Using Pure Science To Interpret Global Warming

Sihouette

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
1,635
In college, the chemistry 101 class is often used as a 'weeder' course. In short, it separates the men from the boys. Many have passed it with just a minimal grade and/or took it over in hopes of improving the grade with a little sympathy from the professor and a nudge from the university to not dissuade new recruits from ponying up the outrageous tuitions they feed off of like pigs at a trough..I digress.. [there seems to be politics in acedemia, who knew?...lol..]. Anyway, the net result is that not a little "credentialed scientists", particularly those outside the strict disciplines of the pure sciences like chemistry, mathematics & physics, get out of the university system with what is more akin to an "artsy-science" degree. There is little leeway for improvisation outside the pure sciences, however, those climatologists, and ecologists do have a more expansive and flexible hypothesis-field from which to formulate "facts" from. Global warming "science" is one such art.

When examining global warming then, I like to start with the pure sciences and move outward instead of the reverse. I start with the peculiar water molecule that makes up our ice sheets [the center of the global warming debate] and move outward to try to explain what is going on. Why the weird cold snaps? Why the harsh Winters? Take an ice cube out of your freezer and put it on the counter. In a windless environment the ice will melt more slowly. The weird water molecule has a protective tension around its structure and without a preturbing force acting on it, tends to stay in inertia. Anyway, put it on your counter and let it melt. The larger the ice chunk, the more like the ice caps your gradeschool experiment will be. Now, as the ice melts, take the temperature 1/4 inch away from the ice block, then 1/2 inch away and so on. Note the differences as it melts from the room temperature around it.

If you really want to get fancy and try to come close to replicating a real-earth system, get a small fan, even with the weakest air current blowing over the ice block. Note the temperature upwind and downwind of the ice chunk. Think about the air currents of the earth and how weird temperature changes around the world can possibly then be explained. Think most of all about what will happen to a smaller closed system with a heat lamp [the sun] placed over it, air currents blowing over the ice and an opaque or invisible thermal curtain such as a sheet of plastic [for increased CO2] in the atmosphere between the light [sun] and the ice cube [polar sheets] with the fan blowing over it [air currents around the Earth]. Now, predict with that new system, what will happen to the rate of melt on the ice block.

See? What a perfect gradeschool example. Oh sure, you can use your "artsy-science" to baffle people and purposefully obfuscate the interpretation, especially if you get a large enough $ incentive from oil companies and other carbon-junkies, but closed systems are closed systems. The earth and its atmosphere is largely a closed system. It isn't hard to explain what's going on and predict the ultimate outcome if you start with pure science and work outward. Again: think: "specific heat" of water and "thermal dynamics". Now, post your theories..
 
Werbung:
In college, the chemistry 101 class is often used as a 'weeder' course. In short, it separates the men from the boys. Many have passed it with just a minimal grade and/or took it over in hopes of improving the grade with a little sympathy from the professor and a nudge from the university to not dissuade new recruits from ponying up the outrageous tuitions they feed off of like pigs at a trough..I digress.. [there seems to be politics in acedemia, who knew?...lol..]. Anyway, the net result is that not a little "credentialed scientists", particularly those outside the strict disciplines of the pure sciences like chemistry, mathematics & physics, get out of the university system with what is more akin to an "artsy-science" degree. There is little leeway for improvisation outside the pure sciences, however, those climatologists, and ecologists do have a more expansive and flexible hypothesis-field from which to formulate "facts" from. Global warming "science" is one such art.

When examining global warming then, I like to start with the pure sciences and move outward instead of the reverse. I start with the peculiar water molecule that makes up our ice sheets [the center of the global warming debate] and move outward to try to explain what is going on. Why the weird cold snaps? Why the harsh Winters? Take an ice cube out of your freezer and put it on the counter. In a windless environment the ice will melt more slowly. The weird water molecule has a protective tension around its structure and without a preturbing force acting on it, tends to stay in inertia. Anyway, put it on your counter and let it melt. The larger the ice chunk, the more like the ice caps your gradeschool experiment will be. Now, as the ice melts, take the temperature 1/4 inch away from the ice block, then 1/2 inch away and so on. Note the differences as it melts from the room temperature around it.

If you really want to get fancy and try to come close to replicating a real-earth system, get a small fan, even with the weakest air current blowing over the ice block. Note the temperature upwind and downwind of the ice chunk. Think about the air currents of the earth and how weird temperature changes around the world can possibly then be explained. Think most of all about what will happen to a smaller closed system with a heat lamp [the sun] placed over it, air currents blowing over the ice and an opaque or invisible thermal curtain such as a sheet of plastic [for increased CO2] in the atmosphere between the light [sun] and the ice cube [polar sheets] with the fan blowing over it [air currents around the Earth]. Now, predict with that new system, what will happen to the rate of melt on the ice block.

See? What a perfect gradeschool example. Oh sure, you can use your "artsy-science" to baffle people and purposefully obfuscate the interpretation, especially if you get a large enough $ incentive from oil companies and other carbon-junkies, but closed systems are closed systems. The earth and its atmosphere is largely a closed system. It isn't hard to explain what's going on and predict the ultimate outcome if you start with pure science and work outward. Again: think: "specific heat" of water and "thermal dynamics". Now, post your theories..

The earth has gone through many global warming and cooling phases for billions of years before humans existed. How does your experiment account for that? And the earth isn't a closed system - sunlight reflects off it's clouds, and radiation from many wavelengths is emmitted into space.
 
Werbung:
you can also try logic...if I where to pump billions of pounds of gases and pollution into the air...would this have any effect on anything?

If you think no, try it in your garage :)

I did. I started my car in the garage and let it run all day. Guess what? Nothing happened.

Of course, the garage door was open.

Your statement is most illogical, but expected.
 
Back
Top