Researchers find new evidence of warming

Researchers find new evidence of warming
A view of one of the three lakes that were studied during the research.

A study of three remote lakes in Ecuador led by Queen's University researchers has revealed the vulnerability of tropical high mountain lakes to global climate change - the first study of its kind to show this. The data explains how the lakes are changing due to the water warming as the result of climate change.

The results could have far-reaching consequences for Andean resources as the lakes provide 60 per cent of the for Cuenca, the third largest city in Ecuador.

"Until recently we knew little about the effects of recent climate changes on tropical high-mountain lakes," says Neal Michelutti (Biology), lead author and a senior research scientist at Queen's University's Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Lab (PEARL). "We saw major changes in the algae consistent with the water warming that indicates changes in the physical structure of the water column."

Dr. Michelutti and his research team visited three lakes in Cajas National Park. They retrieved water and core samples from the centre of each of the lakes for analysis. The lakes are accessible only by hiking trails and boats are prohibited. There is also no development within the park meaning the lakes are still in pristine condition.

"Andean societies are amongst the most vulnerable when it comes to the impact of ," says Dr. Michelutti. "Warming in the Andes is occurring at a rate nearly twice the global average and it's already impacting as shown in this research. These changes are also a sign of bigger changes that are coming."

Dr. Michelutti and his team are planning to return to the region for further research this summer and will be working with managers in the area to try to preserve the water.

"We have previously recorded similar types of threshold shifts in polar and temperate regions," says research team member John Smol (Biology). "These changes are harbingers of processes that will likely affect the food chain and reverberate throughout the ecosystem. We now have data showing that lakes from the Arctic to the Andes, and everywhere in between, are rapidly changing due to our impacts on climate."

To read the study, published in PLOS ONE, visit the PEARL website.


Explore further

Online photos provide evidence for the value of clean water

Journal information: PLoS ONE

Provided by Queen's University
Citation: Researchers find new evidence of warming (2015, February 9) retrieved 18 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-evidence.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
43 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 09, 2015
The fraud against humanity continues.


Feb 09, 2015
Yet more evidence of global warming is met with a cry that the researchers are engaging in fraud. What an insulting, reckless and cowardly display.

Oh, wait - it because Dyson says he doesn't know much about global warming, but he knows that it is complicated!

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Feb 09, 2015
Hmmm... impacts glaciers does it?
Sounds like 30 year old news to me.

And the "warming" is an effect that MUST be much older than that to have the effects claimed now.

But by all means, keep arguing about it. Because, yes, I did predict this, 30 years ago, last week, two years ago, etc..

Feb 09, 2015
Well it better be warming, we are still coming out of an ice age!

Feb 09, 2015
The same could have been said about the Great Lakes water table, until it rebounded to near record levels in the past 2 years - due to record snowpacks and extremely cold temps freezing the lakes thus inhibiting winter evaporation.

It works both ways.

Feb 09, 2015
Yep, the Earth has been warming for the last 22,000 years, or so. You kind of got that idea from the scars left by ice sheets thousands of feet thick that used to cover the continents. Still, I'm not exactly sure how our prehistoric cavemen ancestors managed to get this global warming thing rolling, but I'm sure glad they did.

Feb 09, 2015
Yep, the Earth has been warming for the last 22,000 years, or so. You kind of got that idea from the scars left by ice sheets thousands of feet thick that used to cover the continents. Still, I'm not exactly sure how our prehistoric cavemen ancestors managed to get this global warming thing rolling, but I'm sure glad they did.


All those camp fires from hunting mammoths must have contributed a lot.

Feb 09, 2015
Glaciers are reforming. As we speak. In Boston.

Feb 10, 2015
Hey Shootist, check this out: http://www.dailyc...-warning Holy lord thundering jeesus Shootist, it's been going on for 50 years! What the hell have you been doing, letting all that conspiracy go on, not even saying anything?

Who did you vote for in 1964? Goldwater?

Feb 10, 2015
Another read for you Shootist, just in case you missed it elsewhere: http://ngm.nation...um=email

Feb 10, 2015
Article about why scientists have to adjust temperature data: http://theconvers...oo-36825

And an explanation about what Booker is actually doing (NB runrig has posted this one before as well): http://www.skepti...p?n=2841

And here is a good review of Bookers claims: https://andthenth...stments/

This paragraph from the article says it all:
His complaint overlooks the clear historical fact that skeptics, above all others, have made the loudest case for the need to adjust the temperature series. Over the years, it's been skeptics, who have made a vocal case for adjustments .

Feb 10, 2015
Maggnus, not sure why you thought those articles were relevant. One says LBJ warned us about CO2, the other asks why don't people care. The only thing that has changed since then is CARB and EPA regulations. Neither of which really has anything to do with this article beyond 'CO2 is bad'.

People don't care because in the 50 years since we were 'warned' the science is no more settled, and there is continually more evidence that shows we still have no clue how it truly works.

All we have done is create more complex models (which typically don't agree) of a system in which we have a loose correlation to GHGs.

Feb 10, 2015
Scroof, you bring up a god point.

The causes all sides are claiming are no mystery. Yet the effects are argued. 1 and 1 does not seem to be making 2, for either side.

If you say your effect is a non-dependent variable, like CO2, then you have a psychological effect like gambling. When it's up, you're happy, when it's down you're driven. But it has nothing to do with the randomness and everything to do with psychology.

The Earth is far too big to warm up because of man significantly. You would have to raise the average temperature of every molecule in the crust and ocean by that much energy. That means essentially raising the ocean temperature, raising the temperature of all the ice. Well, all the ice at 0C needs 333x more energy than other bits of water.

Bottom line, they are having us add apples and oranges. 1 apple + 1 orange still equals 1 apple and something non-germane.

It will take a long time before temp is affected. The environment is affected every day.

Feb 10, 2015
Maggnus, not sure why you thought those articles were relevant. **snip**
All we have done is create more complex models (which typically don't agree) of a system in which we have a loose correlation to GHGs.


They were relevant to the first poster, who makes disjointed attacks against that which he does not understand, and which was followed by a number of other deniers (not including Water Prffttt, who is wrong for other reasons) who all hopped aboard the bandwagen of "Let's claim all scientists are in league to put Democrats in charge of the UN World Control Council" like rats to garbage dump. The article about Johnson shows that the issue has been a concern for over 50 years at the highest levels, the second speaks to the mindset of those who deny facts and science in the face of all evidence, purely to support their political positions.

You almost fit there too.

The correlation is strong, not loose, but more importantly, the causation is clear.

Feb 10, 2015
the issue has been a concern for over 50 years at the highest levels

And they are still talking about it, accomplishing nearly nothing. A lot of good that 50 years has done us. If they were truly concerned, we wouldn't be using fossil fuels anymore. The technology has always been there, it's just that the profits haven't.
the second speaks to the mindset of those who deny facts and science in the face of all evidence, purely to support their political positions

These people are idiots. IMO anyone who just conforms to a party's belief just because the party says so are idiots. This breed is especially idiotic though since they deny the well observed truth of climate change.
The correlation is strong, not loose, but more importantly, the causation is clear

If this were true, and the "facts" were so undeniable, then why are there daily articles claiming there's "new evidence"?

New evidence is not required for a proven theory.

Feb 10, 2015
If this were true, and the "facts" were so undeniable, then why are there daily articles claiming there's "new evidence"?

New evidence is not required for a proven theory.
It's not evidence for the settled scientific fact that the climate is warming due to CO2 atmospheric loading, it is evidence of the effects of that warming.

The climate is an extremely complex, dynamic system. While it is certain there will be effects as a result of the warming, it is not so certain what the fine-grained details of those effects are. Each little bit adds a bit more understanding to that question.

Researchers are no longer trying to find evidence of warming. The evidence is everywhere.

Feb 11, 2015
Another response to Booker's manufactured conspiracy: http://www.thegua...e_btn_fb

Turns out, it is a zombie myth, previously slayed but brought back to life by ignorance and a desire for there to be some conspiracy.

Oh, and to sell newspapers.

Feb 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 11, 2015
"Proven theory" is an oxymoron.


True! Nice catch Zephyr. Although a strong consensus of scientists accepts that a theory is true, that does not equate to the statement that the theory is proven.

A better way to put it is that it is accepted as true only until better information comes along to disprove it.

Feb 12, 2015
"Proven theory" is an oxymoron

Ya, should have said 'accepted theory'.

settled scientific fact that the climate is warming due to CO2 atmospheric loading

Again, if it was "settled scientific fact" nobody would be questioning it.

Researchers are no longer trying to find evidence of warming. The evidence is everywhere.

Yet the evidence shows that using CO2 as the main facilitator of heat/climate is invalid, but 97% of scientists still claim that the theory is true. It's a blatant contradiction of the scientific method.


Feb 12, 2015
Yet the evidence shows that using CO2 as the main facilitator of heat/climate is invalid, but 97% of scientists still claim that the theory is true. It's a blatant contradiction of the scientific method.
What evidence scroof? 97% of climate scientists agree that CO2's heat trapping characteristics is the cause of the current phase of warming our climate is experiencing. See here: http://www.skepti...fect.htm or here: http://www.pa.msu...194.html or here: http://climate.na.../causes/ or here: http://www.epa.go...ses.html

Now, try to show me cites that say different.

Feb 12, 2015
Riddle me this: There is a direct linear correlation between US GDP and global temperature. Aside from the fact that I've been saying global warming (melting) is caused by heat, not CO2, and is related to combustion for 30 years now, why is no one else excited by this?

It's right here:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg
and
http://woodfortre...o:2014.9
to see the obvious correlation.

It is the end of your bickering, it is proof.

Feb 12, 2015
Riddle me this: There is a direct linear correlation between US GDP and global temperature. Aside from the fact that I've been saying global warming (melting) is caused by heat, not CO2, and is related to combustion for 30 years now, why is no one else excited by this?

It's right here:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg
to see the obvious correlation.

It is the end of your bickering, it is proof.


No one else is excited by this because it is wrong. You have been shown that there is not enough heat released by combustion to cause the increase in heat content we are presently experiencing. You have been shown the numbers.

You ignore CO2 even though you have been shown the effect of CO2 on IR emitted by the earth.

Correlation is not causation.

All you need to do is show causation numerically and people will take you more seriously.

Feb 12, 2015
We can't forget methane. 20X worse than CO2, meaning cow farts are deadlier than you'd expect...

http://www.epa.go...bal.html

http://epa.gov/cl...ch4.html

Feb 13, 2015
What evidence scroof?

The fact that our temps have leveled off despite a drastic rise in co2.
http://www.southw...ords.jpg
97% of climate scientists agree

You know what else has a 90% plus rating? Putin's approval rating...

Feb 13, 2015
The fact that our temps have leveled off despite a drastic rise in co2.
http://www.southw...ords.jpg
Well, considering that 2014 has been determined to be the hottest year ever recorded, and considering that 4 of the 5 hottest years ever recorded have been since 2005, and considering that 10 of the last 13 years have all occurred since 1997, and considering that 2015 is already shaping up to be the hottest year ever (and it's only February) I would suggest that you remove the blinders you seem to be wearing and realize that the so called "hiatus" is actually not a hiatus.

Yet, even if it were true, so what? CO2 caused warming IS NOT LINEAR. Because weather. http://www.skepti...iate.htm .

Either way, that is not evidence that CO2 doesn't trap heat.

Feb 13, 2015
And if you want a true correlation, here it is:
http://www.woodfo...rom:1800
As I have said numerous times, the oceans are the main drivers of climate.

And Sol's solar cycle is what drives the oceans.
http://www.landsc...node/302
Plenty of cites to substantiate, take your pick

Feb 13, 2015
that is not evidence that CO2 doesn't trap heat

I didn't say CO2 doesn't trap heat, and it would be false to believe so.

What you (and the AGW community) doesn't want to see is that CO2 is just a factor in the climate system, not THE factor.

Feb 13, 2015
The fraud against humanity continues.


"What do you get when you mix a governor, his ambitious fiancee, a billionaire environmentalist and some handsome green energy consulting contracts? In Oregon, they have collided to produce an influence-peddling scandal that threatens to end Gov. John Kitzhaber's tenure."
http://www.washin...yes-pro/

Feb 13, 2015
Will physorg post a link to this study?

"A soon to be published study in the journal Advances in Political Psychology found that skeptics of man-made global warming scored slightly better on questions about climate science than people who believe that humans are causing irreversible warming.'
http://dailycalle...warming/

Feb 13, 2015
ryg, please stop spamming political shit. It's annoying and unrelated to the topics at hand, i.e. science.

Feb 13, 2015
AGW is ALL about politics.

Feb 13, 2015
Sorry Scroof, you're absolutely right there, after the Sun, you can see a correlation between GDP and temp.. Thanks for the catch.

Feb 13, 2015
I didn't say CO2 doesn't trap heat, and it would be false to believe so.
Looking back, I have to agree. I stand corrected. You said this:
Yet the evidence shows that using CO2 as the main facilitator of heat/climate is invalid...
This is a case of not only not being right, it's not even wrong. CO2 is the main facilitator behind the current warming that is happening to the planet right now. Because it traps energy. Energy initially supplied by the sun.

What you (and the AGW community) doesn't want to see is that CO2 is just a factor in the climate system, not THE factor.
A large factor, given its ability to trap IR radiation resulting from solar heating. THE factor {sic} is, of course, the Sun.

But, and this is the gist, the Sun is not causing the current heating, CO2 (mostly) is. Read my cites, they explain it way better than I can in this venue.

Feb 13, 2015
And if you want a true correlation, here it is:
http://www.woodfo...rom:1800
What do you think that graph means?
As I have said numerous times, the oceans are the main drivers of climate.
Well, actually they are the main moderators of climate. See here for a good explanation. http://www.skepti...iate.htm
And Sol's solar cycle is what drives the oceans.
http://www.landsc...node/302

Well, not as it is laid out by Landscheidt. His ideas are pretty far out on the fringe.
Plenty of cites to substantiate, take your pick
I'm asking for your picks. The two in this comment aren't anything; an unexplained graph, and a link to a blog site are not cites Scroof.

Feb 13, 2015
We can't forget methane. 20X worse than CO2, meaning cow farts are deadlier than you'd expect...

http://www.epa.go...bal.html

& Let's not forget waver vapor, 40x more powerful and 20x more prevalent than CO2, and has even increased 3.2x more than CO2. And yet the Earth hasn't warmed.

Lets consider why...
If we look at clouds and evaporation being independent phenomenon from the Green House effect of water vapor, then anyone believing that CO2 changes the climate is wrong.


