Dimitris, well done again! I suggest, if you agree, that you present some of the most compelling evidence in the lecture you are going to give as a guest speaker of IHA.
Hello Professor, I came to this site from reading some of your work on Researchgate. Your, "The superiority of refined reservoir routing (RRR) in modelling atmospheric carbon dioxide" for example, was one I found interesting and I am going to read through it several times more to get as much out of it as I can. My interest is in that resident time of radio carbon 14. That variable, I feel, will be where the IPCC will eventually be made irrelevant.
Have you by chance seen?
"Observations of diapycnal upwelling within a sloping submarine canyon"
Walter Munk in the 1960's had estimated that the rate at which the cold bottom water of the abyssal plain returned to the surface was of the order of one centimeter per day. A volume, that at the time in the 1960's, was inferred but never directly measured and unfortunately would be to slow to actually measure. Recently, Alford et al. 2024, has directly observed several upwelling sites proceeding at 100 meters per day. A rate of more than 10,000 times the global average predicted by Munk. I suspect this volume is a variable with higher values driven by geothermal sources.
"Here we show vigorous near-bottom upwelling across isopycnals at a rate of the order of 100 metres per day, coupled with adiabatic exchange of near-boundary and interior fluid. These observations were made using a dye released close to the seafloor within a sloping submarine canyon, and they provide direct evidence of strong, bottom-focused diapycnal upwelling in the deep ocean. This supports previous suggestions that mixing at topographic features, such as canyons, leads to globally significant upwelling. The upwelling rates observed were approximately 10,000 times higher than the global average value required for approximately 30 × 106 m3 s−1 of net upwelling globally."
This undoubtably would complicate the IPCC's narrative. The Carbon transport in this would be interesting to know precisely, but saying it's probably massive would be a good start.
The carbon 14 issue is indeed studied in my RRR paper in Appendix C. However, the IPCC won't mind. It's founded on politics and propaganda, rather than science.
Thanks also for the paper by Wynne-Cattanach et al.; it appears to present a very substantial finding (the rate of more than 10 000 times the global average). But again IPCC won't be affected (unless changes in its political foundations occur).
14 years ago when Gates gave that talk, people trusted him more than they do now. Then he was paving the way for himself to appear as the magnanimous provider of services to humanity, especially the deprived poor. Deeply hypocritical when I believe he's only been interested in his profits and the glamour and power accruing as he follows the globalists' agendas.
This final Epilogue is beautifully written - from the end of your Stochastics book and the questions you pose afterwards. Sorry, but I could not bring myself to watch more than a few minutes of Gates.
You have captured the essential culture of control, negativity and evil emanating from these people who think they can set themselves up above the rest of us. Well, they are made of flesh and blood too so will die eventually. Your work is part of efforts to help us retain freedom, truth and a healthy society. Thank you.
I fully understand you, Ariane, when you say that you couldn't watch the entire video. I put is as evidence, not as a suggestion to watch. That is why I gave the exact times of the quotations I used.
Your comment that my efforts to help retain freedom, truth and a healthy society is very flattering.
Dimitris, well done again! I suggest, if you agree, that you present some of the most compelling evidence in the lecture you are going to give as a guest speaker of IHA.
Thanks Panayoti! I'll do as you advise.
Hello Professor, I came to this site from reading some of your work on Researchgate. Your, "The superiority of refined reservoir routing (RRR) in modelling atmospheric carbon dioxide" for example, was one I found interesting and I am going to read through it several times more to get as much out of it as I can. My interest is in that resident time of radio carbon 14. That variable, I feel, will be where the IPCC will eventually be made irrelevant.
Have you by chance seen?
"Observations of diapycnal upwelling within a sloping submarine canyon"
Published: 26 June 2024
Bethan L. Wynne-Cattanach et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07411-2
Walter Munk in the 1960's had estimated that the rate at which the cold bottom water of the abyssal plain returned to the surface was of the order of one centimeter per day. A volume, that at the time in the 1960's, was inferred but never directly measured and unfortunately would be to slow to actually measure. Recently, Alford et al. 2024, has directly observed several upwelling sites proceeding at 100 meters per day. A rate of more than 10,000 times the global average predicted by Munk. I suspect this volume is a variable with higher values driven by geothermal sources.
"Here we show vigorous near-bottom upwelling across isopycnals at a rate of the order of 100 metres per day, coupled with adiabatic exchange of near-boundary and interior fluid. These observations were made using a dye released close to the seafloor within a sloping submarine canyon, and they provide direct evidence of strong, bottom-focused diapycnal upwelling in the deep ocean. This supports previous suggestions that mixing at topographic features, such as canyons, leads to globally significant upwelling. The upwelling rates observed were approximately 10,000 times higher than the global average value required for approximately 30 × 106 m3 s−1 of net upwelling globally."
This undoubtably would complicate the IPCC's narrative. The Carbon transport in this would be interesting to know precisely, but saying it's probably massive would be a good start.
Thanks for your comment, Marc!
The carbon 14 issue is indeed studied in my RRR paper in Appendix C. However, the IPCC won't mind. It's founded on politics and propaganda, rather than science.
Thanks also for the paper by Wynne-Cattanach et al.; it appears to present a very substantial finding (the rate of more than 10 000 times the global average). But again IPCC won't be affected (unless changes in its political foundations occur).
14 years ago when Gates gave that talk, people trusted him more than they do now. Then he was paving the way for himself to appear as the magnanimous provider of services to humanity, especially the deprived poor. Deeply hypocritical when I believe he's only been interested in his profits and the glamour and power accruing as he follows the globalists' agendas.
This final Epilogue is beautifully written - from the end of your Stochastics book and the questions you pose afterwards. Sorry, but I could not bring myself to watch more than a few minutes of Gates.
You have captured the essential culture of control, negativity and evil emanating from these people who think they can set themselves up above the rest of us. Well, they are made of flesh and blood too so will die eventually. Your work is part of efforts to help us retain freedom, truth and a healthy society. Thank you.
I fully understand you, Ariane, when you say that you couldn't watch the entire video. I put is as evidence, not as a suggestion to watch. That is why I gave the exact times of the quotations I used.
Your comment that my efforts to help retain freedom, truth and a healthy society is very flattering.