On Feb 25, 4:49 pm, William Asher wrote:
wrote groups.com:

Deatherage and Asher, "On the radiative transfer properties of CO2 in
unconfined laboratory experiments," J. Appl. Spectroscopy, 50, 432-444,
2004.

Note that I am not seriously saying you could would publish a paper with
me, I'm not worthy to clean the erasers on your blackboard. That's just
an example of scholarly citations I've seen, not that I know what any of
that stuff means, or anything.

--
Bill Asher

Aside from the educational value of debating somebody, keep in mind
you will never convince everybody of anything. In any population
exceeding 30 people, statistically there's a good chance that at least
one is 2 standard deviations beyond the mean--meaning there's at least
one weirdo in every group. This is also the basis for those games
where in a room full of people, greater than 23, more likely than not
two people share the same birthday: http://www.sunytccc.edu/instruct/sbr...t/birthday.htm

Add in the fact that half the people here (including myself) don't
necessarily believe everything they type (playing Devil's Advocate),
coupled with Internet anonymity (a good thing BTW), and you get the
chaos and nonsense that is this board. And that includes the self-
proclaimed experts who seem to know what they are talking about.

RL

raylopez99 wrote:

Add in the fact that half the people here (including myself) don't
necessarily believe everything they type (playing Devil's Advocate),
coupled with Internet anonymity (a good thing BTW), and you get the
chaos and nonsense that is this board. And that includes the self-
proclaimed experts who seem to know what they are talking about.

There is a difference between playing devil's advocate, which mainly
consists of posting the same old tired arguments that have been debunked in
the scientific literature, and posting nutbar-type rantings on how modern
textbooks on radiative transfer have the fundamental physics wrong.
Devil's advocacy is fine, it forces people to look things up to figure out
where the fallacy in the contrarian argument lies (e.g., everyone harps on
the Medieval Warm Period as somehow evidence of something, yet there was no
globally synchronous warm period during that period, parts of the globe
warmed, parts cooled, so the Medieval Warm Period was fairly different from
what is going on now, where there is a dramatic global warming). But
nutbar stuff is internet goofiness and I feel like I can have fun with
them.

--
Bill Asher

On Feb 26, 9:50 am, William Asher wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:

There is a difference between playing devil's advocate, which mainly
consists of posting the same old tired arguments that have been debunked in
the scientific literature, and posting nutbar-type rantings on how modern
textbooks on radiative transfer have the fundamental physics wrong.

"Mainly consists" is right, but I have made original contributions to
the GW Sceptics/Deniars debate, which include, inter alia: (1) CO2
and/or heat is being transfered from ocean to air (weak coupling is
stronger than consensus thinks, and occurs during ENSO events; CO2 can
be 'recent' (fossil) CO2 from the time of the Industrial Revolution,
so Suess effect is not violated); (2) shifting ocean currents
responsible for Greenland ice sheet melting (I have no proof of this
or any other assertion, just speculation); (3) UHI is responsible for
GW since Parker et al study re UHI and windy days flawed (see my other
thread); (4) Nyquist sampling violations in urbanized temperature
measuring stations responsible for rise in most weather stations
("rush hour heat plume from man made structures"); (5) CO2
measurements flawed since equipment not calibrated worldwide to
measure a baseline (even Keeling had problems with Hawaii site due to
volcano there--no such thing as a perfect 'world mixing bowl'-CO2
'urban island' effect?); (6) no research done on effect of CO2 trapped
in air bubbles under 1000s of tonnes of ice pressure (relevant for
proxy data on prehistoric CO2 from ice cores)--does it leach out?
Phase change absorption?).

And all this from the privacy and comfort of my armchair--and I don't
even work in the field. Imagine if I got paid to dream up this stuff--
I could outdo Prof. Lindzen!


Devil's advocacy is fine, it forces people to look things up to figure out
where the fallacy in the contrarian argument lies (e.g., everyone harps on
the Medieval Warm Period as somehow evidence of something, yet there was no
globally synchronous warm period during that period, parts of the globe
warmed, parts cooled, so the Medieval Warm Period was fairly different from
what is going on now, where there is a dramatic global warming).

Just thought of another one: (7) Medieval Warm Period proxy data not
reliable--too sparse.

There's at least one climatelogy Nobel in this thread, if it can be
proven.

Can you imagine the headlines? AGW proved hoax! A modern Piltdown
man!