Feb 14, 2015
waver vapor, 40x more powerful and 20x more prevalent than CO2
@ALCHE/H20preachercrybabyTROLL
let us not forget that WV is linked WITH CO2 in a cycle that causes a higher effect due to the CO2, and you don't comprehend the physics behind the WV anyway, as proven time and again here on PO
http://www.scienc...abstract

Let us also see how you like to completely disregard the scientific FINDINGS from observation and measurement as well as utilisation of the KNOWN PHYSICS while you play stupid and link physics details you cannot comprehend

you have YET to support your position with any scientific studies, but you like to post about it

proof positive you are a TROLLING Pseudoscience idiot

Feb 14, 2015
Captain Special, still think Green Label V-8 is a killer?

Let's not forget, ANYONE can make their OWN judgment with the information I provided. They can make their own scientific findings. And, with a very little bit of thought, see right through your misconstrue.

http://en.wikiped...otential

Indeed, you may bury this with your BS again, but anyone can run an experiment right in their own homes dispelling the CO2 myth.

CO2 levels in the home are 3-4x higher than outdoors. Humidity is controlled by your AC to about 40%. CO2 is ~400ppm outdoors, humidity; look on weather.com.

Set your thermostat to equal outdoor temperature. See how warm it feels. Turn on stove burners, and measure how hot they feel at given distances. Rate them.

Now open doors and windows, and do the same things.

CO2 has dropped dramatically, and you can draw your own conclusions.

Feb 14, 2015
You can greatly enhance your ability by buying a CO2 meter with humidity functions, and a children's (sonic) humidifier.

Run all kinds of experiments, validate them, and BE experts.

Rather than listening to self-proclaimed demagogues.

Feb 14, 2015
Researchers find new evidence of warming
Of course they did. This is pure confirmation bias, at work.

The folks I want to hear from are the ones looking for signs of cooling ...the folks studying growing glaciers and severe winters and such. Where are they? What are they finding?

...Wait ...what do you mean no one is interested in these studies...?


Feb 14, 2015
Let's not forget, ANYONE can make their OWN judgment with the information I provided
@ALCHE
yep, they do: https://sciencex....t/?v=act
They can make their own scientific findings
No, they can either make observations or review them, UNLESS they are scientists publishing, they cant make findings

just like your comments are nothing but talking without knowledge, which is what i already pointed out
again, where exactly in the study i linked (here it is again: http://www.scienc...abstract ) is it wrong?

if you know anything about physics, it should be easy... but you will not be able to refute the study because, as you showed already when being debunked by Thermo, you don't know physics nor how it interacts (as i pointed out already, as well as pointed out that the study shows you HOW it interacts as well as WHY)

go back to your brass bowl

Feb 14, 2015
Stumpy, you must be a bureaucrat; someone who doesn't think they have the power to do or learn something unless it comes from some authority.

I, on the other hand, have occasionally, BEEN the authority, and know about other authorities. Your John Cook, from skeptigarbage after all stole a concept of mine and twisted it to his own purpose. Without even citing me.

I have faith, anyone can run an experiment.

And yes Stumps, your study is wrong, I have probably gone into the reasoning in this and many other posts, which you ignore or run away from.

](*,)

Feb 15, 2015
unless it comes from some authority
WRONG
unless it comes from SCIENCE and has verifiable and validated EVIDENCE
none of which your stupidity has, by the way
I, on the other hand, have occasionally, BEEN the authority
Appeal to self-authority fallacy WITHOUT EVIDENCE
so what? i have been an authority too...
it means ZERO in a discussion regarding evidence and science, especially when your "authority" is proved to be fallacious by your lack of comprehension of the physics which are OBSERVED and PROVEN (my terminology) in a STUDY!
your study is wrong
and you have never ONCE been able to provide ANY evidence that we can take to the authors and say "perhaps you need to correct this or retract the study"

ALL you have given is YOUR SPECULATION, and it is not backed up by physics or science

Therefore, i ask again:

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE that the study is wrong?
prove you historically debunked that study

IF you have it, PROVIDE IT
HERE - IN THIS THREAD


Feb 15, 2015
The root cause of the blindness experienced by the likes of Cap'n Stupid, thermodumbonics, and maggnuts types...

http://www.tomato...rds.html


Feb 15, 2015
Water_Prophet shows his immense ignorance with this very stupid claim
You can greatly enhance your ability by buying a CO2 meter with humidity functions, and a children's (sonic) humidifier
No !

This is the dumbest thing any person like you who claimed to have a degree in Physical Chemistry ever uttered !

You have been told before about the Path Length & Beer-Lambert by runrig iirc and it shows you have ignored and or marginalized such input designed to EDUCATE you !

Your post shows unequivocally you CANNOT understand "Experimental Methodology".

This {yet again} shows clearly your claim to be a Physical Chemist (PC) is completely BOGUS.

Work out the CO2 vs Water Vapour interference of Long Wave to space, just as I have asked you many times, then you just might gain an understanding of why you so far look so stupid !

How is it a claimed PC does not know basic Experimental Methodology and thus any so called results are completely flawed ?

Feb 15, 2015
The proof is very very very simple.

But evidence; it is not complicated. Water Vapor's physical properties are the counter to your "magical study." As the truth is to most fantasies. I've already gone onto the fallacies of the study, but those are just arguments? right?

But focusing on the truth, rather than twisting details should clear this up:

Water Vapor is 40x more powerful, 20x more prevalent than CO2, it has increased 320% more, THESE THREE THINGS ARE FACT, and it's condensation properties affect CO2, and WV alike. This to is a fact.

Stumpy-
I'd say that even you could understand it, but I'm guessing that's NOT what you're paid for, is it?

It is these facts that make your study unworthy to wrap fish with. Are there any other POSSIBLE perspectives? Other than whining is not fair that the facts disagree with your opinion?

Oh,
http://en.wikiped...r_vapour

and my mistake, it looks like on average WV is 45x more prevalent.

Feb 15, 2015
Water Vapor's physical properties are the counter to your "magical study."
@ALCHE
WV is INCLUDED in the study
I've already gone onto the fallacies of the study, but those are just arguments? right?
No, you've never made anything but conjecture regarding the study
you've never ONCE provided logical point specific arguments regarding the study proving where ANY of it is wrong...therefore you give only CONJECTURE (as in unscientific personal opinion without evidence)
Are there any other POSSIBLE perspectives?
with regard to science, there is what can be demonstrated and what we have evidence to support, and there is everything else

I don't get paid, like you do ( http://www.drexel...nge.ashx )

with regard to your link
HOW does it refute the study?
WHERE does it refute the study?
the STUDY included all relevant physics information for CO2 and WV as well as their interaction

Feb 15, 2015
But focusing on the truth, rather than twisting details should clear this up:
@ALCHE
that is actually what i am trying to get YOU to do, BTW

Again, let me link the study: http://www.scienc...abstract

WHERE EXACTLY is the study wrong?
Where EXACTLY is the physics wrong?
Which OBSERVATION was wrong?
what details were left out making this WRONG?
be specific, which you never have done before...
you like to EVADE the point, or simply add your WIKI link...

If i copy and paste your comments above into an e-mail to the Author, will you be able to convince the author of your argument?
can you PROVE via the SCIENTIFIC METHOD that you are correct?
Can you prove the study is WRONG?

specifically say WHAT WAS WRONG so that i can forward your complaint to SCIENCEMAG or even AAAS and get an answer


Feb 15, 2015
POST SCRIPT to ALCHE

It is these facts that make your study unworthy to wrap fish with
just FYI, i am compiling all your posts that "supposedly" undermine the study i linked and "prove" (in your opinion/delusion) that the study is flawed and wrong, and i will be posting them to the AAAS study (which you can view on line here: http://www.scienc...abstract ) as well as e-mailing them to the author for refute

Please be as specific as you can so that the author doesn't just laugh at you and set them aside as pseudoscience spam... there MUST be technical details in the post that the author can refer to for either acceptance or refute

This will also demonstrate your knowledge to everyone here and prove your competence with regard to the physics/chemistry which you have claimed in the past

so far, all i got is the one post above... that might not be good enough

anything else?

keep it coming! thanks!
(typing the disclaimer for it now)

Feb 15, 2015
I don't want to repeat my self Stumps, please see above. It has to do with what a GHG is, how much more WV there is, how much more it has changed.

It is simple. If CO2 amplifies temperature via insulation, then it somehow released 230% more H2O. If it released a GHG 40x more powerful than it, feedback would have continued. Minimally, 100x more. That didn't happen. If you assume it did, then CO2's effects are even smaller. BUT if they are that small, they CAN'T cause the feedback, because the WV trumps overwhelmingly.

And condensation/evaporation effects trump both of these effects, so neither matters.

It's simple math. How am I supposed to cite it? Even you should be able to follow it.

Please send it off to the AAAS.

Feb 15, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
If CO2 amplifies temperature via insulation, then it somehow released 230% more H2O
What does this "amplifies temperature" mean re Science ?

Temperature has specific relationship with specific heat & energy, so what the f..k r u trying to say ?

Besides u STILL haven't quantified actual amount of ENERGY CO2 vs H2O interfering with Long Wave (LW) emission to Space.

ie Watts per square meter & where possible (if u are smarter) per ppm as well !

Vague qualitative comments don't cut it, a Physical Chemist wouldn't do that, Y can't U make ANY quantitative energy assessments ?

Such that u can demonstrate your claim CO2 is "anemic" & a "red herring" ?

Water_Prophet, H20 & CO2 have different IR absorbancy/re-radiation bands, Y can U NOT show the comparative energies & close the issue once & for all & show WHY such IR interference is LESS than your claim its only heat causing AGW at 0.1% of TSI ?

Surely a PC can, Y can't U ?

Feb 15, 2015
I've already gone onto the fallacies of the study, but those are just arguments? right?

No, you've never made anything but conjecture regarding the study
you've never ONCE provided logical point specific arguments regarding the study proving where ANY of it is wrong...therefore you give only CONJECTURE (as in unscientific personal opinion without evidence)
To reiterate, he has never once, not one single time, ever, provided any evidence what so ever that anything known about CO2 IR absorption, nor the affects of water vapour, nor any other scientific fact is incorrect in any way.

Never. Not once.

Feb 15, 2015
Never. Not once.
@Maggnus
Yep, that is MY point exactly!
Never ONCE has he provided ANY of the above mentioned!
Even though I've asked (as well as you and Thermo and many others) for the data many times!

I don't want to repeat my self Stumps, please see above. It has to do with what a GHG is, how much more WV there is, how much more it has changed.
@ALCHE
further input for AAAS/ScienceMag

I will include this post VERBATIM
that is a total of THREE posts... if you have anything else included here Monday morning, London Time, of course, i will also include it when i post to AAAS/ScienceMag

If there is any limitation to the post i will simply break it up, and i will also include them in the e-mail to the author (for clarity)
Verbatim, of course

Feb 15, 2015
I swear, guys, the reason you don't understand is because you're monkeys looking at a wrist watch.

I can and have explained Relativity to a high schooler, global warming to many people, without CO2, and they get it. Many an "oh yeah," have I received. I am familiar with the main stream science. You won't even comprehend the application of physical properties.

The three of you. You don't get it, obviously because you cannot.

Feb 15, 2015
I swear, guys, the reason you don't understand is because you're monkeys looking at a wrist watch.
No, the reason is because it doesn't make sense. Because your idea is wrong.

I can and have explained Relativity to a high schooler, global warming to many people, without CO2, and they get it. Many an "oh yeah," have I received. I am familiar with the main stream science. You won't even comprehend the application of physical properties.
Funny that, and I bet they were all highschool students who said the "Oh yeah". You have been posting here for a couple of years, at least, and I have never, not once, seen anyone agree with you. Never. Not once. Seem to get to say that a lot when you are involved.

The three of you. You don't get it, obviously because you cannot.
Not the three of us, everyone. Except, apparently, high school students. Who will also see you are full of shit, once they take grade 10 physics. Because your idea is wrong.

Feb 16, 2015
Water_Prophet CAUGHT so tries to deflect
I swear, guys, the reason you don't understand is because you're monkeys looking at a wrist watch
Why can't u focus on the Science, where have u EVER compared watts per square meter for water with CO2 ?

Or offered equation linking ppm <--> W/m^2 ?

Why haven't u noticed water & CO2 have DIFFERENT absorbance/re-radiation bands:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

U look so naive & IMMATURE with childish attempt to deflect, u r the one that cannot understand Infra-Red, vibrational states, spectra, path-length, if u did then u would accept investigation of thousands of scientists who for several decades accept greenhouse gases have IRREFUTABLE thermal properties !

Water_Prophet claimed
I can and have explained Relativity to a high schooler
So what, its simple ?

Y can't Water_Prophet focus on the core physics, part of training for Physical Chemistry ?

Details for GHG watts/m^2 related to ppm

Y can't U ?

Feb 16, 2015
Quantitative:
Water Vapor has increased 435 ppm. CO2 135ppm.
Water Vapor had two broad bands in the thermal IR, and has continuous small absorption everywhere.

CO2 has one narrow band.

Concentration effects of 20-45x that of CO2 mean via Beers Law, that even a 4 absorbency equals (or exceeds) CO2 peak absorbency.

This covers all your IR, spectra, path-length, etc., concerns. Please use the website you site above to confirm this. Can't do it, right? It's easy. Beer's Law, look it up. CO2 absorbence: Read it off the chart. WV, apply a concentration, here, use [H2O]/[CO2] = 20.

It is so not complicated. You simply come up with what I've been telling you. And this is all quantitative, and answers all your questions. If you weren't a monkey looking at a wristwatch.

Which is the real "paid shill" problem isn't it?

Feb 16, 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

Indeed, you may bury this with your BS again, but anyone can run an experiment right in their own homes dispelling the CO2 myth.

CO2 levels in the home are 3-4x higher than outdoors. Humidity is controlled by your AC to about 40%. CO2 is ~400ppm outdoors, humidity; look on weather.com.

Set your thermostat to equal outdoor temperature. See how warm it feels. Turn on stove burners, and measure how hot they feel at given distances. Rate them.

Now open doors and windows, and do the same things.

CO2 has dropped dramatically, and you can draw your own conclusions.


What was the response to this? People can't run their own experiments?
Sheesh. How do you sleep at nights willfully deceiving folks?

Feb 16, 2015
@Water_Prophet
Your ignorance of energy & freq in spectra is IMMENSE. I re-iterate my question, any Physical Chemist (PC) *should* be able to address head on - Y can't U ?

My question again
Why can't u focus on the Science, where have u EVER compared watts per square meter for water with CO2 ?
Or offered equation linking ppm <--> W/m^2 ?
FFS - Look at the spectra, here:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Now be smarter to do the proper quantitative comparison, ppm doesnt cut it as ANY PC would KNOW full well but U don't, obviously because yu LIED about qualifications !.

Also U ignore Path-Length IN arbitrary (home) experiment.

PROVES u have no science training, because if you did u would understand & be able to address "Experimental Methodology".

U haven't accounted for the wavenumber in the link, WHY ignore it ?

Focusing ONLY on ppm makes u a complete LIAR, grow up !

