How to lie statistically?

a reply to: melatonin

A blast from the past. I thought Global Warming had consumed you already. Nice to see you somehow survived the impending apocalypse.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
A mixture. Lots of health issues around this place (feeble mother, diabetic wife, I had a third heart attack), but I also got my degree finally. At least we haven't frozen to death in a fiery flood yet.

Awesome, congrats Redneck BSc/BA? I'd assume science, but I'm often wrong D:

Sorry to hear that :heart: getting older does suck a bit /:

I guess that would depend on the definition of a "greenhouse gas." I have seen it used to refer to any gas which can absorb and re-emit radiation, and I have heard it used to refer to a gas that tends to raise the temperature of an atmosphere substantially. Tell me what your definition is, and I'll be happy to answer.

Well, the substantially bit is not so critical. But a mix of both - emits/absorbs thermal energy.

Very relevant. I say the temperature differential was due to increased pressure from the release of additional gases, specifically carbon dioxide. Can you prove me wrong using that video?

Yeah, essentially if we accept the increase in p would produce a significant change in temperature (it would a little, for sure: pV = nRT) then as the system is non-adiabatic it would lose that heat to the external environment. Indeed, the fact the bottle temp reaches a steady plateau is a clear indication that the thermal system is in an equilibrium. That is, a steady source of heat into system (thermal light) and steady output of heat to the surroundings.

Again, pretty simple thermodynamics.

Hahaha. Same old mel, the undisputed King of ridiculous hyperbole. It's nice to see some things haven't changed, I guess.

TheRedneck

I just like to josh around - you know that. All in good taste D:

a reply to: ketsuko

See answer to Redneck - it's based on the laws of thermodynamics and the fact such system eventually reach thermal equilibrium

All experiments are imperfect. All are contaminated. Just requires an understanding of what is relevant and what isn't.

originally posted by: network dude

A blast from the past. I thought Global Warming had consumed you already. Nice to see you somehow survived the impending apocalypse.

haha, it's not global warming that has been immediately concerning me D:

Good to see you, ND. Hope all's well (:

a reply to: network dude

Nice personal attack.

It is just one piece of the puzzel. 20 years ago, this was not a problem, now it is.

The landmass is not sinking or eroding(due to erosion control measures), so what could it be? It certainly correlates to AGW sea level rise.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

And how often do lab experiments fail to work out in the real world (hint - quit often)

Does a lab have its own sun, its own oceans, polar ice caps, glaciers, solar winds, ocean currents etc etc.

When we can create a planetary system in the lab, then maybe we would be overly concerned by the lack of such realism. Think you may be expecting just a little too much from a laboratory D:

Y'all need to increase the quality of the denialist arguments. Like deja-vu all over again, haha. I recall actually pointing some of you to areas of contention just to make discussion more interesting and meaningful /:

a reply to: jrod

James Hansen testified to Congress about global warming in 1988 - That is 30 years ago

Erosion measures do not exist everywhere and are certainly do fail from time to time

Miami is sinking due to overdevelopment

Development along the Hudson river narrowed it by several hundred feet and caused an increase in storm surges

We question government, we question NASA, we question 9/11, the JFK assassination, we question aliens, we question Bigfoot, we question ghosts, we question god.

But we don't question the raw data on climate change and how it's collected.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

1896 Svante Arrenius published his calculations on CO2 and it's warming effect.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Like some of you could care less, as long as you can make Ad Hominem attacks against Hansen and Gore, AGW will be bogus in your blind eyes.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
But we don't question the raw data on climate change and how it's collected.

It's been 'questioned' for over a decade. Data is collected from a diverse range of sources (satellite, oceans, land etc), while none are perfect they do show converging evidence across the globe.

You are proposing a humongously massive network of conspirators across the world in an effort to support science - from data collection on ther ground to scientists in the lab, to almost all scientific societies, and NGOs and governments. Some of these scientists collecting the data have actually been shown to be in the pay of industry funding and can be classed as 'deniers' (e.g., Spencer & Christy).

An alternative is that we have a conspiracy of industry and ideological sources funding a few scientists, think-tanks, and other individuals to sow doubt and confusion about the science via the media and blogosphere. Of course, industry sources would never do such a thing - why the hell would they? D:

a reply to: melatonin

Awesome, congrats Redneck BSc/BA? I'd assume science, but I'm often wrong D:

BSEE from UAH, with honors. I'm 12 hours from my MSEE in Control Theory/Communications.

