report. Your "consensus" just crumbled.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 11:07 AM

Lead Authors, how many lead authors were there?

I did not make an argument, I asked a question.

Your drug addicted mind prevents your from following conversations. That reply was a discussion of an incident YOU brought. It had nothing to do with the irrefutable fact that I never accused her of ANYTHING in ANY of my articles anywhere. I told this to you already but you are too stoned to comprehend it.

257 in Working group 1 and 800 total including groups 2 and 3. You found 4. Very demonstrative, you would think they were high school dropouts.

You edited out the pipe bomb from your site I see. Its interesting how you do this. You still trying to maintain you did not write:

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.

Going to call me a drug crazed psychotic again as if everyone that posts here doesn't know you wrote it.

It was the first item under your little accusation blurb. You obviously edited it out of the article and I know that I didn't go around looking for terrorist threats. And while i know you are going into your denial mode to straight up lie, why were you saying that I hadn't come up with a reason why they didn't do that? I mean if I were making a defense then that means I was defending against something ie what you had posted.

But by all means continue lying. I know all manner of posters think you are slime for editing your aspie admission and then lie about it. If you are embarrassed about it and asked me to stop, I would have but after that youre just a deceptive piece of shit.

I do notice you still have your source watch El Salvador communist connection up. You still claiming they aren't communists when you have a board member working for communists in your citations? Or does that go with the communist flag on the title: it doesn't count? Intellectual cowardice at its finest.

And it was the corruption argument. Can you show corruption? you went right back to it. Your takes are getting slimier if thats possible. Its also like talking to a child in many ways. You get fixated on tracks. Must be your OCD.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 11:12 AM

257 in Working group 1 and 800 total including groups 2 and 3. You found 4. Very demonstrative, you would think they were high school dropouts.

I agree with the question PopTech is asking.

How many of the 800 were Lead Authors?

You shouldn't be looking that the 4 out of 800, but 4 out of how ever many were lead authors.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 11:14 AM

I agree with the question PopTech is asking.

How many of the 800 were Lead Authors?

You shouldn't be looking that the 4 out of 800, but 4 out of how ever many were lead authors.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

800 lead authors and review editors.

4 non PhD

Poptech

05-27-2012, 11:31 AM

You edited it from your site I see. Its interesting how you do this. You still trying to maintain you did not write
No I didn't you liar. It was never there. If I wrote it you would have quoted it when I asked you to the first time.

257 in Working group 1 and 800 total including groups 2 and 3. You found 4. Very demonstrative, you would think they were high school dropouts.
Incorrect, there was only 152 Lead Authors in AR4 WG1 and not 800 in total.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/frontmattersforeword.html

You are still missing the point, they should never have been lead authors. The IPCC is so incompetent they cannot even get basic credentials of their lead authors correct.

It was the first item under your little accusation blurb. You obviously edited it out of the article and I know that I didn't go around looking for terrorist threats.
Psychotic Drug Addict, the main article has not changed,

http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8952-the-truth-about-greenfyre

Your brain is so fried you cannot even follow our conversations.

I do notice you still have your source watch El Salvador communist connection up. You still claiming they aren't communists when you have a board member working for communists in your citations? Or does that go with the communist flag on the title: it doesn't count?
I believe them to be socialists. You seem really upset about Sourcewatch. Do you edit their propaganda or just reference it?

And it was the corruption argument. Can you show corruption you went right back to it. Your takes are getting slimier if thats possible.
I asked a question drug addict, you still cannot answer because of your limited mental abilities.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 11:34 AM

I am working on some new truth articles and will dedicate them to the drug addict, Fuzzy. :toast

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 11:39 AM

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

800 lead authors and review editors.

4 non PhD
Wow...

They sure hand out titles freely.

688 Lead and Coordinating Lead Authors.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 11:42 AM

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

800 lead authors and review editors.

4 non PhD
Dumbass, that is the 5th report. :lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 11:43 AM

So now you are lying about both. that's nice. You aren't fooling anyone. Just edit those mistakes away then you don't have to own up to them, aspie.

And there are coordinator lead authors and lead authors. Look at the list dimwit. CLA LA and RE. So none of the CLA were grad students only the second tier of LA. Thats a convenient oversight.

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.

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.

Its transparent at this point.

You asked the question before. I had no interest in actually participating in the argument. You can sit there and act like I ever had any intention if it makes you feel better. I think it makes you look even more the rube.

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 11:45 AM

Fuzzy...

