Discussion:
the next ‘green’ fuel powering our vehicles?
(too old to reply)
Unum
2017-07-30 02:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11

Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created world’s
first bus that runs on formic acid — and say it could be the world’s next
environmentally friendly fuel.

It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits — exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in “standard” fossil
fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this way is on a par
with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel, so there’s no net
increase in those emissions.

The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine is just
1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion more financially
appealing to prospective investors.
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-30 06:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world’s first bus that runs on formic acid — and say it could be the
world’s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits — exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in “standard”
fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this
way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel,
so there’s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
Bret Cahill
2017-07-30 07:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world’s first bus that runs on formic acid — and say it could be the
world’s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits — exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in “standard”
fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this
way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel,
so there’s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take it _out_ of the air_.
Wally W.
2017-07-30 15:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world’s first bus that runs on formic acid — and say it could be the
world’s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits — exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in “standard”
fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this
way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel,
so there’s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?

<PBWR>

Predicting Bret Won't Reply
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-30 18:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
Unum
2017-07-30 20:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take it
_out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-30 20:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
You don't exhale CO2?
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-30 20:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
You don't exhale CO2?
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all the CO2
exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the air. Forever.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-07-30 21:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
You don't exhale CO2?
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all the CO2
exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the air. Forever.
By the way, one with your so called mathematical knowledge could attempt to translate how something could approach zero but not hit it.
Wally W.
2017-07-30 23:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 14:06:31 -0700 (PDT),
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
You don't exhale CO2?
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all the CO2
exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the air. Forever.
By the way, one with your so called mathematical knowledge could attempt to translate how something could approach zero but not hit it.
Ask Kymmie about exponential curves.

Where do you think the y-value from "y = exp(-x)" is zero?

But one doesn't even need to go there because the form of the equation
to which Paul refers is more flawed than your question supposes.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-07-31 04:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 14:06:31 -0700 (PDT),
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
You don't exhale CO2?
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all the CO2
exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the air. Forever.
By the way, one with your so called mathematical knowledge could attempt to translate how something could approach zero but not hit it.
Ask Kymmie about exponential curves.
ask lindzen about gravity waves and vertical movement of air parcels into the stratosphere where there are no co2 sinks
Post by Wally W.
Where do you think the y-value from "y = exp(-x)" is zero?
where do you the the carbon cycle started from zero?
Post by Wally W.
But one doesn't even need to go there because the form of the equation
to which Paul refers is more flawed than your question supposes.
The smear you and aubrin try to advance is based on ignorance
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-31 06:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
By the way, one with your so called mathematical knowledge could attempt
to translate how something could approach zero but not hit it.
Ask Kymmie about exponential curves.
Where do you think the y-value from "y = exp(-x)" is zero?
The UNFCCC CO2 decay equation contains a constant term and 3
exponentially decreasing terms. Due to this constant term, a fraction of
the CO2 exhaled by any living thing is supposed to stay in the atmosphere
forever (according to the UNFCCC and the IPCC). And by forever they means
no decay at all.
Post by Wally W.
But one doesn't even need to go there because the form of the equation
to which Paul refers is more flawed than your question supposes.
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-31 06:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all the
CO2 exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the air.
Forever.
By the way, one with your so called mathematical knowledge could attempt
to translate how something could approach zero but not hit it.
In the UNFCCC CO2 decay equation, the constant term is /constant/. As
such it /never/ decreases and /never/ approaches zero. This constant term
means that 15% of all the CO2 /you/ exhale stays /forever/ in the
atmosphere. Forever is what the UNFCCC theory implies.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-07-31 12:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all the
CO2 exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the air.
Forever.
By the way, one with your so called mathematical knowledge could attempt
to translate how something could approach zero but not hit it.
In the UNFCCC CO2 decay equation, the constant term is /constant/. As
such it /never/ decreases and /never/ approaches zero. This constant term
means that 15% of all the CO2 /you/ exhale stays /forever/ in the
atmosphere. Forever is what the UNFCCC theory implies.
co2 extends up from 0km to beyond 100km, you yourself tried to say the effect of co2 are limited to a local region yet you never really address the facts.

There are no co2 sinks at 100km, you idiots barely touch teleconnections between the troposphere and the stratosphere and you suddenly want to act like an authority on the lifetime of co2 in the atmosphere this is funny.
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-31 22:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all
the CO2 exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the
air. Forever.
By the way, one with your so called mathematical knowledge could
attempt to translate how something could approach zero but not hit
it.
In the UNFCCC CO2 decay equation, the constant term is /constant/. As
such it /never/ decreases and /never/ approaches zero. This constant
term means that 15% of all the CO2 /you/ exhale stays /forever/ in the
atmosphere. Forever is what the UNFCCC theory implies.
co2 extends up from 0km to beyond 100km, you yourself tried to say the
effect of co2 are limited to a local region yet you never really address
the facts.
Here is again what I wrote:
In the UNFCCC CO2 decay equation, the constant term is /constant/. As such
it /never/ decreases and /never/ approaches zero. This constant term means
that 15% of all the CO2 /you/ exhale stays /forever/ in the atmosphere.
Forever is what the UNFCCC theory implies.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-07-31 22:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all
the CO2 exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the
air. Forever.
By the way, one with your so called mathematical knowledge could
attempt to translate how something could approach zero but not hit
it.
In the UNFCCC CO2 decay equation, the constant term is /constant/. As
such it /never/ decreases and /never/ approaches zero. This constant
term means that 15% of all the CO2 /you/ exhale stays /forever/ in the
atmosphere. Forever is what the UNFCCC theory implies.
co2 extends up from 0km to beyond 100km, you yourself tried to say the
effect of co2 are limited to a local region yet you never really address
the facts.
Here are the facts AGAIN, we know that co2 concentrations at an altitude of 100km increased to 230ppm. The concept is that circulation at high altitudes is not the same as the troposphere, in addition you yourself have claimed long term circulation predictability is not reliable. So you claim on one hand to have this overly simplistic view of what the IPCC stated, yet on the other hand you take this other view that the system is inherently chaotic and therefore long term predictions diverge based on very small changes....mmm... So you try to claim certainty that a molecule cant have an extremely long term atmospheric lifetime yet you also claim uncertainty in long term predictions of atmospheric circulation. ..... Whether you like it or not, your two views are in opposition to one another.....
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-01 18:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Here are the facts AGAIN, we know that co2 concentrations at an altitude
of 100km increased to 230ppm.
Your fact are irrelevant with the decay time of CO2 in the air as
hypothesized by the UNFCCC (and represented in their decay equation).
According to the UNFCCC 15% of all CO2 molecules thrown into the
atmosphere stays there *forever*.
Wally W.
2017-07-31 11:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
You don't exhale CO2?
By the way, if the UNFCCC is right about CO2 residence, 15% of all the CO2
exhaled by *all the living things* remains *forever* in the air. Forever.
Similar:

http://clivebest.com/?p=2391
"The ... IPCC report on page 213 of WG1 states : 'The decay of a pulse
of CO2 with time t is given by:

a0 + sum(i=1,3)(ai.exp(-t/Taui)) , Where a0 = 0.217, a1 = 0.259, a2
= 0.338, a3 = 0.186, Tau1 = 172.9 years, Tau2 = 18.51 years, and
Tau3 = 1.186 years.'

