|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Back to Alan's room where CO2 has pooled on the floor, nothing's changed. Alan says it will "diffuse back into the atmosphere". I say it will remain pooled on the floor.
He then has the bloody audacity to use MY PROOF for MY CLAIM, which I GAVE, to say it proves his claim when IT DOES NO SUCH THING.
Yes, it does! When you open the window! Just like YOU said it would! What you said is proof of diffusion.
The process through which CO2 gets into plants in the first place...
Or are you disagreeing with yourself as well now?
This is becoming even more absurd. You're not even following Alan's argument..
Opening a window is doing something. Alan's claim is that nothing else has to happen, CO2 will get up off the floor and diffuse itself into the atmosphere until it is thoroughly mixed.
Opening the window is doing something, like putting on a fan, or providing wind. Opening the window allows an exchange of gases, the lighter gases moving out create movement. For a better exchange of gases open two windows and get a through draught going.
What Alan is saying is that in the pit or mine there is no separation of gases, because they will thoroughly mix together.
Yet he still gives this, mines and pits, as an example proving his claim..
..which it actually, in real life, proves false. Got it?
Myrrh, I want to ask you a really serious question from this, and I'd be grateful if you gave an answer.
You've got two situations you're setting out here:
1. A mine, essentially a closed system, where the gases will just sit if you don't do something like pump them out.
2. A room with an open window (or two) where air moves through and mixes the gases.
Okay, so here's the question: which one of these two situations do you think is closer to the atmosphere of Earth taken as a whole?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
My room example had been if you release a volume of CO2 into a closed room. It will initially pool on the floor, but slowly diffuse into the room such that the CO2 concentration in the room will be the same everywhere - the dimensions of the room would be too small for gravitational seperation to be significant. If you open a window (not part of my original scenario) and the air outside is still and at the same pressure then there won't be any mass flow of air through the window (let's assume that we can open a window without disturbing the air as we do so), but the process of equilibration will continue by diffusion through the window - albeit very slowly because of the relatively small area over which diffusion between room and outside can occur.
The situation in a mine is different because the gases are being constantly added. The concentration of these gases will constantly increase if there was no fresh air introduced. If the gases are being introduced fast enough into a still atmosphere then there will be significantly increased concentration of these gases near the walls. These layers of air will behave a bit like the drop of heavy air I mentioned earlier (modelled by the food colouring drop in water) and sink down towards the floor (if CO2 rich) or rise towards the roof (if methane rich), from which it will slowly diffuse but a distinct layer may remain if the supply of gas exceeds the diffusion rate. If the walls are diffusing both methane and CO2 in the right ratio the air will remain neutrally bouyant and slowly diffuse where it is.
The layers still won't be pure gas. Methane and CO2 don't diffuse out of the walls of the mine as bubbles of pure gas but as individual molecules which mix with the ambient air next to the wall, so the masses of heavy or light air that move down or up the wall will be mixtures of ambient air and diffused gas from the wall.
That the layers are mixed is obvious. At least with the methane rich layer at the top. If the methane wasn't mixed there would be no risk of explosion, because pure methane won't burn as it needs oxygen. Yet, there have been numerous examples of mine explosions caused by methane. Which, by definition must have been mixed with air such that the methane-oxygen ratio was right for combustion.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My room example had been if you release a volume of CO2 into a closed room. It will initially pool on the floor, but slowly diffuse into the room such that the CO2 concentration in the room will be the same everywhere - the dimensions of the room would be too small for gravitational seperation to be significant. If you open a window (not part of my original scenario) and the air outside is still and at the same pressure then there won't be any mass flow of air through the window (let's assume that we can open a window without disturbing the air as we do so), but the process of equilibration will continue by diffusion through the window - albeit very slowly because of the relatively small area over which diffusion between room and outside can occur.
Let's not.
Let's stick with your original statements about this, excluding also your additional crap about a mine continually producing, because, this is what I'm arguing with you about, and we don't want to move the goal posts, do we?
You said:
"No, I said that in still air an externally supplied body of heavy gas (eg: something enriched with CO2) will pool [/i]until it diffuses into the rest of the atmosphere.[/i] That diffusion happens without any work being done.
Nothing magic. Just the everyday, happens all the time, motion of molecules in a gas. .."
"Just because there's no wind doesn't mean the individual molecules of gas have stopped moving - in fact the speed distribution of molecules in still air and a wind isn't really changed at all. The motion of molecules is more than enough to keep a gas well mixed by diffusion."
"No, it pools because it is produced somewhere with suffficiently high concentrations that the volume of air has (temporarily) greater density than the surounding atmosphere."
This is absolute bollocks in the real world.
There are two specific things you claim which I say are such bollocks in the real world that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you (your science) don't live in it.
We'll stick with your original room, Carbon Dioxide has been introduced and it has pooled on the floor. Nothing has changed in the room, no extra windows opened..
You say, the individual molecules are moving around so quickly that the Carbon Dioxide will diffuse back into the atmosphere of the room from only this movement, nothing else.
You also say in your scenario, that it is not simply Carbon Dioxide pooling, but, that it is Carbon Dioxide together with a local body of air, and it is these together which pool.
That is, it is this 'local body of air' as an entity which has become heavier because of the amount of CO2 in it, and it all pools together.