PopTech brings up a link exposing how lax the IPCC was with their AR4 Lead editors, and you provide a list of the upcoming AR5...

That 688 doesn't count!

Wild Cobra

05-27-2012, 11:48 AM

Dumbass, that is the 5th report. :lmao
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.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 11:51 AM

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/home/8952-the-truth-about-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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 11:54 AM

Dumbass, that is the 5th report. :lmao

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.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 11:55 AM

None were from the 5th report. :lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 12:12 PM

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/showpost.php?p=5849310&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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 12:14 PM

None were from the 5th report. :lmao

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.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 12:23 PM

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/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.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. :bang

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".

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 12:25 PM

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.

Poptech

05-27-2012, 12:26 PM

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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 12:27 PM

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?

Poptech

05-27-2012, 12:28 PM

Just like I am delusional about you writing this too?
No such page exists.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 12:33 PM

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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-27-2012, 12:33 PM

No such page exists.

Did you write it then edit it to something else?

RandomGuy

05-27-2012, 04:23 PM

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----------------------->

RandomGuy

05-27-2012, 04:41 PM

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/showpost.php?p=4671237&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/showpost.php?p=4672034&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?

RandomGuy

05-27-2012, 04:59 PM

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?

RandomGuy

05-27-2012, 05:07 PM

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)

Wild Cobra

05-29-2012, 03:01 AM

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?

MannyIsGod

05-29-2012, 08:52 AM

Borat Sagyidev

05-29-2012, 10:03 AM

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.

DarrinS

05-29-2012, 10:06 AM

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.

Borat Sagyidev

05-29-2012, 10:17 AM

Yep, makes perfect sense.

I doubt it does to you. Co2 promotes plant growth dontcya know?

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/3/128911365455039114.jpg

RandomGuy

05-29-2012, 11:42 AM

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.

:bang

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.

RandomGuy

05-29-2012, 11:44 AM

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.

boutons_deux

05-29-2012, 12:17 PM

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.'

MannyIsGod

05-29-2012, 01:31 PM

Well, to be fair the US's emissions actually dropped due to our move away from coal.

Borat Sagyidev

05-29-2012, 01:59 PM

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

Wild Cobra

05-29-2012, 02:41 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

05-29-2012, 06:13 PM

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?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-29-2012, 06:45 PM

Leave it to you to shit on an outstretched hand.

:bang

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.

boutons_deux

05-29-2012, 09:45 PM

Well, to be fair the US's emissions actually dropped due to our move away from coal.

Coalition for Clean Coal :lol :lol ads exhorting people to tell their Congresscriter to kill the new EPA emission rules.

Wild Cobra

05-30-2012, 02:00 AM

None of these papers you keep supplying disagree with anything I'm saying Fuzzy. You're the one that keeps throwing shit, hoping it will stick.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-30-2012, 02:38 AM

Jacob1983

05-30-2012, 02:52 AM

Nobody cares about climate change anymore. It was a fad just like snuggies. Yeah, remember snuggies?

Wild Cobra

05-30-2012, 03:06 AM

So you agree with the figures in the MIT papers etc and their descriptions describing ocean modeling are fair representations of how the ocean behaves?

You agree that trying to predict the behavior of the ocean using a solubility chart and not considering these other factors is not representative of the ocean but instead only a very controlled simple laboratory experiment?

No one has ever disputed solubility states in water, dolt. You disputed that climate scientists considered them.

Do you agree that they do?
I don't disagree that wind and other natural factors play a role like they speak of. None of your papers address what I am addressing. Sure, they speak of temperature, that the warmer waters have net out gas, and colder waters have net sinking, but they do not attempt to show what happens when the surface of the ocean gets warmer, or cooler.

I fail to understand why you think any of these four papers have something that disagrees with my contention related to how temperature changes solubility.

Don't you get it.

As the ocean warm, the tropical regions outgas more, and the cold regions absorb less.
They do do disagree with what temperature does to solubility. At the same time, they do not address it specifically the way I am.

I have never seen a study that addresses what a global changes in ocean temperature does to the equilibrium between the carbon dioxide/carbonic acid in the ocean, and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Have you?

Like it or not, the solubility equations have merit.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-30-2012, 03:22 AM

Sure, they speak of temperature, that the warmer waters have net out gas, and colder waters have net sinking, but they do not attempt to show what happens when the surface of the ocean gets warmer, or cooler.