If you look carefully at this formula you will see that it is made up
of 3 independent CO2 lifetimes each with different amplitudes, plus a
constant term implying that 22% of anthroprogenic CO2 will remain in
the atmosphere for ever!"

I am sure you posted a link before, but some greenies have the
attention span of a gnat. And they believe "repetition makes it True."
Given those two characteristics, and the weasel tendencies of others,
attempting to educate/un-weaselify them (against their wishes to
remain in their current state; how ironic that some would presume to
call *others* useless eaters) can be quite tedious and thankless.
Unum
2017-07-30 21:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
You don't exhale CO2?
Moron couldn't answer the question? Hilarious!
Wally W.
2017-07-30 20:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take it
_out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
Did someone's level of scientific illiteracy disqualify them from
posting here?
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-31 06:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
Did someone's level of scientific illiteracy disqualify them from
posting here?
The UNFCCC theory that some CO2 molecules behave differently than other
ones according to the source that emitted them is, indeed, very hard to
understand. But it is what climate scientists use in their climate
models. Unum who blindly trust the UNFCCC theories has to admit that 15%
of the CO2 he exhales stays forever in the atmosphere (no decay, forever).
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-07-31 12:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
There is no problem w/ putting CO2 into the air _as long as you take
it _out_ of the air_.
Are you doing that with the CO2 you are breathing out?
Bret never moves without his barium dioxide cartridge to remove the
carbon dioxide he exhales from the air.
So where do you dimwits think the CO2 comes from that people exhale?
Did someone's level of scientific illiteracy disqualify them from
posting here?
The UNFCCC theory that some CO2 molecules behave differently than other
ones according to the source that emitted them is, indeed, very hard to
understand. But it is what climate scientists use in their climate
models. Unum who blindly trust the UNFCCC theories has to admit that 15%
of the CO2 he exhales stays forever in the atmosphere (no decay, forever).
Recent observations place co2 concentrations for the 100km altitude to be increasing from approx. 210 ppm to 230ppm between 2004 & 2012.

Aubrin barely admits circulation move co2 around the globe, now you idiots want to act like there is a co2 sink at 100km this is funny.
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-31 21:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The UNFCCC theory that some CO2 molecules behave differently than other
ones according to the source that emitted them is, indeed, very hard to
understand. But it is what climate scientists use in their climate
models. Unum who blindly trust the UNFCCC theories has to admit that 15%
of the CO2 he exhales stays forever in the atmosphere (no decay, forever).
Recent observations place co2 concentrations for the 100km altitude to
be increasing from approx. 210 ppm to 230ppm between 2004 & 2012.
Aubrin barely admits circulation move co2 around the globe, now you
idiots want to act like there is a co2 sink at 100km this is funny.
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all CO2
molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an infinite
time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-07-31 22:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The UNFCCC theory that some CO2 molecules behave differently than other
ones according to the source that emitted them is, indeed, very hard to
understand. But it is what climate scientists use in their climate
models. Unum who blindly trust the UNFCCC theories has to admit that 15%
of the CO2 he exhales stays forever in the atmosphere (no decay, forever).
Recent observations place co2 concentrations for the 100km altitude to
be increasing from approx. 210 ppm to 230ppm between 2004 & 2012.
Aubrin barely admits circulation move co2 around the globe, now you
idiots want to act like there is a co2 sink at 100km this is funny.
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all CO2
molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an infinite
time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm. Now at the equator estimations have show vertical transport being as low as .003 m/sec, meaning we are at about 10 years to get to 100km. The we need the molecule to be circulated up to the poles where it will takes years to descend to the co2 sink.

Given your obvious many rambling about lack of certainty with long term predictions you seem a bit inconsistent to assume you have a specific time frame for the exhaled co2 molecule to arrive at a specific co2 sink after being transported for years.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-01 18:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-01 22:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
You are arbitrarily trying to limit the height of a pulse, of course the decay rate not being 100% is associated with the fact they are modeling co2 for the entire atmosphere 100km and above included.

The key is you have argued circulation estimations are subject to huge divergence based on changing conditions. You assume you could play a oversimplified game, it would seem if you were consistent you would argue times could be longer much much longer than just 10+ years based on how divergence.

So now we know human actions are creating c02 pulses out of phase with previous natural cycles, we know that atmospheric concentrations of co2 are increasing in the troposphere, and as noted by satellites co2 concentrations are increasing at 100km.

Since there are no co2 sinks at 100km, it would seem logical you would drop your illogical arguments which rely on you personally ignoring the material facts as well as your own previous supposition about long term predictions.
Wally W.
2017-08-02 03:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
You are arbitrarily trying to limit the height of a pulse, of course the decay rate not being 100% is associated with the fact they are modeling co2 for the entire atmosphere 100km and above included.
A pulse that doesn't decay is not a pulse ... it is a step.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-02 06:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
You are arbitrarily trying to limit the height of a pulse, of course the decay rate not being 100% is associated with the fact they are modeling co2 for the entire atmosphere 100km and above included.
A pulse that doesn't decay is not a pulse ... it is a step.
the rate of co2 concentration increase at 100km is a step
Wally W.
2017-08-02 11:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:48:43 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
You are arbitrarily trying to limit the height of a pulse, of course the decay rate not being 100% is associated with the fact they are modeling co2 for the entire atmosphere 100km and above included.
A pulse that doesn't decay is not a pulse ... it is a step.
the rate of co2 concentration increase at 100km is a step
Maybe that made sense in the complete sentence you lifted it from. It
doesn't begin with a capital letter nor end with a period; so it is
not obvious it was intended to be a complete thought, which it wasn't.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-02 16:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:48:43 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
You are arbitrarily trying to limit the height of a pulse, of course the decay rate not being 100% is associated with the fact they are modeling co2 for the entire atmosphere 100km and above included.
A pulse that doesn't decay is not a pulse ... it is a step.
the rate of co2 concentration increase at 100km is a step
Maybe that made sense in the complete sentence you lifted it from. It
doesn't begin with a capital letter nor end with a period; so it is
not obvious it was intended to be a complete thought, which it wasn't.
The debater who uses such dodges as above to run from the facts is not a debater but a coward, as you failed to correlate the increase of co2 concentrations at 100km in context with your objections to extremely long atmospheric residence times for co2 projected by the IPCC.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-02 19:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The debater who uses such dodges as above to run from the facts is not a
debater but a coward, as you failed to correlate the increase of co2
concentrations at 100km in context with your objections to extremely
long atmospheric residence times for co2 projected by the IPCC.
According to the UNFCCC model, the residence time of a fraction of CO2 is
*infinite*: this fraction stays forever in the atmosphere.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-02 08:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2
molecules thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend
the altitude, or any other thing. It only depend of the constant
coefficient of the decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
You are arbitrarily trying to limit the height of a pulse, of course the
decay rate not being 100% is associated with the fact they are modeling
co2 for the entire atmosphere 100km and above included.
I don't. I just tell you the meaning of the constant term in the UNFCCC
decay equation. Once there is a constant term in the decay model, whether
it is 15% or 25% (IPCC), this fraction, according to their model, stays
*forever* in the atmosphere. If you don't like how they model the
lifetime of CO2, you should dislike their climate models too.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-01 22:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
Wally W.
2017-08-02 03:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-02 06:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
the tops of the plumes just got stuff into the lower stratosphere, so what is the lifetime of a co2 molecule bouncing around at 100km?
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-02 08:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-
implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
the tops of the plumes just got stuff into the lower stratosphere, so
what is the lifetime of a co2 molecule bouncing around at 100km?
The Bern model [UNFCCC CO2 decay model] is necessarily inconsistent with
reality.
Wally W.
2017-08-02 11:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:47:32 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
the tops of the plumes just got stuff into the lower stratosphere, so what is the lifetime of a co2 molecule bouncing around at 100km?
Do you think diffusion stops working at 100 km?