Show watts/m^2 of H2O & CO2 for ppm vs claimed 0.1% TSI heat

Y can't U ?

Feb 16, 2015
So, Maggie, U copy and paste your previous responses? It looks like Stumps does to-that must save time. Your employer must be proud of your innovation! Saves time!

Most of your questions can be answered in that I don't pay attention to non-germane variables.

Now liars, do focus on things that sound related, aren't and try to draw conclusions off of them to prove non-existent points.

If the post 2 up doesn't answer your questions, nothing will. It's the monkey looking at a wristwatch phenomenon. They don't understand it, so they try to eat it, or poop on it.

You, I'm guessing, usually do that in reverse order.

Feb 16, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
What was the response to this? People can't run their own experiments?
Sheesh. How do you sleep at nights willfully deceiving folks?
No. People are generally not Scientists & know nothing of "Experimental Methodology"

U claimed to have a degree as a Physical Chemist (PC) but, you have shown immense naivety & ignorance of "Experimental Methodology"

U won't find bullet points on google etc It comes from a COURSE in physics & chemistry WITH laboratory experience AND with probability & statistics WHICH is trained in conjunction with critical analysis, ALL of which you lack !

WHY do U ignore FACT hundreds of well trained Scientists accept thermal properties of CO2 & its relationship with H2O & accept cumulative factor re LW emission to space is greater than the 0.1% TSI U focused on - which I add was prompted by me, Y because it was the simplest issue I could find to allow U to work out a starting point - doh !

Y ignore w/m^2 ?

Feb 16, 2015
Water_Prophet so easily PROVES Nil training in Physics & Chemistry essentials with this RANT
Most of your questions can be answered in that I don't pay attention to non-germane variables.
Now liars, do focus on things that sound related, aren't and try to draw conclusions off of them to prove non-existent points.
If the post 2 up doesn't answer your questions, nothing will. It's the monkey looking at a wristwatch phenomenon. They don't understand it, so they try to eat it, or poop on it.
You, I'm guessing, usually do that in reverse order
Y did U willfully IGNORE W/m^2 ?

Is it because your NIL necessary training in your claimed degree in Physical Chemistry ?

Will it show your focus on ppm is completely WRONG ?

Will it show your focus on 0.1% TSI as heat cause completely WRONG ?

Y can't U ?

Do U want a clue as to Y u need to work out Watts/m^2 - doh ?

A Physical Chemist can, doh because they are trained with ALL necessary pre-requisites ?

Y can't U ?

Feb 16, 2015
What was the response to this? People can't run their own experiments?
Sheesh. How do you sleep at nights willfully deceiving folks?
ALCHE
INCLUDING these last 2 posts to the inquiry
I would like to post some info to your reply to Maggnus:
First, you do NOT take into consideration the multiple heat sources with regard to your model, nor the fluctuations that people will see with the different secondary heat sources they will be providing (assuming that there are no tertiary sources like incandescent bulbs, used in many places still)

Second- the experiment may be done, but it is NOT controlled, and there is no control to measure against either

third- there are NO allowances for the complexities, from vulcanism to the heat sink of the oceans, nor the micro-climates known to exist or the jet stream, tradce winds or ANY winds for that matter

so- your "experiment" is a failure in design, not execution
THAT is what he meant, IMHO

Feb 16, 2015
It looks like Stumps does to-that must save time
@ALCHE
i've only ever used that tactic with ONE person, Poopytech
and that is because he kept copy/pasting his argument first, and FAILED to read the responses the first time they were addressed

At that point, there was NO reason to continue to post responses because he was NOT reading them anyway
Now liars, do focus on things that sound related, aren't and try to draw conclusions off of them to prove non-existent points.
this is the point MIKE and MAGGNUS are trying to make with regard to you, but you are not listening

which is why you will be made a fool of with your own words when i post these to AAAS
i will include your facebook link you've left in the past: https://www.faceb...4557455/

Because YOU have referenced it as ALCHE and claim it supports your waterbowl philosophy

PS. above... your waterbowl experiment is what i am referring to

Feb 16, 2015
Quantitative:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
This covers all your IR, spectra, path-length, etc., concerns. Please use the website you site above to confirm this. Can't do it, right? It's easy. Beer's Law, look it up. CO2 absorbence: Read it off the chart. WV, apply a concentration, here, use [H2O]/[CO2] = 20.

It is so not complicated. You simply come up with what I've been telling you. And this is all quantitative, and answers all your questions. If you weren't a monkey looking at a wristwatch.

Which is the real "paid shill" problem isn't it?
@ALCHE
just FYI
I will use this as your LEAD OFF post explaining the problems with the study, then include the others in order of post date
THANKS

Feb 16, 2015
Don't use multiple sources! Only an idiot would assume I don't COUNT on them! You're faith in your fellow poster is amazing. Highschooler are EXPECTED to be able to use the Scientific Method.

You want citations? I think this one irrefutably exemplifies your posts.

https://www.youtu...y2MPT5RE

Feb 16, 2015
Don't use multiple sources!
@ALCHE
oh, lets back up a minute... you are saying NOT to use the candle on your brass waterbowl?

negate THAT source of heat? is THAT what you are saying?
because you are NOT considering ALL sources of heat with regard to your brass bowl

do you even have a CLUE as to what i mean by secondary and tertiary heat sources that you've not considered in this experiment?

P.S. I do not ever watch youtube links used as references in a scientific debate UNLESS it is linked WITHIN a study

Also, feel free to send me your e-mail if you want a direct reply re: the submission

Feb 16, 2015
@ALCHE
for starters-
ADDENDUM: due to the nature of the article on AAAS/ScienceMag as well as giss.NASA.gov, both articles are closed for commenting at this time as the original paper was submitted Science 15 October 2010:

Also note: there have been NO retractions of this paper
there have been NO papers submitted refuting this paper
(considering you are saying that basic physics properties refutes the paper, i find it highly irregular that this was not refuted by ANY physicists... IF what you say is true, that is)

your information and "refute" was submitted VERBATIM to the author directly as well as to the SITE (AAAS/ScienceMag and giss.NASA.gov) for review and possible refute. As i stated that i am NOT the origin of the posts and link you & your FB page in a disclaimer, then you may receive a reply directly

If it comes to me, I will post it here VERBATIM (excluding any personal information)
I gave you ALL the credit for your posts

Feb 16, 2015
Water_Prophet, who claims a university degree in Physical Chemistry (PC) offers this further distraction & PROOF he is STUPID !
Don't use multiple sources! Only an idiot would assume I don't COUNT on them! You're faith in your fellow poster is amazing. Highschooler are EXPECTED to be able to use the Scientific Method
WHERE is your proof of your claim CO2 is a "red-herring" & your claim its "anemic" re LW to space ?

Y can't U a Physical Chemist do straightforward calculation of Watts per square meter LW ?

Why can't U understand this link from thermodynamics or runrig ?
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Y can't U clearly prove your erroneous claim CO2 is a "red-herring" ?

U as a PC SHOULD know ppm comparison is WRONG !

Spectra of H2O & CO2 have DIFFERENT bands, yet U cannot ADD power of LW to space !

Y can't U do it, when U claim to be a PC ?

R U ill or disabled as U naively attempt immature distraction (AGAIN) ?

Feb 16, 2015
@ALCHE
for two
Don't use multiple sources!
but YOU are using multiple heat sources
Only an idiot would assume I don't COUNT on them!
as in your heat sources? you INCLUDED the room temperature? Heat from lights? wind cooling? fans? etc etc etc?
You're faith in your fellow poster is amazing.
because i know him, his education and his business he owns
Highschooler are EXPECTED to be able to use the Scientific Method
he/I graduated college, and you CLAIM to be a college grad in physics, chemistry and more... and yet your "experiment" is rife with errors that are not corrected
1- you don't take all sourcew of heat into consideration
2- you have NO control
3- you don't make measurements or tell HOW measurements were taken
4- you claim infallible predictability but not HOW you use the "experiment" to do this
5- you make NO observations or historical predictions that are linked to prove ANY points made

and then there is your ignorance of physics
and MORE


Feb 16, 2015
Captain Can'tRead.

Why should I post anything if you can't be bothered to pay attention?

Maggie:
As for the experiment: Um... yeah, anyone running the experiment can figure that out-I assume they're not dumb.

Tell you what, there are many non-climate related things that can't be googled in Physical Chemistry. I am 100% certain, there is no problem in P Chem. etc., that you can ask I can't answer.

Ask me something-go to a library get something on transition metal color, or steric effects, or quantitative application of molecular orbital theory. Anything. Just make sure it can't be googled. Don't worry, there are literally an infinite number of challenges you can come up with. But mind, I am not going to rummage around in Journal articles for you, that would only prove I can reference someone else anyway.

Challenge declined with incoherent rationalizations? I figured.

Feb 16, 2015
Why should I post anything if you can't be bothered to pay attention?
@ALCHE
where have i not paid attention?
YOU are the one who made the claims about your water bowl, but have never once... and i !!mean!!
-NEVER ONCE-
provided ANY evidence of ANY historical prediction your waterbowl made while also not providing ANY proof of anything, including your statements regarding your "debunking" of studies...

so the onus for the grandiose claims is upon YOU to provide evidence or to provide information as YOU are the only one making any claims that are against the proven science

this is the argument all you pseudoscience idiots make as well
you seem to think that just because you "SAY" something is correct, it must be so
SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE
and you've provided NONE

feel free to counter the claim by providing answers, rationale etc to my refute of your "experiment" above

Feb 16, 2015
Water_Prophet spoke idiocy and claimed
Challenge declined with incoherent rationalizations? I figured.
So, then WHY can't you quantify Watts per square meter of LW to space per unit ppm ?

U claimed CO@ is "anemic" and a "red-herring" so Y do you avoid doing what a Physical Chemist SHOULD know how to do ?

Y can't U ?

Feb 16, 2015
Mike_
Because no matter what I say in the realm of climate, you'll go all incoherent on it. Besides, I'm pretty sure I can google Watts per square meter of LW into space... in fact I can just use blackbody radiation, Wein's Law, Plank's Law, etc.. It's not going to reveal anything, and is sophomore-level.

Give me a tough problem in Physical Chemistry, that's what you're saying right?-I am a charlatan? There are an infinite number of them. Surely there is something you'd enjoy knowing from that realm? Ask. Just make it non-google-able. I take pride in explaining even complicated aspects of science so that they can be understood by anyone. Even you.

Feb 16, 2015
So I know you've seen my challenge; you gave it a "1."

Runrig, Stumpy, Masen, why does everybody rabbit when called, then repeat the same BS as if it hadn't happened?

Feb 17, 2015
Water_Prophet deflects again
Because no matter what I say in the realm of climate, you'll go all incoherent on it
No, because it would be "definitive" - heard of that word ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Besides, I'm pretty sure I can google Watts per square meter of LW into space.
But, U DIDNT did U ?

Proving u NEVER understood fundamentals AND the process, which again adds to PROOF u could NOT have graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC).

U made a claim CO2 is "anemic" & "red-herring", so OBVIOUSLY the onus (& protocol) is on U to prove it by the best (trained) method of quantification ie W/m^2

But, u evaded, instead claim relative qty of ppm/multipliers which is WRONG, PC knows this !

U evade issue re Earth's energy flow AND being identified with appropriate units in W/m^2.

If u can find proof CO2 is a "red-herring" then go ahead. The DEFINITIVE fact YOU couldn't address it at all unless specifically pressed adds further PROOF u r a LIAR being a PC !

Feb 17, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Give me a tough problem in Physical Chemistry, that's what you're saying right?-I am a charlatan? ... Ask. Just make it non-google-able
NP, accepted, here:-

"Derive the interaction thermodynamics equation relating unit ppm to delta thermal resistivity re primary greenhouse gases H2O/CO2"

PC knows very well the procedure, especially as PC's gain a VERY good understanding of calculus re energy/spectra, reaction rates. Answer doesn't have to go to probabilistic intermediate reaction species as heat is fundamental to preliminaries of chemistry, Eg Reactant's potential energy, phase, delta specific heats...

Water_Prophet claimed
I take pride in explaining even complicated aspects of science so that they can be understood by anyone
Pride goes before a fall, U failed dismally !

Eg. U FAILED in details (& Math) re your claim your brass bowl (heated below) can predict the 1998 "pause" or rather the shifts in thermal flow Eg Enso ?

Caught !

Feb 17, 2015
why does everybody rabbit when called
@ALCHE
WTF are you on about?
the ONLY person here who rabbits when called on a topic is YOU
in fact, you got schooled so hard last time you changed your log-in name to h2o_preacher!
then repeat the same BS as if it hadn't happened?
again, this is nonsensical
first of all, you've never called anyone on anything (who was still in the conversation with you)

i've noticed you like to wait a few months and just before a thread closes out you might pop back and make some comment, but that is not "calling someone out"

that is cowardice

Mike gave you a problem above, have at it pseudoscience-boy

Feb 17, 2015
No Mike. U no that even if i did do your climate study, WHEN the answer came out contrary to what your pseudo-religious belief about climate change were, U'd discredit it.

Any time U want to come up with a challenge NEUTRAL to your incredible ignorance and bias, i'm game.

Ah, but then you wouldn't be able to say I was a charlatan. Quelle dilemma.

Regardless the challenge is out, and you will only run like a scared Stumpy from it.

Feb 17, 2015
the ONLY person here who rabbits when called on a topic is YOU
in fact, you got schooled so hard last time you changed your log-in name to h2o_preacher!
Well, after he first stomped his feet, then tried to change the ground rules, then tried to circumvent the ground rules, then tried to claim victory before the exercise was even half over, then threw a fit and accused everyone of trying to undermine him, then stamped his feet some more, then tried again to claim a victory before the numbers were even run, then finally quit responding - and THEN he changed his handle and pretended to be someone else.

And nothing has changed. He has never once, not one single time, ever in his entire posting history here, never once provided evidence that his theory of mechanical heating of the atmosphere is stronger than the heat trapping effects of CO2.

Never. Not once.

Feb 17, 2015
then tried to claim victory before the exercise was even half over
@Maggnus
more like just getting warmed up, really... but you are completely correct!
which is WHY he bailed on ALCHE and went to h20CryBaby!
it bears repeating, so i will post it again, in Maggnus own words, because it is 100% accurate
And nothing has changed. He has never once, not one single time, ever in his entire posting history here, never once provided evidence that his theory of mechanical heating of the atmosphere is stronger than the heat trapping effects of CO2.

Never. Not once.

ALCHE is not only a pseudoscience idiot, but one that CLAIMS to be educated in a scientific field but somehow cannot comprehend the physics of why he is wrong, even when EXPLAINED to him!

THANKS MAGGNUS

Feb 17, 2015
1. You are monkeys looking at a wristwatch, you don't understand it, therefor my explanation is useless.

Here, many others on the site use my proofs. So, they must have made traction somewhere. Just not skeptigoons.