RL

raylopez99 wrote:

On Feb 26, 9:50 am, William Asher wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:

There is a difference between playing devil's advocate, which mainly
consists of posting the same old tired arguments that have been
debunked in the scientific literature, and posting nutbar-type
rantings on how modern textbooks on radiative transfer have the
fundamental physics wrong.

"Mainly consists" is right, but I have made original contributions to
the GW Sceptics/Deniars debate, which include, inter alia: (1) CO2
and/or heat is being transfered from ocean to air (weak coupling is
stronger than consensus thinks, and occurs during ENSO events; CO2 can
be 'recent' (fossil) CO2 from the time of the Industrial Revolution,
so Suess effect is not violated); (2) shifting ocean currents
responsible for Greenland ice sheet melting (I have no proof of this
or any other assertion, just speculation); (3) UHI is responsible for
GW since Parker et al study re UHI and windy days flawed (see my other
thread); (4) Nyquist sampling violations in urbanized temperature
measuring stations responsible for rise in most weather stations
("rush hour heat plume from man made structures"); (5) CO2
measurements flawed since equipment not calibrated worldwide to
measure a baseline (even Keeling had problems with Hawaii site due to
volcano there--no such thing as a perfect 'world mixing bowl'-CO2
'urban island' effect?); (6) no research done on effect of CO2 trapped
in air bubbles under 1000s of tonnes of ice pressure (relevant for
proxy data on prehistoric CO2 from ice cores)--does it leach out?
Phase change absorption?).

And all this from the privacy and comfort of my armchair--and I don't
even work in the field. Imagine if I got paid to dream up this
stuff-- I could outdo Prof. Lindzen!


Devil's advocacy is fine, it forces people to look things up to
figure out where the fallacy in the contrarian argument lies (e.g.,
everyone harps on the Medieval Warm Period as somehow evidence of
something, yet there was no globally synchronous warm period during
that period, parts of the globe warmed, parts cooled, so the Medieval
Warm Period was fairly different from what is going on now, where
there is a dramatic global warming).

Just thought of another one: (7) Medieval Warm Period proxy data not
reliable--too sparse.

There's at least one climatelogy Nobel in this thread, if it can be
proven.

Can you imagine the headlines? AGW proved hoax! A modern Piltdown
man!

None of your contributions would pass scientific muster in terms of
involving realistic physics and chemistry. You're not the first to propose
any of those things, but the experimental evidence is simply not there to
support any of the things you say might be true.

For example, your first point, aside from the fact that ENSO isn't an
event, but a process involving two separate states (el Nino, la Nina), you
must be suggesting something along the lines that during la Nina the ocean
releases post-industrial CO2 and heat, which leads to the increase in CO2
and atmospheric warming (it has to be la Nina since it is known that atm.
CO2 decreases during el Nino). If you think this is true, you need to
postulate some physical mechanisms and source regions where this is going
on. Then, do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on what the regional
fluxes from those source regions would have to be, and back out the implied
air-sea exchange coefficients for both heat and CO2. That exercise, which
has been done many times before you, shows it is simply not realistic,
there isn't enough wind or delta-pCO2 to drive the fluxes you would need.
Plus you don't see the quasi-periodic increases in the atm. CO2 trend to
support the notion that something like la Nina is driving the increase (the
increase in CO2 is fairly steady). yadda yadda yadda

Point 6 has also been studied, there is a wide body of literature on the
stability of gas concentrations in bubbles. If you want to open that up
for debate, you need to bring some heavy duty ammunition in terms of
published studies showing the effects you postulate are important are in
fact important. The people doing this have thought of these things, tested
them, and found them to be unimportant. You might be smarter than they
are, but just claiming you are doesn't prove it. Most big game hunters
don't just claim they have a big rifle in their bag, so to speak, they
actually bring it out once in a while.

Your MWP statement reaffirms the point I made. You cannot assume it was a
global warming based simply on what went on in the N. Atlantic. There is
no evidence for a global scale warming in that time period. Period.

Since you're spending a lot of time in your armchair, instead of just
patting yourself on the back while you're in it, you could try writing some
of your "musings" up and submitting them for publication. I know that's a
scary thought at first, but if you're as smart as you think you are, you'll
kick ass in the peer review process. You could be Dietz and Hess all
rolled into one.

