Because they are interested in forming international consensus and common ground amongst climate science. What an asinine question considering the discussion we have been having. If you are going to be coy and intentionally obtuse, don't be so blatant.
Back to technology, it's your argument. If you don't know the answers to those questions that just goes to show how ill informed on the issue you are and nothing else.
You keep telling yourself that is my emotional disposition if it makes you feel better.
Interesting there is no contact information for Karl, Doug, Mike, and Snufflupagus. Emails sent to the others. Curious how you will react to the feedback this time.
Interesting there is no contact information for Karl, Doug, Mike, and Snufflupagus. Emails sent to the others. Curious how you will react to the feedback this time.
Ahh, I see your 'Impact of Popular Technology" list. I have a lot more addresses to track down and emails to send.
I never really thought much about the debate of how much man made CO2 remains in the atmosphere, but I just had an epiphany... Something I never heard mentioned before.
I don't think anyone disagree that carbon 13 level percentages have decreased in atmospheric CO2 If we use Böhm et. al 2002, the levels have changed from about 0.495% to 0.38% (extrapolated) during the assessment timeframe of the AR4. However, 278 ppm in 1750 means 1,376 ppb was CO2 with 13C and it rose to 1,440 in 2005. Since we have a net increase in CO2, we do with 13C as well. Since forcing is on a log curve, and if we assess the RE (radiative efficiency) separately, we get 0.00303 for CO2 with 13C and 0.0000151 for CO2 with 12C for the 1750 levels and 0.0029 for CO2 with 13C and 0.0000111 for CO2 with 12C for the 2005 levels. What this amounts to, if we take the stated 1.66 W/m^2 warming is that 0.21 W/m^2 of it was from CO2 with 13C and 1.45 W/m^2 from CO2 with 12C, or if the 1.66 W/m^2 is calculated for just the CO2 with 12C, then we can add another 0.24 W/m^2 for 13C increases.
Now what this means, can be important. I haven't looked at other studies, only this one for the values. However, if the values are wrong, and 13C is diminishing to less less than previously thought, and if the 1.66 W/m^2 is based only on CO2 with 12C, the individual forcing of CO2 made with 13C could possible cool the atmosphere more than the increasing 12C warms it. For example, since the RE of 13C is 200 times greater than the RE of 12C, if the atmospherics percentages of 13C actually dropped from about 0.5%, in half, to about 0.25%, then all the increased CO2 would provide a net cooling of about 0.2 W/m^2. This is because 13C would actually drop to 948 ppb, and it's radiative efficiency is so much higher.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the 13C percentages have halved, or close, but this is food for thought.
What do you guys think, or do you have different 13C values in mind?
Link reference:
http://www.boehmf.de/Boehm_et_al_g_cubed_preprint.pdf
The bulk of the evidence, according to the experts that study it for a living is that we are affecting our atmosphere and changing our climate, just as the bulk of the evidence according to the experts, supports the theory of evolution, or the theory that we actually put men on the moon.
What I object to, is dishonesty and misrepresentation, which is rife in the denier movement.
I will act to stifle dishonesty and misrepresentation when I see it, no matter what type of quackery is being pushed.
Honest skepticism and debate is always welcome, and any good scientist should welcome the same.
So all the people saying there is ]evidence of potential catastrophic effects of man-made climate change ]are lying? How do you account for them in your milieu? Deliberately lying conspiracy?
It isn't a strawman to ask clarifying question, in fact quite the opposite.
To imply that a clarifying question asked in good faith is a strawman logical fallacy is dishonest.
So I will ask again, as I am attempting to merely understand the basis on which you claim there is no valid evidence.
There are scientists and organizations of scientists claiming there is evidence of potentially catastrophic damage caused by the rapid rise in atmospheric green house gases. I can provide links if you wish.
Are these scientists lying about the evidence?
Wow. You're a piece of !
Interesting.
You rather deliberately left out the last line of my post in your quote. I would quantify that as misleading as well.