I am saying, that, even if Carbon Dioxide was introduced in a mix, it is the only the Carbon Dioxide which pools. And, that having pooled, i.e. the conditions in the room allowing it to have pooled, and if nothing is changed, it will stay pooled.
Because, it is Carbon Dioxide which is heavier than the other molecules in the room, and, the Carbon Dioxide does not join itself to these other molecules to form a 'local body of air'.
So.
On my side I have the confirmed by testing and observation that Carbon Dioxide is 1.5 times heavier than air. That when a large amount of Carbon Dioxide is released into a room it will pool on the ground separating itself out from the lighter molecules, because it is heavier than air. That this is how it is understood in real science, that when a gas is heavier than air it is the gas itself, not this mythical 'local body of air containing the gas', which sinks to the floor. All descriptions of such, of gases heavier than air sinking down through the air and pooling are likewise referring only to the gas and not to anything else.
For another example, which is also 1.5 times heavier than air, propane: Propane
You are introducing to NOVEL concepts in this well understood science of gases in real life.
In order of the scene, the room:
1. The Carbon Dioxide introduced into it in a mix called here the 'local body of air', sinks in one mass together because the Carbon Dioxide within it makes it heavy enough to pool. It is not the Carbon Dioxide alone which has pooled, but this 'local body of air' containing the increased amount of Carbon Dioxide making it heavier and so together they pool.
2. Having pooled and with no further changes to the conditions in the room, you say that purely by the motion of molecules alone the Carbon Dioxide will rise up and thoughly mix itself into the rest of the atmosphere of the room.
I am asking you to prove both these.
I say they are completely novel to real science in the real world.
1.I say: As in the example of propane, the countless descriptions of the properties of CO2 in large amounts pooling when conditions are there for it to pool, all say it is because the gas is heavier than air that it pools. It is the gas itself which pools and not any such thing as a 'local air containing large amounts of a heavier gas'.
You say: that even a heavier than air gas when introduced into an atmosphere comes in a package of 'local air', and it is this package which being made heavier by the amount of heavier than air gas in it which pools as an entity.
2.I say: because the CO2 is heavier than air that once it pools it stays pooled if the conditions which allowed it to pool do not change. Because, all desciptions from the real world have this description, from actual observation of the properties of heavier than air gases. All say that once a gas has pooled because it is heavier than air it stays pooled unless conditions change, venting for example.
You say that the motion of individual molecules is enough to diffuse it through the atmosphere after it has pooled and no other changes to the room take place.
I have asked you to prove both these things.
1. To prove, examples you gave volcano etc., that the Carbon Dioxide comes together with a 'local body of air' and it is this as an entity which pools.
2. To prove, that by the movement of the molecules alone the CO2 sitting on the floor having pooled will rise up and diffuse into the atmosphere of the room and will mix itself thoroughly.
I'm looking forward to seeing your proof.
Because you seem to have singularly failed to realise, though I have reminded you, that you have not actually provided any proof.
###
You have given these explanations in support of the AGWScience about CO2 in the atmosphere, that it is well-mixed and stays up in the atmosphere, 200 years etc., you have so far not offered any actual proof to defend this theory.
You have taken descriptions from the real world which clearly teach that it is the gases which separate out from each other because they are of different densities and this is why they are found to pool and rise in layers and attempted to use them in support of your claim, by a novel attachment to your 'laws'.
I look forward to seeing your actual proofs that it is a 'local body of air as an entity which pools' and 'that by molecular movement alone the CO2 will rise up off the floor and mix itself thoroughly into the air in the room'.
These are novel to every description of the process until the AGWScience started to promote it.
It is novel, therefore, prove it.
Re-interpretation is not proof and so far that is all you have given me.
Myrrh
Re the other posts to me, will come back to this at the end of the weekend.
Until then, do, those supporting AGW and Alan's novel theories above, get me some soddin' proof.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Myrrh
What kind of proof would satisfy you?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is absolute bollocks in the real world.
There are two specific things you claim which I say are such bollocks in the real world that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you (your science) don't live in it.
Oh, just noticed this. Personal abuse, Myrrh. Use of the wriggly bracketed addition does not disguise your obvious intention to assert that Alan Cresswell does not live in the real world. That's as much a C3 line as saying he is stupid. First warning on this thread. Watch your step. Or take it to Hell. Stick to your arguments here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We'll stick with your original room, Carbon Dioxide has been introduced and it has pooled on the floor. Nothing has changed in the room, no extra windows opened..
One thing has changed. In my original room, CO2 was introduced as a single event. So, the change is that CO2 is no longer being introduced. The pool that is formed will then diffuse into the atmosphere of the room. If you continue to add CO2 it will continue to pool, with the gas from the top of the pool continuing to diffuse and the CO2 concentration in the room continuing to rise. As the CO2 concentration rises the negative bouancy of the introduced gas will decrease and it will sink more slowly and pool less effectively.
quote:
You say, the individual molecules are moving around so quickly that the Carbon Dioxide will diffuse back into the atmosphere of the room from only this movement, nothing else.
No, it will diffuse into the atmosphere. Not back into the atmosphere because it was never part of the atmosphere in the first place. This is CO2 introduced from another source.
quote:
You also say in your scenario, that it is not simply Carbon Dioxide pooling, but, that it is Carbon Dioxide together with a local body of air, and it is these together which pool.