--
Bill Asher

On Feb 26, 2:05 pm, William Asher wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:50 am, William Asher wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:

"Mainly consists" is right, but I have made original contributions to
the GW Sceptics/Deniars debate, which include, inter alia: (1) CO2
and/or heat is being transfered from ocean to air (weak coupling is
stronger than consensus thinks, and occurs during ENSO events; CO2 can
be 'recent' (fossil) CO2 from the time of the Industrial Revolution,
so Suess effect is not violated); (2) shifting ocean currents
responsible for Greenland ice sheet melting (I have no proof of this
or any other assertion, just speculation); (3) UHI is responsible for
GW since Parker et al study re UHI and windy days flawed (see my other
thread); (4) Nyquist sampling violations in urbanized temperature
measuring stations responsible for rise in most weather stations
("rush hour heat plume from man made structures"); (5) CO2
measurements flawed since equipment not calibrated worldwide to
measure a baseline (even Keeling had problems with Hawaii site due to
volcano there--no such thing as a perfect 'world mixing bowl'-CO2
'urban island' effect?); (6) no research done on effect of CO2 trapped
in air bubbles under 1000s of tonnes of ice pressure (relevant for
proxy data on prehistoric CO2 from ice cores)--does it leach out?
Phase change absorption?).


Devil's advocacy is fine, it forces people to look things up to
figure out where the fallacy in the contrarian argument lies (e.g.,
everyone harps on the Medieval Warm Period as somehow evidence of
something, yet there was no globally synchronous warm period during
that period, parts of the globe warmed, parts cooled, so the Medieval
Warm Period was fairly different from what is going on now, where
there is a dramatic global warming).

Just thought of another one: (7) Medieval Warm Period proxy data not
reliable--too sparse.

There's at least one climatelogy Nobel in this thread, if it can be
proven.

Can you imagine the headlines? AGW proved hoax! A modern Piltdown
man!

None of your contributions would pass scientific muster in terms of
involving realistic physics and chemistry.

None? But you contradict yourself below Bill--you say some of my
points have been discussed before.

You're not the first to propose
any of those things, but the experimental evidence is simply not there to
support any of the things you say might be true.


Because perhaps it has not been studied?

For example, your first point, aside from the fact that ENSO isn't an
event, but a process involving two separate states (el Nino, la Nina), you
must be suggesting something along the lines that during la Nina the ocean
releases post-industrial CO2 and heat, which leads to the increase in CO2
and atmospheric warming (it has to be la Nina since it is known that atm.
CO2 decreases during el Nino). If you think this is true, you need to
postulate some physical mechanisms and source regions where this is going
on.

Easy--physics are understood (cold air rises and released CO2 when
warmed). Area is South Pacific.

Then, do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on what the regional
fluxes from those source regions would have to be, and back out the implied
air-sea exchange coefficients for both heat and CO2. That exercise, which
has been done many times before you, shows it is simply not realistic,
there isn't enough wind or delta-pCO2 to drive the fluxes you would need.

Wind--sounds like hot air. You fit the facts to the hypothesis, until
the facts squeal and can't take it anymore, then your modify the
hypothesis and start again. If you've done original science before,
you know that.

Plus you don't see the quasi-periodic increases in the atm. CO2 trend to
support the notion that something like la Nina is driving the increase (the
increase in CO2 is fairly steady). yadda yadda yadda

Yadda yadda indeed, but the devil is in the details. Seems like you
favor the orthodox "back of the envelope" explanation for GW, the
Arrhenius equation (as modified). Fair enough, but that's like
arguing since oil depletion is a bell-shaped curve, and it's a fact
oil is decreasing, ergo we will soon run out of oil. Fair enough
point, except the curve is not a smooth bell shape, and "soon" may be
50 years or 300 years. Which is it? Likewise GW maybe two inches
mean sea level rise over the next century (nearly trivial pace for
polar bears) or 2 feet--which is it?


Point 6 has also been studied,

Points 2-5 are ignored? I take it you conceed these points in my
favor. LOL.

there is a wide body of literature on the
stability of gas concentrations in bubbles.

Really? Learn something new everyday--and I thought the subject was
ignored.

If you want to open that up
for debate, you need to bring some heavy duty ammunition in terms of
published studies showing the effects you postulate are important are in
fact important. The people doing this have thought of these things, tested
them, and found them to be unimportant.


Your MWP statement reaffirms the point I made. You cannot assume it was a
global warming based simply on what went on in the N. Atlantic. There is
no evidence for a global scale warming in that time period. Period.