I provide some commonly accepted definitions of specialized terms. These are used in the context of a specialized consideration of the overall rationality of arguments, something dictionaries, or juveniles for that matter, don't generally tend to do. I don't really care if you find this specialized usage inconvenient, and have to rely on the crutch of online searches to subs ute for genuine understanding of the principles and concepts needed for useful metacognition.
I will ask this question again, since you chose to ignore it:
It is a simple yes or no question.Do you think flawed reasoning is a valid way to construct an accurate model of the universe?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-10-2014 at 11:29 AM.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...tu-quoque.html
As an auditor who relies on such technology, I will tell you that the informal discussions and dissemination of information that happens in after-hours discussions at such seminars can be quite valuable.
As an accountant, I can tell you that incurring a small cost, to avoid a much larger cost, all things equal, is an optimal solution for any company or business.
Your suggestion, then, is another bit of flawed reasoning.
You take it as evidence that they don't believe in the science. This interpretation would require much more evidence that your insinuation.
Do you have better evidence, such as direct statements on the part of the partipants?
Mysterious Seafloor Methane Begins to Melt Off Washington Coast
Warming of the Pacific Ocean off Washington state could destabilize methane deposits on the seafloor and trigger a release of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere,
Methane is a significant greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 86 times as potent as CO2 on a 20-year time scale. Some scientists worry that a significant release from the oceans could exacerbate climate change.
"Methane hydrates are a very large and fragile reservoir of carbon that can be released if temperatures change," Evan Soloman, a researcher at the University of Washington, said in a statement. "I was skeptical at first, but when we looked at the amounts, it's significant."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...hington-coast/
So where is BigOil when they could do some good?
Already addressed, and a strawman of wonderingminds video.
I don't think you can talk about this subject honestly, just like Cosmored cannot talk about the moon landings.
Alarmnism at it's finest.Mysterious Seafloor Methane Begins to Melt Off Washington Coast
Warming of the Pacific Ocean off Washington state could destabilize methane deposits on the seafloor and trigger a release of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere,
Methane is a significant greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 86 times as potent as CO2 on a 20-year time scale. Some scientists worry that a significant release from the oceans could exacerbate climate change.
"Methane hydrates are a very large and fragile reservoir of carbon that can be released if temperatures change," Evan Soloman, a researcher at the University of Washington, said in a statement. "I was skeptical at first, but when we looked at the amounts, it's significant."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...hington-coast/
So where is BigOil when they could do some good?
Tell us. How much methane do you think might be released?
If the methane in the atmosphere doubles, is the new GWP(20) still 86 times CO2?
Loaded Question.
Last edited by Poptech; 12-10-2014 at 02:29 PM.
No he is just a brain dead stoner that still does not realize how bad he has been trolled. His actions are merely confirmation of how scared he is off me. Puppet boy is doing free promotions for me and does not even realize it.
I only quote what I respond to not your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.
More incoherence, you do not define the meaning of words that is what dictionaries are for. Failure to provide a proper definition using a dictionary means you have no interest in honest communication and instead are intent on misleading those who you communicate with. And I am ignoring your idiotic off-topic and loaded questions.
No you haven't and no it is not, this absolutely destroys your idiotic wonderingmind video.
Last edited by Poptech; 12-10-2014 at 02:49 PM.
Actually I corrected a bunch of misinformation about my work which is the only reason I am here. I have no interest in having a serious debate with brain-dead stoners.
Great. Can you stop spamming the thread with tired childish memes and try and not be so hypersensitive and emotional when someone criticizes your "work"?
Again another dishonest loaded question.
Explain to me how that question was dishonest. Have you not been spamming the thread with childish memes? I see three on this page alone. You've absolutely been hypersensitive and emotional when your "work" has been criticized. I think any objective reader would agree to that.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 12-10-2014 at 09:17 PM.
Still a dishonest loaded question.
More libel.
If its dishonest and loaded explain why.
Also explain what is libelous in my statement.
Again, you're not adding value. You're not saying anything.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