As the CO2 is introduced there will be some diffusion of air molecules into the new volume of gas, so it won't be pure CO2. The slower the CO2 is added the more mixing there will be. But, it's largely irrelevant whether you introduce pure CO2 or 10% CO2+90% normal air - except that the pure CO2 will be a denser volume of gas and have greater negative bouancy, and thus sink and pool faster.
quote:
That is, it is this 'local body of air' as an entity which has become heavier because of the amount of CO2 in it, and it all pools together.
Exactly, we're not talking about individual molecules which are moving too fast for gravity to have a significant impact on differentiating between them based on molecular mass. The pertinant object is an volume of gas with dimensions much greater than the mean free path of constituent molecules which has a density different from the surrounding gas. For near-ideal gases, density is proportional to the mean molecular mass of the constituent molecules. Pure CO2 has a density 1.5x that of air, a 50% CO2 50% air mix will have a density 1.25x that of air. In both cases a volume of gas greater than a few mm dimension will sink through air due to negative bouancy.
quote:
That when a large amount of Carbon Dioxide is released into a room it will pool on the ground separating itself out from the lighter molecules, because it is heavier than air.
There is no "seperating itself out" because the CO2 released into the room that pools was never part of the air in the room to seperate from. But, yes I agree that introducing a large volume of pure CO2 into a confined space will result in some of that CO2 forming a pool below the lower density air of the room (which will be composed of O2, N2 and Ar in normal ratios and an increased, and increasing, concentration of CO2 because we've added some that's slowly diffuing into the air.
quote:
All descriptions of such, of gases heavier than air sinking down through the air and pooling are likewise referring only to the gas and not to anything else.
Yes, we're talking about gas, not individual molecules within gas. I'm clear on that.
quote:
1.I say: As in the example of propane, the countless descriptions of the properties of CO2 in large amounts pooling when conditions are there for it to pool, all say it is because the gas is heavier than air that it pools. It is the gas itself which pools and not any such thing as a 'local air containing large amounts of a heavier gas'.
You say: that even a heavier than air gas when introduced into an atmosphere comes in a package of 'local air', and it is this package which being made heavier by the amount of heavier than air gas in it which pools as an entity.
Well, I'm now getting confused by your use of 'local air'. I just mean that two gases are different. One is the air of the room (O2, N2, Ar and 400-1000ppm CO2) and the other is the gas introduced (which could be pure CO2, pure propane, or any other mixture of gases with a mean molecular mass greater than the mean molecular mass of the air in the room. In that scenario, for the duration in which the introduced gas maintains coherence as a seperate body of gas (ie: when it has dimensions significantly larger than the mean free path of the constituent molecules) it will have negative bouancy and sink. If you want to call that introduced gas a 'local air' be my guest.
quote:
2.I say: because the CO2 is heavier than air that once it pools it stays pooled if the conditions which allowed it to pool do not change. Because, all desciptions from the real world have this description, from actual observation of the properties of heavier than air gases. All say that once a gas has pooled because it is heavier than air it stays pooled unless conditions change, venting for example.
You say that the motion of individual molecules is enough to diffuse it through the atmosphere after it has pooled and no other changes to the room take place.
As I said, for conditions to remain unchanged there would need to be a continuous source of CO2 (at a constant rate) and a sufficiently large room that the concentration of CO2 in the air doesn't increase significantly during the course of the experiment as introduced CO2 diffuses into it.
quote:
I have asked you to prove both these things.
1. To prove, examples you gave volcano etc., that the Carbon Dioxide comes together with a 'local body of air' and it is this as an entity which pools.
Some volcanoes emit almost pure CO2, most produce gases containing a mixture of molecules. In all but the most rapid outgasing, the gas produced will mix to an extent with the air that sits right above the vent. If that gas is denser than air it will sink and pool, regardless of whether it's pure CO2 or something else. Pooling can only occur with volumes of gas significantly larger than the mean free path of the constituent molecules. These are the 'local bodies of air' (if you want to use that phrase) that pool.
quote:
2. To prove, that by the movement of the molecules alone the CO2 sitting on the floor having pooled will rise up and diffuse into the atmosphere of the room and will mix itself thoroughly.
It's difficult to prove with gases, because you can't see them. But, it can be demonstrated in liquids as per my experiment with food colour in water, although diffusion rates through liquids will be slower.
Another experiment that could be done with stuff you might have at home will prove that lighter molecules diffuse downwards (the corollary to heavier molecules diffusing upwards). Though, I should add DO NOT ACTUALLY TRY THIS AT HOME. What you'll need is a container (to see what happens this will need to be transparent although the thought of using glass doesn't appeal), a shallow bowl of water, a source of ignition such as a spark plug, and some methane (you'll now see why YOU SHOULD NOT TRY THIS AT HOME).