Perhaps because there's no good set of proxy data in fossilized or
otherwise trees! If the tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it,
does it make a sound? Does it even exist? The issue is not settled
but inconclusive.


Since you're spending a lot of time in your armchair, instead of just
patting yourself on the back while you're in it, you could try writing some
of your "musings" up and submitting them for publication. I know that's a
scary thought at first, but if you're as smart as you think you are, you'll
kick ass in the peer review process. You could be Dietz and Hess all
rolled into one.


Yeah right, you're a real comedian. As if anybody would listen to me
in science, since I don't have a PhD (but I do have a doctorate, go
figure).

Truth is, the policy of GW will be decided by economics IMO--the
economics of scarcity--when oil starts running out, when electricity
becomes dear (brownouts in Texas--since they lack power and the Greens
are stoping them from building coal plants--and California--also a
market where it's hard to import power), then the population will
clamour for more energy--and get it in the form of nuclear, possibly
fusion if the government ever gets serious about both rewarding
inventors for their inventions and spending real R&D on science (this
year's budget for science was not expanded by Bush, yet the war in
Iraq costs $600k + and counting, further worthless posturing with a
missle shield on Russia's Eastern Europe border continues; Pentagon
seems to be begging for another war or restarting of the Cold War).

Bye,

RL

"raylopez99" wrote in
oups.com:

For example, your first point, aside from the fact that ENSO isn't an
event, but a process involving two separate states (el Nino, la
Nina), you must be suggesting something along the lines that during
la Nina the ocean releases post-industrial CO2 and heat, which leads
to the increase in CO2 and atmospheric warming (it has to be la Nina
since it is known that atm. CO2 decreases during el Nino). If you
think this is true, you need to postulate some physical mechanisms
and source regions where this is going on.

Easy--physics are understood (cold air rises and released CO2 when
warmed). Area is South Pacific.

Then, do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on what the regional
fluxes from those source regions would have to be, and back out the
implied air-sea exchange coefficients for both heat and CO2. That
exercise, which has been done many times before you, shows it is
simply not realistic, there isn't enough wind or delta-pCO2 to drive
the fluxes you would need.

Wind--sounds like hot air. You fit the facts to the hypothesis, until
the facts squeal and can't take it anymore, then your modify the
hypothesis and start again. If you've done original science before,
you know that.

Plus you don't see the quasi-periodic increases in the atm. CO2 trend
to support the notion that something like la Nina is driving the
increase (the increase in CO2 is fairly steady). yadda yadda yadda

Yadda yadda indeed, but the devil is in the details. Seems like you
favor the orthodox "back of the envelope" explanation for GW, the
Arrhenius equation (as modified). Fair enough, but that's like
arguing since oil depletion is a bell-shaped curve, and it's a fact
oil is decreasing, ergo we will soon run out of oil. Fair enough
point, except the curve is not a smooth bell shape, and "soon" may be
50 years or 300 years. Which is it? Likewise GW maybe two inches
mean sea level rise over the next century (nearly trivial pace for
polar bears) or 2 feet--which is it?


Point 6 has also been studied,

Points 2-5 are ignored? I take it you conceed these points in my
favor. LOL.

there is a wide body of literature on the
stability of gas concentrations in bubbles.

Really? Learn something new everyday--and I thought the subject was
ignored.


Since you're spending a lot of time in your armchair, instead of just
patting yourself on the back while you're in it, you could try
writing some of your "musings" up and submitting them for
publication. I know that's a scary thought at first, but if you're
as smart as you think you are, you'll kick ass in the peer review
process. You could be Dietz and Hess all rolled into one.


Yeah right, you're a real comedian. As if anybody would listen to me
in science, since I don't have a PhD (but I do have a doctorate, go
figure).

Global temperatures aren't a big topic for me. Christy seems to be
convinced there has been a global warming and if even he isn't squawking
anymore, I consider temperature a dead issue scientifically. I doubt you
have enough insight to make any meaningful contributions. I base that
assumption on your lack of insight into CO2, which I think reflects your
overall lack of scholarship in this issue in general. It's like I said,
there are a lot of smart people working on this and if you want to say
they're wrong you better bring the jizz to back your claims. I don't see
that in anything I've ever read of yours. It's superficial analysis with
no credible scientific basis.

