Typical liberal (eg cultural Marxist ) reply when confronted with an argument they can't answer!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Printable View
Typical liberal (eg cultural Marxist ) reply when confronted with an argument they can't answer!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Props for using the Marxist "bourgeois" analogy. :thumbsup: That is a classic Marx argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
106 pages and.....Has anyone changed their minds?
Yes. I was on the fence and generally indifferent. Now I think there are very significant gaps in awareness/discussion on the pro-AGW side. For example, the cyclical nature of the carbon cycle, and the problems with treating historical CO2 data (from ice cores, etc.) as absolute concentrations. Given the data that has been presented (and that I have researched since I became involved in this thread), all of the evidence suggests that we are nowhere near a peak CO2 concentration with respect to the natural carbon cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
And that doesn't even begin to discuss the holes that I now see in the AGW side.
i have. i used to think there was no way someone with virtually no understanding of science would continue to argue with scientists and engineers about something scientific for over a year and a half!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
thanks, salty, for proving me wrong.
by the way, has anyone with a background in science or engineering or any applicable field offered their expertise on this subject in favor of agw?
What kind of engineer are you? And what courses did you take in Climatology while at Tech? Also, weren't you one of the ones who believe in the earth being 6000 +/- years old and dinosaurs floated on the ark? If not, my appologies.
I won't answer for Bob, but I'm not sure which of us you are referencing. I sure hope you don't think I believe in a 6000 year old earth and dinosaurs floating on an ark. Believing in 2 of each kind floating on an ark is an entirely other matter... :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
I'm a highly trained chemical engineer, with a pretty good background in mass/heat transfer, fluid mechanics, statistical thermodynamics, basic modeling and simulation, etc. I also have extensive background in absorbance/scattering theories (think greenhouse effect) and related measurement techniques, chemistry, etc.. So I have no specific training in climatology, but I am probably better trained in 80% or so of "climatology science" than a typical climatologist that might be represented on the IPCC.
Oh, and I have no association with the oil industry, although I don't really think that being a part of the oil industry is a valid reason to disregard the arguments presented by others.
i am a chemical engineer, and i have discussed several times on this thread and its predecessors what my qualifications are to critique global warming hysteria. as for my beliefs, that is for another thread. belief in the supernatural has no bearing on this subject. we are talking about the purely natural and scientific. science alone is all we have, and all we need to resolve this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
my qualifications and beliefs don't matter. i'm not the only scientist/engineer on this board that has voiced opposition to agw. the fact that not one single person trained in the sciences agrees that agw is a significant threat should tell you something. in fact, i don't think i have ever heard of a pro-agw scientist who does not get his generous paycheck by creating global warming fear.
Don't know who you're referring to since you seem to be challenging credentials.... but I have BS and MS degrees in Petroleum Engineering and a PhD in Chem E., with minors along the way in Geology and Operations Research. Now retired , I have over 40 years experience in industry and I'm among the pioneers in use of computers to numerically model all types of fluid flow systems. This has involved the use of the largest and fastest supercomputer systems available. For several years I actually managed one of the largest supercomputer centers in the world, at the time running 3 of the largest Cray machines and 2 of IBM's largest supercomputers. Along the way I have developed and used discretized finite difference three dimensional models to simulate complex thermodynamic systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
So, I am very familar with the same type models that climate and weather modelers use since we often met and exchanged ideas at various supercomputer conferences. I have in the past exchanged ideas with a number of these scientists and still have contact with a few of them. I have the utmost respect for the folks actually trying to do the computer modeling as they probably have the most difficult modeling job that exists. the ones who ACTUALLY do the modeling are very upfront (in private) about the model limitations and what they actually produce. For every model result that gets summarazied in an IPCC "Official" Report, there are many runs from the same model that are not picked to publish!!!!
^ BillPup, with your high education in Engineering, do you think you are capable of figuring out what the
Earth's average global temperature would be if all CO2 were eleiminated from the atmosphere? After all, it's a 2nd year college question.
I asked our scientist buddy to do it but so far no respond.
Are you trying to suggest that if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere there would be no greenhouse effect, thus all IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface would be transmitted into space?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Sure, are you also buying collegiate level books written in Iran saying that the holocaust was made up to take land from the muslims and give it to the jews?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Are you comparing LA Tech to colleges in Iran?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
I'm not suggesting anything. Just asking our highly trained scientists and engineers to figure out what would be the average global temperature if the atmosphere had no CO2 in it. The answer can be with or without figuring the feedback from the other greenhouse gases. Guiesslapp, you might want to try your hand at it since you seem to possess above average intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The current average global temperature is about 54F.
Typical bogus reply when refusing to recognize valid science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60