Fix the spark plug to the bottom of the container. Invert the container such that it's open at the bottom and allow some methane to enter. Stand the container in water (this will prevent gas molecules from moving between the container and the rest of the world) and let it stand for a while. According to Myrrh, the methane will rise and form a layer above the air in the container. According to every scientist in the world, the methane will initially rise to form a layer that will then diffuse throughout the gas volume in the container. With the spark plug right at the top of the container, make a spark (but, not at home, DO NOT DO THIS AT HOME). According to Myrrh nothing will happen, because the top of the container will be pure methane (and, without oxygen it won't ignite). According to every scientist in the world, the container will contain well mixed gas and the combination of methane and oxygen will cause the methane to ignite explosively. You'll appreciate why I keep saying DO NOT DO THIS AT HOME.
It's a simple experiment that will provide strong evidence to differentiate between the two hypotheses. If gases spontaneously seperate there'll be no explosion, if gases mix there will be. Though, not an experiment that'll be easy to do safely if Myrrh is wrong ... which is why you SHOULD NOT DO THIS AT HOME.
PS. Just in case anyone missed it. Igniting flammable gases in sealed containers is extremely dangerous, so DON'T TRY THE EXPERIMENT.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
I wonder - how hard would it be to purify iodine from a solution you can buy at a store into the solid. It sublimates as a gorgeous purple gas which is a nice visual proof of diffusion.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is absolute bollocks in the real world.
There are two specific things you claim which I say are such bollocks in the real world that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you (your science) don't live in it.
Oh, just noticed this. Personal abuse, Myrrh. Use of the wriggly bracketed addition does not disguise your obvious intention to assert that Alan Cresswell does not live in the real world. That's as much a C3 line as saying he is stupid. First warning on this thread. Watch your step. Or take it to Hell. Stick to your arguments here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
That has been my argument all along in this Barnabas, that is how I have been differentiating my real world science from AGWScience which I say is not real, does not exist in the real world, is fantasy.
I have used this consistently.
I have also used consistently, not just to Alan, but for all those arguing against me here claiming AGWScience is real, that they do not live in the real world.
This distinction is crucial to my arguments. I live in the real world, where, for example, CO2 is heavier than air and sinks and doesn't rise up to float away and mix with the atmosphere, where CO2 has been designated in the real world science as a non-toxic gas, and doesn't suddenly become toxic when some imaginary line is drawn, etc.
Myrrh
Alan, and the third thing.
3. You still haven't given me the name and date for this person who said that 'once something is mixed it stays mixed'. I have already falsified that, proved it wrong.
I don't know where you got it from, but this cannot be a LAW in real science.
See you after the weekend.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is absolute bollocks in the real world.
There are two specific things you claim which I say are such bollocks in the real world that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you (your science) don't live in it.
Oh, just noticed this. Personal abuse, Myrrh. Use of the wriggly bracketed addition does not disguise your obvious intention to assert that Alan Cresswell does not live in the real world. That's as much a C3 line as saying he is stupid. First warning on this thread. Watch your step. Or take it to Hell. Stick to your arguments here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
That has been my argument all along in this Barnabas, that is how I have been differentiating my real world science from AGWScience which I say is not real, does not exist in the real world, is fantasy.
I have used this consistently.
I have also used consistently, not just to Alan, but for all those arguing against me here claiming AGWScience is real, that they do not live in the real world.
This distinction is crucial to my arguments. I live in the real world, where, for example, CO2 is heavier than air and sinks and doesn't rise up to float away and mix with the atmosphere, where CO2 has been designated in the real world science as a non-toxic gas, and doesn't suddenly become toxic when some imaginary line is drawn, etc.
Myrrh
Host Hat On
You have been around long enough to know that querying a Host's ruling belongs in the Styx, not in Purgatory. Take your query there.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rufiki
Ship's 'shroom
# 11165
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I've just redone the food colouring in the water experiment, this time having left the water for a couple of hours to get still. ... you end up with, after some time, a rather nice gradient of colour - much redder at the bottom of the glass, fading to pink at the top ... to mix it evenly needs more time and/or some shaking...
So did you keep it? If so, what does it look like a day later?
If nothing else, this thread has inspired me to dig out my copy of Feynman's Lectures Part I which I bought last year and never got around to reading. Thanks guys ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
Posts: 1562 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fredwa
Apprentice
# 12401
|
Posted
It would seem to me that if Myrrh's hypothesis that CO2 (being heavier that air) will sink through the atmosphere and accumulate at sea level is correct, it follows that the % of CO2 in air will fall with altitude. The sampling station at Mauna Loa is 3397 meters above sea level. If Myrrh's hypothesis is correct it should report a lower % of CO2 than a station at sea level.
To test this I chose a date (June 2000) and using this website http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/wdcgg.html I chose a sampling station at 28 meters above sea level (Baltic Sea) to compare with Mauna Loa.
The results are these
Mauna Loa 371.520ppm
Baltic Sea 370.080ppm
Conclusion, there is no significant difference in CO2 % with altitude, so Myrrh's hypothesis is incorrect.
Of course for a robust result I would need to replicate but as this result will surprise no one (with the possible exception of Myrrh) I don't see the point.
I'm not a scientist so may have made a mistake in all this so please let me know if I have.
Fredwa
Posts: 5 | From: Tiger country | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
I decided it would be prudent to dispose of it in case one of the kids thought it was Ribena! Maybe I'll give it another go using something I can put out of reach.
Feynmann's lectures are excellent - very readable. Still got mine from undergrad days several ice ages ago. His autobiography is fun too, though he talks more about bongos and lockpicking than physics!