If a CO2 molecule could live forever if it could stay at 100 km, it
woudn't matter because they wouldn't stay at 100 km. As the CO2 decays
below it, diffusion moves it lower to take the place of the decayed
CO2.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-02 12:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:47:32 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
the tops of the plumes just got stuff into the lower stratosphere, so what is the lifetime of a co2 molecule bouncing around at 100km?
Do you think diffusion stops working at 100 km?
If a CO2 molecule could live forever if it could stay at 100 km, it
woudn't matter because they wouldn't stay at 100 km. As the CO2 decays
below it, diffusion moves it lower to take the place of the decayed
CO2.
Aubrin claims circulation is chaotic, are you now claiming he is wrong?
Wally W.
2017-08-03 03:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:47:32 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
the tops of the plumes just got stuff into the lower stratosphere, so what is the lifetime of a co2 molecule bouncing around at 100km?
Do you think diffusion stops working at 100 km?
If a CO2 molecule could live forever if it could stay at 100 km, it
woudn't matter because they wouldn't stay at 100 km. As the CO2 decays
below it, diffusion moves it lower to take the place of the decayed
CO2.
Aubrin claims circulation is chaotic, are you now claiming he is wrong?
Do you know the difference between diffusion and convection?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 03:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:47:32 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
the tops of the plumes just got stuff into the lower stratosphere, so what is the lifetime of a co2 molecule bouncing around at 100km?
Do you think diffusion stops working at 100 km?
If a CO2 molecule could live forever if it could stay at 100 km, it
woudn't matter because they wouldn't stay at 100 km. As the CO2 decays
below it, diffusion moves it lower to take the place of the decayed
CO2.
Aubrin claims circulation is chaotic, are you now claiming he is wrong?
Do you know the difference between diffusion and convection?
Do you know what aubrin omitted?
Wally W.
2017-08-03 04:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 20:54:44 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:47:32 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
the tops of the plumes just got stuff into the lower stratosphere, so what is the lifetime of a co2 molecule bouncing around at 100km?
Do you think diffusion stops working at 100 km?
If a CO2 molecule could live forever if it could stay at 100 km, it
woudn't matter because they wouldn't stay at 100 km. As the CO2 decays
below it, diffusion moves it lower to take the place of the decayed
CO2.
Aubrin claims circulation is chaotic, are you now claiming he is wrong?
Do you know the difference between diffusion and convection?
Do you know what aubrin omitted?
Was that a "No?"
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 04:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 20:54:44 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:47:32 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of all
CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e. an
infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2 molecules
thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend the altitude,
or any other thing. It only depend of the constant coefficient of the
decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you are full of BS?
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/>
Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests
indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with
virtually all reported experimental results.
the tops of the plumes just got stuff into the lower stratosphere, so what is the lifetime of a co2 molecule bouncing around at 100km?
Do you think diffusion stops working at 100 km?
If a CO2 molecule could live forever if it could stay at 100 km, it
woudn't matter because they wouldn't stay at 100 km. As the CO2 decays
below it, diffusion moves it lower to take the place of the decayed
CO2.
Aubrin claims circulation is chaotic, are you now claiming he is wrong?
Do you know the difference between diffusion and convection?
Do you know what aubrin omitted?
Did you know of the concentrations at 100km?

if not just admit it without all that handwaving
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 08:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Did you know of the concentrations at 100km?
The concentration at 100km doesn't remove the constant term in the UNFCCC
decay models which means that, according to those models, a significant
fraction (15-30%) of all emitted CO2 (by all possible sources) stays
forever (indefinitely) in the atmosphere.
Real concentrations have no influence on UN (abstract, mathematical)
models.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 08:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Aubrin claims circulation is chaotic, are you now claiming he is wrong?
Do you know the difference between diffusion and convection?
Columbia is a master in building straw man fallacies, in the diffusion of
inaccurate interpretations and fake news.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-02 08:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of
all CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e.
an infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2
molecules thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend
the altitude, or any other thing. It only depend of the constant
coefficient of the decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm
during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as
short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire
atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several
times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you
are full of BS?
You fail each time you try to invent something your pretend I would have
said. The constant term in the UNFCCC equation known as the Bern model,
means that they consider that 15% of any amount of CO2 thrown in the air
will stay there *forever*. As all CO2 molecules are equal, this
supposition holds for the CO2 exhaled by small birds, apes and whales too.
It is a direct consequence of the UNFCCC hypothesis. I understand that
you don't believe the UNFCCC models, you are probably right.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-02 12:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Whether you like it or not, the UNFCCC models suppose that 15% of
all CO2 molecules thrown in the atmosphere stay there forever (i.e.
an infinite time). That's a base of their AGW theory.
All things being equal the same applies to you, for observations show
co2 concentrations increasing at an altitude of 100km to 230ppm.
The UNFCCC suppositions that 15% (or sometimes 30%) of all CO2
molecules thrown into the atmosphere stay forever there don't depend
the altitude, or any other thing. It only depend of the constant
coefficient of the decay equation they use in their atmospheric models.
And note that this behaviour must necessarily apply to all the CO2
molecules, those produced by all the living things included.
So if the co2 concentrations at 100km increase from 210 to 230 ppm
during the time frame from 2004 to 2012 and atmospheric lifetimes are as
short as you assert, that would mean you are claiming the entire
atmosphere circulated the co2 in that part of the atmosphere several
times over and the concentrations still increased...mmmm... maybe you
are full of BS?
You fail each time you try to invent something your pretend I would have
said. The constant term in the UNFCCC equation known as the Bern model,
means that they consider that 15% of any amount of CO2 thrown in the air
will stay there *forever*. As all CO2 molecules are equal, this
supposition holds for the CO2 exhaled by small birds, apes and whales too.
It is a direct consequence of the UNFCCC hypothesis. I understand that
you don't believe the UNFCCC models, you are probably right.
I understand you claim slight changes in initial conditions causes extreme divergence in the long run with circulation models, and now you are claiming certainty that the long term divergence is not in play with modeling co2 atmospheric residence time.