Anyway, back to a subject I know a little more about than global
temperature measurement, did you really mean to write that cold air
releases CO2 as it rises? If you did then you don't have any idea what I
am talking about relative to CO2 and air-sea fluxes. Giving you the
benefit of doubt and assuming you meant to say that as cold water rises
it releases CO2, that statement is not strictly true (the statement that
cold air releases CO2 is laughable, and that is being charitable).
Here's why: if you want to calculate the flux of CO2 from the ocean to
the atmosphere it's really simple, the flux F (moles of CO2 per square
meter per second) is given by:

F = k * deltaC

where k is the transfer velocity and deltaC is the air-water
concentration difference. Typically, most people break the conc. diff.
into the henry's law constant (or solubility, written in terms of moles
per cubic meter per atm) and a partial pressure difference of CO2 across
the air-water boundary. So the second term on the right is related to
water temperature, since the Henry's law constant for most gases is
strongly temperature dependent (but not nearly so dependent on pressure).
Therefore, if you have cold water with CO2 in it, the partial pressure of
CO2 in it will rise as the water warms because the solubility decreases.
Still with me? Good. Here's where it gets tricky. So if you take cold
deep water in the S. Pacific and bring it to the surface, it's partial
pressure of CO2 will rise and there will be a large CO2 concentration
difference between the air and the water. But the kicker is that in the
equatorial regions the winds are not all that large, and the flux is also
controlled by k, the transfer velocity. k is, to a large degree, a
function of the wind, so where there are low winds, k is small and even
though you have a large deltaC, F is not all that big. This is all fact
and you can find this is texts like Schwarzenbach et al., Environmental
Organic Chemistry or Broecker and Peng, Tracers in the Sea (I think).

So, aside from the fact that the S. Pacific is not a huge area of
upwelling, during any part of the ENSO cycle, I don't see how you can get
large enough fluxes in regions where there is net transfer of CO2 from
the ocean to the atmosphere for what you postulated, namely that it is
the oceans that are responsible for the post-industrial increase in
atmospheric CO2, to be correct. Instead of actually trying to do the
math or suggest what processes aside from wind speed might be driving the
"k" part of the flux, you've deflected the discussion into some weird
Hubbert's Peak analogy. This kind of cut-and-dodge debating tactic is
typical of the shoddy intellectual work I've seen by people like you, who
although claim they really are in it just for the sport of playing
devil's advocate, are all too quick to take it personally and resort to
insults. It's why I say people like you bring the same tired old
arguments to the table: there's no real substance to any of them but
most people don't know that. But the truth is that credible scientists
would fillet every single point you raise, if they gave a crap or thought
anyone would actually listen.

But back to your explanation for why you don't try to do any real
research, people will listen to a rock-solid argument that gets the basic
physics and chemistry right, regardless of who makes that argument, or
their background. Al Woodcock was a much revered oceanographer, yet
never graduated from high school (http://tinyurl.com/3x2dd9). Your lack
of a Ph.D. is a cop-out excuse and you are the one that is holding
yourself back.

--
Bill Asher

On Feb 26, 9:52 pm, William Asher wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote groups.com:

Global temperatures aren't a big topic for me. Christy seems to be
convinced there has been a global warming and if even he isn't squawking
anymore, I consider temperature a dead issue scientifically.

So you believe in attribution rather than a review of the evidence
again, de novo? Into celebrity science then. You're a weak
intellectual. You also buy trademarked goods 'cause they're better,
eh?

I doubt you
have enough insight to make any meaningful contributions. I base that
assumption on your lack of insight into CO2, which I think reflects your
overall lack of scholarship in this issue in general. It's like I said,
there are a lot of smart people working on this and if you want to say
they're wrong you better bring the jizz to back your claims. I don't see
that in anything I've ever read of yours. It's superficial analysis with
no credible scientific basis.

Not true. You don't have to be an expert to criticise an area. You
can smell handwaving a mile away. Do you think Congress is rotten?
If so, why? If not, why not? Have you worked on the Hill? How can
you then base an opinion?


Anyway, back to a subject I know a little more about than global
temperature measurement, did you really mean to write that cold air
releases CO2 as it rises?

Yes, of course. Open a warm beer bottle to see what I'm talking
about.

If you did then you don't have any idea what I
am talking about relative to CO2 and air-sea fluxes. Giving you the
benefit of doubt and assuming you meant to say that as cold water rises
it releases CO2, that statement is not strictly true (the statement that
cold air releases CO2 is laughable, and that is being charitable).

