Only 6% of scientists vote Republican

[stu]

Stu, thanks for helping me out here with your response to him about this Woodcock thing. I'm curious what you think is pie's deal. It just doesn't make sense. He is obviously intelligent and is liberal/progressive on all other topics and I generally agree with what he writes in those areas, but when it comes to AGW he totally jumps the track. I don't get it. And as much as it may sound crazy I have a strong suspicion that he is working for an organization. It's the perfect cover. Look like a liberal but deny AGW anyhow. Gives him more credibility. It's like he himself is Salby or Woodcock or one of those guys. Calling it the "Hansen Hypothesis"?. The only one who uses that term are the deniers, intent on personalizing and diminishing ghg theory. That's one of the tactics they use. If one googles it the only reference is to an article on WUWT.

Could it just be an ideology that motivates his ridiculous non-scientific assertions?

Or perhaps piezo has some thwarted career aspirations that left him unable to accommodate accepted 101 science which he appears to be in denial of. No offense to him, just guessing. Thing is there is nothing very appealing in his rejection of basic scientific fact underlying his arguments.

At least he does seem to have kept a sense of humor.

 

[stu]

You don't realize it, but you have just contradicted yourself. You have unwittingly produced a nonsense statement, to wit: "The reason for measuring in dry air is that it gives the true quantity of gases in the atmosphere, whereas wet air measurement only gives concentrations".

It's not nonsense just because you don't accept it.

(Actually, both measurements, wet and dry, give "true quantity", and both give concentration.)

Factually untrue, here's why...

Measurements of the non-condensing gases are invariably reported as the concentration in dry air, because the concentration in moist air varies depending on humidity.

To precisely determine quantity of CO2, it is the number of CO2 molecules per given number of air molecules after removal of water vapor. the chemical term being mole fraction. It's basic science.

Concentration depends mainly on the variability in temperature and pressure and dilution by water vapor and so wet air is not is not accurate for quantity.

The pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm is also a measure in dry air,

As I say, the difference in measurement between dry and wet is academic. The pre-industrial 280ppm taken wet or dry, against 372ppm now in dry and 360ppm now in wet, is almost irrelevant. It is the steep rise quantity between then and now that is the problem. Talking about wet or dry values is misdirection designed to create controversy where there is none.

It is the true quantity not the concentration which is the important measurement and issue. That can come only from dry air measurement.

I might add. When you say 361 ppm CO2 in wet air, without also reporting the concentration of water vapor, you have reported a useless figure! As a scientist, I would ask: "How wet? What is the humidity?".

If you were a scientist, you would understand you measure dry for quantity and that in 3% wet air at 30,000ppm water vapor, there are 360ppm of CO2 measured whilst in dry there are 372ppm.

Woodcok's argument is a complete red-herring.

 

[futurecurrents]

Could it just be an ideology that motivates his ridiculous non-scientific assertions?

Or perhaps piezo has some thwarted career aspirations that left him unable to accommodate accepted 101 science which he appears to be in denial of. No offense to him, just guessing. Thing is there is nothing very appealing in his rejection of basic scientific fact underlying his arguments.

At least he does seem to have kept a sense of humor.

Hmmm, so he wanted to be a climate scientist but could never admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas thus his life dream was dashed and ever since his mission is to destroy climate science. LOL

But why would his ideology be so polar? He is a smart progressive in every other area but this where he seems to be using a completely different brain. From the little I have seen of his other posts. And the obvious effort to sound impressive is a huge red flag to me and although to you and me it is not impressive, a person like lucrum will be mightily impressed with his rejection of basic scientific fact.

I think there is a high probability that he is working for a conservative think tank. Like I said, appearing to be a progressive gives more credence to his AGW science denial. There is no question that they have people like pie out on the WWW on forums just like this one. It's the only thing that makes sense. I don't see how he could possibly believe what he is saying.

 

[piezoe]

...
To precisely determine quantity of CO2, it is the number of CO2 molecules per given number of air molecules after removal of water vapor. the chemical term being mole fraction. It's basic science.

Concentration depends mainly on the variability in temperature and pressure and dilution by water vapor and so wet air is not is not accurate for quantity. ...

We agree then. Your statement: ""The reason for measuring in dry air is that it gives the true quantity of gases in the atmosphere, whereas wet air measurement only gives concentrations". was nonsense. (To make this more clear, note that you are saying, in effect, that concentrations don't give "true quantities". THAT, of course, is nonsense.)