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Feynmann's lectures are excellent
I'd second that.
Although, curiously, he doesn't talk much about sinking carbon dioxide. I suppose even geniuses have their blind spots.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fredwa:
It would seem to me that if Myrrh's hypothesis that CO2 (being heavier that air) will sink through the atmosphere and accumulate at sea level is correct, it follows that the % of CO2 in air will fall with altitude. The sampling station at Mauna Loa is 3397 meters above sea level. If Myrrh's hypothesis is correct it should report a lower % of CO2 than a station at sea level.
To test this I chose a date (June 2000) and using this website http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/wdcgg.html I chose a sampling station at 28 meters above sea level (Baltic Sea) to compare with Mauna Loa.
The results are these
Mauna Loa 371.520ppm
Baltic Sea 370.080ppm
Conclusion, there is no significant difference in CO2 % with altitude, so Myrrh's hypothesis is incorrect.
Of course for a robust result I would need to replicate but as this result will surprise no one (with the possible exception of Myrrh) I don't see the point.
I'm not a scientist so may have made a mistake in all this so please let me know if I have.
Fredwa
Regular participants in this thread.
fredwa has provided a link to a site which seems to me to provide conclusive and comprehensive observational proof that CO2 does not pool at lower latitudes. Very much as expected of course.
Has this site ever been referenced before? I don't recall it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
fredwa has provided a link to a site which seems to me to provide conclusive and comprehensive observational proof that CO2 does not pool at lower latitudes. Very much as expected of course.
I doubt that Myrrh will be convinced.
First of all because Mauna Loa is a volcano, so of course there'll be CO2 in the atmosphere at that point.
Secondly because no statistics produced by any official body can be trusted.
Not my opinion, I hasten to add.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Just thought of another CO2 pooling experiment.
Open a bottle of beer (preferably real ale, for quality purposes). Pour it into a glass. You will observe bubbles coming out of the surface of the liquid to produce what is called, in the trade, a head. These bubbles are made out of our favourite gas, Carbon Dioxide, which is dissolved but comes out of the beer when the pressure is released.
Now, I reckon that if you leave the beer, the bubbles gradually pop, releasing the gas they contain into the space at the top of the glass. If Myrrh's pooling theory is correct, it should remain there rather than diffusing out into the surrounding atmosphere as it is in a local low point. So, if you then strike a match, and hold it just over the surface of the beer, it should go out as there is no Oxygen, just CO2.
I haven't tried this myself as I drank the beer before I thought of it, but anyone else is welcome to give it a go. It's probably less dangerous than Alan's methane explosion option.
I suppose I could do it myself, but it would involve another bottle of Wychwood...
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rufiki
Ship's 'shroom
# 11165
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Feynmann's lectures are excellent
I'd second that.
Although, curiously, he doesn't talk much about sinking carbon dioxide. I suppose even geniuses have their blind spots.
From Chapter 1, he appears to have believed that gas molecules are in perpetual motion. I fear he must have been part of The Conspiracy, and not a Real Scientist after all.
Posts: 1562 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
fredwa has provided a link to a site which seems to me to provide conclusive and comprehensive observational proof that CO2 does not pool at lower latitudes. Very much as expected of course.
I doubt that Myrrh will be convinced.
First of all because Mauna Loa is a volcano, so of course there'll be CO2 in the atmosphere at that point.
Secondly because no statistics produced by any official body can be trusted.
Not my opinion, I hasten to add.
It's not just Mauna Loa. Mt Kenya, an extinct volcano, which is even higher, shows very similar results.
And the observations come from loads of different countries and folks. These stats are produced by the co-operative efforts of many people.
Maybe you're right, Inger, but there is a kind of reductio ad absurdum taking place here. Which may do some good.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Just thought of another CO2 pooling experiment.
Open a bottle of beer (preferably real ale, for quality purposes). Pour it into a glass. You will observe bubbles coming out of the surface of the liquid to produce what is called, in the trade, a head. These bubbles are made out of our favourite gas, Carbon Dioxide, which is dissolved but comes out of the beer when the pressure is released.
Now, I reckon that if you leave the beer, the bubbles gradually pop, releasing the gas they contain into the space at the top of the glass. If Myrrh's pooling theory is correct, it should remain there rather than diffusing out into the surrounding atmosphere as it is in a local low point. So, if you then strike a match, and hold it just over the surface of the beer, it should go out as there is no Oxygen, just CO2.
I haven't tried this myself as I drank the beer before I thought of it, but anyone else is welcome to give it a go. It's probably less dangerous than Alan's methane explosion option.
I suppose I could do it myself, but it would involve another bottle of Wychwood...
Well, having just sunk a bottle of Fairtrade Freedom Ale...
The CO2 will collect at the top of the glass - the beer is a CO2 source, and will continue to be so until the beer goes flat (no more outgassing). The CO2 will gradually diffuse into the atmosphere over the next few minutes/hours, until the air above the beer (but still inside the glass) reaches equilibrium.
However, I will have drunk the beer long before then, ruining the experiment ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I suggest you do it with a bottle of lemonade: pour the lemonade into a tall glass, until it's half full. The CO2 fizzing from the lemonade should be concentrated enough to extinguish a match. Leave the glass undisturbed for a couple of hours, and repeat. The CO2 should have diffused so that the match will remain lit.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
There's C02 in lemonade? How?