WTF are you talking about? They use observed temperature values in their calculations. They say the surface temperature is this and the deeper currents are this at this time and this at another time. That's how they model it. WTF do you think they just use the same number over and over again and don't consider that the temperature changes? gmfb and diaf.

we can evaluate the sensitivity of the ocean mean carbon concentration, C , to the saturation state

The saturation state of seawater for a mineral (known as Ω) is a measure of the thermodynamic potential for the mineral to form or to dissolve, and is described by the following equation:

{\Omega} = \frac{\left[Ca^{2+}\right] \left[CO_{3}^{2-}\right]}{K_{sp}}

Here Ω is the product of the concentrations (or activities) of the reacting ions that form the mineral (Ca2+ and CO2−
3), divided by the product of the concentrations of those ions when the mineral is at equilibrium (Ksp), that is, when the mineral is neither forming nor dissolving.[30]

You are like the perfect storm of stupid and wishful thinking. How about you talk more about how they differentiate by time?

Everything they are talking about subsumes your simplification. Might as well talk about how 1+1 = 2 or the specific heat of water and pretend they do not consider that.

You are the one that pulls numbers out of your ass. They use actual measurements.

Wild Cobra

05-30-2012, 03:37 AM

WTF are you talking about? They use observed temperature values in their calculations. They say the surface temperature is this and the deeper currents are this at this time and this at another time. That's how they model it. WTF do you think they just use the same number over and over again and don't consider that the temperature changes? gmfb and diaf.

You are like the perfect storm of stupid and wishful thinking. How about you talk more about how they differentiate by time?

Everything they are talking about subsumes your simplification. Might as well talk about how 1+1 = 1 or the specific heat of water and pretend they do not consider that.

You are the one that pulls numbers out of your ass. They use actual measurements.
Do they have measurements from 1750 top compare with?

You don't get it. Their saturation points change with temperature. Everything you provide has nothing to do with the same location changing temperature over decades or more of time.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-30-2012, 03:48 AM

Do they have measurements from 1750 top compare with?

You don't get it. Their saturation points change with temperature. Everything you provide has nothing to do with the same location changing temperature over decades or more of time.

Who gives a fuck if they do?

So you think they use the same equilibrium points over and over again that they do not change them month by month, year by year as they are doing their calculations? When they talk about:

The solubility pump may be understood in terms of the volumes,
temperatures and carbon concentrations of the deep ocean and the thermocline box.

Schematic two-box ocean and atmosphere carbon cycle model. The depth of the ocean is
set to a constant, H(m). The top box is the atmospheric reservoir of CO2 with its total moles
M (mol). The middle box represents thermocline (upper ocean) which is warm with temperature
Tth and C concentration Cth. The depth of thermocline is h(m). The deep box represents abyssal
ocean with is cold with temperature Td and C concentration Cd.

They even point to temperature as a variable above.

The air-sea gas transfer term is expressed as a damping toward equilibrium or an
exponential decay of C. We have additional forcing on the r.h.s., which is expressed as
the change of Ceq following the water parcel, DCeq/Dt, reflecting changes in temperature,
salinity or alkalinity of the water parcel during its transit.

Here, we assume that alkalinity and salinity of waters are uniform in
space and time, and Ceq varies only with atmospheric pCO2 and sea-surface temperature.

In the boundary
current, v is positive (northward), c, is set by the gas exchange coefficient and carbonate
chemistry, and Ceq/ y depends on the relationship of solubility to temperature and the
SST distribution. Solubility decreases with temperature, Ceq/ T 0, and the meridional
temperature gradient, T/ y, is negative in the northern hemisphere, T/ y 0. Using the
chain rule, Ceq/ y ( Ceq/ T) ( T/ y) 0, thus we find a positive gradient of Ceq in
the northern hemisphere.

Inc "I don't disagree" They consider that temperature changes. In fact it is central to their model. That you think that they do not is monumentally stupid and one of the most contemptible examples of confirmation bias i have ever seen.

boutons_deux

05-30-2012, 05:21 AM

Will climate change kill off Washington state’s oysters?

Well, shellfish survive within a narrow pH spectrum. Taylor Shellfish’s oyster hatchery — located in the Hood Canal fjord jutting out from Puget Sound — lets sea water in at two locations, one that’s 15 feet deep and one that’s 100 feet deep. One day last week, the pH of the water at 15 feet was 8.4, while the water’s pH at 100 feet deep was 7.5, meaning the hatchery has to be especially careful about where its water comes from.