And the ground rules remained the same, Mikey kept ignoring them: Keep thrashing like a fish on the hook. You and your other skeptigoons will believe you.

If you do give me a challenge, a neutral challenge, you KNOW I will be able to chew it up, even perhaps enjoy it, and that's what you fear like a Stumpy in a thunderstorm.

YOU DA BEST MAGGNUS
I don't care if you didn't know what a mole was just a few months ago, I think I speak for everyone on the forum when I express full confidence in your technical acumen. You've probably learned so much in those few months, far more than myself, who has been using the mole for almost 30 years.

Feb 17, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
.. came out contrary to what your pseudo-religious belief about climate change were, U'd discredit it
No & for OBVIOUS reasons ANY uni trained graduate would KNOW, except U it seems :-)

IEg in context heard of applicables such as; Provenance, definitive, derived, quantitative ?

If basis is sound in PHYSICS then I would be STUPID to discredit it wouldn't I & ESPECIALLY so as you'd OBVIOUSLY run it through a trial run or two Eg Via excel with existing data - DOH !

Its a clear logic contradiction catching u out !

AND

When quizzed to prove your dumb claim re CO2 re an empirically provable Science relationship u claim its a "pseudo-religious" belief, your tactic also PROVES u have NIL Physics training !

Like shooting fish in a barrel Water_Prophet, so easy to catch U out whether historically; U forget what you've written earlier, evade physics fundamentals & anything requiring applicable maths u can't find easily on google, sad !

cont

Feb 17, 2015
you don't understand it, therefor my explanation is useless
@alche
no, you have that backwards
YOU don't understand it and thus you are transferring your inadequacies and fears onto us
if you were the "great explainer" you present yourself as, you would be able to explain it
many others on the site use my proofs
if they use your "proofs", then it is because they are looking for an excuse not to accept the science behind the climate change situation

that means they've A:READY decided to ignore the physics and science, therefore ANY proof that even sounds science-like will be accepted

This is the fallacy of the denier and the pseudoscience acolyte, as well as your own Dunning-Kruger issue, not ours
you fear like a Stumpy in a thunderstorm
actually, i love thunderstorms
I am the Wakinyan, or did you not know that?
YOU DA BEST MAGGNUS
He is definitely a great TROLL hunter
pointed you out as the ALCHE-troll!
at least he demonstrates actual SCIENCE

Feb 17, 2015
cont

Water_Prophet claimed
Any time U want to come up with a challenge NEUTRAL to your incredible ignorance and bias, i'm game
Such attempt at deflection again goes to PROVE u don't understand Physics or the Protocol to qualify your claim.

Obvious u r qualitatively attempting to connect an irrelevant term "neutral" with assumption of my education. Mature people with degrees in Science DO NOT ever do this !

U are caught out AGAIN but, I will give u a good chance to cover your IQ with a simple proposition u can either accept or reject, if u don't reply then it can only prove a specific facet of your educational provenance. Lets see how smart u r in prelim qualitative steps directed towards a quantitative calculable verifiable position to progress the Science, NOT your ego !

"Is there a relationship between GHG concentration & its atmospheric thermal resistivity ?"

What say u Water_Prophet, it is a VERY simple question, either: Yes or No ?

Which ?

Feb 17, 2015
Elsewhere Water_Prophet claims
Mikey-You already know whatever I put down in climate science you will contest, so it has to be neutral to your own biased opinion, besides, again, that is HARDLY graduate level science
No. NOT climate Sc, OBVIOUSLY it addresses an empirically based equation relating unit qtys, simple & completely neutral re climate or me !

Your claim NOT graduate is WRONG, requires uni physics/calculus !

Water_Prophet
So, try again. Physical Chemistry. Can't do it, can you?
A feeble attempt at deflection makes u look very stupid, its also tactics a graduate Physical Chemist (PC) with Physics training would NOT do !

I never claimed to be a Physical Chemist but, have idea to test YOU, based upon fundamentals re PC training which SHOULD be "right up your alley" :-)

But, to be clear to everyone observing your evasion first verify u do accept terms & definition re vocation as a real PC does:-

http://en.wikiped...hemistry

?

Feb 17, 2015
You've written like four books on why you won't give me a PChem challenge outside the realm of climate science.

Wouldn't it be easier to give me a PChem challenge outside the realm of climate science?

PS: Out of the respect I have gained for you, I would NEVER attach the word "neutral," to my assessment of your education. You know very well, from my posts; any words I'd attach to my estimate of your education, would be "lack of."

Feb 17, 2015
I don't care if you didn't know what a mole was just a few months ago, I think I speak for everyone on the forum when I express full confidence in your technical acumen. You've probably learned so much in those few months, far more than myself, who has been using the mole for almost 30 years.
Oh yea, thnks for reminding me. While the tempest in a teapot was busily trying to undermine the collaboration he initiated, he claimed to have "won" (how one "wins" a collaboration is beyond me, but I digress) and threw out a bunch of disjointed numbers and nugatory claims. I tried to get him to explain himself, by asking a series of questions in the hopes that he would show some integrity and try to answer them. One of those questioned his use of mole. Guess I should have said why, not what. How he gets that I didn't understand what mole means is beyond me, but he sure does like to pretend he "caught" me or some such. It's just more evidence of his duplicity.

Feb 17, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
You've written like four books on why you won't give me a PChem challenge outside the realm of climate science.
Wouldn't it be easier to give me a PChem challenge outside the realm of climate science?
PS: Out of the respect I have gained for you, I would NEVER attach the word "neutral," to my assessment of your education. You know very well, from my posts; any words I'd attach to my estimate of your education, would be "lack of."
You are a complete liar & idiot PROVEN !

The science u SHOULD know to do as a PC can be applied anywhere, interaction between concentrations in gases re partial pressures & IR properties is applicable anywhere. There is NOTHING making it "special" for climate change related topic, U SHOULD know that as PC ?

Y don't U know that ?

Answer my questions like a good little fetus or go away, u are caught out so MANY times !

Hey browse all my other posts on other topics, I am so way ahead of u in so many ways :-)

Feb 17, 2015
My question for Water_Prophet
But, to be clear to everyone observing your evasion first verify u do accept terms & definition re vocation as a real PC does:-
https://en.wikipe...hemistry]https://en.wikipe...hemistry[/url]]https://en.wikipe...hemistry[/url]
?
This is your very obvious pattern.

When asked a direct question re your claimed degree yU ignore it & instead make irrelevant claims, u CANNOT answer simple direct questions in your claimed degree - why ?

It appears as if you are caught yet AGAIN !!!

So, as a claimed Physical Chemist, is your particular training commensurate with this definition:-
https://en.wikipe...hemistry]https://en.wikipe...hemistry[/url]]https://en.wikipe...hemistry[/url]

Obviously it SHOULD be as the uni definitions r global but, I will give yu a chance to exclude an issue u have missed in a lecture or failed to pass in or needed a supplementary due to illness at a main exam.

So tell re Physical Chemistry https://en.wikipe...hemistry]https://en.wikipe...hemistry[/url]]https://en.wikipe...hemistry[/url]

R U or R U not educated in this field re a degree with ALL it implies ?

Feb 17, 2015
last bad links

Question to Water_Prophet
To be clear to everyone observing your evasion first verify u accept terms/definition re vocation as real PC does:-
https://en.wikipe...hemistry
?
This is your very obvious pattern.

When asked direct question re your claimed degree U ignore it & instead make irrelevant claims, u CANNOT answer simple direct questions in your claimed degree - why ?

It appears u are caught out yet AGAIN !

So, as a claimed Physical Chemist, is your particular training commensurate with the definition in link I supplied above ?

Obviously it SHOULD be as the uni definitions r global but, I will give u a chance to exclude an issue u missed in a lecture or failed to pass in or needed a supplementary due to illness at a main exam.

Tell re Physical Chemistry as per link above.

R U or R U not educated in this field re a degree with ALL it implies ?

btw: In Oz "graduate level" is studies towards uni degree qualification.

Feb 17, 2015
Mikey, you're right, I am such a liar! I bet if you gave me a non-googleable problem in Physical Chemistry, that was neutral to you biased views, I wouldn't be able to even understand it, much less solve it. If it was at the graduate level, I wouldn't even be able to comprehend it was a problem! Just like thermo when confronted with a non-linear PDE!

Why don't you try? Really embarrass me?

That would show me for the fraud I am once and for all!

Forever you'd be able to point at the floundering and tap-dancing that must be my only response to your brilliance!

What is the downside?

Feb 17, 2015
Water_Prophet with more distractions FFS
Mikey, you're right, I am such a liar! I bet if you gave me a non-googleable problem in Physical Chemistry, that was neutral to you biased views, I wouldn't be able to even understand it, much less solve it. If it was at the graduate level, I wouldn't even be able to comprehend it was a problem! Just like thermo when confronted with a non-linear PDE!
Why don't you try? Really embarrass me?
That would show me for the fraud I am once and for all!
Forever you'd be able to point at the floundering and tap-dancing that must be my only response to your brilliance!
What is the downside?
JUST do the right thing re proving your claim re CO2 "anemic" etc & answer the questions asked which u SHOULD be able to complete as a claimed Physical Chemist (PC), ok ?

Y can't U do that ?

Its dead EASY for a PC & I might add very helpful to your career too as this is PUBLIC :-)

Just get on with it, focus - Y can't U ?

Feb 17, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Mikey, you're right, I am such a liar! I bet if you gave me a non-googleable problem in Physical Chemistry, that was neutral to you biased views,
WRONG, No Bias obviously because its unrelated to ANY non-scientific empirical position.

Asking a question of a Physical Chemist to qualify his claims re fundamentals is OBVIOUSLY NOT bias, it is an empirically based approach & it OBVIOUSLY demands qualification at the fundamental level & the most appropriate units to complete that are in Watts/m^2 as THOSE are absolutely the units in Earth's energy balance power flow !

Your meanderings with ppm does u NO credit, U should KNOW a PC wouldn't be so dumb !

So exercise those brain cells with your google searches for scholar articles re formulae & post them with a scientific (PC) critique - just the same way a good PC can, its easy if u passed uni ?

Your immense continued evasion further proves your career claim is naught - unless U do it !

Feb 17, 2015
OK Mikey, let's take a look at the absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere and the absorption of water vapor. You have that from the links you provided us.

Print them out. Carefully use the metrics of the axis to well-quantify the the y-coordinates. Now draw same-sized rectangles underneath those values. You'll notice only one significant one for CO2, and you have to create a continuous block of them for Water Vapor.

Don't worry about the inaccuracy, it is small and lab samples don't accurately reflect atmospheric conditions. But don't worry, atmospheric conditions don't favor your bias.

No take all those boxes and apply concentration effects. Let's use 30x as a good [H2O]/[CO2]? You can use Beer's Law or even solve it accurately, it's a trivial problem.

I get near saturation in water's two bands. Roughly equal contributions from CO2 and H2O in CO2's band ~ 83% and 80% or ~97% there. I get several non-trivial region for H2O ranging from .3 to 3%. Cont.

Feb 17, 2015
Well, I'll stop right there for now. Any objections to the approach?
We've already got much greater than 7:1 contributions to GH effect from water over major bands.

I will only accept straight objections, I will ignore you breaking everything down and challenging it: If you don't understand the approach, the answer will be like a monkey looking at a wristwatch. You won't get it.

IT is not my responsibility to teach you the fundamental theorum of integral calculus.

Feb 17, 2015
Well, I'll stop right there for now. Any objections to the approach?
@ALCHE
i have a couple objections:
1- you refused to actually get involved with the joint experiment when you decided that it was not going to show you what you are continually preaching, so why re-hash that failure here with your SPECIAL rules?

2- given your new interest in specifics and math, it would be far better to dissect the study that i linked to you which you proclaim "debunked" with the wiki graph...

but you never actually come out and specify any specific details about how or why, only that the properties somehow automagically debunk it because you said so

then you proclaim yourself knowledgeable and us monkeys becuase you see your own delusion and we do not

even though the study actually uses the same physics properties
-as well as the interactive properties which you totally ignore (why is that?)

if you are going to be specific, why not with something that counts?
a STUDY


Feb 17, 2015
Mind your business Stumpy. Your objections and questions are hogwash. Mikey asked me to do this, he didn't ask Captain Special to define the parameters. I REALLY didn't ask you to define the parameters. If Mikey has any objections, they will probably be of the form:

Why print them out, can't you use something quantitative? Yes, but not that we both have access to, and this will be more than accurate enough.
How will my arbitrary assigning of metrics prove anything. Well, Mikey, it's bad of me, but because I'm going to assume you are not a moron. (I know, I know).

I think we should use 20x as a concentration effect, not 30x. That's great, because I already made that mistake. These are figured for a 20x concentration ratio. It only makes a significant difference in the CO2 band.

And so on.

Feb 18, 2015
Mind your business Stumpy
@ALCHE
SCIENCE is my business
and the FACTS are plain to see: you have NOT done anything "scientific" here on PO
nor have you demonstrated any scientific acumen
Nor have you "debunked" anything with any clarity
Nor have you provided any detailed reasons why any studies are "wrong" (your words)

I am not defining any parameters, I am asking WHY the sudden interest in trying to prove your education?
just get to linking a published study or three

WHY you are willing to try to answer Mike when you are never capable of answering ME with regard to details about the study you "supposedly" debunked with your wiki graph?

this is RELEVANT to discussions here as well as any climate science thread you comment in

because inevitably you will make the statement that you've "debunked" a study
and you've NEVER ONCE been able to prove that statement

Feb 18, 2015
Yeah, so Mikey rabbits.

I tell you what Stumps, now that Mikey is out of the way, I'll take on thermo, we'll start again where you all started ignoring my objections to your BS model. Now that I know you'll all are a bunch of sycophants (that means boot-licking brown nosers), I won't let you get away with your terrible science.

If you're game, we'll pick up where you folks began cheating.

(No we didn't cheat, you just don't know science)
(Well maybe, but the rules were we had consensus before we pressed-it's not a democracy now that I know you are probably all the same person.)
(We are not the same person, we just all have the same opinion!)
(Yeah, OK)

Feb 18, 2015
I'll take on thermo
@ALCHE
then you should be talking to Thermo
we'll start again where you all started ignoring my objections to your BS model
Maybe you should just do a little research and debunk that study that I've been posting for a couple years now?
that would be even better, especially for you
it would bring you worldwide recognition as well as give you some type of actual study published in a reputable peer reviewed publication you could refer to that says: study debunked
or perhaps you could simply get the study i linked retracted for not following the physics and properties of the elements/gasses (since you are saying that debunks it anyway)

BETTER YET!
why don't YOU publish something in a reputable journal with an impact in climate science!

you could simply re-do your experiment with Thermo on your own and publish it to ScienceMag!

That would kill several birds with ONE paper!

hows THAT?

Feb 18, 2015
It's debunked Stumps! I can not bring you up to speed on the education you need to understand why.