I make lemonade out of lemons, tap water, and sugar. Where does the C02 come from?
And can someone offer more details about the iodine experiment? Sounds interesting (if it's not dangerous).
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
What?
There's C02 in lemonade? How?
I make lemonade out of lemons, tap water, and sugar. Where does the C02 come from?
And can someone offer more details about the iodine experiment? Sounds interesting (if it's not dangerous).
People make alcoholic lemonade too which fizzes. This could be done more cheaply w/ any regular pop/soda as well.
As far as Iodine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine has the requisite pictures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fAOI6BeMZY for a video of the effect (though not exactly what we're looking for since the apparatus here is designed to make the gas recrystallize). Basically you'd need a heat source, and a somewhat sealed container w/ a bit of iodine in it above the heat. The heat will cause the iodine to go from solid crystal to gas, bypassing the liquid phase. As long as heat stays constant (I don't know what actual temp is needed), you won't see a large gradient in color. Certainly not a full separation, and depending on how much heat is there (i.e. energy) you might not see any. Yeah, the gas is somewhat toxic, but w/ care I'd have no issue doing this outside my apartment (or inside depending on how strong a hood my stove had).
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Fascinating; thanks (brings back memories of 6th-grade Christmas when I was given a chemistry set). Though it took me all the way to Easter before I managed to make a loud-enough, stinky-enough mess in the basement for my mother to ban combinations of chemistry set + me from the house.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I have also used consistently, not just to Alan, but for all those arguing against me here claiming AGWScience is real, that they do not live in the real world.
Ah, so really clarifying that it was a multiple-target Commandment 3 violation inside of your Commandment 6 violation. Clever.
Welcome to your suspension.
quote:
You still haven't given me the name and date for this person who said that 'once something is mixed it stays mixed'. I have already falsified that, proved it wrong.
I don't know where you got it from, but this cannot be a LAW in real science.
While you're away, feel free to look up Brownian motion.
Meanwhile, we (the Admins) will be reviewing your recent contributions to see just how much they appear to be crusading and trolling. I assure you that you'll be conversing with us about those particular aspects before you're allowed back.
-RooK
Admin
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
While Admin have been deliberating, Purg Hosts have also been considering whether this thread should continue.
In the light of RooK's ruling, I'll refer you back to the OP. We'll give a bit of time to see if you want to discuss further - and without an obvious source of digression - the serious issues Alan Cresswell raised.
We'll look at the thread again in 24 hours or so to see if there is still serious interest. Meanwhile, our thanks to all of those who have tried seriously, often with great forbearance, to engage with Myrrh's scientific blind spots. There has been quite an education there, for all who have ears to hear. We can certainly consider that aspect of the discussion closed.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
I'll be delighted to discuss the actual science of AGW and whether it's really happening, as well as the evidence. I'm happy to examine the expertise and credentials of the supporters and opposers - preferably without distractions.
But not just now thanks.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is bouyancy an attempt to frighten a Christian writer ? As opposed to buoyancy ? Him as a lad ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
While we'd been discussing properties of CO2, some other bits of news passed us by unremarked.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation published a report on the reports into the leaked emails from the CRU, which can be found here. The basic conclusion of this report seems, to me, to boil down to quote:
Despite the seriousness of the matters revealed in the Climategate e-mails, the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were
rushed, cursory and largely unpersuasive
(bottom of the first page of the summary and conclusions)
Well, clearly the GWPF weren't persuaded. Which isn't entirely surprising. They also seem to consider the emails to reveal things of greater consequence than most other observers. As stated in the foreword, "Even if only some of these accusations were substantiated the consequences
for the credibility of climate change science would be immense" ... well, no. The consequences for some individual scientists and one research lab would be significant, but climate science as a whole would be largely unchanged.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
fredwa - empiricism trumps dispositionally impenetrable rhetoric every time - THANK YOU.
HOSTS, ADMINS :-
Please can Myrrh be allowed back to attempt to play a dialectical antithesis to this winning card and ONLY that ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Alan - the inquiry was entirely predictable. Indeed we have all read these comments - albeit in more extreme tones - in the blogosphere.
Lawson has no credibility as far as I am concerned as he is unwilling to put his cards on the table and say what his position actually is. He seems quite happy to point out, what he thinks, are weaknesses without articulating a clear position himself.
For me the most interesting thing is that the past year has seen a significant growing scepticism in the British press. The Express and Mail are now as hostile as the Daily Telegraph - the home of climate contrarians. The Times is also increasingly anti 'the consensus'.
I guess they found out that it is easier to sell conspiracy theories than nuanced science. The idea that all the money is with the environmentalists and climatologists is one of the most ridiculous claims there is in this whole debate.
[ 26. September 2010, 09:43: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All the tax payers' money is Luigi. Now Dubbya's gone.
And even as it is and even though the scientists are as corrupt and worse (economical with the truth, pragmatic, patronizing, incompetent, self-interested, political when they all should know better) than Big Oil, don't mean that the high school physics can be wrong.
[ 26. September 2010, 15:31: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
fredwa - empiricism trumps dispositionally impenetrable rhetoric every time - THANK YOU.