I understand you are playing a two faced smear game, a contradictory assumption that you understand circulation in the middle and upper atmosphere even though you didnt know the concentrations for co2 increased at a faster rate in that region than the lower atmosphere.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-02 19:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
You fail each time you try to invent something your pretend I would
have said. The constant term in the UNFCCC equation known as the Bern
model, means that they consider that 15% of any amount of CO2 thrown in
the air will stay there *forever*. As all CO2 molecules are equal, this
supposition holds for the CO2 exhaled by small birds, apes and whales too.
It is a direct consequence of the UNFCCC hypothesis. I understand that
you don't believe the UNFCCC models, you are probably right.
I understand you claim slight changes in initial conditions causes
extreme divergence in the long run
Read again, there is no mention of initial conditions in the UNFCCC
equations of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere. There is a constant term
with no decay. No decay means no decay, a fraction of all emitted
molecules stays forever in the atmosphere. And as CO2 molecules are
chemically indistinguishable, the UNFCCC model tells you that a fraction
of the CO2 exhaled by living things stay forever in the atmosphere.
According to the UNFCCC, whatever you do, you are fried.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-02 21:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
You fail each time you try to invent something your pretend I would
have said. The constant term in the UNFCCC equation known as the Bern
model, means that they consider that 15% of any amount of CO2 thrown in
the air will stay there *forever*. As all CO2 molecules are equal, this
supposition holds for the CO2 exhaled by small birds, apes and whales too.
It is a direct consequence of the UNFCCC hypothesis. I understand that
you don't believe the UNFCCC models, you are probably right.
I understand you claim slight changes in initial conditions causes
extreme divergence in the long run
Read again, there is no mention of initial conditions in the UNFCCC
equations of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere.
Wrong, the pulse is noted as initially being scaled to a certain value. You seemed to be omitting somethings to bolster your oversimplified bs
Post by Paul Aubrin
There is a constant term with no decay. No decay means no decay, a fraction of
all emitted molecules stays forever in the atmosphere.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 08:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
You fail each time you try to invent something your pretend I would
have said. The constant term in the UNFCCC equation known as the
Bern model, means that they consider that 15% of any amount of CO2
thrown in the air will stay there *forever*. As all CO2 molecules
are equal, this supposition holds for the CO2 exhaled by small
birds, apes and whales too.
It is a direct consequence of the UNFCCC hypothesis. I understand
that you don't believe the UNFCCC models, you are probably right.
I understand you claim slight changes in initial conditions causes
extreme divergence in the long run
Read again, there is no mention of initial conditions in the UNFCCC
equations of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere.
Wrong, the pulse is noted as initially being scaled to a certain value.
You seemed to be omitting somethings to bolster your oversimplified bs
Wrong. A constant term (without an exponential decay factor) that, in the
UNFCCC model, a fraction of all emitted CO2 molecules stays indefinitely
in the air. Whether it is 15% or 30% according to the different UN
sources changes only slightly the outcome. If they are right CO2 will
ultimately accumulate in the air and there is nothing we can do to avoid
it, unless we kill all living things.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 12:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
You fail each time you try to invent something your pretend I would
have said. The constant term in the UNFCCC equation known as the
Bern model, means that they consider that 15% of any amount of CO2
thrown in the air will stay there *forever*. As all CO2 molecules
are equal, this supposition holds for the CO2 exhaled by small
birds, apes and whales too.
It is a direct consequence of the UNFCCC hypothesis. I understand
that you don't believe the UNFCCC models, you are probably right.
I understand you claim slight changes in initial conditions causes
extreme divergence in the long run
Read again, there is no mention of initial conditions in the UNFCCC
equations of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere.
Wrong, the pulse is noted as initially being scaled to a certain value.
You seemed to be omitting somethings to bolster your oversimplified bs
Wrong.
So the ipcc stated the pulse was scaled to be double the initial conditions, you failed at clearly understanding how they approached the set up of the pulse.

Next you might try to explain why you left out what was stated about length the oceans, then explain why you think your foggy perception of what the IPCC stated should replace what was actually stated.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 13:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Wrong.
So the ipcc stated the pulse was scaled to be double the initial
conditions, you failed at clearly understanding how they approached the
set up of the pulse.
Irrelevant. What is you interpretation of the constant term of the Bern
model?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-02 16:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-7, Paul Aubrin wrote:" You fail each time you try to invent something your pretend I would have said."

On Saturday, October 18, 2014 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-7, Paul Aubrin wrote:" Pointman stresses very accurately that some problems don't have stable solutions and cannot be resolved by iterative approximations. In the case of the atmosphere, the difficulty is twofold : firstly the initial conditions are not sufficiently known, and secondly you cannot neglect small terms in equations like the Navier-Stoke equations without altering importantly the results. In the case of many other problems, simulations and iterative computer models could be perfectly legitimate, but not in the case of the atmospheric system."

To be clear, you must include long term lived residence times based on your above use of pointmans ramblings. Observations at 100km moving up to 230 ppm faster rate of co2 concentration increase as compared to the lower troposphere where the co2 sinks are located.

Now if you are standing by your previous post, and you were ignorant to the increase of co2 concentrations at 100km, it would seem obvious we have an example of how you didnt know initial conditions.

Secondly, you are claiming circulation is not predictable in the long term, so you must admit extremely long residence times for co2 in the middle atmosphere is possible.

Now being those two conditions have been met, it would seem obvious you are playing a game of oversimplification ignoring how your past more intricate arguments for chaotic atmospheric motions have been used to introduce doubt on the accuracy of climate models results.

You are a failing troll, your political agenda is simply to introduce doubt yet you keep tripping over your own stupid arguments.
Wally W.
2017-08-03 03:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 03:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your stupidity and aubrins contradictions
Wally W.
2017-08-03 04:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 20:56:06 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your stupidity and aubrins contradictions
Lack of clarity on your part is not ignorance on my part.
Bret Cahill
2017-08-03 04:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Lack of clarity on your part is not ignorance on my part.
Actually it confirms it.

Take the Mooch who like most fundies believed in a 5,500 year old planet.

tRUMP had the Mooch's worthless fanny escorted out of the White House.

Donja think that's pretty hilarious?
Wally W.
2017-08-03 12:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wally W.
Lack of clarity on your part is not ignorance on my part.
Actually it confirms it.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 03:04:37 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell wrote:
:>someone that *only* has opinions and has
:>"never" exhibited any grasp of factual material might tend to project that
:>"other people" should be upset because no-one is listening to them.



Monty Python - "And Now For Something Completely Different"
Post by Bret Cahill
Take the Mooch who like most fundies believed in a 5,500 year old planet.
tRUMP had the Mooch's worthless fanny escorted out of the White House.
Donja think that's pretty hilarious?
I think it was far off topic.

Maybe your crickets enjoyed it.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 06:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 20:56:06 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your stupidity and aubrins contradictions
Lack of clarity on your part is not ignorance on my part.
So you dont think aubrin clearly stated his views?
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 08:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 20:56:06 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT),
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your
stupidity and aubrins contradictions
Lack of clarity on your part is not ignorance on my part.
So you dont think aubrin clearly stated his views?
My views were clearly stated. Your own interpretation (invention?) of
what you suppose I would have said was tortuous.
Wally W.
2017-08-03 12:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 23:16:02 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 20:56:06 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your stupidity and aubrins contradictions
Lack of clarity on your part is not ignorance on my part.
So you dont think aubrin clearly stated his views?
I thought your spew was too jumbled to bother with trying to sift it
for anything worthy of a reply.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 12:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 23:16:02 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 20:56:06 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your stupidity and aubrins contradictions
Lack of clarity on your part is not ignorance on my part.
So you dont think aubrin clearly stated his views?
I thought
There you go again, incorrectly acting as if you have a brain, thats almost as stupid as aubrins blatant contradictions.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 08:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your
stupidity and aubrins contradictions
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
And why do you need to build straw man fallacies instead of trying to
examine the UNFCCC CO2 decay models? Because you know that the constant
term means exactly what I say: according to the UN models CO2 will
accumulate indefinitely in the air whether human disappear from the face
of the earth or not.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 12:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your
stupidity and aubrins contradictions
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
Your overly simplistic attempts to re-state what the ipcc stated is the fallacy, perhaps if you spent more time reading what they stated rather than focusing your limited intellectual abilities on gossip you might actually stand a chance to earn back your lost credibility.
Wally W.
2017-08-03 12:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 05:29:11 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
To be clear,
Didn't live up to the intro.
So you are now claiming ignorance for as a means to justify your
stupidity and aubrins contradictions
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
Your overly simplistic attempts to re-state what the ipcc stated is the fallacy, perhaps if you spent more time reading what they stated rather than focusing your limited intellectual abilities on gossip you might actually stand a chance to earn back your lost credibility.
What is *your* interpretation of the constant in the Bern model?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 12:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 5:32:25 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:" What is *your* interpretation "