Go back to school in the physical sciences, until you understand how what I've said applies. Until then, don't bug me, I don't know HOW to make it any clearer.

Right now, everybody but you skeptigoons get it. You just refuse to see, and none are so blind as that.

Feb 18, 2015
It's debunked Stumps!
@ALCHE
OOOhhh! I didn't know that!
so you can link the study that debunked it?
you can show where it was retracted as false then, right?
Go back to school in the physical sciences, until you understand how what I've said applies.
got the degree and the t-shirt
i still can't see the delusion through your haze of stupidity though

Perhaps you can be specific about it so that we can get those pesky studies and physics papers that use the data revised then?
You just refuse to see, and none are so blind as that.
funny
that is what we've been telling you for years

but i digress
lets get back to physics and details

show me where the study is retracted or the study that refutes this one: http://www.scienc...abstract

I must have TOTALLY missed it from sciencemag this week

thanks

Feb 19, 2015
So here's the thing Stumpy, my modus operandi is to only use physical constants, math and analogy to make points.

Why, no not for the whittling reasons you suggest, but because they can be verified by inspection.

So riddle me this: What application of physical reality will debunk your precious study? As I read I am not impressed. I've called issues with it whenever I get tired of you waiving it my face as if one study were more important than studies that present other conclusions.

Tell me what qual.s to debunk it? Obviously not another study.

Feb 19, 2015
I had to post this article specifically for Water Pffftt and his anti Skeptical Science rants.

I also like it for the discussion of the MWP - maybe shootist will take note.

Oh and Water Pfffttt - because you usually need things explained to you, I post it here for you to read partly because it is an independent article talking about how SkepSci is considered a reliable source, partly because it shows that it is authored by more than one person.

Your hate affair with John Cook looks even sillier now.

http://www.sunysu...3713.asp

Feb 19, 2015
Wow, a straw-man post, inventive Maggie, if you aren't really John Cook himself.

Mikey get's challenge accepted: Rabbits.
Stumpy get's challenge accepted: Rabbits.
Magnnus arrives COINCIDENTLY saving face of these rabbits with a non-sequitor.

Just sayn.

Feb 19, 2015
Wow, a straw-man post, inventive Maggie, if you aren't really John Cook himself.

Mikey get's challenge accepted: Rabbits.
Stumpy get's challenge accepted: Rabbits.
Magnnus arrives COINCIDENTLY saving face of these rabbits with a non-sequitor.
Just sayn.
Well I can't speak to whether or not you've accepted anything, challenge or otherwise, from those two gentlemen, and I will leave it to them to comment should they wish. Me, on the other hand, I take no credit for saving faces or such, and sometimes a coincidence is just that. I have already seen how you deal with collaborations, so I'm pretty sure you aren't doing anything like that.

I just thought it was interesting that SkepSci's is becoming so well regarded, and in the face of your obvious hatred for them, I thought it would be nice to share that with you, Still not sure what your problem with John Cook is, but I really don't care - probably kicked you off the site for being a dyck. You're good at that.
Just sayn.

Feb 19, 2015
Hey all you skeptisupporters are from Australia, aren't you? One of you is John Cook, if you aren't all the same really pathetic person.

But then, what do you expect from a guy who'd get caught dead in that outfit?

Feb 19, 2015
?He doesn't strike me as the kind to kick someone off his site for being a dyke.

Problem, I just asked you if you were him. An interesting avoidance, psychologically speaking... suggestive. Especially from someone with your habits.

I don't hate him, why would this be personal? Another interesting tell-tale. I just find his science high-schooly, and he ignores any data that inconveniences his opinion. Like Stumpy. Any "hate" you may perceive is a result of the behavior of you skeptigoons: You defer to an artist with a website. Tut-tut, snicker.

Feb 19, 2015
Hey all you skeptisupporters are from Australia, aren't you? One of you is John Cook, if you aren't all the same really pathetic person.

But then, what do you expect from a guy who'd get caught dead in that outfit?
Well I'm not, but thanks for asking. I'm pretty sure Stumpy's from mid-west USA. Don't know about Mike, Europe maybe. Not sure why it matters to you, but there you go.

Yea you like flinging around accusations that each if us is the other. That's just being a dyck though, and we're used to that from you by now.

I'm a little surprised, but just a little, that you would stoop to Godwin's Law yet again. Certainly integrity isn't a strong suit with you. Whether one of us is John Cook, well I'm not and I don't think Stumpy is, and I'd be pretty surprised if Mike was, but you go girl, fill you boots if that's what floats your boat.

You still haven't, not once, ever, provided quantitative evidence for your theory.

Just sayn.

Feb 19, 2015
He doesn't strike me as the kind to kick someone off his site for being a dyke.
And here I thought you considered him a Nazi or something? Photo-shopped a picture and everything. I didn't realize you were a dyke though, I just thought you were a dyck.

Problem, I just asked you if you were him. An interesting avoidance, psychologically speaking... suggestive. Especially from someone with your habits.
Yea, that's just more of you being a dyck.

I don't hate him, why would this be personal? Another interesting tell-tale. I just find his science high-schooly, and he ignores any data that inconveniences his opinion. Like Stumpy. Any "hate" you may perceive is a result of the behavior of you skeptigoons: You defer to an artist with a website.
Can't say that I know why, your the one who calls him a Nazi and all. That's why I figure you were being a dyck; it's par for the course for you after all.

Funny how that website gets so much more accolade than you.

Feb 19, 2015
Oh, I get it.

Ah, but the website doesn't get more accolades than me: Just from you skeptigoons.
I've got a large personal following, and though it hasn't sunk into your goonie-brains, deniers use my stuff all the time.

Embarrassing, but that's what you -goons get for being so closed minded about an obvious main-stream fallacy. CO2, I dismissed the idea as ridiculous before anyone was serious about it. I never thought people would be dumb enough to believe it for so long.

And don't tell me there are no main-stream fallacies (on both sides) because being a denier is a mainstream fallacy.

I have provided quantitative: Keep in mind, yes or no is quantitative. 'Greater than X is also quantitative.

I show water-power trumps CO2 wimpyness all the time. In fact I show water vapor is insufficient to insulate the earth. It's the Hydrodynamics cycle that's where the real power is.

Feb 19, 2015
Oh, I get it.
Well, I doubt that, you aren't the brightest bulb in the sign.
Ah, but the website doesn't get more accolades than me: Just from you skeptigoons. I've got a large personal following, and though it hasn't sunk into your goonie-brains, deniers use my stuff all the time.
Ah, them highschool students you're always on about. You should be careful, being a dyke and all - there are laws you know.
Embarrassing, but that's what you -goons get for being so closed minded about an obvious main-stream fallacy. CO2, I dismissed the idea as ridiculous before anyone was serious about it. I never thought people would be dumb enough to believe it for so long.
Yea, no wonder you're embarrassed. You did get caught out pretty quick here though.
And don't tell me there are no main-stream fallacies (on both sides) because being a denier is a mainstream fallacy.
You should look up what a fallacy is.

Just sayn.

Feb 19, 2015
Well, I doubt that, you aren't the brightest bulb in the sign.

Any idiot can quote someone, mock and misconstrue it, it's rather highschool.
Ah, them highschool students you're always on about. You should be careful, being a dyke and all - there are laws you know.

This shows your own inestimable class.
Yea, no wonder you're embarrassed. You did get caught out pretty quick here though.

I am very embarrassed, there are only a few open minded AGCers, and you goons shew them away. Apparently you don't realize we need all the help we can get. You shoo them off better than you do the deniers. None so blind...
You should look up what a fallacy is.
Fallacy is not the same as with a Ph, dummy.

G'nite.

Feb 19, 2015
Any idiot can quote someone, mock and misconstrue it, it's rather highschool.
I wonder if you understand what hypocrisy is.
This shows your own inestimable class.
And wit!
I am very embarrassed, there are only a few open minded AGCers, and you goons shew them away. Apparently you don't realize we need all the help we can get. You shoo them off better than you do the deniers. None so blind...
What's an AGC'er? "We" are doing just fine, thank you very much. And none so blind is right Alchem. Fixated, unyielding, unwilling to consider any other position but one's own. That's what that adage means Alchem. Try looking at it from the other's position sometime, the view might inspire you. Or even enlighten.
Fallacy is not the same as with a Ph, dummy.

G'nite.
Awww, and here I was thinking we were starting to have a conversation. There is no word "phallacy" dummy. I think you were trying for phallic.

Feb 20, 2015
OK, I'll bite. Here is a simple PC problem for Alche/Waterbowl. Combust a stoichiometric quantity of methane and pure oxygen at 7 atm pressure. Determine the combustion products and the combustion temperature (either adiabatic temperature or measured temperature). Please list all of the combustion products down to those found at ppm levels at the combustion temperature.

Feb 20, 2015
thermy-GR&A
#1- How is the answer you want from me different from what you'd expect from the answer of a sophomore in high school?

That's just #1, I don't trust you not to say, "see you didn't do it right," after I spend a-lot of time on a non-highschool answer with different assumptions.
There are other reasons as well.

Feb 20, 2015
thermy-GR&A
#1- How is the answer you want from me different from what you'd expect from the answer of a sophomore in high school?

That's just #1, I don't trust you not to say, "see you didn't do it right," after I spend a-lot of time on a non-highschool answer with different assumptions.
There are other reasons as well.


Alche/WaterBowl: I don't expect a high school sophomore to understand internal energy and equilibrium. Are you saying that those are not part of the PC curriculum?

Feb 20, 2015
Answer the bleeding question.

I don't where YOU went to high school, but I learned internal energy and equilibrium there.

Feb 20, 2015
Answer the bleeding question.

I don't where YOU went to high school, but I learned internal energy and equilibrium there.


Alche/Waterbowl: OK, you went to quite a high school. I didn't learn how to solve a question like this until my Junior year in college. If your question is: "How is this different from high school" it might not be if you could balance the equilibrium equations in a combustion system at the combustion temperature - not at STP. Let me know if you need any more hints.

Feb 20, 2015
Alche/Waterbowl: Just to set your mind at ease, I will give you three iterations at a solution. If you get it right after I comment on each of two answers, I will consider it correctly done. I am really not trying to catch you in this, I am just trying to see if you can really solve a PC problem. I don't know what industry you were in, but this is typical for refining (cracking) or plastics (polymerizing). The difference is that this is combustion. And, I am not considering this one of the comments on the way to three tries.

Feb 20, 2015
Just so you know, you give me nothing, bub. You have shown me repeatedly you are in no position to judge. I expect I'm going to have to walk you through it; for example, Combustion does release temperature. It releases energy; enthalpy, heat.

And for example, it's Physical Chemistry, so if your correcting my papers, the sea is now above the the clouds.

So all you want is CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + H2O at 7 atm?

Equilibrium is irreversible, assume all products are consumed, "at equlibrium," which I assume you mean "textbook," equilibrium. Do you know what "textbook" equilibrium is?
Or does methane combust differently at high pressures? Or is that what I am supposed to figure out?
There's a trap somewhere.

Feb 20, 2015
Just so you know, you give me nothing, bub. You have shown me repeatedly you are in no position to judge. I expect I'm going to have to walk you through it; for example, Combustion does release temperature. It releases energy; enthalpy, heat.

And for example, it's Physical Chemistry, so if your correcting my papers, the sea is now above the the clouds.

So all you want is CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + H2O at 7 atm?

Equilibrium is irreversible, assume all products are consumed, "at equlibrium," which I assume you mean "textbook," equilibrium. Do you know what "textbook" equilibrium is?
Or does methane combust differently at high pressures? Or is that what I am supposed to figure out?
There's a trap somewhere.


Set up your equation just as you have it and then put heat above the arrow (as in a delta) where it can be added or subtracted (text book addition or subtraction of heat from the reaction). If the reaction is exothermic, heat is normally released. Continued

Feb 20, 2015
Continued: The reaction equilibrium depends on the amount of energy in the system. I am asking for the equilibrium at the temperature and pressure of the combustion products. That is not just water vapor and CO2. First you have to determine the temperature of the combustion products. Then you have to determine what the composition of the combustion products is at that temperature.

I consider that your first hint and it is a generous one.

Feb 20, 2015
Are you looking for the exponential form of Gibbs Free Energy? If so, I am pretty sure it's not necessary, unless you just want to see if I can do it-and it is still not grad-school level.

I may not be back tonight, it's Friday. But I won't let you down.

Feb 20, 2015
WP: I am just looking for the molecular configurations that exist at the temperature and pressure of the combustion products before they cool. No hurry.

Feb 21, 2015
Well, at the initial spark you get ions of CH3, H, O and O3. Common unstable intermediaries will be -OH.

Common intermediaries will be formaldehyde and methanol. There will be rare polymerizations to C2H6 and rarer-higher.

Two (four counting H+ OH from free OH radicals and methanol) mechanisms for creation of H2O are the obvious drivers.
Basically the process is to create each reaction:

CH4 + O2 + E --> iCH3 + !H + 2iO +O3 (ions)
CH3 + O3 --> CH2O + H2O
!H + iO --> -OH
iCH3 + -OH --> CH3OH
CH3OH + -OH --> CH2O + H2O
CH2O + O2 --> CO2 + H2O

etc., it's obviously not all inclusive, I mean I didn't include 2CH3 --> C2H6 and subsequent oxidation. Or even others like temporary formations of H3CCHO, or any other very large products that occur because there is excess available energy and available free specie.

add species together derive reaction rates.
Pressure increases the reaction rate.

Are we done? The rest is accounting.

Feb 21, 2015
I still don't see how this isn't google-able.
Actually now that I google it, wiki has this:
Sans up reactions and Ozone, but includes some reactions (or at least conventions) I missed as well.

http://en.wikiped...mbustion

Feb 21, 2015
I still don't see how this isn't google-able.
Actually now that I google it, wiki has this:
Sans up reactions and Ozone, but includes some reactions (or at least conventions) I missed as well.

http://en.wikiped...mbustion


Alche/Waterbowl: You are getting close, but you linked to and discussed transition phases. I asked for equilibrium conditions including the temperature. In bulk flow we should be able to assume LTE under these conditions. I consider this tip number 2.

Feb 21, 2015
OH, I am getting close...
I'm going to go all Mikey on you to ensure I don't
You want adiabatic, and held at 7 atm, an explosion reaction.

You want temperature, but I don't know what the initial temperature is, and indeed, if just liberates 891kJ/mol. Volume is of course arbitrary.

...before they cool.
This means you wanted transition phases (sic)[specie]. While there is radiation or available energy around capable of breaking bonds via raditaion or kinetics, you will have intermediary products.

Do you just want 891kJ/mol divided by a distribution iaw, your nemesis, the equipartition theorum? Boring.

That heat will be split up between the heat capacitances of H2O and CO2, in equilibrium with whatever the final temperature is. I am having trouble determining what the challenge is.