HOSTS, ADMINS :-
Please can Myrrh be allowed back to attempt to play a dialectical antithesis to this winning card and ONLY that ?
I'll PM you, Martin. I think that will be best.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thanks Mr. B. My inbox is stuffed!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
So it is! Can't you unstuff it? (I've saved my PM until you're sorted).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Unstuffed a bit! I hate to lose people!!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Alan
That's an intriguing link. I appreciate your point re climate science, and the "well they would say that" dimension of the linked report.
Nevertheless, on first reading, I thought that at least one part of the criticism in the report had some force. That was the section beginning at para 36, i.e. the comment re Phil Jones' notorious "Mike's Nature trick" e-mail.
I know it's been aired before in these threads, so there isn't anything new there. But nevertheless, it kind of sticks in my craw.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
The climate change news from Australia after the last election appears to be that taking any further action on climate change would be politically 'too courageous'.
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nevertheless, on first reading, I thought that at least one part of the criticism in the report had some force. That was the section beginning at para 36, i.e. the comment re Phil Jones' notorious "Mike's Nature trick" e-mail.
I know it's been aired before in these threads, so there isn't anything new there. But nevertheless, it kind of sticks in my craw.
There are generally two ways that government funded projects generate literature. One is to publish findings in peer-review literature, subjecting them to the full glare of criticism from the scientific community (and, others who read the papers), with basically not much more than a summary presented to the sponsor. The other model, which is what we've mostly adopted in the work I've done, is to write a full report for the sponsor, and then extract some concise papers for peer-review publication. But, we've been doing small bits of work with short (less than 100 page) reports. And, what the minister (or even most senior civil servant) actually reads is just the summary unless they specifically want to read the whole thing. Ministers and/or senior civil servants can't read every bit of work that their department commissions, they trust the judgement of their juniors to highlight the important findings and policy implications.
The practical implications of the two models don't tend to be that different. The policy makers in both cases only get a summary, and rely on knowledgable and trusted civil servants to advise them on anything in the bulk of the work that they need to know. The nature of a summary is that it doesn't detail every step taken to get to the end results. In both cases, the full findings are publically available (at least, that's the case if the full report is publically available which is the case for the work we've done, and is the case where the 'full report' is in the form of peer-reviewed papers).
What the 'trick' correspondence shows is one scientist on a project reporting progress to another in getting a summary document ready. And, stating that they've just finished applying a procedure detailed in a peer reviewed publication to a data set. It is entirely appropriate to simply state "according to the method of Briffa 2000, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19, 87-105" rather than detail the method in every publication. Indeed, a referee would ask for such detail reported elsewhere in the open literature to be removed. It's borderline whether the reference should be carried through to derivative publications, it would probably depend on whether the authors and referees considered that the particular method used to produce a result you're using in the work you're reporting is relevant to the results. So, in this instance what we have is a series of papers reconstructing temperature from tree rings using the Briffa MXD procedure (aka 'trick'), which in turn are used in conjunction with other temperature proxies in papers reviewing the climate. While it's entirely appropriate to cite the Briffa paper in the tree-ring proxy papers, you would only need to mention that in the derivative papers if a) other tree ring data presented used different procedures and b) if the procedure used resulted in differences compared to other procedures that could have been used. If the procedures used to derive every data set incorporated into the more review-like papers were summarised it would result in long and cumbersome papers. One can always follow the citation trail and read the papers the work cites, and then see what methods had been used.
I admit that I don't know the relevant literature, so I can't really say whether all tree ring papers use the Briffa method, whether there are other methods and how the results of different procedures differ. But, if as in the example of Manns original 'hockey stick' paper re-analysis of the primary data using a different method results in the same result then it wouldn't matter if the 'trick' used was that of Briffa or someone else, and ommitting to mention that Briffa's procedure had been used in derivative publications isn't a big issue.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks very much Alan.
May I summarise/interpret your comments this way? Phil Jones used unfortunate language (trick suggests trickery and therefore a process contrived to achieve a particular end result) as shorthand for a process. So what is crucial is to confirm the legitimacy and lack of bias of the process, not get too bound up by short-hand language in emails.
So the key question is whether "Mike's Nature Trick" is indeed a legitimate and unbiassed process. In your opinion, is it? if it is, then para 42 of the report is an unjustified finding. The argumentation leading up to para 42 seems to have been researched and thought out.
[ 27. September 2010, 08:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, 'trick' was used as a short hand for a data processing method, without it intending to indicate deceipt. It's actually quite common usage, it was used in relation to substitution of terms in solving mathematical equations by my lecturers.
In relation to the actual 'trick' under discussion, I'd say it's a) not ideal but b) pragmatically useful. The problem is that tree-ring data as proxies for temperature breaks down in recent years (ie since about 1960). Where we have independent temperature records (direct measurements and other proxies) the tree-ring data agree pretty well for the vast majority of the historical record. But in the last 50 years there's a divergence between the tree-ring data and other data.