You lack imagination then. It's clear what I meant: rising cold
water (ENSO event) releases CO2. This is standard physics (learn
it). You get hung up on words. Contrary to popular opinion, you would
not make a good lawyer BTW, as I have been an expert in court and have
seen real lawyers at work.

Here's why: if you want to calculate the flux of CO2 from the ocean to
the atmosphere it's really simple, the flux F (moles of CO2 per square
meter per second) is given by:

F = k * deltaC


This is what is known in engineering as a "transfer function". Let me
explain simply: it's a fudge factor. What are the assumptions behind
this transfer function? It has a range most likely, in which it
works, and a range where it doesn't. It's not a physics equation,
though based on physics. A real physics equation would be based on
conservation of energy (i.e., one of many, the incompressible Navier-
Stokes equation).


where k is the transfer velocity and deltaC is the air-water
concentration difference. Typically, most people break the conc. diff.
into the henry's law constant (or solubility, written in terms of moles
per cubic meter per atm) and a partial pressure difference of CO2 across
the air-water boundary. So the second term on the right is related to
water temperature, since the Henry's law constant for most gases is
strongly temperature dependent (but not nearly so dependent on pressure).
Therefore, if you have cold water with CO2 in it, the partial pressure of
CO2 in it will rise as the water warms because the solubility decreases.
Still with me? Good.

Yes, go on.

Here's where it gets tricky. So if you take cold
deep water in the S. Pacific and bring it to the surface, it's partial
pressure of CO2 will rise and there will be a large CO2 concentration
difference between the air and the water. But the kicker is that in the
equatorial regions the winds are not all that large, and the flux is also
controlled by k, the transfer velocity. k is, to a large degree, a
function of the wind, so where there are low winds, k is small and even
though you have a large deltaC, F is not all that big. This is all fact
and you can find this is texts like Schwarzenbach et al., Environmental
Organic Chemistry or Broecker and Peng, Tracers in the Sea (I think).


You think--but do you know? It's a fudge factor, k is. Where does it
work? Perhaps only in stormy areas--they don't call it the "Pacific"
ocean for nothing (i.e., peace = pacific = no storms). Perhaps it's
not constant, but changes depending on velocity, as you imply ("to a
large degree"--handwaving BTW, but I assume you mean k
=f(windspeed)). Thus you forget one big thing (again). During ENSO
events we get _more_ storms. Have you considered that the "normal k"
for an ordinarily calm ocean in the South American coast changes when
ENSO kicks in, and we get more storms? It's well known that ENSO
increases storms--so your "k" should also change from a normal
"pacific" ocean to a "stormy" one.


So, aside from the fact that the S. Pacific is not a huge area of
upwelling, during any part of the ENSO cycle, I don't see how you can get
large enough fluxes in regions where there is net transfer of CO2 from
the ocean to the atmosphere for what you postulated, namely that it is
the oceans that are responsible for the post-industrial increase in
atmospheric CO2, to be correct.

You don't see. You admit your lack of knowledge ("I don't see how"),
your ignorance. I explained it to you how even using your fudge
factor transfer function, k can change from the 'normal' k. You need
to measure k during stormy Pacific seas, of the kind found in ENSO
event years. You need to find how the normal k for the Pacific
changes during stormy ENSO events. You also need to reexamine whether
the transfer function above is even a good one to use during ENSO.

Instead of actually trying to do the
math or suggest what processes aside from wind speed might be driving the
"k" part of the flux, you've deflected the discussion into some weird
Hubbert's Peak analogy. This kind of cut-and-dodge debating tactic is
typical of the shoddy intellectual work I've seen by people like you, who
although claim they really are in it just for the sport of playing
devil's advocate, are all too quick to take it personally and resort to
insults.

Don't be an ass whole dude. You're as guilty, by your own admission,
of feeding the trolls. And it was an analogy, not an exact analogue.
The kind you make in your posts as well.


It's why I say people like you bring the same tired old
arguments to the table: there's no real substance to any of them but
most people don't know that. But the truth is that credible scientists
would fillet every single point you raise, if they gave a crap or thought
anyone would actually listen.

Then explain the above, handwaver? Go dig out your old textbooks, as
is typical of an egghead pseudo-intellectual like you. Most textbooks
don't have all the answers, they are a starting point. I have no
doubt that textbook theories "explain" GW as per the Arrhenius
equations, but reality is often different from the theoretical model.
It's your profession's duty to investigate where the textbook model
doesn't fit reality, not to fit reality to the textbook.