did you know the concentrations of co2 increased to 230pm at 100km?
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 13:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 5:32:25 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:" What
is *your* interpretation "
did you know the concentrations of co2 increased to 230pm at 100km?
So what is your interpretation of the constant term of the Bern Model?
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 13:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
Your overly simplistic attempts to re-state what the ipcc stated
False. What the UNFCCC Bern model is simple, easy to understand and
suffers no fuzzy interpretation. It clearly states that a noticeable
fraction of all the CO2 emitted stays forever in the atmosphere.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 16:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
Your overly simplistic attempts to re-state what the ipcc stated
False. What the UNFCCC Bern model is simple, easy to understand and
suffers no fuzzy interpretation. It clearly states that a noticeable
fraction of all the CO2 emitted stays forever in the atmosphere.
The IPCC states the ocean long term circulation is in play, are you now going to claim "foggy perception" as to what you stated on the topic of ocean circulation? Read the text below, clearly your previous arguments stating that long term predictions are not reliable is in contradiction to your assumption that you know when 100% of the pulse will no longer be in circulation.


"The concentration excess does not go to zero, after a long time, a new equilibrium partitioning between atmosphere and ocean will be reached, with about 15 percent of the input residing in the atmosphere"
Wally W.
2017-08-04 05:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 09:48:01 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
Your overly simplistic attempts to re-state what the ipcc stated
False. What the UNFCCC Bern model is simple, easy to understand and
suffers no fuzzy interpretation. It clearly states that a noticeable
fraction of all the CO2 emitted stays forever in the atmosphere.
The IPCC states the ocean long term circulation is in play, are you now going to claim "foggy perception" as to what you stated on the topic of ocean circulation? Read the text below, clearly your previous arguments stating that long term predictions are not reliable is in contradiction to your assumption that you know when 100% of the pulse will no longer be in circulation.
"The concentration excess does not go to zero, after a long time, a new equilibrium partitioning between atmosphere and ocean will be reached, with about 15 percent of the input residing in the atmosphere"
Why won't you tell us what *your* interpretation of the constant term
in the Bern model is?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-04 05:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 09:48:01 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
Your overly simplistic attempts to re-state what the ipcc stated
False. What the UNFCCC Bern model is simple, easy to understand and
suffers no fuzzy interpretation. It clearly states that a noticeable
fraction of all the CO2 emitted stays forever in the atmosphere.
The IPCC states the ocean long term circulation is in play, are you now going to claim "foggy perception" as to what you stated on the topic of ocean circulation? Read the text below, clearly your previous arguments stating that long term predictions are not reliable is in contradiction to your assumption that you know when 100% of the pulse will no longer be in circulation.
"The concentration excess does not go to zero, after a long time, a new equilibrium partitioning between atmosphere and ocean will be reached, with about 15 percent of the input residing in the atmosphere"
Why won't
If you requested a citation from aubrin, perhaps you would have saved him from public humiliation?

The ipcc clearly connects long term ocean circulation to the long terms of the pulse, if you requested a citation from him like you do of others you could have saved your freind. But you did not make such a request of him, lowering the bar allowing him to perpetuate his mistake, you are a poor advocate for your cause.
Wally W.
2017-08-04 05:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 22:30:33 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 09:48:01 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
Your overly simplistic attempts to re-state what the ipcc stated
False. What the UNFCCC Bern model is simple, easy to understand and
suffers no fuzzy interpretation. It clearly states that a noticeable
fraction of all the CO2 emitted stays forever in the atmosphere.
The IPCC states the ocean long term circulation is in play, are you now going to claim "foggy perception" as to what you stated on the topic of ocean circulation? Read the text below, clearly your previous arguments stating that long term predictions are not reliable is in contradiction to your assumption that you know when 100% of the pulse will no longer be in circulation.
"The concentration excess does not go to zero, after a long time, a new equilibrium partitioning between atmosphere and ocean will be reached, with about 15 percent of the input residing in the atmosphere"
Why won't
If you requested a citation from aubrin, perhaps you would have saved him from public humiliation?
The ipcc clearly connects long term ocean circulation to the long terms of the pulse, if you requested a citation from him like you do of others you could have saved your freind. But you did not make such a request of him, lowering the bar allowing him to perpetuate his mistake, you are a poor advocate for your cause.
I already have a citation that I gave before:


http://clivebest.com/?p=2391
"The ... IPCC report on page 213 of WG1 states : 'The decay of a pulse
of CO2 with time t is given by:

a0 + sum(i=1,3)(ai.exp(-t/Taui)) , Where a0 = 0.217, a1 = 0.259, a2
= 0.338, a3 = 0.186, Tau1 = 172.9 years, Tau2 = 18.51 years, and
Tau3 = 1.186 years.'

If you look carefully at this formula you will see that it is made up
of 3 independent CO2 lifetimes each with different amplitudes, plus a
constant term implying that 22% of anthroprogenic CO2 will remain in
the atmosphere for ever!"

If you disagree with the conclusion in the link, please tell us your
interpretation of the "a0" term above.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-04 06:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 22:30:33 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 09:48:01 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The contradictions are built in your straw man fallacies.
Your overly simplistic attempts to re-state what the ipcc stated
False. What the UNFCCC Bern model is simple, easy to understand and
suffers no fuzzy interpretation. It clearly states that a noticeable
fraction of all the CO2 emitted stays forever in the atmosphere.
The IPCC states the ocean long term circulation is in play, are you now going to claim "foggy perception" as to what you stated on the topic of ocean circulation? Read the text below, clearly your previous arguments stating that long term predictions are not reliable is in contradiction to your assumption that you know when 100% of the pulse will no longer be in circulation.
"The concentration excess does not go to zero, after a long time, a new equilibrium partitioning between atmosphere and ocean will be reached, with about 15 percent of the input residing in the atmosphere"
Why won't
If you requested a citation from aubrin, perhaps you would have saved him from public humiliation?
The ipcc clearly connects long term ocean circulation to the long terms of the pulse, if you requested a citation from him like you do of others you could have saved your freind. But you did not make such a request of him, lowering the bar allowing him to perpetuate his mistake, you are a poor advocate for your cause.
I already have a
According to aubrin, all that matters is what the IPCC stated, please read teh following carefully you will be quizzed in your next reply