Ocean acidification is increasing, and that increase is accelerating, says Busch. Near the beginning of the Industrial Revolution — 250 years ago — the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content is said to have been roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). Today, we’re at about 390 ppm. The increase in carbon dioxide density in the air — and in the sea — is expected to significantly accelerate this century.

“We’re experiencing the impact of acidity before the rest of the world. … It scared the pants off us,” says Jay Manning, an environmental lawyer, the former chief of staff to Gregoire, and the panel’s co-chair.

That appropriation includes $250,000 to maintain a half-dozen federal buoys off Washington’s coast, plus links to another 20 buoys owned by other entities.

Installed in 2010, the buoys hold sensors that can measure and transmit real-time weather and pH data to NOAA.

“With this monitoring equipment, we’re able to see corrosive water coming and dodge it,” Dewey says. In other words, hatcheries would be able to gauge when to allow sea water into the hatcheries.

David Steele, president of the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, is optimistic. “By keeping these sensors in the water,” he adds, “we can learn more about the changing water chemistry and develop ways to adapt.”

http://grist.org/food/will-climate-change-kill-off-washington-states-oysters/

MannyIsGod

05-30-2012, 08:57 AM

Its hard for someone to understand that a paper is telling them they are wrong when they can't understand what the paper says.

RandomGuy

05-30-2012, 11:34 AM

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

Fracking takes place at depths far below the water table.

I think some of what is going on now, is that the fracking is releasing gases that are seeping up through newly formed cracks, but that is an uninformed guess.

The funny thing about oil is that as the price goes up, you get "demand destruction", i.e. people using natgas for truck fleets, or pouring money into EV's and therefore not demanding as much oil, so this natural market mechanism will act to restrain price growth over longer periods. Economists call this substitution.

One outgrowth of this is that, by keeping prices lower, it means there will be less money in pumping some known reserves out of the ground, so there will be less "economically" recoverable oil. It won't get pumped out of the ground if there isn't money to be made selling it.

The "tail" for oil will therefore be a lot flatter and a lot longer than some "peak oil" fanatics think.

Wild Cobra

05-30-2012, 03:26 PM

Inc "I don't disagree" They consider that temperature changes. In fact it is central to their model. That you think that they do not is monumentally stupid and one of the most contemptible examples of confirmation bias i have ever seen.

Yes, they consider temperature for what they are doing. They do not consider the temperature changes for long term atmospheric differences. They don't say anything about the changes over the long term years.

This does not disagree with anything I said. It only supports the theory behind what I say.

Wild Cobra

05-30-2012, 03:27 PM

Its hard for someone to understand that a paper is telling them they are wrong when they can't understand what the paper says.
Then please. Show me how it disagrees with my contention that the slow warming of the ocean over the decades changes the solubility.

-edit add-

At least one of the papers specifically said solubility of CO2 reacts like I said it does.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-30-2012, 04:34 PM

Yes, they consider temperature for what they are doing. They do not consider the temperature changes for long term atmospheric differences. They don't say anything about the changes over the long term years.

This does not disagree with anything I said. It only supports the theory behind what I say.

You are like the perfect storm of stupid and wishful thinking. How about you talk more about how they differentiate by time?

Everything they are talking about subsumes your simplification. Might as well talk about how 1+1 = 2 or the specific heat of water and pretend they do not consider that.

You are the one that pulls numbers out of your ass. They use actual measurements.

You are dumb.

If its October of 1976 then in their equations they use the value's of that month. If it's June of 1989 then they use the values month. If it's 12/12/2000 then they use the values for that day. If they want to use the year 2003 then they take the mean values for that year.

What they do not do is take a solubility chart for fantasy land and fantasy time and then make up fantasy numbers to try to model the ocean fizzing like a boig soda that just ignores the feedback and buffering mechanisms.

They have satellite using spectral analysis to determine surface temperatures. They have people trolling in boats with thermometers and dropping buoys all over the globe taking actual measurements. They have been gathering data for centuries.

When the equation asked them for the surface temperature or the deep ocean temperature then they plug in these measured known values. If its a predictive model then they plug in the surface/abyssal temps that the equations popped out and do it again for the next sample. Do you think that the models pop out lower numbers and they just lie when they say warming figures are going up?

Wild Cobra

05-31-2012, 02:10 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

05-31-2012, 02:39 AM

Wow...

You are just too stupid to understand how stupid you are about this.

