Inhofe: Global Warming Ppl, "The Third Reich"

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Regardless of whether it layers or not, Fick's law actually INCREASES diffusion when pressure increases.  Actually argues for my point and not against it.

You ignore the fact that the casing also increases in density with the increase in pressure. An increase in density causes a decrease in diffusion. This would be important if not for the fact that we are STILL talking about concentrations and NOT total quantities of CO2.

[papaspot]

By the way, iplaw, I'm disappointed in you. After chiding us for not responding to you fast enough, it took you THIRTY-SEVEN MINUTES to respond. [}:)]

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
The fact that there are bubbles in the ice means that at least not all gases follow this flicks law in this instance.

This statement is just dumb.  It's not called a law if things don't behave accordingly.  I never asserted that ALL gasses, 100% of the concentration would dissapear.  It just happens to be that all those damn deltas in the eqations create too many variables, like time and pressure which we can't supply data for.  I.E. the equation can't be solved without proper data.

quote:
I am sure SOMEONE would have thought of the possibility that gases trapped in ice could change in relative concentration over time and would have taken that into account if needed.

And you would think that scientists would remember to convert units before making calculations too wouldn't you.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

Things dont always have to appear to obey one law.  Other possibilities or laws can interfere.  Take the law of superposition, older layers on the bottom, younger on top, but if you have a thrust fault, folding,  inclusions,etc. what you will find is an example of lower layer that is younger than the one on top.  This doesnt negate the first law just means you have to be on the look out for the exceptions.  

 As for that spacecraft incedent, puleeeeze. Thats why you do multiple tests, blind tests, have different labs do the tests, scientists argue against the tests etc. They know mistakes are going to be made. Eventually you get a consensus or more than one spacecraft into orbit lol.[]

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
The fact that there are bubbles in the ice means that at least not all gases follow this flicks law in this instance.

This statement is just dumb.  It's not called a law if things don't behave accordingly.  I never asserted that ALL gasses, 100% of the concentration would dissapear.  It just happens to be that all those damn deltas in the eqations create too many variables, like time and pressure which we can't supply data for.  I.E. the equation can't be solved without proper data.

quote:
I am sure SOMEONE would have thought of the possibility that gases trapped in ice could change in relative concentration over time and would have taken that into account if needed.

And you would think that scientists would remember to convert units before making calculations too wouldn't you.  Surely SOMEONE would have caught this.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

Lemme guess...Republican? You're comparing a mistake made by a couple of engineers to something that has been reviewed by MANY scientists. You got that spin thing goin' real good for ya.

[iplaw]

You speak of air like it's a singular molecule and not a homogeneus mixture of different molecules.  It is totally possible for the ratio of molecules to be changed based upon the nature of the membrane it passes through, I.E. local variations in the crystaline structure of the ice surrounding it allowing smaller molecules to pass more easily than the larger ones.  Again, yet another variable.

[iplaw]

Lemme guess, Democrat?  No that was a blunder by an entire team of NASA scientists not just a couple.  Those who failed to check their work are as guilty as those who made the mistakes. Nice spin though.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You speak of air like it's a singular molecule and not a homogeneus mixture of different molecules.  It is totally possible for the ratio of molecules to be changed based upon the nature of the membrane it passes through, I.E. local variations in the crystaline structure of the ice surrounding it allowing smaller molecules to pass more easily than the larger ones.  Again, yet another variable.

And the variables are accounted for in the calculations. You talk about laws being consistent...the rate of diffusion is calculable. The bottom line is that you will ignore any evidence that's inconvenient because you've decided that you will accept the right-wing assertion that there's nothing that humans are doing or can do to alter the atmosphere. It's the same line that the 9/11 conspiracy folks take. If you are determined enough to believe something, you will always be able to make a mountain out of a molehill of evidence while ignoring a mountain of evidence.

But it's all a big conspiracy by the govern...er...liberal scientists of the world in order to deprive oil companies of their well deserved profit, right?

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Lemme guess, Democrat?

Wrong again. Libertarian.

quote:
No that was a blunder by an entire team of NASA scientists not just a couple.  Those who failed to check their work are as guilty as those who made the mistakes. Nice spin though.

It was a blunder by people who FAILED to check it...not by thousands of scientists who checked it and misinterpreted the data. You spin it like it's a great analogy. It isn't. It's a piss poor analogy with a nice wax job.

[iplaw]

quote:
the variables are accounted for in the calculations. You talk about laws being consistent...the rate of diffusion is calculable. The bottom line is that you will ignore any evidence that's inconvenient because you've decided that you will accept the right-wing assertion that there's nothing that humans are doing or can do to alter the atmosphere. It's the same line that the 9/11 conspiracy folks take. If you are determined enough to believe something, you will always be able to make a mountain out of a molehill of evidence while ignoring a mountain of evidence.

Nice dodge.  I haven't made up my mind any more than you buy the dem version hook line and sinker.

[iplaw]

So now this study was conducted by thousands of scientists?  To assert that complex endevors like NASA projects don't go through layers of review is a joke.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You speak of air like it's a singular molecule and not a homogeneus mixture of different molecules.  It is totally possible for the ratio of molecules to be changed based upon the nature of the membrane it passes through, I.E. local variations in the crystaline structure of the ice surrounding it allowing smaller molecules to pass more easily than the larger ones.  Again, yet another variable.

 

 Absolutely, that was my point, and I am sure these changes occur at predictable rates.  I am no scientist but that is the very first thing I thought of when someone mentioned measuring the gases in ice bubbles.  And I can think of several more variables as well. I can only assume those who are actually thinking of how to do these tests would have thought of something an amateur like myself would find obvious to check for.  I am just an artist for goodness sake lol.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
the variables are accounted for in the calculations. You talk about laws being consistent...the rate of diffusion is calculable. The bottom line is that you will ignore any evidence that's inconvenient because you've decided that you will accept the right-wing assertion that there's nothing that humans are doing or can do to alter the atmosphere. It's the same line that the 9/11 conspiracy folks take. If you are determined enough to believe something, you will always be able to make a mountain out of a molehill of evidence while ignoring a mountain of evidence.

Nice dodge.  I haven't made up my mind any more than you buy the dem version hook line and sinker.

The difference is that I base my conclusions on the SCIENCE. You base yours on the politics. What kind of neo-con would you be if you didn't deny human induced global warming? You'd be laughed right out of the Elk's club.

[iplaw]

No you base your SCIENCE on scientists who support your position, many of who stand to profit from their positions by increased funding.  Experts disagree or we there wouldn't be a fricken debate going on about it right now.  Global warming is a FACT.  Human causality is NOT.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

So now this study was conducted by thousands of scientists?  To assert that complex endevors like NASA projects don't go through layers of review is a joke.

Oh, you're GOOD! What spinning! What TWISTING!! You really should have been an acrobat!

No, counselor, the whole global warming thing has been examined by thousands of scientists.

Are you SURE that you're a lawyer and an engineer? I mean, did you REALLY misunderstand that or were you just spinning? If you honestly didn't understand it, I find it hard to believe that you could have made it through law school, let alone a college of engineering. I realize that engineers aren't scientists but they're not exactly stupid.

But ya don't really seem stupid so I'm guessing that you understood but were just spinning things your way.

[iplaw]

Yada yada yada papaspot, attack me all you want but at least I'm not dodging the debate, by declaring it's over cause someone else told you it was.  

Yes, it's been covered by MANY scientists and there is no consensus despite what you say.  Saying it louder or attacking me isn't helping your point.

BTW thanks for editing to add that last line, cause it was getting nasty and personal and not your typical attitude.  Goes to show this is a charged debate at least.