But back to your explanation for why you don't try to do any real
research, people will listen to a rock-solid argument that gets the basic
physics and chemistry right, regardless of who makes that argument, or
their background. Al Woodcock was a much revered oceanographer, yet
never graduated from high school (http://tinyurl.com/3x2dd9). Your lack
of a Ph.D. is a cop-out excuse and you are the one that is holding
yourself back.

Stupid argument. Al Woodcock was a researcher (the most despised of
intellectual pursuits, hence the pejorative "lab rat"), from a
different age, when PhD's and grade inflation were not prevalent (you
probably have several degrees from some weak third tier midwest public
school), and he was actually doing what I am advocating above--
checking out things like "k" in the field, to see where it applies.
Shame on you for even bringing him up with your weak analogies.

You're dismissed bozo. Don't even bother replying to this thread
unless you have something important to say. I've wasted 10 minutes of
my life too much already with a blowhard like you.

PS--yOU sound like Err-Hick Swine'son--sure you're not him? LOL.

RL

raylopez99 wrote:

On Feb 26, 9:52 pm, William Asher wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote
groups.com:

Global temperatures aren't a big topic for me. Christy seems to be
convinced there has been a global warming and if even he isn't
squawking anymore, I consider temperature a dead issue
scientifically.

So you believe in attribution rather than a review of the evidence
again, de novo? Into celebrity science then. You're a weak
intellectual. You also buy trademarked goods 'cause they're better,
eh?

I doubt you
have enough insight to make any meaningful contributions. I base
that assumption on your lack of insight into CO2, which I think
reflects your overall lack of scholarship in this issue in general.
It's like I said, there are a lot of smart people working on this and
if you want to say they're wrong you better bring the jizz to back
your claims. I don't see that in anything I've ever read of yours.
It's superficial analysis with no credible scientific basis.

Not true. You don't have to be an expert to criticise an area. You
can smell handwaving a mile away. Do you think Congress is rotten?
If so, why? If not, why not? Have you worked on the Hill? How can
you then base an opinion?


Anyway, back to a subject I know a little more about than global
temperature measurement, did you really mean to write that cold air
releases CO2 as it rises?

Yes, of course. Open a warm beer bottle to see what I'm talking
about.

If you did then you don't have any idea what I
am talking about relative to CO2 and air-sea fluxes. Giving you the
benefit of doubt and assuming you meant to say that as cold water
rises it releases CO2, that statement is not strictly true (the
statement that cold air releases CO2 is laughable, and that is being
charitable).

You lack imagination then. It's clear what I meant: rising cold
water (ENSO event) releases CO2. This is standard physics (learn
it). You get hung up on words. Contrary to popular opinion, you would
not make a good lawyer BTW, as I have been an expert in court and have
seen real lawyers at work.

Here's why: if you want to calculate the flux of CO2 from the ocean
to the atmosphere it's really simple, the flux F (moles of CO2 per
square meter per second) is given by:

F = k * deltaC


This is what is known in engineering as a "transfer function". Let me
explain simply: it's a fudge factor. What are the assumptions behind
this transfer function? It has a range most likely, in which it
works, and a range where it doesn't. It's not a physics equation,
though based on physics. A real physics equation would be based on
conservation of energy (i.e., one of many, the incompressible Navier-
Stokes equation).


where k is the transfer velocity and deltaC is the air-water
concentration difference. Typically, most people break the conc.
diff. into the henry's law constant (or solubility, written in terms
of moles per cubic meter per atm) and a partial pressure difference
of CO2 across the air-water boundary. So the second term on the
right is related to water temperature, since the Henry's law constant
for most gases is strongly temperature dependent (but not nearly so
dependent on pressure). Therefore, if you have cold water with CO2
in it, the partial pressure of CO2 in it will rise as the water warms
because the solubility decreases. Still with me? Good.

Yes, go on.

Here's where it gets tricky. So if you take cold
deep water in the S. Pacific and bring it to the surface, it's
partial pressure of CO2 will rise and there will be a large CO2
concentration difference between the air and the water. But the
kicker is that in the equatorial regions the winds are not all that
large, and the flux is also controlled by k, the transfer velocity.
k is, to a large degree, a function of the wind, so where there are
low winds, k is small and even though you have a large deltaC, F is
not all that big. This is all fact and you can find this is texts
like Schwarzenbach et al., Environmental Organic Chemistry or
Broecker and Peng, Tracers in the Sea (I think).