Again, there study has nothing that disproves what I say. Their scope had no indications of addressing what I am. they simply use the same mechanisms, for a different scope, and that is where any similarities end.

I think I'll put your stupid ass back on IGNORE.

Go ahead and put on ignore dumbass. Put up that white flag.

You: The ocean has changed temperature n degrees over some arbitrary period of time. Lookee here: I have a solubility chart and can pull a bunch of numbers out of my ass. Given the difference in solubility from these fantasy numbers the ocean should fizz like a soda this much to equalize the pressures.

Scientists: Looking at the behavior of the ocean on a year by year basis, the amount of CO2 exchange can be modeled by looking at the windspeed on the ocean, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, upper and abyssal oceans, and the temperatures of the upper ocean and deep ocean. Even this is a simplification because the chemistry of the ocean effects the solubility as does the effects of biology the concentrations.

Your dumb ass does not understand the significance of looking at it on a year by year or a month by month basis. When they plug in the values for 1948 versus 2012 your dumb ass apparently thinks they put int he same number because your dumb ass thinks they use the same solubility state.

Reading the studies it becomes very obvious that they do not do this. Even in the conclusions they remark that in glacial periods more CO2 would be released due to said solubility.

Further the paper that I linked was a landmark study that is a foundation of understanding the manner in which the ocean and atmosphere exchange CO2. Its been cited nearly 1700 times. Your take is a landmark in simpleminded stupidity.

Wild Cobra

05-31-2012, 03:05 AM

Go ahead and put on ignore dumbass. Put up that white flag.

You: The ocean has changed temperature n degrees over some arbitrary period of time. Lookee here: I have a solubility chart and can pull a bunch of numbers out of my ass. Given the difference in solubility from these fantasy numbers the ocean should fizz like a soda this much to equalize the pressures.

Scientists: Looking at the behavior of the ocean on a year by year basis, the amount of CO2 exchange can be modeled by looking at the windspeed on the ocean, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, upper and abyssal oceans, and the temperatures of the upper ocean and deep ocean. Even this is a simplification because the chemistry of the ocean effects the solubility as does the effects of biology the concentrations.

Your dumb ass does not understand the significance of looking at it on a year by year or a month by month basis. When they plug in the values for 1948 versus 2012 your dumb ass apparently thinks they put int he same number because your dumb ass thinks they use the same solubility state.

Reading the studies it becomes very obvious that they do not do this. Even in the conclusions they remark that in glacial periods more CO2 would be released due to said solubility.

Further the paper that I linked was a landmark study that is a foundation of understanding the manner in which the ocean and atmosphere exchange CO2. Its been cited nearly 1700 times. Your take is a landmark in simpleminded stupidity.
Talk to the hand Fuzzy.

If you could get any of what I claim right, I would consider continuing a debate with you. As it is since you are too stupid to realize the nuances between what your links say, and what I say...

You simply are not worth the time.

Do you really think you have the upper hand?

Andd...

the whit flag...

Yes...

I surrender (not). I simply will not waste my time on your stupid ass. I have better things to do. If that's a win for you, then you are even more pathetic than I can imagine.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-31-2012, 05:08 AM

Its hard for someone to understand that a paper is telling them they are wrong when they can't understand what the paper says.

Exactly.

What do subsume mean?

Agloco

05-31-2012, 09:01 AM

Its hard for someone to understand that a paper is telling them they are wrong when they can't understand what the paper says.

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Some unknown schmo said this years ago. WC breaks this rule at every turn.

boutons_deux

05-31-2012, 09:37 AM

Then please. Show me how it disagrees with my contention that the slow warming of the ocean over the decades changes the solubility.

-edit add-

At least one of the papers specifically said solubility of CO2 reacts like I said it does.

warming of water increases gaseous (CO2) solubility, which INCREASES oceanic acidity beyond its very narrow range, which is a catastrophe for much of ocean flora and fauna.

RandomGuy

05-31-2012, 12:00 PM

PoopDeck has added a few more to his preciousssss lissssst.

:downspin:

DarrinS

05-31-2012, 01:21 PM

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1662151109001

boutons_deux

05-31-2012, 01:23 PM

Warming gas levels hit 'troubling milestone'

The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.

Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.

So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.

"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble."

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.

For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.

It's been at least 800,000 years — probably more — since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.

economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.

He contends temperatures have not risen since 1998, which was unusually hot.

