Global Warming Cont...

[arkansasbob]

Whatever. Schmidt's allegience to the Cult of Global Warming interferes with his objectivity.

Of course diffusion plays a role! It is a scientific law, and it always applies when you have a concentration difference between fluidly connected bodies. It is also a function of time. The more time that passes, the more diffusion.

by the way, diffusion really IS a law (there are actually multiple laws involved) unlike the "well known fact" that atmospheric co2 concentrations play a major role in global temperatures.

[altadawg]

Best of luck in coming up with some scientific evidence. Actually, should be a piece of cake.

Wait a second, I forgot. It's a conspiracy involving the leading universities and scientists around the world. They've all signed a Blood Oath to promote the Global Warming hoax. Naturally, they have destroyed all the records/articles that prove CO2 samples from ice cores are not reliable because of diffusion.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

[Guisslapp]

CO2 samples from ice cores are not reliable because of diffusion.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

That is not what I said. It MAY be reliable evidence. But there is a difference between the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. If the model (the interpretation) does not account for diffusion, it is the MODEL that is not reliable, not the sample.

If you take the time to research diffusion you will understand this: a person correlating ice core data to atmospheric CO2 levels may feel good about their model because it correlates well with measured data (data with high confidence) for the past 50 to 100 years. The data MAY show that diffusion over a 50 year period is neglible (or at least already accounted for) in their model. However, because diffusion is time dependent, its effect is greater over the long-term. The short-term confidence of the model does not hold true for the long-term.

[Guisslapp]

All this scientific talk must be hurting your brain.

[altadawg]

All this scientific talk must be hurting your brain.

Perhaps, much like all the facts and indisputable figures from NOAA hurting your pride and credibility. Month after month, year after year.

My father(Summa Cum-Laude from Tech, Mathematics AND Physics) was telling us a story the other day about some of his Tech prof's saying, "this or that couldnt have happened, thats impossible, etc... Then, a few years later.....OOPS! Wrong.

Way above my head, of course..probably yours too.

[Guisslapp]

Perhaps, much like all the facts and indisputable figures from NOAA hurting your pride and credibility. Month after month, year after year.

My father(Summa Cum-Laude from Tech, Mathematics AND Physics) was telling us a story the other day about some of his Tech prof's saying, "this or that couldnt have happened, thats impossible, etc... Then, a few years later.....OOPS! Wrong.

Way above my head, of course..probably yours too.

I graduated summa in chemical engineering, and Randerizer graduated with a 4.0 in chemical engineering. All of us chemEs - including arkansasbob and DogtorEvil - have studied transport phenomenon and understand the principles of diffusion very well. Randerizer has taken advanced transport classes. Modelling is what engineers do, and chemEs are trained to think about things in terms of processes, open and closed thermodynamic systems, balancing mass and energy. That is why so many of us look at the case for AGW and still have strong doubts. It is easy and natural for us to see the weak assumptions that this case is based on. If a practicing professional engineer made the type of assumptions that these hacks do when practicing in their profession, they would not last very long. This stuff only has a place in academia where you can discuss theory that has no solid basis, but it does not belong in the real world - certainly not a part of government policy.

[saltydawg]

good answer.

so in other words, if it's not spelled out specifically in scientific american, you have no clue. that's ok. most people don't have a scientific background and therefore don't have the tools to critically evaluate the claims of climate scientists. there's nothing wrong with that. however, taking things at face value from "experts" is often a foolish thing to do, and regurgitating what the "experts" say as if it were firsthand knowledge is doubly foolish.

You have a degree in chemical engineering. Does atmospheric CO2 play a role in trapping radiant heat near the planet's surface or doesn't it? Please explain your answer.

[saltydawg]

I graduated summa in chemical engineering, and Randerizer graduated with a 4.0 in chemical engineering. All of us chemEs - including arkansasbob and DogtorEvil - have studied transport phenomenon and understand the principles of diffusion very well. Randerizer has taken advanced transport classes. Modelling is what engineers do, and chemEs are trained to think about things in terms of processes, open and closed thermodynamic systems, balancing mass and energy. That is why so many of us look at the case for AGW and still have strong doubts. It is easy and natural for us to see the weak assumptions that this case is based on. If a practicing professional engineer made the type of assumptions that these hacks do when practicing in their profession, they would not last very long. This stuff only has a place in academia where you can discuss theory that has no solid basis, but it does not belong in the real world - certainly not a part of government policy.

Looks like a lot of scientists are studying these ice cores from every which way.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm0...m05_PP33C.html

[arkansasbob]

You have a degree in chemical engineering. Does atmospheric CO2 play a role in trapping radiant heat near the planet's surface or doesn't it? Please explain your answer.

please explain the reason for your question. i was asking you how you could know what effect co2 has on global temperatures. now do you know or don't you?

[Guisslapp]

You have a degree in chemical engineering. Does atmospheric CO2 play a role in trapping radiant heat near the planet's surface or doesn't it? Please explain your answer.

Yes, CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that atmospheric CO2 is responsible for approximately 3.6% of the "greenhouse effect". 3.5% of that greenhouse effect would be present even if fossil-fuel burning, tree cutting humans never walked on the face of the Earth.

[saltydawg]

please explain the reason for your question. i was asking you how you could know what effect co2 has on global temperatures. now do you know or don't you?

And now I'm asking you if you have an opinion as a chemical engineer on that question. Not only that, but to explain your answer.

Like you said, I would tell you what the conventional wisdom is per scientists who study the atmosphere. It's obvious that I think CO2 plays a role in keeping the Earth warm per their statements.

[saltydawg]

Yes, CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that atmospheric CO2 is responsible for approximately 3.6% of the "greenhouse effect". 3.5% of that greenhouse effect would be present even if fossil-fuel burning, tree cutting humans never walked on the face of the Earth.

You think that arkansasbob will agree with you?

[Guisslapp]

You think that arkansasbob will agree with you?

There is not a scientific law that says what I said is true. It is just what some human-created models predict. There are scientific laws that relate to radiation, which is form of heat transfer, and define the parameters for how much heat will transfer via radiation between two objects. You cannot analytically (do you know what this means?) derive an equation for surface temperature of the Earth as a function of atmoshpheric CO2 from scientific laws.

[dawg80]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/...winter_weather



He likes it ->

[saltydawg]

There is not a scientific law that says what I said is true. It is just what some human-created models predict. There are scientific laws that relate to radiation, which is form of heat transfer, and define the parameters for how much heat will transfer via radiation between two objects. You cannot analytically (do you know what this means?) derive an equation for surface temperature of the Earth as a function of atmoshpheric CO2 from scientific laws.

I see what you are saying. I take that to mean the atmosphere is a complex system so it is impossible to figure it down to the millionth decimal point the temperature of the surface even assuming a constant solar input. Is that close?