You think--but do you know? It's a fudge factor, k is. Where does it
work? Perhaps only in stormy areas--they don't call it the "Pacific"
ocean for nothing (i.e., peace = pacific = no storms). Perhaps it's
not constant, but changes depending on velocity, as you imply ("to a
large degree"--handwaving BTW, but I assume you mean k
=f(windspeed)). Thus you forget one big thing (again). During ENSO
events we get _more_ storms. Have you considered that the "normal k"
for an ordinarily calm ocean in the South American coast changes when
ENSO kicks in, and we get more storms? It's well known that ENSO
increases storms--so your "k" should also change from a normal
"pacific" ocean to a "stormy" one.


So, aside from the fact that the S. Pacific is not a huge area of
upwelling, during any part of the ENSO cycle, I don't see how you can
get large enough fluxes in regions where there is net transfer of CO2
from the ocean to the atmosphere for what you postulated, namely that
it is the oceans that are responsible for the post-industrial
increase in atmospheric CO2, to be correct.

You don't see. You admit your lack of knowledge ("I don't see how"),
your ignorance. I explained it to you how even using your fudge
factor transfer function, k can change from the 'normal' k. You need
to measure k during stormy Pacific seas, of the kind found in ENSO
event years. You need to find how the normal k for the Pacific
changes during stormy ENSO events. You also need to reexamine whether
the transfer function above is even a good one to use during ENSO.

Instead of actually trying to do the
math or suggest what processes aside from wind speed might be driving
the "k" part of the flux, you've deflected the discussion into some
weird Hubbert's Peak analogy. This kind of cut-and-dodge debating
tactic is typical of the shoddy intellectual work I've seen by people
like you, who although claim they really are in it just for the sport
of playing devil's advocate, are all too quick to take it personally
and resort to insults.

Don't be an ass whole dude. You're as guilty, by your own admission,
of feeding the trolls. And it was an analogy, not an exact analogue.
The kind you make in your posts as well.


It's why I say people like you bring the same tired old
arguments to the table: there's no real substance to any of them but
most people don't know that. But the truth is that credible
scientists would fillet every single point you raise, if they gave a
crap or thought anyone would actually listen.

Then explain the above, handwaver? Go dig out your old textbooks, as
is typical of an egghead pseudo-intellectual like you. Most textbooks
don't have all the answers, they are a starting point. I have no
doubt that textbook theories "explain" GW as per the Arrhenius
equations, but reality is often different from the theoretical model.
It's your profession's duty to investigate where the textbook model
doesn't fit reality, not to fit reality to the textbook.



But back to your explanation for why you don't try to do any real
research, people will listen to a rock-solid argument that gets the
basic physics and chemistry right, regardless of who makes that
argument, or their background. Al Woodcock was a much revered
oceanographer, yet never graduated from high school
(http://tinyurl.com/3x2dd9). Your lack of a Ph.D. is a cop-out
excuse and you are the one that is holding yourself back.

Stupid argument. Al Woodcock was a researcher (the most despised of
intellectual pursuits, hence the pejorative "lab rat"), from a
different age, when PhD's and grade inflation were not prevalent (you
probably have several degrees from some weak third tier midwest public
school), and he was actually doing what I am advocating above--
checking out things like "k" in the field, to see where it applies.
Shame on you for even bringing him up with your weak analogies.

You're dismissed bozo. Don't even bother replying to this thread
unless you have something important to say. I've wasted 10 minutes of
my life too much already with a blowhard like you.

PS--yOU sound like Err-Hick Swine'son--sure you're not him? LOL.

RL



Awww, and just when I was getting somewhere. There are people here who
probably understand what I am getting at. The stormy areas of the Pacific
don't have a high delta pCO2 so there is little CO2 flux. The areas with
high delta pCO2 don't have storms so the flux is low. It's unfortunate you
don't see that. It's why your analysis is superficial and wrong. Instead
you resort to slinging insults and stomping off in a huff because you
heard something you don't like you can't explain away except in vague
generalities. You don't need Navier-Stokes to explain gas transfer, if you
understood the topic you would know that.

As far as I know, there is no place on the form for submitting papers to
journals that asks if you have a Ph.D. Most papers are reviewed without
that context and judged solely on the science.

--
Bill Asher