https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_01.pdf
"Because of its complex cycle, the decay of excess CO2 in the atmosphere does not follow a simple exponential curve, and therefore a single time scale cannot be given to characterize the whole adjustment process toward a new equilibrium ...clearly show that the initial response (governed mainly by the uptake of CO2 by ocean surface waters) is much more rapid than the later response (influenced by the slow exchange between surface waters and deeper layers of the oceans) "
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-04 06:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The ipcc clearly connects long term ocean circulation to the long
terms of the pulse, if you requested a citation from him like you do
of others you could have saved your freind. But you did not make such
a request of him, lowering the bar allowing him to perpetuate his
mistake, you are a poor advocate for your cause.
I already have a
According to aubrin, all that matters is what the IPCC stated, please
read teh following carefully you will be quizzed in your next reply
What the IPCC says on this matter is very important because the IPCC's
carbon cycle model is included in the IPCC's climate models, and the
IPCC's climate models are the base of the UN climate policies.
So what is your interpretation of the constant term of the carbon cycle
models ?
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-04 06:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The IPCC states the ocean long term circulation is in play, are you
now going to claim "foggy perception" as to what you stated on the
topic of ocean circulation? Read the text below, clearly your
previous arguments stating that long term predictions are not reliable
is in contradiction to your assumption that you know when 100% of the
pulse will no longer be in circulation.
"The concentration excess does not go to zero, after a long time, a
new equilibrium partitioning between atmosphere and ocean will be
reached, with about 15 percent of the input residing in the
atmosphere"
Why won't
If you requested a citation from aubrin, perhaps you would have saved
him from public humiliation?
Instead of useless diversions, why don't you tell what your
interpretation of the constant term of the Bern model is? Any numerate
person will tell you that it is associated with a fraction with no decay
(i.e. that stays forever).
Unum
2017-07-30 20:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world’s first bus that runs on formic acid — and say it could be the
world’s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits — exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in “standard”
fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this
way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel,
so there’s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
A "me too" post saying hydrozine is a great thing?
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-30 20:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/
Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
Post by Unum
A "me too" post saying hydrozine is a great thing?
Formic acid, as a form of storage, is not as bad as liquid hydrogen. Yet
CHO-OH energy density is only one tenth of other hydrocarbon compounds.
Unum
2017-07-31 17:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/
Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
Post by Unum
A "me too" post saying hydrozine is a great thing?
Formic acid, as a form of storage, is not as bad as liquid hydrogen. Yet
CHO-OH energy density is only one tenth of other hydrocarbon compounds.
Yet another obvious lie. The energy density of gasohol is 25.65, for
hydrazine it is 19.3.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials
R Kym Horsell
2017-07-31 18:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/
Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
Post by Unum
A "me too" post saying hydrozine is a great thing?
Formic acid, as a form of storage, is not as bad as liquid hydrogen. Yet
CHO-OH energy density is only one tenth of other hydrocarbon compounds.
Yet another obvious lie. The energy density of gasohol is 25.65, for
hydrazine it is 19.3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials
There can be a bit of confusion of hydrozine (organic) and hydrazine
(inorganic) which are related but quite different.

There are some new energy processes that store energy as hydrazine
and "burn co2" to produce hydrozine (aka formic acid) which is then
used as a hydrogen source and burned as fuel.
--
In Khazahstan is illegal for more than 5 woman to be in same place
unless it is brothel or grave.
-- Borat
Wally W.
2017-08-01 02:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/
Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
Post by Unum
A "me too" post saying hydrozine is a great thing?
Formic acid, as a form of storage, is not as bad as liquid hydrogen. Yet
CHO-OH energy density is only one tenth of other hydrocarbon compounds.
Yet another obvious lie. The energy density of gasohol is 25.65, for
hydrazine it is 19.3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials
There can be a bit of confusion of hydrozine (organic) and hydrazine
(inorganic) which are related but quite different.
Related how?

Hydrazine is an inorganic compound with the chemical formula N2H4

Formic acid, systemically named methanoic acid, is the simplest
carboxylic acid. The chemical formula is HCOOH or HCO2H.

Hydrazine has no carbon or oxygen.
Hydrozine has no nitrogen.

Yep .. they're "related" alright.

Was someone trying to cover for Unum?
Post by R Kym Horsell
There are some new energy processes that store energy as hydrazine
and "burn co2" to produce hydrozine (aka formic acid) which is then
used as a hydrogen source and burned as fuel.
Paul Aubrin
2017-07-31 22:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling
hydrozine is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes
conversion more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/
Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
Post by Unum
A "me too" post saying hydrozine is a great thing?
Formic acid, as a form of storage, is not as bad as liquid hydrogen.
Yet CHO-OH energy density is only one tenth of other hydrocarbon
compounds.
Yet another obvious lie. The energy density of gasohol is 25.65, for
hydrazine it is 19.3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials

Octane : 47,9 MJ·kg-1
Formic acid: 254.6 kJ·mol-1 0.046kg.mol-1 254.6/0.046=5,535KJ/kg

47,9/5,5=8.7

The density of energy of octane is 8.7 times greater than the density of
energy of formic acid.
Wally W.
2017-08-01 02:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
http://www.sccer-hae.ch/resources/3rdSymposium/
Laurenczy_Symposium_new.pdf
Post by Unum
A "me too" post saying hydrozine is a great thing?
Formic acid, as a form of storage, is not as bad as liquid hydrogen. Yet
CHO-OH energy density is only one tenth of other hydrocarbon compounds.
Yet another obvious lie. The energy density of gasohol is 25.65, for
hydrazine it is 19.3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials
Unum's scientific literacy shows again.

HydrAzine is rocket fuel.

HydrOzine is a wannabe-cute greenie name for formic acid.

Does hydrazine cause anthropo*centric* (your "word choice") global
warming?

Lol. hilarious.

Or not ... maybe just: sigh.

Maybe you should leave it Bret's crickets to "reply" for you.
Wally W.
2017-07-30 17:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created world’s
first bus that runs on formic acid — and say it could be the world’s next
environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits — exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in “standard” fossil
fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this way is on a par
with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel, so there’s no net
increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine is just
1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion more financially
appealing to prospective investors.
<https://www.innovationtoronto.com/2017/07/a-bus-runs-on-hydrozine-formic-acid-that-is-sustainable-co2-neutral-safe-and-liquid/>
Hydrozine has four times as much energy density as a battery

Why didn't they compare it to the energy density of gasoline?

Would it be an inconvenient truth?
Wally W.
2017-07-30 17:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created world’s
first bus that runs on formic acid — and say it could be the world’s next
environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits — exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in “standard” fossil
fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this way is on a par
with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel, so there’s no net
increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine is just
1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion more financially
appealing to prospective investors.
<https://www.innovationtoronto.com/2017/07/a-bus-runs-on-hydrozine-formic-acid-that-is-sustainable-co2-neutral-safe-and-liquid/>
Hydrozine has four times as much energy density as a battery
Why didn't they compare it to the energy density of gasoline?
Would it be an inconvenient truth?
The energy density of formic acid is 7.5 MJ/l here:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11308>

The energy density of gasoline is 34.2 MJ/l here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

So the volumetric energy density of formic acid is approximately 20%
that of gasoline.

IOW: for the same range, the "gas" tank of a vehicle powered by formic
acid needs to be approximately 5 times larger than that for a
petrol-powered vehicle.

The "gas" tank for the prototype bus is so large that it needs to be
hauled around in a trailer?

