What Do We Think About Climate Change

Boston speaks of thieves a lot. Could someone post the indictment trial and conviction records he alludes to. If there were such crimes surely someone got arrested, no? Or is this just another of his dilussional rants where he sees oil industry pr folks behind every tree?

 

Now that you've brought up the subject, I'll look it up when I get off work and have more time.

 

Correction; "Get on work".

 

You do realize that post makes no sense at all, don't you?

Although I suspect you were trying to stab me with the verbal equivalent of a manicure stick, or some such semi-lethal weapon....

If you want to start a flame war, son, you need to at least equip yourself with dry matches or a BBQ lighter first.

Yeah, I know. I'm breaking my own first rule, as laid down in my signature line. But only because you're funny.

 

I have made a plot of concentrations in a two compartment system. However, I am not sure how to insert graphics into comments. Can anyone give me a hint how to do this?

Briefly, here are the results in words. I set it up with so that the rate constant for transfer from compartment A (let us call it the atmosphere) to compartment B (let us call it the ocean) corresponds to a five year half life in compartment A if there were no back transfer. However, I have set it up so the rate constant for the back transfer (i.e. from compartment B to compartment A) is 20% of the other rate constant. This means that the equilibrium constant equals 5.

When both rate constants are included the time for the concentration in compartment A to drop to half its original concentration is 5.6 years, pretty close to the 5 years you might expect if there were no back transfer. It takes another 8.3 years to drop by half again (i.e. to the 25% level). This is quite a bit more time than the naive assumption based on a simple 5 year half live. It never drops by half again (i.e. to the 12.5% level.) but instead it levels off at 16.67%.

 

"...But only because you're funny" - Well, I make myself laugh.


The winner of the Earthweek 2010 Carbonator Award...



...... - Mother Earth.


More pollution, more greenhouse gasses...than all of mankind in all of man's history. Carry on about what some Airbus gnats above Earth's vast expanse are doing to the environment...LOL.
I scored a great deal on another Ford Excursion in Soldotna and won't be in most of tomorrow. I hope I don't get a Prius stuck in my grill on the way home!

 

interesting that no one has the balls to answer my last post

I guess the facts of 9/11 are a bit much for the basic flag waving automaton

 

Okay, let me go look. If it can be addressed with a one-liner...

 

Is that post 6255, about slips and dumb things Bush said or things taken out of context? I hate to see Guillermo and Jimbo driven off by my often "less than scientific" defenses of country, freedom, honor, and sensibility (the best defence...), Troy's "rattlesnakedness" (that would be "meanness"), your blathering, Wood's uh, wood, and the Jilguero's anguish, so I really slow down and let a lot of things go. Believe me, if you have a point to ponder, I will opine. I;m sorry, but many of your posts seem to be "97%, blah, blah, USA's fault, 97%..." so I tend to speed read.
Boston, "The New Masalai"; ("Gold, blah, blah, USA's fault, Gold...") - see the parallel?

 

no
it would be the post the apparently was deleted because it suggested 9/11 was an inside job

I guess for some reason that subject is taboo around here

 

Jeff was forced to delete it because all three conservants of this forum cried in front of his door all night.

I heard that from a well informed source, someone close to the event...Certain marckus the grand circusant even did a pipi in his pants on the porch, making that a breaking point for poor Jeff.

Eppur' era un lavoro dal dentro!!!

(paraphrasing the true Italian genius - And yet, it WAS an inside job!)

Democracy at work, according to the conservationists (or conserves...?). It's all good as long as it is the way we say it is good. And we say: the climate is good.

Hence it HAS to be good. For business, 't least... Otherwise the oil investors, like that ex vicepres of usa, would not be making the money out of it.

 

Any hard evidence or scientific data to corroborate these outrageous claims?

 

Actually, I only made a connection between the two by highlitghting the mechanisms which tend to be the same for whatever the concoction. But the posts being deleted, who is going to remember the first message now? The new york one being a favourite of many, it went its' own way straight away.

 

Boston, I will take credit for bringing that bit of excrement to the attention of the moderator.

As far as the patent on carbon trading goes, it is there, follow the link.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6904336&OS=6904336&RS=6904336


Too bad it was brought to our attention in article filled with racist innuendo.

 

Refer back to post 6282.