How about you just phrase it as if it were a problem. What do you need solved?

Feb 21, 2015
In a magical caloric bomb, 1 mol of CH4 and 2 mols of O2 are compressed to 7 atm. They are ignited and held at a constant 7 atm (do not look behind the curtains). Find the...?

Feb 21, 2015
Good enough, then?

Is there nothing you'd like to know that is in the area of abstruse chemical mechanics?

Feb 22, 2015
Alche/Waterbowl: Can you figure out the adiabatic flame temperature?

http://en.wikiped...perature

Once you figure that out, please figure out what chemical species are present at that temperature and what is their molar distribution is?

Assume the reactants start at STP

Feb 22, 2015
So this is "a thing," I'll need to research some, make sure I understand all the conventions, etc..
Are there any problem specific assumptions, constants or approximations I need to know? If you want the "engineering solution," for example, there is almost always some constant times the variable used for short range approximations.

Feb 22, 2015
So this is "a thing," I'll need to research some, make sure I understand all the conventions, etc..
Are there any problem specific assumptions, constants or approximations I need to know? If you want the "engineering solution," for example, there is almost always some constant times the variable used for short range approximations.


You should be able to make any units go away by normalizing relationships. I also like to work in mole fraction instead of mass fraction.

Feb 23, 2015
Elsewhere re the tragedy of Water_Prophet...

Water_Prophet claimed
This means all future increases in atmospheric temperature must have another powerful source. Not CO2!
I wonder what it could be?
I wonder Y someone who claims to be a Physical Chemist (PC) is impotent/clueless as to how to determine quantification of the most appropriate units of Watts per Square meter re CO2 or ANY greenhouse gas ?

As if Water_Prophet completely lied about his claimed degree as a PC ?

Why can't a PC determine energy in Joules by formulating the increase in thermal resistivity of CO2's absorbancy/re-radiation of long wave infra red to Space ?

What seems to be wrong with this Water_Prophet, who makes lots of egotistical claims re his multiple 4 technical degrees yet CANNOT talk like one, articulate fundamentals like one & evades any discussion on issues he cannot find addressed via google ?

Water_Prophet grow up, own up or AT LEAST prove your claimed credentials ?

Caught !

Feb 23, 2015
Check. Hope to have something in ~72 hrs.

Feb 25, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Check. Hope to have something in ~72 hr
Explain Y, when I advise u of the fact humans burn immense amount of fuels, u work out actual heat energy BUT, don't do that to try to prove CO2's effect is as u claim "anemic" !

Wouldn't it be smart & logical & consistent with your claimed training as a Physical Chemist that the energy u observed re fossil fuels re 0.1% of TSI be CONSISTENTLY compared with the SAME energy units re CO2's thermal resistivity to Space re long wave infra-red as queried ?

Obviously, because if u did that u would be comparing like quantities & therefore not appear uneducated & stupid claiming a qualitative relative relation is somehow substantive re Watts per square meter in respect of your claim CO2 is LOWER than 0.1% TSI ?

Physical Chemists show the procedure to do that at the drop of a hat but, feeble YOU - No !

U go around in circles attempting to evade the issue, a PC knows how to do that !

Y can't U ?

Feb 28, 2015
Thermy-
So heat released by Methane is 891kJ/mol
subtract energy required to vaporise water --> 2x 40.5 kJ/mol = 810kJ/mol
This is the total heat available.
Heat capacity as if raised to final temp from 298K; CO2 = 0.055kJ/mol, H2O = 2x 0.042.5kJ/mol

810/(0.055+0.085) = 810/(.14) = delta 5785K

+298K initial conditions = 6083, which seems, large.

Feb 28, 2015
my modus operandi is to only use physical constants, math and analogy to make points
@ALCHE
just because YOU don't understand what you are talking about doesn't mean there is NO ONE out there who does understand (IOW - your Dunning-Kruger shows)
Tell me what qual.s to debunk it? Obviously not another study
Actually, another study that debunks it using the scientific method is exactly what would be needed

but you've never given anything of the sort
nor have you been able to specifically address anything in any linked study that is wrong, that you could quote here so that we could send it to a physicists (a real one) or the author and get feedback

all you do is (tadaa) make claims
claims that are not validated with any scientific study, report, or anything like the scientific method
Stumpy get's challenge accepted: Rabbits
Nope
STILL here
STILL waiting for you to produce evidence debunking my studies

where is it, ALCHE?

Feb 28, 2015
And don't tell me there are no main-stream fallacies (on both sides) because being a denier is a mainstream fallacy
@ALCHE
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Again, just because YOU don't understand science doesn't mean no one does, Dunning-Kruger boy
Any idiot can quote someone, mock and misconstrue it, it's rather highschool
then you should stop doing it
and maybe produce that EVIDENCE that i keep asking for?
you STILL have no equivalent evidence using the scientific method which debunks my studies or in any way would get them retracted or corrected

i am interested in this test with Thermo, though

maybe you will learn something
hope burns eternal

Feb 28, 2015

show me where the study is retracted or the study that refutes this one: http://www.scienc...abstract


You are going to love this one Stumps, I did use my P Chem powers to contact a few people who will debunk this idiocy about a little CO2 causing a lot more water vapor, but that water vapor have no more GH effects because it would inconvenience AGWers.

This is and will come to greater press, and I will say I told you so.

Feb 28, 2015
I did use my P Chem powers
@ALCHE
i am NOT afraid to follow the SCIENCE
nor am i afraid to see the "press" you are claiming to be pushing

WHY?
it is simple: greater minds that you have looked into this and come up with different mindsets: https://www.youtu...8Dhr15Kw

but even disregarding that simply fact, i would like to point out some things that you continue to ignore:
- IF the study was as horribly flawed as you claim

and IF the study was using incorrect physical properties as you think

THEN considering that most scientists enjoy picking apart someone else's work and proving certain points are false OR wrong for whatever reason

AND considering most scientists are extremely careful of work regarding this because they know others are LOOKING to make them fail

THEN the fact that the study STILL stands ofter all this time and review is meaningful

and i KNOW that they have nothing to fear from YOU
you (like RC) can't point to ANY flaws

Mar 01, 2015
Water_Prophet
You are going to love this one Stumps, I did use my P Chem powers to contact a few people who will debunk this idiocy about a little CO2 causing a lot more water vapor, but that water vapor have no more GH effects because it would inconvenience AGWers.
This is and will come to greater press, and I will say I told you so.
LOL !

So u ONLY used your "powers" as a "P CHem" to contact, not to actually calculate ?

Proof yet again u lie, cheat & should be banned, prove your qualifications ?

Taking 4 days to 'find out' how to reply to thermodynamics does not cut it.

A Physical Chemist SHOULD know how to determine energy in Watts per sq m from the Physical Properties of a gas in relation to its vibrational states re absorbancy/re-radiation.

U claim its "anemic" but how much is that in Watts per sq meter ?

Y can't U ?

Y evade the skills which a Physical Chemist, as u claimed, SHOULD know !

Water_Prophet, your own words show u up as an uneducated kid !

Mar 01, 2015
Water_Prophet with an example of immense stupid claims
.. a little CO2 causing a lot more water vapor, but that water vapor have no more GH effects because it would inconvenience AGWers
What does this mean in quantitative terms as a Physical Chemist should know and especially so in Watts per square meter ?

Even on the linguistic front it makes NO sense ie "..WV have no more GH effects because..inconvenience.." !

What has this got to do with physical properties re IR of WV or CO2 ?

Y can't U work out CO2's thermal resistivity re IR as a Physical Chemist can & should be able to at least outline a suitable procedure for ?

Y can't U relate TSI to CO2's thermal properties re Watts per sq meter ?

Hoisted by your own retard yet u still output drivel, Y is that Water_Prophet ?

Mar 01, 2015
Mike please refer to the exercise where I accepted your challenge above, that one you pretend doesn't exist.

It does exactly what you keep whining about and pretending I can't do.

What happened did you forget it was this thread?
By the way, I notice nothing about you backing up your degrees. Remember that thing you rabbited on?

Mar 01, 2015
Stumpy-you are terrified to follow science.
I mean ruguyscrazy pointed out a third of the temperature increase occurred with a 15ppm shift in CO2, and another third from an 80ppm change.

Now that I pause to consider, this is reflected in the correlation to GDP I am always showing you. These are it, they're fact. A study can't contradict these. You can't rationalize them away.

If you weren't terrified to follow science, you'd acknowledge them, and maybe just maybe start making decisions that are productive toward change rather than running more people down the rabbit hole you hide in.

Mar 01, 2015
Stumpy-you are terrified to follow science
@ruALCHEcrazy
funny
i am the only one posting corroborating studies supporting my claims... SCIENTIFIC studies which you are simply "claiming" to be wrong, with no evidence OR science
These are it, they're fact. A study can't contradict these. You can't rationalize them away...If you weren't terrified to follow science, you'd acknowledge them
and i will reiterate my request YET AGAIN
where is the equivalent evidence (equivalent to the studies i posted) that debunk, refute or can get the studies i linked retracted, deleted or corrected?

when you can provide that undermining the bulk of the scientific evidence published in the studies out there already, then i will take a SERIOUS look at it

not your CONJECTURE on it, or your claims about it (like above)
actual science based upon the scientific method
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 01, 2015
start making decisions that are productive toward change rather than running more people down the rabbit hole you hide in
@ruALCHEcrazy profit
i gotta comment on this one!
lets see... i offer my conjecture which is supported by EVIDENCE and scientific studies, which i linked to you... (and i can link them again if you want)

what are YOU offering other than:
1- Unsubstantiated conjecture
2- your "interpretations" of the science
3- threats
I did use my P Chem powers to contact a few people who will debunk this idiocy
now lets look at what you have NOT offered:
1- STUDIES supporting your position
2- confirmation that the studies i've linked are wrong
3- scientific evidence which overwhelmingly refutes MY linked studies and gets them retracted or corrected, even when submitted to the Peer reviewed publication

which do YOU think would win in a court where evidence is vital to the success of the argument?


Mar 01, 2015
i am the only one posting corroborating physical properties and well established spectrum other references supporting my claims... SCIENTIFIC studies which you are simply "claiming" to be wrong, with studies.

Physical properties, references, documentation of effects trump any and all scientific studies.

Why? Because all things being equal, those studies are based on physical properties and references.

In court? Haha. Which do I think would win between the absorbance spectrum of water vs CO2 and a study, (which can easily have a counter-study presented with equal credibility)?

The physical properties. The spectrum plots. The linear correlation between temperature and GDP, the weak correlation between CO2 and temperature, the correlation with dead zones and decrease in ocean pH.

How are these worse than those studies? They are demonstrative, causal and conclusive. I assume I don't need to publish these again.

Does this mean you finally agree with me?

Mar 01, 2015
Physical properties, references, documentation of effects trump any and all scientific studies
@ALCHE
i see you got your deniers manual out
i also see that you are still not able to comprehend that the STUDIES include the data you claim is "wrong" as well as the rest of the PHYSICS which demonstrate things you are refusing to accept (like the cycle and forcing nature between CO2 and WV)

So, you don't understand it and the only thing left for you to do is to attack it with your lack of knowledge and hope someone believes your "appeal to self authority" BS line
In court? Haha
do you know why i included that?
because in court, normally the win goes to the best argument
with ONE EXCEPTION
when there is forensic and scientific evidence which demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the argument being produced

therefore, per your own demonstrated negligent argument, you fail, epically
why?
because you have NO EVIDENCE

studies trump STUPID

Mar 01, 2015
Because all things being equal, those studies are based on physical properties and references
@ALCHE
and now you finally admit that there is NO refute of the study
They are demonstrative, causal and conclusive. I assume I don't need to publish these again.
Does this mean you finally agree with me?
whoops, i spoke too soon
your stupid crept out at the last minute again

lets get back to the basics, shall we?

please show me SPECIFICALLY where the linked studies are wrong:
http://iopscience...4002.pdf
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

be SPECIFIC, so that we can address it to the authors

Mar 01, 2015
LAST POINT to the uber-TROLL @ALCHE
Physical properties ...blah blah blah
there is a logical fallacy in your thinking

STUDIES also tend to compare, examine and correlate data that shows how properties might change, become exacerbated or enhance other objects and properties when they are COMBINED

This means collecting evidence as well as observation
case in point: http://www.scienc...abstract
YOU support WV as the culprit, and that study SHOWS that the major factor is not only WV, but it's RELATIONSHIP with CO2
IOW - WV IS one major problem, but alone it is not enough to give us the results we are seeing... only when acting in conjunction with CO2 do we see the results now observed and we can prove this with empirical evidence, observation and experimentation

and THAT explains your logical fallacy

this link explains more
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 01, 2015
Would you sign on as thermy already?

Here:
please show me SPECIFICALLY where the linked studies are wrong:
please show me SPECIFICALLY where the linked studies are wrong:
http://iopscience...4002.pdf Link doesn't work.
http://www.scienc...5682/362 Begins with false premise. Does not take into account dead zones.
http://www.nature...65a.html Begins with false premise. Does not take into account dead zones.
http://rspb.royal...20141856 As amazing as detecting 0.1-0.3 pH is, it should not affect life as it represents 1 part in 10^-7.
http://www.scienc...abstract The feedback again. If CO2 causes a feedback, and this feedback increases WV, this WV must also be included. QED, do not bother ME again UNTIL you demonstrate to ME YOU understand feedback.
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf My foil-hat brass-bowl mental model predicts this, explains it better and predicts outcomes as well. Decent study.

RU happy?

Mar 01, 2015
http://iopscience...4002.pdf My foil-hat brass-bowl mental model predicts this, explains it better and predicts outcomes as well. Decent study.
@ALCHE
your link doesn't work

and your brass bowl does not predict anything

you have YET to establish that you have predicted anything with it
nor have you been able to demonstrate that it will work
you cannot show a control nor can you eliminate all the problems with it

therefore your "experiment" with the brass bowl is simply another nutter looking for a gimmick to troll with

also there is this: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

PS
since you changed /edited

I will forward your claims to the authors and allow them to respond
we will go from there

(but considering NONE are retracted or corrected, methinks you are simply pissing into a fan and thinking it's raining)

Mar 01, 2015
The feedback again. If CO2 causes a feedback, and this feedback increases WV, this WV must also be included. QED, do not bother ME again UNTIL you demonstrate to ME YOU understand feedback
@ALCHE
this is actually FUNNY
you are the one who doesn't understand the feedback

I never said that WV was not a problem... i said it was not the controlling factor, moron! the study even says that! LMFAO

YOU are the one claiming that it is WV that is the sole problem, not the CO2 forcing and cycle that it creates

YOU are the one making the false claims, but you are saying that I don't understand the feedback?

really?

keep posting...
headed to dinner, but i will be back later to show you how stupid you are

ROTFLMFAO

the funniest thing is: you are clinging to a set of preconceived notions (a faith) so that you don't have to admit to the SCIENCE

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 01, 2015
Thermy-
So heat released by Methane is 891kJ/mol
subtract energy required to vaporise water --> 2x 40.5 kJ/mol = 810kJ/mol
This is the total heat available.
Heat capacity as if raised to final temp from 298K; CO2 = 0.055kJ/mol, H2O = 2x 0.042.5kJ/mol

810/(0.055+0.085) = 810/(.14) = delta 5785K

+298K initial conditions = 6083, which seems, large.