Temperature records contradict that claim. Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998, and the entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41688/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CpNNpVbK&full=true#display

anti-scientific AGW deniers LYING non stop

boutons_deux

05-31-2012, 02:28 PM

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 Institute 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_release/corporate-climate-report-0390.html

BP hyped itself as a green company for years :lol

Wild Cobra

05-31-2012, 03:17 PM

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Some unknown schmo said this years ago. WC breaks this rule at every turn.

You all are the ones who do not understand.

Those papers do not disagree with what I have been saying about solubility of CO2 in the ocean, or why the levels could react and change like I contend. In fact, they support my argument.

Notice how nobody has come out and quoted a part showing why I'm wrong?

They cant!

Wild Cobra

05-31-2012, 03:31 PM

warming of water increases gaseous (CO2) solubility, which INCREASES oceanic acidity beyond its very narrow range, which is a catastrophe for much of ocean flora and fauna.
Sure, gaseous vs. dissolved in the water, but between the water and atmosphere, the end result is less CO2/carbonic acid in the water, the warmer it becomes. As it warms, the levels saturate, and some releases into the atmosphere.

My argument isn't about pH. It's about how temperature affects the sinking of CO2 in the northern regions, and the sourcing of CO2 in the tropical regions.

Warmer water has a reduced saturation point of CO2/carbonic acid than cooler water does. When the tropical regions are warmer than in decades past, their net release is greater than in decades past, under the same atmospheric CO2 levels Same principle applies to the northern regions. When the cold water which is a CO2 sink gets warmer, it cannot sink as much as it did in decades past.

This is why I gave a simple example earlier that was temperature change only, CO2 change only, and both. In the end, the ocean still sinks more CO2 than the past because of what we generate. If we didn't add any to the atmosphere, the ocean would instead to get where the new average surface temperatures require for balance.

Now Bouton's...

CO2 isn't the only thing that changes ocean pH. Again, that is a different argument anyway. Consider how small a 30% increase is compared to the log scale where a level 1000% greater ion difference is a change of 1 in pH.

Wild Cobra

05-31-2012, 03:32 PM

Wild Cobra

05-31-2012, 03:38 PM

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1662151109001
Good video. The blathering drunk on the left even got better, farther in.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-31-2012, 04:33 PM

You all are the ones who do not understand.

:lol WC vs MIT

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).

Earlier thus year:
You cannot show cause an effect without accounting for all variables.

What do we get later in the year?

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.

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!!!!

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:rollin:lol

RandomGuy

05-31-2012, 05:00 PM

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.

This particular example though is really telling when you have the CO2 that we add can be differentiated from the "natural" CO2.

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.

RandomGuy

05-31-2012, 05:12 PM

None of these papers you keep supplying disagree with anything I'm saying Fuzzy. You're the one that keeps throwing shit, hoping it will stick.

Briefly, the experiments are performed with the MIT ocean model configured in a 60° longitude by 90° latitude 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.

Perhaps you could respond to this section, and state explicitly how it supports your argument or claims.

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?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-31-2012, 05:19 PM

RG, all he is doing is latching onto something said by Glassman, the nonpeerreviewed, guy. Before the MIT report that I linked, THIS (http://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n8._Bolin___Eriksson__1958corrected.pdf) 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 bullshit.

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.

RandomGuy

05-31-2012, 05:23 PM

RandomGuy

05-31-2012, 05:36 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

05-31-2012, 05:36 PM

I hope it is easier to understand than this gem:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1707

:wow

Aye, i was just trying to point out the mathematical justification for said independence.

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.

FuzzyLumpkins

05-31-2012, 05:40 PM

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.

"will be regarded as constants" and your blurb about them being independent.

Wild Cobra

06-01-2012, 02:59 AM

This particular example though is really telling when you have the CO2 that we add can be differentiated from the "natural" CO2.

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.
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.

Wild Cobra

06-01-2012, 03:09 AM

I hope it is easier to understand than this gem:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1707

:wow
Yes wow...

"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...

Wild Cobra

06-01-2012, 03:32 AM

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 accumulate 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 accumulation, 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...

Wild Cobra

06-01-2012, 03:36 AM

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.

Wild Cobra

06-01-2012, 04:10 AM

Perhaps you could respond to this section, and state explicitly how it supports your argument or claims.

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?
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 latitudes vs. the -60 in the northern latitudes. 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:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png/640px-Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png

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.

Wild Cobra

06-01-2012, 04:46 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.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-01-2012, 06:41 AM

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 dick, bitch.