RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (36) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense: The BlogCzar Years. Er, Months., Record of all the bans and threats at UD< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Bob O'H

Posts: 2337
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2018,05:40   

And poor mullers_ratchet has accumulated too many mutations

Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

   If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.

“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

But, of course, it doesn’t

But, in fact, it does. Check out Figure 1 here. The correlation coefficient for human cumulative CO2 emissions v atmospheric CO2 is 0.997!

So, let’s review the thread.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.

You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

UD Editors: Mullers_ratchet is no longer with us.

It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

  1072 replies since July 29 2007,19:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (36) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]