Alche/Waterbowl: Yes, that temperature is too high. You need to think about what is happening to the molecules at the high temperature. You need to take dissociation into account at these temperatures. Still waiting for the accounting on the molecular species. Your approach is getting closer, but, as you mentioned, that temperature is too high. Dissociation is the third substantial hint.

Mar 01, 2015
I asked specific easily answerables and get back a waltz. Show me you understand feedback. Also, I answered your links back, sufficiently and get back zilch.

You need to change your mind.

OK, thermy-I think I see where you are heading, essentially ALL possible combinations of molecules are possible below and equal to the bond energy of the strongest bond. Now I think I am clear. I need to figure them out and their associated Degrees of Freedom, non-ideal character, etc..

So I use a distribution statistics to figure out how many of what kind of molecules are around at the peak or below. Looks like it's a pretty clean statistic.

That is still not a grad-level problem, but it is more interesting.

Mar 02, 2015
I asked specific easily answerables and get back a waltz
@ALCHE
funny!
i've been asking for over a YEAR and it took you this long to commit to ANYTHING

now, i am forwarding your claims to the various authors as well as to the publishers of the studies for their replies
you have to WAIT for their replies, but here is MINE

my reply is still based upon the EVIDENCE:
starting with
- there are NO retractions
- there are NO corrections
- there is NO scientific push to get it debunked for use of false data
- there is NO PROOF that false data is used
- there is NO proof that ANY false premise was used
- you still haven't given ANY scientific evidence, only personal conjecture
- you have still never demonstrated any predictability by producing a historical and verifiable record of your tin-foil hat wearing brass bowl experiment

and you can quote me to whomever you wish on that

IOW- your post demonstrates your lack of scientific acumen
THANKS

Mar 02, 2015
So stumps, I answered your links back concisely, based on science and references, am I to assume you agree with what I posted and have no refutation?

Or I am guessing you don't have one because your depth is only as deep as your references. I countered those and all you have left are demeaning remarks?

Dead Zones answer ocean acidification much more adroitly than atm CO2.
Life is amazingly buffered against pH changes-sorry but it has been too many years since I knew the exact answer, ask a biologist.

If a small change enacts a large change, that large change must also effect change. All I did was ask you to show me you understood this.

These are refuted, unless maybe there are aspects I am unaware of, so please enlighten me.

Mar 03, 2015
Stumps, you don't get that these PEOPLE at these peer reviewed journals, thought aren't my "peers," are folks similar to whom I do business. We use the same basic science which I've been trying to get your terminally biased brain to acknowledge.
I've changed their minds, they've changed mine. We have come to impasse.
You may revere them, I just say, "Hey bud, how's it been."

Do you get?

Mar 04, 2015
am I to assume you agree with what I posted and have no refutation?
@ALCHE
NOPE
as i told you (but i guess you are having problems reading? or comprehending?) i am forwarding your BS to the authors to refute...
please read the post DIRECTLY above your two posts...

the easiest refute i can offer is still the most powerful and valid refute yet:
you claim to be able to "change their minds
I've changed their minds, they've changed mine
but those studies STILL STAND
they are not retracted, altered, changed, pulled or refuted

it is not a matter of "revering" anyone, it is a matter of SCIENCE
of PHYSICS

the studies contain
the same basic science which I've been trying to get your terminally biased brain to acknowledge
and until you can refute them in a manner that will get them pulled, retracted debunked or changed, then you are PROVEN WRONG

just because you believe something doesn't make it science

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

Mar 04, 2015
I countered those and all you have left are demeaning remarks?
and again, ALCHE
my reply is still based upon the EVIDENCE:
starting with
- there are NO retractions
- there are NO corrections
- there is NO scientific push to get it debunked for use of false data
- there is NO PROOF that false data is used
- there is NO proof that ANY false premise was used
- you still haven't given ANY scientific evidence, only personal conjecture
- you have still never demonstrated any predictability by producing a historical and verifiable record of your tin-foil hat wearing brass bowl experiment

the studies are published in reputable peer reviewed journals and constitute EVIDENCE as well as far better "proof" that your personal conjectures about said studies

your conjecture is worthless unless backed up by evidence, which would, by definition, be something that would get the studies pulled, debunked or refuted... retracted...

they are still valid

IOW - you FAIL
AGAIN

Mar 04, 2015
OK, I fail, but you haven't mentioned a single thing to counter those studies I refuted. Therefor, they are refuted. Both me not until you come up with a better answer.

Mar 05, 2015
OK, I fail, but you haven't mentioned a single thing to counter those studies I refuted. Therefor, they are refuted
@ALCHE
and again, this only points out that you have NO IDEA about the scientific method

you offered CONJECTURE
that does not refute the studies
it doesn't offer anything but your point of view
it has the exact same validity as "Unicorn Poo causes volcano's to erupt"

IOW - you have a religious like "FAITH" that is unsubstantiated by the evidence

again: my studies stand
they are not retracted, altered, changed, pulled or refuted

it is not a matter of "revering" anyone, it is a matter of SCIENCE
of PHYSICS

all the evidence supports my conclusions (and the studies)

you have absolutely ZERO evidence supporting your delusions
and THAT is validated by your own comments


Mar 05, 2015
OK, I have faith that you did not refute what I counter with, and Hallelujah! that you have no ability beyond referencing a Journal, which is why all you can do is repeat SCIENCE canticles.

Which is proof, which justifies my faith!

Thermy, I've got the approach, such as H2O --> H+ + OH-, CO2 --> CO+ + O-, etc.. I can almost eyeball it, almost half the energy is available to disassociate them; it looks to be around 2700K. More to come, unless this is sufficient.

Mar 05, 2015
Which is proof, which justifies my faith!
@ALCHE
spoken like a true acolyte of stupidity and religion
just like the famous jvk of the stinky pheromone potions of love
all you can do is repeat SCIENCE canticles
epic dictionary fail, for starters
secondly- canticles are reserved for biblical hyms or text

lastly, and most importantly, SCIENCE is about finding answers and using FACTS
when you use the scientific method, you learn much about reality

refusal to accept it makes one either religious, stupid or a politician looking for $$$$
which one are you ALCHE?

again i point out to you
you have ZERO evidence
you have only your personal conjectures
you can prove NOTHING

Therefore, you are NOT promoting science
you are promoting PSEUDOSCIENCE
(which is, in yours & jvk's case is the intentional MISINTERPRETATIONS of science by a delusional set of beliefs which do not allow you to accept factual conclusions which go against your previously accepted notions)

Mar 05, 2015
Oh, stumps, I just got it, I've zinged you a couple of times, and now you are trying to emulate me and get back at me at the same time.
I just now noticed, that means you've got a long way to go... keep working at it, I might get to suffer a smile.
I prove everything, I use only physical properties and well established science.

You always copy and paste the same complaints, and I haven't seen anything original in a while, I wonder if you are a bot.

Mar 05, 2015
OK, I have faith that you did not refute what I counter with, and Hallelujah! that you have no ability beyond referencing a Journal, which is why all you can do is repeat SCIENCE canticles.

Which is proof, which justifies my faith!

Thermy, I've got the approach, such as H2O --> H+ + OH-, CO2 --> CO+ + O-, etc.. I can almost eyeball it, almost half the energy is available to disassociate them; it looks to be around 2700K. More to come, unless this is sufficient.


Alche: Much closer. Looking at species fractions at specific energies will be the required approach. As for the fraction of each, that is what you call "book keeping" and I am a big one on book keeping. I'll be looking forward to the numbers. It looks good so far.

Mar 06, 2015
Well, thank you. I'll hit it this weekend, just curious, so this establishes my creds right?

Though in fairness, the "google" function for improvement does work, I have found various values. 5723 obviously doing what I did above. 2823C, 2793C, obviously there is something of an art to it.

Regardless, you'll have distributions.

Mar 06, 2015
and now you are trying to emulate me and get back at me at the same time
@ALCHE
why would i emulate you? you've undermined your own credibility, you post unsubstantiated conjecture and you can't even take time out to look up words in the dictionary when trying to make a seriously flawed comparison
I prove everything, I use only physical properties and well established science
and again, i point out that:
you make ASSumptions based upon those properties which are NOT substantiated by experimentation, observation or measurement, like what is found in the studies i've linked to you over and over again which you INGNORE
-that is NOT PROOF, that is INTERPRETATION
I wonder if you are a bot
so, you fail to make a point, can't substantiate your own claims and epically fail when you try to interpret the science, and when i point that out over and over you cry BOT like uba?
ROTFLMFAO

only substantiates all my claims about you, ALCHE

Mar 06, 2015
Again I point out, I CAN'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS about physical constants.
Conventional science is accepted well beyond studies.
I just refuted all those studies, they are above.

Hello!

Mar 06, 2015
Well, thank you. I'll hit it this weekend, just curious, so this establishes my creds right?

Though in fairness, the "google" function for improvement does work, I have found various values. 5723 obviously doing what I did above. 2823C, 2793C, obviously there is something of an art to it.

Regardless, you'll have distributions.


Alche/WaterBowl: To me this proves you have background in physical chemistry (depending on what you send). I don't think anyone without advanced chemistry could pull this one off. As I said, I was introduced to this my Junior year. You may think it is elementary, but it is taking a while to figure out. I recall that when I did this it took hours with tables. Naturally, if you come back and tell us you just don't want to waste your time on it I will consider that to be default. Good luck crunching the numbers. I did it already so I can check what you come up with.

Mar 07, 2015
Again I point out, I CAN'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS about physical constants.
Conventional science is accepted well beyond studies
@ALCHE
or should we just say Prometheus X? (from your own link: https://www.faceb...4557455/ )
Except that you do that very thing above
I just refuted all those studies, they are above.
there are some HUGE problems with that comment:
1- there have been NO retractions
2- there have been NO corrections
3- there have been NO further studies, comments or announcements which state the links that i gave are bad science, undermined, refuted, debunked, retracted, falsified or in any other way wrong

IOW - you are making a CLAIM that you refuted the studies
just like you are making CLAIMS that you are professing science
but you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that supports your conclusions at all

NOT ONE PIECE

you can continue to make the claim
i will continue to point out that you are WRONG


Mar 07, 2015
@Water_Prophet
You always copy and paste the same complaints, and I haven't seen anything original in a while, I wonder if you are a bot.
Certainly, at least for the most part, Captain Stumpy is a bot. I proved this conclusively by observing its inhumanly fast posting rate.

Of course that's not to say a real human couldn't be interjecting sometimes, but its very repetitious nature is another clue. Bots have difficulty staying on topic, so they're programmed to "lead" the conversation by posting "personal" diatribes. Don't fall for it.


Mar 07, 2015
Thanks uba-it clairifies, and makes much more sense now, having a second party confirm. He has some human, obviously, which is why it is such a good lie. He admitted that he and the skeptigoons are contributors to skeptigarbage.com.
Isn't that a kick? I mean we knew they we sloppy (being nice), but they actually reference themselves...
...believing themselves...

...conscionable?!

Mar 07, 2015
Stumps, so you know who I am, fantastic. Well now you know also, if you googled me and "predictive" that I am indeed a world leader in predictive sciences. In fact, establishing new areas of Predictive Sciences. That I was able to do this is because I was advanced, though not a relevant contributor to Chaology, in chemistry.

Even so, that's the tip of the iceberg.

So now you know I am far more credible than John Cook. Do I get an apology?

Mar 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Stumps, so you know who I am, fantastic
Who cares about the deluded who refuse to learn but, claim "4 technical degrees" !

Water_Prophet claimed
Well now you know also, if you googled me and "predictive" that I am indeed a world leader in predictive sciences
LMAO!

Water_Prophet claimed
.. establishing new areas of Predictive Sciences
Name 1 & 1 paper that address underlying probability & find the log/ln terms buried there if u can - LOL ?

Water_Prophet claimed
That I was able to do this is because I was advanced, though not a relevant contributor to Chaology, in chemistry
Cough, did u write this on your tablet in the psychiatrist's office or in the asylum common room - LOL ?

Water_Prophet added
Even so, that's the tip of the iceberg.
So now you know I am far more credible than John Cook. Do I get an apology?
No. U have never written like ANYONE who could possible have "4 technical degrees" !

Physics - U lying dick !

Mar 07, 2015
Mikey, the fact that I have pushed back the boundaries of predictive sciences makes my claim of 4 degrees (3 are technical), chicken feed.

I was established in a definitive work, not a skimpy Journal paper.
Predictive Analytics by Russell Nixon. Eat your heart out.

Mar 07, 2015
Bots have difficulty staying on topic
@Uba-moron
this explains why you are always OT
thanks for sharing
I am indeed a world leader in predictive sciences
@ALCHE/prometheus X
didn't find that at all
didn't even find a single publication on Google Scholar, either, for G Tyler, GM Tyler or other variants...
So you are (again) making a claim that is not validated by any evidence
(imagine that)
I am far more credible than John Cook. Do I get an apology?
for what?
-you are continuing to post non-scientifically based comments which are NOT supported by evidence (just like Prins)
-you are still NOT ABLE to refute any studies

you still haven't been able to prove anything
ANYTHING
worse yet - the BULK of your comments still have NO valid reputable scientific support

you are no different than Prins in this respect
just because you THINK you are smart doesn't mean you are
nor does it mean you are correct
Its called Dunning-Kruger

Mar 07, 2015
I was established in a definitive work, not a skimpy Journal paper.
Predictive Analytics by Russell Nixon. Eat your heart out.
@ALCHIE Greg

http://scholar.go...dt=0%2C4

i could call that an OOPS
where is this fabled "Predictive Analytics" paper?

and why is it NOT found by G Scholar?

you are starting to be like benni and prins... all talk and claims but no real evidence supporting your conclusions
benni says he is a nuke engineer but can't figure out how to use a contact link or how admin can send you messages in a system without you being able to use the same PM system... LMFAO

Mar 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Mikey, the fact that I have pushed back the boundaries of predictive sciences makes my claim of 4 degrees (3 are technical), chicken feed
No. U claimed "4 technical degrees", forgotten already ?

Where & When for each ?

How can 4x uni graduate NOT know natural logs Eg re power - a bad course, so sad ?

Water_Prophet claimed
I was established in a definitive work, not a skimpy Journal paper
Really ?
Brass bowl ? STILL haven't explained predicting 1998 'pause' but didn't BEFORE that same 'pause', so sad!