Sorry to hear that :heart: getting older does suck a bit /:

Yeah, I kinda clogged the pipes this time. Triglycerides were 528. They stuck a spring in one of the arteries and sent me home.

At least no one has buried me yet. Not that some haven't tried...

Well, the substantially bit is not so critical. But a mix of both - emits/absorbs thermal energy.

OK, so a 'greenhouse gas' is any gas which absorbs/emits electromagnetic radiation, primarily in the infrared range. Is that correct?

If so, yes, carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas.' So are almost all other gases known to science. Every molecule has a spectroscopic signature, and most have at least one component in the infrared region.

Yeah, essentially if we accept the increase in p would produce a significant change in temperature (it would a little, for sure: pV = nRT) then as the system is non-adiabatic it would lose that heat to the external environment. Indeed, the fact the bottle temp reaches a steady plateau is a clear indication that the thermal system is in an equilibrium. That is, a steady source of heat into system (thermal light) and steady output of heat to the surroundings.

Again, pretty simple thermodynamics.

It is obvious that the light from the lamp would introduce energy into both bottles. One would experience a rise in heat energy from the light alone, until the differential with the room reached a point of energy equilibrium. The other would experience an increase from both the pressure increase and the light energy introduced. Again, the temperature would increase until the differential with the room reached a point of energy equilibrium. This time, that point would be higher, since the pressure has not been released. Actually, do we have proof that the release of carbon dioxide has stopped after an hour? Increased pressure would shift the chemical equilibrium, so as the bottle lost heat (and therefore pressure) the release could be continuing at a slower rate, still adding energy to the system.

Simple chemistry and energy equilibrium.

If you want a true test, use two identical clear containers closely spaced together. Leave the atmosphere inside the first alone. Create a temperature-normalized mixture of carbon dioxide and air (easily done by using melting dry ice in proper quantities) and replace the air in the second container with this mixture. Connect thermometers in both to a data recorder as well as a solar radiance sensor and an ambient thermometer, and compare the results over a time span.

While not necessary to prove the spectroscopy of carbon dioxide (which is already well known), actual effect on the planetary ecology could be inferred by having identical amounts of flora inside each chamber.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This is only partially true, uninhabited islands in south Florida also are flooding and it some cases disappearing.

You cannot blame overdevelopment on the dissapearing Lousiana coastline.

a reply to: melatonin

I apologize for being such a heretic, but the variance studies I have read, provide more doubt than confirmation.

I don't have the faith you appear to have.

a reply to: jrod

One can blame land subsidence, though. Development is not the only reason for land subsidence.

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

yes I can blame erosion and ocean currents. Sandbar islands frequently erode on one side and grow on another. Media is quick the side of the island that is disappearing and never mention growth on the other side

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: melatonin

Awesome, congrats Redneck BSc/BA? I'd assume science, but I'm often wrong D:

BSEE from UAH, with honors. I'm 12 hours from my MSEE in Control Theory/Communications.

Hah! Always forget the Eng degrees D: So onto Masters - good luck dude (:

Yeah, I kinda clogged the pipes this time. Triglycerides were 528. They stuck a spring in one of the arteries and sent me home.

At least no one has buried me yet. Not that some haven't tried...

Keep fighting - never let the barstools grind you down D:

If so, yes, carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas.' So are almost all other gases known to science. Every molecule has a spectroscopic signature, and most have at least one component in the infrared region.

Uh-huh. Given the constituents of the atmosphere we can ignore most, though. And especially those with negligible IR absorption. So we can ignore the major components of the earth's atmosphere - N2, O2. They are 98%ish of the earth's atmosphere.

So CO2 is a GHG, and a major atmospheric GHG - the obsfuscation is not required.

It is obvious that the light from the lamp would introduce energy into both bottles. One would experience a rise in heat energy from the light alone, until the differential with the room reached a point of energy equilibrium. The other would experience an increase from both the pressure increase and the light energy introduced. Again, the temperature would increase until the differential with the room reached a point of energy equilibrium. This time, that point would be higher, since the pressure has not been released. Actually, do we have proof that the release of carbon dioxide has stopped after an hour? Increased pressure would shift the chemical equilibrium, so as the bottle lost heat (and therefore pressure) the release could be continuing at a slower rate, still adding energy to the system.