Why did Unum leave these details out of his post?
DESMODUS
2017-08-01 14:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We are also proposing using 2-4 Dinitophenylhydrazine as it is almost as sensible as using formic acid ! DESMODUS
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created world’s
first bus that runs on formic acid — and say it could be the world’s next
environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits — exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in “standard” fossil
fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this way is on a par
with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel, so there’s no net
increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine is just
1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion more financially
appealing to prospective investors.
Eric©
2017-08-01 20:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Unum wrote...
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created world?s
first bus that runs on formic acid ? and say it could be the world?s next
environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits ? exhaust gasses consist of only water and carbon
dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in ?standard? fossil
fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide released this way is on a par
with that taken from the atmosphere to produce the fuel, so there?s no net
increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine is just
1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion more financially
appealing to prospective investors.
Why did they give it the dumb name? To confuse people with hydrazine, which is extremely
toxic?
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-02 08:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric©
Unum wrote...
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Eric©
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world?s first bus that runs on formic acid ? and say it could be the
world?s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits ? exhaust gasses consist of only water and
carbon dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in
?standard? fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide
released this way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to
produce the fuel, so there?s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
Why did they give it the dumb name? To confuse people with hydrazine,
which is extremely toxic?
They give it a fancy name to fool persons like Unum into thinking they
found something new and exciting. And they succeed.
Wally W.
2017-08-02 12:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Eric©
Unum wrote...
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Eric©
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world?s first bus that runs on formic acid ? and say it could be the
world?s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits ? exhaust gasses consist of only water and
carbon dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in
?standard? fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide
released this way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to
produce the fuel, so there?s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
Why did they give it the dumb name? To confuse people with hydrazine,
which is extremely toxic?
They give it a fancy name to fool persons like Unum into thinking they
found something new and exciting. And they succeed.
A frequent poster here didn't assess himself as being smarter than an
Unum.

Just imagine what could be done with a graphene catapult that is
powered by hydrozine to loft sulfate aerosols higher than 100 km.
Surely, it could be used to fight anthropo*centric* global warming.

It would be a game changer. lol, hilarious.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-02 13:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Eric©
Unum wrote...
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Eric©
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world?s first bus that runs on formic acid ? and say it could be the
world?s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits ? exhaust gasses consist of only water and
carbon dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in
?standard? fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide
released this way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to
produce the fuel, so there?s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
Why did they give it the dumb name? To confuse people with hydrazine,
which is extremely toxic?
They give it a fancy name to fool persons like Unum into thinking they
found something new and exciting. And they succeed.
A frequent poster here didn't assess himself as being smarter than an
Unum.
Just imagine what could be done with a graphene catapult that is
powered by hydrozine to loft sulfate aerosols higher than 100 km.
Surely, it could be used to fight anthropo*centric* global warming.
It would be a game changer. lol, hilarious.
aubrin actually thinks he had a point in saying co2 only has a local impact, so at 100km we have thermal emission to the cold sink,.....you claim you understand circulation and aubrin thinks circulation is chaotic....perhaps you idiots need to rethink how you spew your talking points as they are starting to contradict one another.
Wally W.
2017-08-03 03:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Eric©
Unum wrote...
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Eric©
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world?s first bus that runs on formic acid ? and say it could be the
world?s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits ? exhaust gasses consist of only water and
carbon dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in
?standard? fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide
released this way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to
produce the fuel, so there?s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
Why did they give it the dumb name? To confuse people with hydrazine,
which is extremely toxic?
They give it a fancy name to fool persons like Unum into thinking they
found something new and exciting. And they succeed.
A frequent poster here didn't assess himself as being smarter than an
Unum.
Just imagine what could be done with a graphene catapult that is
powered by hydrozine to loft sulfate aerosols higher than 100 km.
Surely, it could be used to fight anthropo*centric* global warming.
It would be a game changer. lol, hilarious.
aubrin actually thinks he had a point in saying co2 only has a local impact, so at 100km we have thermal emission to the cold sink,.....you claim you understand circulation and aubrin thinks circulation is chaotic....perhaps you idiots need to rethink how you spew your talking points as they are starting to contradict one another.
Maybe you shouldn't string together random phrases.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 03:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Eric©
Unum wrote...
Post by Unum
Formic acid, renamed hydrozine, is cheaper than hydrogen
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-this-be-the-next-green-fuel-
powering-our-vehicles-2017-07-11
Post by Eric©
Post by Unum
Students at University of Technology in the Netherlands have created
world?s first bus that runs on formic acid ? and say it could be the
world?s next environmentally friendly fuel.
It is much cheaper than hydrogen-based fuels but delivers the same
environmental benefits ? exhaust gasses consist of only water and
carbon dioxide, without any other harmful gasses usually present in
?standard? fossil fuels. Furthermore, the amount of carbon dioxide
released this way is on a par with that taken from the atmosphere to
produce the fuel, so there?s no net increase in those emissions.
The cost of converting standing fueling stations to handling hydrozine
is just 1% the cost of converting to hydrogen. This makes conversion
more financially appealing to prospective investors.
Why did they give it the dumb name? To confuse people with hydrazine,
which is extremely toxic?
They give it a fancy name to fool persons like Unum into thinking they
found something new and exciting. And they succeed.
A frequent poster here didn't assess himself as being smarter than an
Unum.
Just imagine what could be done with a graphene catapult that is
powered by hydrozine to loft sulfate aerosols higher than 100 km.
Surely, it could be used to fight anthropo*centric* global warming.
It would be a game changer. lol, hilarious.
aubrin actually thinks he had a point in saying co2 only has a local impact, so at 100km we have thermal emission to the cold sink,.....you claim you understand circulation and aubrin thinks circulation is chaotic....perhaps you idiots need to rethink how you spew your talking points as they are starting to contradict one another.
Maybe you shouldn't string together random phrases.
Now you are stuck in a loop, as aubrins previous postings about long term predictions are now in contradiction with his assumptions on co2 atmospheric residence times.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 08:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Now you are stuck in a loop, as aubrins previous postings about long
term predictions are now in contradiction with his assumptions on co2
atmospheric residence times.
I made no predictions. I cited the consequences of the UNFCCC models.
The presence of a constant (no decay) term has the obvious consequence
that, according to those models, a significant fraction of all emitted
CO2, whatever may be the source, stays in the atmosphere indefinitely.
Those decay models are a part of climate models. From you last answer, I
understand that you imagine that those decay models are self-
contradicting. It is quite possible.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 08:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Just imagine what could be done with a graphene catapult that is
powered by hydrozine to loft sulfate aerosols higher than 100 km.
Surely, it could be used to fight anthropo*centric* global warming.
It would be a game changer. lol, hilarious.
aubrin actually thinks he had a point in saying co2 only has a local
impact, so at 100km we have thermal emission to the cold sink,.....you
claim you understand circulation and aubrin thinks circulation is
chaotic....perhaps you idiots need to rethink how you spew your talking
points as they are starting to contradict one another.
Maybe you shouldn't string together random phrases.
I sometimes see a certain poetry in Accident's verbiage, although it is
far less pleasant than the inventions of recognized masters like Lewis
Caroll.