Water_Prophet
Predictive Analytics by Russell Nixon
Really ?
Funny u haven't said it b4, how much did it cost, come into money $ to pay anyone to connect U here - how could u possibly prove it as u began a most un-intelligent naive immature starting pnt - ie. nickname u change easily ie. U now cannot ever prove it, so sad !

Water_Prophet
Eat your heart out
No, a bloated ego InvProp to your lack of integrity, so sad !

Mar 07, 2015
http://www.amazon...86199593

It is not a journal paper, it is a definitive work, definitizing PA this time around.

As to the rest. Working in industry means publishing reveals your competitive advantage. Publish means perish. So it is problematical.

Mar 07, 2015
@Captain_Stumpy,
This looks like it might be the one & Water_Prophet should know there is one sure fire means to determine if he is the author ie If the said Russell Nixon is the same ego as Water_Prophet

http://www.amazon...ll+Nixon

Water_Porphet, can U indicate the most direct & efficient method to verify your arbitrary claim ie Your implication u r the Author of the book, are u claiming that ?

Be careful Captain_Stumpy as the little fetus Water_Prophet who knows negligible physics may well have written a collection of anecdotes, interpretations & the like but, do they have any definitive Science & has it ever been reviewed. I have been working for >30yrs in wide fields & many I know have written books & papers but, r they any good *at all* ?

Regardless, its far more interesting to verify Water_Prophet's claims re his 4 uni degrees ?

Mar 07, 2015
Mikey,
I can hardly claim I am a world leader in Predictive Sciences because I say so.
I say it because Nixon says so. He wrote the definitive work.

If you read above, thermy has already acknowledged that I have advanced education in sciences, you believe him right?

So... eat your heart out. All these years you have been dealing with the real deal.

Mar 07, 2015
Water_Prophet conceded
.... because Nixon says so. He wrote the definitive work
Ah so YOU didnt write it but, hey Y be a COMPLETE utter DICK & waste time implying U did, U r a kid ?

Water_Prophet claimed
If you read above, thermy has already acknowledged that I have advanced education in sciences, you believe him right?
No, U twisted - not plural; Science(s) !

Anyway !
Given long delay, not hard locate real physics/chem students. Ffs all u have to do is lurk at uni classes approach eager neophytes; gain their trust, buy them meals, or offer to pay them to ostensibly "settle a bet" whatever. I know its easy, did similar re getting useful legal advice long b4 U were born, Eg:-

Against Australian Federal Government:-
http://www.austli...245.html

Obvious I can, so can a lesser mortal, ie U but, I NEVER claimed to be a lawyer !

Your 4 degrees eg Physical Chemistry where/when ?

Integrity Water_Prophet!

Mar 07, 2015
I didn't imply I wrote it. That wouldn't be as good as having Nixon use my work!

So you don't believe I have four degrees. See what difference it makes.

Mar 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
I didn't imply I wrote it. That wouldn't be as good as having Nixon use my work!
So if u are not implying he used your "work" then why mention it at all ?

Did U get so easily caught when I said its easy to find out if u had written it, been there done that, your posts b4 mine do show u make the implication u wrote it & tried to "get away with it" to add to your fake credentials ?

Water_Prophet claimed
So you don't believe I have four degrees
No. I claim I don't accept u could possibly have "4 technical degrees", do u know the distinction, a uni graduate would !

Water_Prophet claimed
See what difference it makes
Well since u obviously don't write like one & especially so u don't write like a Physical Chemist, u write like a kid who has no patience with high school or uni Eg U don't appreciate WHY logs appear in power flows. Then I conclude & in concert with your meandering on relative ppms u r a complete (uni) fake !

Grow up.

Mar 07, 2015
It is not a journal paper, it is a definitive work, definitizing PA this time around
@ALCHE/greg
it also doesn't mention you at all on that link
IMAGINE THAT
Working in industry means
you don't need to tell me that
Thermo works in industry
so did i
that doesn't mean you are capable of rewriting studies based upon your waterbowl stupidity, and your waterbowl only proves you know SQUAT about the scientific method
That wouldn't be as good as having Nixon use my work!
so?
reg mundy/mills made shit up while referencing actual scientific work
& prins references pseudoscience and refuses to accept QM interpretations
that doesn't make them any more "correct" than you are
NOR does it prove anything else you claimed

especially how you can be right about climate science while 97% of all the rest of the world scientists are somehow wrong based upon some minor error that is plainly visible to EVERYONE denying science... but not to actual scientists

D-K anyone?

Mar 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
I was established in a definitive work, not a skimpy Journal paper.
Predictive Analytics by Russell Nixon
What does this mean ?

Given delay from draft to published work of some 18 months to 3 years just HOW is it possible YOU were "established in a definitive work" ?

U do realise Predictive Analysis (PA) MUST entertain advanced probability & statistics in conjunction with a whole host of control systems theorems regarding feedback & metrics in relation to assessing predictive states ?

Something I happen to have experience in from my time at Western Australian Institute of Technology, 1976 to 1982, its been some time but I still have the texts handy - just have to fish them out from my store ie Pink Room as eldest exclaims !

What PA aspect could u possibly claim was "established" at all ever by U ?

Given your proclivity to non-quantification, WHAT aspect of derived qualitative feedback series do U claim u ever added to ?

Or what ELSE ?

Mar 07, 2015
Stumpy, you tried to expose me as a fraud, I didn't ask to be put in the lime-light.
Now you find out that, yes, I am a scientist of note. Now both you and Mikey are fish on hooks trying to get away from your clever scheme. The more you dig, the more you'll have to try to discredit.

You two will be up against entire institutions!

I don't need to justify the claims you made on me. I am certainly NOT going to teach you a completely novel approach to predictive analytics to prove it. You have no idea how many scars I got proving it to EDUCATED people!

Buy the book, it's only 15.00 USD.

Mar 07, 2015
you tried to expose me as a fraud
@ALCHE/gregTROLL
nope
that is ALL on you
you made a CLAIM, you should be able to substantiate it
Buy the book, it's only 15.00 USD
if you want to play regmundyTROLL, use the cosmology threads...
if you want to prove yourself, send me a copy of the book
this is the same thing i told reg, and the same thing i will tell you
YOU made the claim, not i
so YOU have the burden of proof
fish on hooks trying to get away from your clever scheme
WHAT SCHEME?

let me reiterate this for you:
YOU have made thousands of UNSUBSTANTIATED UNSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS while also claiming to be a scientists, degree'd and educated and MORE

the burden of proof is upon YOU, not me!

You two will be up against entire institutions!
ROTFLMFAO
No, it is YOU who is up against the bulk of the WORLDS SCIENTISTS

and you have YET to substantiate your claims

you are flailing on the hook of your own making, g!

Mar 07, 2015
I don't need to justify the claims you made on me
@ALCHE/greggie
I've already justified them
in fact, if you CAN prove that you are referenced in that book, and you CAN prove you are holding multiple degree's, it only makes the proven facts about you WORSE

case in point:
if Einstein were arguing here about, say... cold fusion
then he made claims about his education and prior studies, including GR/SR, then went on to say that he had made a CF reactor putting out 9 billion MegaJoules
but then couldn't substantiate his claims with evidence, science, studies or a working model, it would totally destroy his credibility EVERYWHERE

this is you ALCHE
you've made CLAIMS that are completely against the studies and science posted to you
plus you claim to have debunked studies
given there are no changes or retractions, etc, you've NO EVIDENCE to supply proving yourself other than your personal conjecture and interpretations

and you think you are credible?

Mar 07, 2015
@ALCHE/little greggie boy
You have no idea how many scars I got proving it to EDUCATED people!
this is also completely irrelevant considering the topic and the concerns mentioned

shall i go back over it for you?
or do you finally see the light yet?

YOU have made unsubstantiated conjectures and interpretations of physical properties which are NOT supported by scientific studies that include OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENT as well as experimental data

YOU have never been able to show PROOF/EVIDENCE of claims

considering your "education" claims
this only makes you look even WORSE in light of your failures here

how would that affect you if everyone in Seattle, Maine and Maryland as well as in your industry suddenly found out that you couldn't even substantiate simple claims with scientific evidence?

what would happen if it was widely known that you are basically delusional and refuse to accept known science because of your faith or D-K?

Tell me that one

Mar 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
..I didn't ask to be put in the lime-light
Its obviously not 'ime-light' but, YOU made the claim of "4 technical degrees" so Prove it ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Now you find out that, yes, I am a scientist of note
LOL! Whose note - so Prove it ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Now both you and Mikey are fish on hooks trying to get away from your clever scheme. The more you dig, the more you'll have to try to discredit
No, its on the basis of YOUR claim, so Prove it ?

Water_Prophet claimed
You two will be up against entire institutions
No, only YOU, so Prove it ?

Water_Prophet claimed
I don't need to justify the claims you made on me
U made the claim, so Prove it ?

Water_Prophet claimed with immense false logic
I am certainly NOT going to teach you a completely novel approach to predictive analytics to prove it...15.00 USD.
No Spam. You claimed "4 tech degrees" so Prove it ?

Those "4 tech degrees" U claim - so Prove it ?

Mar 07, 2015
Captain Stumpy observed
this is you ALCHE
you've made CLAIMS that are completely against the studies and science posted to you
plus you claim to have debunked studies
given there are no changes or retractions, etc, you've NO EVIDENCE to supply proving yourself other than your personal conjecture and interpretations
and you think you are credible?
Damn good point !

Water_Prophet has dug immense hole for himself, his patterns, which are so easy to show, we exploit & laugh at & his attempted retorts only put him in deeper.

Now why would someone begin claiming degrees when they r challenged on basic physics, its clear if they had a basic understanding they would be able to address it but, instead they resort to mere claim of qualifications - appeal to authority.

What Water_Prophet in his naivety doesn't appreciate is, its been done before & for decades before he was born, he is wasting our time & his, consistent with activities of an ego bloated kid !

So sad.

Mar 07, 2015
Mike, RE ego. I am rather proud of the things I've done. And you don't even know the half of it! I like how you guys can't stop talking about me. I feel so special.

4 degrees, ha, they are a drop in the bucket!

Mar 07, 2015
Water_Prophet again with ordinary hubris & claim
Mike, RE ego. I am rather proud of the things I've done. And you don't even know the half of it! I like how you guys can't stop talking about me. I feel so special. 4 degrees, ha, they are a drop in the bucket!
Profiling of the early years leading to a psychopath isnt in your book of experience now is it so then WHY not confirm your claim, its so very simple for the intelligent - especially to have the "presence of mind" to make those claims in the first place knowing full well they will be challenged ;-)

Your claimed "4 technical degrees" - which institute(s) & when ?

AND

How is it u cannot work out CO2's increase in thermal resistivity in useful units of Watts/m^2 ?

Simple for a Physical Chemist & esp those other 3 technical degree's worth of study, easy ?

Y don't U ?

Fish in a barrel, tut tut, so Prove it ?

Mar 07, 2015
So here's how it works:

Somebody comes up with a theory. They run an experiment. They publish in a journal.
Odds are, the theory isn't 100% correct it can have several flaws, and still push back the realms of science. Others confirm the experiment, may also publish.
Eventually, it gets refined, established, and confirmed. Then it gets placed in a book for common consumption as an established practice, if not a fact.

Once there it can be taught as true.

Mar 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
..comes up with a theory. .. an experiment. .. publish in a journal.
Odds are, the theory isn't 100% correct it can have several flaws, and still push back the realms of science. Others confirm the experiment, may also publish.
Eventually, it gets refined, established, and confirmed. Then it gets placed in a book for common consumption as an established practice, if not a fact.
Once there it can be taught as true
Replication AND peer review, U Dick !

Your above diluted novel Proves yet again, u have NO claimed uni training in Science & especially so in "Experimental Methodology" because if u did u would know re "Replication" WITH peer review & lab experience value re fundamentals !

Your claimed "4 technical degrees" - which institute(s) & when ?

AND

How is it u cannot work out CO2's increase in thermal resistivity in useful units of Watts/m^2 ?

OR

Go to Uni U PRICK & stop wasting everyone's time, so many of us are so WAY ahead of u !

Mar 07, 2015
Don't write so much, I won't waste your time. Although I am flattered.

Mar 08, 2015
So thermy-
I've got an answer. I guess it will be no surprise to you that the answer is at a critical point in the solution. I used two digits of accuracy, when it would have been better to have, oh, 5.
So I used two values, upper bound and lower bound and took an average to get near the answer.
I used disassociation of CO2 to CO and O, H2O to H and OH, then further, OH to O + H.
The fractions I got disassociated were 4% for CO + O, 21% for HO + H and 1.8% for OH to O + H.
I got contradictory data for CO2. Supposedly you are supposed to have more disassociated CO.
I used exp(-dH/kT) for the distributions, multiplying disassoc. energy time those dissociated to reduce the effective free energy.
I used these concentration distributions to establish the average Cp between associated and disassociated molecules. I Compensated for the energy from the initial condition of 298K being distributed among the excited states.

Mar 08, 2015
Using lower approximations: 2560 C
upper approx: 2897 C
Average: 2702C
I graphed the equation rate of changes and created the boundary approximation: 2560 + 0.48 (337) = 2721 C

2721 C is my final answer. Accurate to +/- 60C

Nowhere near googled values above.

But I'll stand by it.

Mar 09, 2015
So thermy-
I've got an answer. I guess it will be no surprise to you that the answer is at a critical point in the solution. I used two digits of accuracy, when it would have been better to have, oh, 5.
So I used two values, upper bound and lower bound and took an average to get near the answer.
I used disassociation of CO2 to CO and O, H2O to H and OH, then further, OH to O + H.
The fractions I got disassociated were 4% for CO + O, 21% for HO + H and 1.8% for OH to O + H.
I got contradictory data for CO2. Supposedly you are supposed to have more disassociated CO.
I used exp(-dH/kT) for the distributions, multiplying disassoc. energy time those dissociated to reduce the effective free energy.
I used these concentration distributions to establish the average Cp between associated and disassociated molecules. I Compensated for the energy from the initial condition of 298K being distributed among the excited states.


I will answer this. Continued

Mar 09, 2015
Alche/WP said:
I used disassociation of CO2 to CO and O, H2O to H and OH, then further, OH to O + H.
The fractions I got disassociated were 4% for CO + O, 21% for HO + H and 1.8% for OH to O + H.
I got contradictory data for CO2. Supposedly you are supposed to have more disassociated CO.


The key is to be able to determine the equilibrium constants for the components at temperature. This is where it differs from a typical combustion problem where the temperature is low (around 2000K for an air flame) and much higher (around 3000K for oxygen firing). Physical chemistry texts and papers is usually where I find the latest information on equilibrium constants.

Let's start with the temperature. You estimated about 2721 C (2994K), To do a full balance I had to look at every component and the equilibrium constants to help define Cp, If you take too few of the components it will not give you the right temperature. I got 3305K instead (higher then your estimate). Cont