IJBM: this abstract's wording

For reference: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/12/25/1407302112

[02:49:47] <GMH> fuckign hate the language in this abstract
[02:50:05] <GMH> "Feedbacks from the terrestrial carbon cycle significantly affect future climate change. The CO2 concentration dependence of global terrestrial carbon storage is one of the largest and most uncertain feedbacks. Theory predicts the CO2 effect should have a tropical maximum, but a large terrestrial sink has been contradicted by analyses of atmospheric CO2 that do not show large tropical uptake. Our results, however, show significant tropical uptake and, combining tropical and extratropical fluxes, suggest that up to 60% of the present-day terrestrial sink is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. This conclusion is consistent with a validated subset of atmospheric analyses, but uncertainty remains. Improved model diagnostics and new space-based observations can reduce the uncertainty of tropical and temperate zone carbon flux estimates. This analysis supports a significant feedback to future atmospheric CO2 concentrations from carbon uptake in terrestrial ecosystems caused by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
[02:50:20] <GMH> "Feedbacks from the terrestrial carbon cycle significantly affect future climate change."  this is okay
[02:50:28] <GMH> "The CO2 concentration dependence of global terrestrial carbon storage is one of the largest and most uncertain feedbacks."
[02:50:37] <GMH> still okay
[02:50:39] <GMH> "Theory predicts the CO2 effect should have a tropical maximum,"
[02:50:50] <GMH> why "have a tropical maximum"?
[02:51:03] <GMH> why not "be largest in the tropics"?
[02:51:17] <GMH> "but a large terrestrial sink has been contradicted by analyses of atmospheric CO2 that do not show large tropical uptake."
[02:51:57] <GMH> no, the terrestrial sink has not been contradicted.  the IDEA of a TROPICALLY-MAXIMUM'D terrestrial sink has been contradicted by these analyses
[02:52:24] <GMH> or technically not the idea but the hypothesis
[02:52:42] <GMH> well either works in that case
[02:53:57] <GMH> how about "but the idea of a terrestrial sink with a tropical maximum has been contradicted by analyses that do not show high tropical uptake."?
[02:56:27] <GMH> "up to 60% of the present-day terrestrial sink is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2." <-- how about "up to 60% of the present-day terrestrial sink is accounted for by increasing atmospheric CO2."?
[02:56:52] <GMH> causing a sink is like
[02:56:57] <GMH> being a hole
[02:57:07] <GMH> you don't be a hole
[02:57:09] <GMH> you make a hole
[02:59:33] <GMH> "This analysis supports a significant feedback to future atmospheric CO2 concentrations from carbon uptake in terrestrial ecosystems caused by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
[02:59:54] <GMH> this is why English needs clause/phrase unit designators
[03:00:53] <GMH> "This analysis supports [the idea of] a significant {feedback to future atmospheric CO2 concentrations}"
[03:01:35] <GMH> if this sentence is parsed incorrectly it could seem to mean that the future atmospheric CO2 concentrations come from the carbon uptake.
[03:02:21] <GMH> sorry i meant {feedback to future atmospheric concentrations, from carbon uptake in terrestrial ecosystems}
[03:03:16] <GMH> well the future atmospheric CO2 concentrations are influenced by the carbon uptake, but they certainly do not "come from" it
[03:04:04] <GMH> nor is the "carbon uptake" caused by rising--
[03:04:05] <GMH> wait
[03:04:10] <GMH> y'know what
[03:04:12] <GMH> seriously
[03:04:22] <GMH> why the fuck am i spending so much fucking time trying to parse this fucking sentence
[03:04:32] <GMH> this is just the fucking ABSTRACT of the paper.  it should be telling me what's in it.
[03:04:42] <GMH> not confusing the hell out of me.
[03:04:53] <GMH> fuck this.  this is bullshit.
[03:05:20] <Alicia> Agreed.
[03:06:17] <GMH> anyway, i think the sentence basically means that this paper's analysis supports the idea that ....
[03:06:23] <GMH> oh gosh i can't even paraphrase it
[03:06:45] <GMH> who the fuck wrote this abstract and why is it so shit
[03:06:54] <GMH> is there a word limit or something on the abstract?