http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/BoN/bon010.html
Wally W.
2017-08-03 11:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Just imagine what could be done with a graphene catapult that is
powered by hydrozine to loft sulfate aerosols higher than 100 km.
Surely, it could be used to fight anthropo*centric* global warming.
It would be a game changer. lol, hilarious.
aubrin actually thinks he had a point in saying co2 only has a local
impact, so at 100km we have thermal emission to the cold sink,.....you
claim you understand circulation and aubrin thinks circulation is
chaotic....perhaps you idiots need to rethink how you spew your talking
points as they are starting to contradict one another.
Maybe you shouldn't string together random phrases.
I sometimes see a certain poetry in Accident's verbiage, although it is
far less pleasant than the inventions of recognized masters like Lewis
Caroll.
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/BoN/bon010.html
That is a generous perspective on what someone might see as a
compulsion of the form, "I must 'win' by getting the last word ...
even if my last-word spew is made from disjointed fragments of
nonsense."
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 12:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Wally W.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
Just imagine what could be done with a graphene catapult that is
powered by hydrozine to loft sulfate aerosols higher than 100 km.
Surely, it could be used to fight anthropo*centric* global warming.
It would be a game changer. lol, hilarious.
aubrin actually thinks he had a point in saying co2 only has a local
impact, so at 100km we have thermal emission to the cold sink,.....you
claim you understand circulation and aubrin thinks circulation is
chaotic....perhaps you idiots need to rethink how you spew your talking
points as they are starting to contradict one another.
Maybe you shouldn't string together random phrases.
I sometimes see a certain poetry in Accident's verbiage, although it is
far less pleasant than the inventions of recognized masters like Lewis
Caroll.
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/BoN/bon010.html
That is a generous perspective on what someone might see as a
compulsion of the form, "I must 'win' by getting the last word ...
even if my last-word spew is made from disjointed fragments of
nonsense."
So you cant explain why aubrin failed to understand the initial conditions, and now you are trying to boost up his ego as both of you have been schooled by me over and over again, and now you are having the worst time dealing with reality.
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-03 13:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
That is a generous perspective on what someone might see as a
compulsion of the form, "I must 'win' by getting the last word ...
even if my last-word spew is made from disjointed fragments of
nonsense."
So you cant explain why aubrin failed to understand the initial
conditions,
The present discussion is not about initial conditions but about the
constant term in the UNFCCC CO2 decay model. This constant term (i.e.
without a decay period) means that a significant fraction of all the CO2
emitted in the atmosphere stays there forever. Your answers would suggest
that you somewhat disagree. If this is the case, explain what, according
to you, means this constant term.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-03 17:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
That is a generous perspective on what someone might see as a
compulsion of the form, "I must 'win' by getting the last word ...
even if my last-word spew is made from disjointed fragments of
nonsense."
So you cant explain why aubrin failed to understand the initial
conditions,
The present discussion is not about initial conditions but about the
constant term in the UNFCCC CO2 decay model. This constant term (i.e.
without a decay period) means that a significant fraction of all the CO2
emitted in the atmosphere stays there forever. Your answers would suggest
that you somewhat disagree. If this is the case, explain what, according
to you, means this constant term.
Your parsing would suggest you fully know you played a game of omission, lets further delve into what the IPCC stated. Previously you claimed climate models were not reliable for the specific reason of long term uncertainty in ocean and atmospheric circulation. The IPCC clearly stated the pulse decay is dependent upon long term ocean circulation, yet you choose to ignore the IPCC's words explaining why the pulse does not go to zero.

Clearly you have demonstrated the ability to understand why, yet you tried to oversimplify the discussion playing a "shadow of a doubt" game which strictly relied upon your selective use of the IPCC's words.

Either you were ignorant of the what the IPCC stated, or you choose to ignore it. You failed to understand scaling of initial conditions, much less publicly admit observations show co2 concentrations at 100km increasing. The harder point for you to admit is that if observations show co2 concentrations at 100km increasing at a faster rate than in the lower atmosphere it would be another case for understanding how co2 could have a very long residence time in the atmosphere. Factor in long term ocean circulation and a reasonable thinking person would try to make the connection, yet you dont.

The IPCC STATES the following!


"Because of its complex cycle, the decay of excess CO2 in the atmosphere does not follow a simple exponential curve, and therefore a single time scale cannot be given to characterize the whole adjustment process toward a new equilibrium ...clearly show that the initial response (governed mainly by the uptake of CO2 by ocean surface waters) is much more rapid than the later response (influenced by the slow exchange between surface waters and deeper layers of the oceans) "

Now, if you disagree with the IPCC's description then you should say that ahead of time rather than screwing up the science and blaming them.

Your blunders are increasing, i suggest you quit now before i make have one of those eliza/graphene meltdowns....
Wally W.
2017-08-04 05:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:33:20 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
That is a generous perspective on what someone might see as a
compulsion of the form, "I must 'win' by getting the last word ...
even if my last-word spew is made from disjointed fragments of
nonsense."
So you cant explain why aubrin failed to understand the initial
conditions,
The present discussion is not about initial conditions but about the
constant term in the UNFCCC CO2 decay model. This constant term (i.e.
without a decay period) means that a significant fraction of all the CO2
emitted in the atmosphere stays there forever. Your answers would suggest
that you somewhat disagree. If this is the case, explain what, according
to you, means this constant term.
Your parsing would suggest you fully know you played a game of omission,
Your evasion would suggest Paul is quizzing you about a truth you find
to be inconvenient.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-04 05:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:33:20 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Wally W.
That is a generous perspective on what someone might see as a
compulsion of the form, "I must 'win' by getting the last word ...
even if my last-word spew is made from disjointed fragments of
nonsense."
So you cant explain why aubrin failed to understand the initial
conditions,
The present discussion is not about initial conditions but about the
constant term in the UNFCCC CO2 decay model. This constant term (i.e.
without a decay period) means that a significant fraction of all the CO2
emitted in the atmosphere stays there forever. Your answers would suggest
that you somewhat disagree. If this is the case, explain what, according
to you, means this constant term.
Your parsing would suggest you fully know you played a game of omission,
Your
my citation of what the IPCC actually stated filled in where he left gaping holes in his logic, your whining is indicative of a cry baby who is worried his bro lost the fight.

So why didnt you know co2 concentrations at 100km were increasing at a faster rate than in the lower troposphere?
Paul Aubrin
2017-08-04 07:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The present discussion is not about initial conditions but about the
constant term in the UNFCCC CO2 decay model. This constant term (i.e.
without a decay period) means that a significant fraction of all the
CO2 emitted in the atmosphere stays there forever. Your answers
would suggest that you somewhat disagree. If this is the case,
explain what, according to you, means this constant term.
Your parsing would suggest you fully know you played a game of omission,
Your
my citation of what the IPCC actually stated filled in where he left
gaping holes in his logic, your whining is indicative of a cry baby who
is worried his bro lost the fight.
So why didnt you know co2 concentrations at 100km were increasing at a
faster rate than in the lower troposphere?
More diversions. You really want to avoid to discuss the impact of the
constant term of the Bern model, because you know from the beginning you
cannot defend it.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2017-08-04 12:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Paul Aubrin
The present discussion is not about initial conditions but about the
constant term in the UNFCCC CO2 decay model. This constant term (i.e.
without a decay period) means that a significant fraction of all the
CO2 emitted in the atmosphere stays there forever. Your answers
would suggest that you somewhat disagree. If this is the case,
explain what, according to you, means this constant term.
Your parsing would suggest you fully know you played a game of omission,
Your
my citation of what the IPCC actually stated filled in where he left
gaping holes in his logic, your whining is indicative of a cry baby who
is worried his bro lost the fight.
So why didnt you know co2 concentrations at 100km were increasing at a
faster rate than in the lower troposphere?
More diversions.
Nope, the atomic bomb tests you cited, performed measurements some 80 km below the 100km mark, the key observations show co2 concentrations increasing at the 100km altitude at a faster rate than in the lower troposphere.

This key differences between 20km and 100 km would be circulation directly extending out atmospheric residence times for the higher altitude.

You are trying to play stupid, and you are doing a good job at it. The funny thing is one has to wonder why you choose to be this stupid?
Loading...