- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,033
- Reaction score
- 19,492
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
New paper finds that existing CO2 transfer data between ocean and atmosphere are all wrong as they sample water too deep, missing a key biological interaction at the Earth's surface.
The paper determines that either the ocean is less of a CO2 sink than before or a greater contributor to atmospheric CO2 than previously thought.
.... so we are still finding major flaws in our understanding about our planets CO2 cycles... but the climate that is supposedly driven by that CO2 is settled.
Uh huh.
The abstract doesn't seem to suggest as major a flaw as you make it out to be. Somebody wrote that headline for you. Who was it and why did you take that interpretation?
New paper finds that existing CO2 transfer data between ocean and atmosphere are all wrong as they sample water too deep, missing a key biological interaction at the Earth's surface.
The paper determines that either the ocean is less of a CO2 sink than before or a greater contributor to atmospheric CO2 than previously thought.
.... so we are still finding major flaws in our understanding about our planets CO2 cycles... but the climate that is supposedly driven by that CO2 is settled.
Uh huh.
The abstract doesn't seem to suggest as major a flaw as you make it out to be. Somebody wrote that headline for you. Who was it and why did you take that interpretation?
Nope, you are wrong. The abstract speaks of a strong gradient; the headline is right in line with that.
The abstract doesn't seem to suggest as major a flaw as you make it out to be. Somebody wrote that headline for you. Who was it and why did you take that interpretation?
I'm guessing WUWT. I'm pretty sure motivator has no idea what pCO2 is, much less what the abstract is saying.
Deuce and Threegoofs are incapable of discussing things rationally. When confronted by things that can't allow themselves to believe they immediately turn on their defense shields and try to discount it based on who said it since they can't hope to ever counter what was said.
Case in point: Twice now I have mentioned a study, and provided a link to the source of the actual published study for them to access if they find it important and both times what do they do? All they focus on trying to figure out where I heard about the study as if that is a sufficient counter to the study itself. Seriously, two severely limited intellects there.
Oh, I can assure you...I'm quite capable.
But discussing an abstract about CO2 diffusion in the oceans with someone who just saw the term pCO2 yeaterday is not a rational thing for anyone to do.
Oh, I can assure you...I'm quite capable.
But discussing an abstract about CO2 diffusion in the oceans with someone who just saw the term pCO2 yeaterday is not a rational thing for anyone to do.
So for once in your life, how about explaining it so we can believe you understand science.I'm guessing WUWT. I'm pretty sure motivator has no idea what pCO2 is, much less what the abstract is saying.
Nope, you are wrong. The abstract speaks of a strong gradient; the headline is right in line with that.
The ocean is the major source of CO2 variability, and it follows changes in the temperatures, acting as a source with warming and a sink with cooling. The amount of out and in gassing dwarfs anthropogenic sources. As in the ice core data, the CO2 levels are following the temperature, not the other way around.
However, there is a significant lag in this process. If global temperatures continue to follow a flat trajectory the CO2 levels will eventually start to change the trend to a more flat trajectory.
Here is a definite, prospective prediction to test the theory!
So for once in your life, how about explaining it so we can believe you understand science.
I'm guessing WUWT. I'm pretty sure motivator has no idea what pCO2 is, much less what the abstract is saying.
So you are saying that CO2 out gassing from the ocean will be responsible for the warming?
But...you said CO2 doesn't cause warming!
Or are you saying that the CO2 in the air, a known greenhouse gas, will exacerbate out gassing from the ocean and cause a runaway greenhouse effect?
No! That can't be true because you don't WANT to believe that!
So what you are saying is that you have little to no idea of why this makes a big difference, but gosh darn it, it must mean those durn smarty pants scientists don't know what they're talking about.
LOL, you don't understand what he said do you...
Read it again, if you get it, you will kick yourself... Think carefully... "Flat trajectory"
I guess you can't explain it either.
LOL,I gave you a hint.. "flat trajectory" Want another?
"If global temperatures continue to follow a flat trajectory the CO2 levels will eventually start to change the trend to a more flat trajectory."
Read it again and take into account he also said this in that same post..."As in the ice core data, the CO2 levels are following the temperature, not the other way around."
And that's all the help I'm giving you... It's not that hard, and you're supposed to be a medical researcher or teacher, er whatever.. Not to mention you keep implying how much smarter you are than everybody else here. And then there's the constant reminder that you are in (or on) medicine... Shouldn't require an explanation from your claimed inferiors..
Like I said, you can't explain it.
Or did you forget that we can actually quantify the CO2 we release into the air via anthropogenic sources?
Like I said, you can't explain it.
Or did you forget that we can actually quantify the CO2 we release into the air via anthropogenic sources?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?