Simple chemistry and energy equilibrium.

Not the way it works, redneck. The system is in equilibrium, haha. You can try it yourself - do the experiment and measure temperature over time with no external heat source. It would eventually equilibrate to the external temperature.

You're just obfuscating again.

While not necessary to prove the spectroscopy of carbon dioxide (which is already well known), actual effect on the planetary ecology could be inferred by having identical amounts of flora inside each chamber.

TheRedneck

Hah - why are you even bothering to obfuscate? You accept that CO2 is a GHG - that's what the experiment shows /:

It was a simple experiment based on simple thermodynamic principles. Yet we seemed to have gotten mixed up in all sorts of side issues. Thus far we need bottles with flora (and fauna?) and maybe even a planet sized laboratory.

Carbon smoke and mirrors D:

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: melatonin

I apologize for being such a heretic, but the variance studies I have read, provide more doubt than confirmation.

I don't have the faith you appear to have.

Yeah, science works. Hard at times to accept when it gives you a wedgie.

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: melatonin

I apologize for being such a heretic, but the variance studies I have read, provide more doubt than confirmation.

I don't have the faith you appear to have.

Yeah, science works. Hard at times to accept when it gives you a wedgie.

Data does not lie.

Interpreted data tends to fib (just a little).

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not sure it's the data that the problem when interpreted.

Poor equipment can suddenly become 'lying liars who lie and want to take my money and freedoms'.

Well-established physical data gets wrapped up in obfuscation and noise for some unknown reason.

Depends on who does the interpreting, I guess.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Data does not lie.

Interpreted data tends to fib (just a little).

I love how people just cherry pick what they want to fit their narrative and ignore everything else. When we look at the Paris accord their big goal is to keep global warming under 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. We can do this with billions invested, billions of carbon tax, billions to change how we do things. After 100 billion or more (the vast majority paid for by America) countries will not even be held accountable in the end, so China, India, Russia etc can just keep on spewing as they always have.

The other side is if we did absolutely nothing it is now projected that we would not exceed 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. Spend a 100 billion and Paris accord WIN!, do nothing and Paris accord WINS!

With everything bad about Trump it seems the one thing he can do well is know when a deal is good or bad, and we have seen this as a repeating priority for him to call out the bad deals and either rework them or disregard them...can't see how a single person could disagree with any of this. In the end I think we will be part of the Paris accords just to be on the team, but it will not cost us 100 billion.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This is only partially true, uninhabited islands in south Florida also are flooding and it some cases disappearing.

You cannot blame overdevelopment on the dissapearing Lousiana coastline.

You absolutely can blame overdevelopment for the Louisiana coastline erosion. It's a river delta. The Mississippi River naturally has a braidplain many miles across, but throughout the midwest south to the Gulf, that braidplain has been artificially constrained to a stationary channel. In addition, concrete dikes have been placed on most of the river's contributing tributaries. Efforts to reduce sediment load in all runoff reaching the river has further reduced the amount of sediment being carried by the river. Take the sediment out of a river and the river's deltas will erode and vanish... that's basic coastal engineering. In essence, well meaning idiots made the river too clean, cleaner of sediment and silts than it was before mankind ever entered the picture.

originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Really? Did it scare you?

No.

Once did an experiment where I produced gaseous bromine. That was a little scary. Not nice stuff. But didn't think that bottle expt was scary.

Sigh.

The experiment showed that CO2 is a GHG. Are you questioning this fact - one which has been known for over 150 years and is basic physics? lol

CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas, with a logarithmic effect. Very inefficient, really. Generally speaking it takes twice as much CO2 in mixture (1:2) the generate an equivalent 1:1 raise in temperature, just based on CO2 effect.

Which is why I was asking about the ppm.

To a person on the street, it looks as though a single alka-seltzer tablet led to ~5C increase in heat. Good grief!!! CO2 is going to kill us! ZOMG.

Which of course is ludicrous, but... Science! Don't you see the computer and fancy thermal probes?

Aww, sorry if I intimidate you ):

Okay, that made me lol right there.