The tree-ring data actually record the growing conditions for that tree in each year, which includes water and nutrient availability, pests and disease etc. It happens that many of these also vary with temperature, such that usually a warmer year results in more growth. The simplest explanation for the divergence is that another factor has become important in the last 50 years which has changed the relationship between growth and temperature. Candidates for such additional factors include increased incidence of damage by pests and disease introduced by large scale transport of plants for horticulture, or the introduction of new competing species, or increased stress from pollution. The 'trick' is quite simple, from 1960s onwards the new additional variables make the normal relationship between temperature and growth unreliable - rather than sort out the new relationship (which is probably impossible as things like pollution are changing as well), the more recent tree-ring data are ignored and the instrumental data are used to complete the temperature plots.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks again, Alan. Very clear once again.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
I think anyone with any knowledge of scientists should have understood the use of the word 'trick' - and not just scientists; 'tricks of the trade' is a perfectly respectable term after all.
I think the 'hide the decline' looked more dubious. Not least because few people seemed to notice the date of the email, and simply assumed it referred to more recent events than was the case.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
I think anyone with any knowledge of scientists should have understood the use of the word 'trick' - and not just scientists; 'tricks of the trade' is a perfectly respectable term after all.
Exactly. The idea that 'trick' involves deceit is a projection by people who WANT to read it that way. 'Trick' can just as equally mean a method, process or technique.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Inger, orfeo
I have some reservations. Trick is associated with trickery and hide with concealment. In common parlance, they are not straightforward words. They do not always indicate straightforward behaviour.
Of course it's true that the author did not expect his comments to be revealed, so using shorthand which would be understood amongst peers was normal enough.
But in this goldfishbowl world, it's sensible to watch your step in confidential wording. Phil Jones could have said "I've used Mike's Nature process (ref if necessary) to give a better overall representation of trends". Or something similar. I'm inclined to believe that was his meaning.
And should there ever be a next time, I reckon that's the sort of thing he would do, rather than create a hostage to fortune. And I reckon that's a good lesson to anyone making an email record of anything these days. It is a sensible guard to wear.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The bit I find most interesting about the 'trick' is that it appears to be widly used to remove anomalous recent data from tree ring temperature reconstructions. Yet, no one appears to be unduly worried that that needs to be done. Which implies it's not something of importance (I guess it comes down to why would you need tree-ring data as a temperature proxy for a period with more than adequate instrumental measurements). If it was something of importance then instead of simply "I used the trick" we'd have emails about applications to funding agencies to research proper means to address the divergence. For scientists there's nothing like disagreement between two data sets, or between data and theoretical expectations, to generate a shout of "Wooo-Hoooo! Funding Opportunity!". Scientists (with a few historic exceptions, mostly related to military applications) are always in a position of having less funding than we really need, climate science is no exception.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Cherchez l'argent? Maybe someone will now - strange anomalies are often worth pursuing.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Inger, orfeo
I have some reservations. Trick is associated with trickery and hide with concealment. In common parlance, they are not straightforward words. They do not always indicate straightforward behaviour.
This is true. However, the point I'm making is more that they do not automatically indicate NON-straightforward behaviour. Context is everything. My problem with the hysteria surrounding that particular e-mail is that people jumped to the conclusion that 'trick' meant 'trickery' without considering the context. The word trick has multiple meanings, and people immediately decided to give it the worst possible one.
[ 28. September 2010, 07:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The simplest explanation for the divergence is that another factor has become important in the last 50 years which has changed the relationship between growth and temperature...
No the simplest explanation is that the tree ring data is not a very good proxy. However, I agree that all the explanations for the divergence need to be looked at. And I certainly agree that there was no intention to deceive in the use of the term 'trick'.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The simplest explanation for the divergence is that another factor has become important in the last 50 years which has changed the relationship between growth and temperature...
No the simplest explanation is that the tree ring data is not a very good proxy. However, I agree that all the explanations for the divergence need to be looked at. And I certainly agree that there was no intention to deceive in the use of the term 'trick'.
If you have a data set that previously shows a good correlation between A and B, which then abruptly (and 50 years is abrupt, considering the time-scales we're dealing with) deviates - it's highly likely there's some external factor at play.
Obviously, until that factor is identified, the value of the whole data set becomes suspect, as we don't know the relationship between A, B and C. But, with caveats, it can still be used.
Factor C might be something as simple as increased CO2 concentrations. Which would be ironic.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[If you have a data set that previously shows a good correlation between A and B, which then abruptly (and 50 years is abrupt, considering the time-scales we're dealing with) deviates - it's highly likely there's some external factor at play.
Well that assumes that there was a good correlation between A and B in the first place. How reliable for example were temperature records for the relatively short period in which the two sets of data can be tested against each other? Is it possible that if you are trying to prove a warming hypothesis through historic temperature records that you might be making assumptions about the evidence which aren't warranted? At the very least the divergence throws up doubt about what we can know and deduce about past temperature. We have to try, but we also have to admit that the uncertainties are high.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
How reliable for example were temperature records for the relatively short period in which the two sets of data can be tested against each other?
About 350 years for accurate temperature measurements, but historical records are also useful. As you point out, there are perils in extrapolating beyond the edges of a data set, but if you get a good correlation for the first 300, then increasingly off-beam for the last 50, there's a research opportunity right there.
Scientists always talk to each other in terms of confidence and probabilities - all such data sets are treated as the vile, lying, quixotic beasts that they are. Until a report appears in the mainstream press, then phrases like 'is certain' and 'ruled out' crop up. I might be certain, but I still need to slap error bars on it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