And we further agree that measures of CO2 , are invariably reported for dry air, unless of course there is some special reason to report them in moist air, in which case a measure of water vapor must be reported as well.

You missed the most important point of my post however, which was not to belittle you. A dimensionless number labeled as "ppm" is usually computed using mass, but it can be computed using moles, or numbers of molecules. ( A "mole" is just a number, and ppm is a dimensionless fraction multiplied by a million.) When you use the standard measure of CO2 in ppm you find that CO2 has increased since about 1880 by about 36% relative to itself. When you ignore mass and use moles, which Woodcock did because that makes photophysical sense, you'll find that CO2 increased by about 12 molecules per 100,000 molecules of dry air. That's an increase of about 0.01%. Whereas 36% sounds like a lot, 0.01% does not sound like much! The later figure is the important one from a greenhouse gas standpoint, and Woodcock, of course, understands that. Most ET forum participants wouldn't.

 

[futurecurrents]

CO2 concentrations have gone up 40% suddenly in two hundred years. That is significant. These levels have not been seen for over 15 million years. Both Woodcock and Salby are fools, frauds and prostitutes.

The talk of wet vs dry measurement, moles vs mass is irrelevant and simply a red herring. A dishonest tactic. Piezoe, like jem, has zero interest in intellectual honesty.

 

[futurecurrents]

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said.

"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.

"We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history," Tripati said.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

 

[futurecurrents]

To say that the CO2 increase is not significant is like saying like that there is no such thing as cheese. Anyone who would say such a thing is a fool or a liar or both.

 

[piezoe]

To say that the CO2 increase is not significant is like saying like that there is no such thing as cheese. Anyone who would say such a thing is a fool or a liar or both.

It maybe more like saying that if I add a drop of alcohol to a bathtub full of water and than increase the amount of alcohol I add by 100% (two drops now) The amount of alcohol in the bathtub is still insignificant. If I drink the entire tub of water, I may die, but it won't be because I'm inebriated.

Apparently there's no such thing as cheese!

 

[futurecurrents]

It maybe more like saying that if I add a drop of alcohol to a bathtub full of water and than increase the amount of alcohol I add by 100% (two drops now) The amount of alcohol in the bathtub is still insignificant. If I drink the entire tub of water, I may die, but it won't be because I'm inebriated.

Apparently there's no such thing as cheese!

An increase of 40% of the gas responsible for the earth's temperature setpoint is significant. Liar. It is not concentration but effect that is relevant. Disinformer. Wow you are intellectually dishonest. I call it lying.

 

[stu]

We agree then. Your statement: ""The reason for measuring in dry air is that it gives the true quantity of gases in the atmosphere, whereas wet air measurement only gives concentrations". was nonsense. (To make this more clear, note that you are saying, in effect, that concentrations don't give "true quantities". THAT, of course, is nonsense.)

No we don't agree. How come you don't understand the difference between concentration and quantity?
Already pointed out, you can measure differing concentration due to variations in pressure and temperature and vapor dilution. Whereas mole fraction measurement in dry air gives a precise quantity measurement as it is not varied by temperature etc.

And we further agree that measures of CO2 , are invariably reported for dry air, unless of course there is some special reason to report them in moist air, in which case a measure of water vapor must be reported as well.

No we don't further agree. There is no special reason for reporting wet air measurement. It is done to consider the concentration of CO2. The reason for reporting dry air measurement is to consider the quantity of CO2.

You missed the most important point of my post however, which was not to belittle you. A dimensionless number labeled as "ppm" is usually computed using mass, but it can be computed using moles, or numbers of molecules. ( A "mole" is just a number, and ppm is a dimensionless fraction multiplied by a million.) When you use the standard measure of CO2 in ppm you find that CO2 has increased since about 1880 by about 36% relative to itself.
When you ignore mass and use moles, which Woodcock did because that makes photophysical sense, you'll find that CO2 increased by about 12 molecules per 100,000 molecules of dry air. That's an increase of about 0.01%. Whereas 36% sounds like a lot, 0.01% does not sound like much! The later figure is the important one from a greenhouse gas standpoint, and Woodcock, of course, understands that. Most ET forum participants wouldn't.

I don't want to belittle you either but I'm sorry piezoe, what you are saying is sheer nonsense.

To get quantity you measure mole fraction as the number of CO2 molecules in a given number of dry air molecules without water vapor expressed as ppm.

It is a formal proven classical scientific process for accurately finding the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere.

By what you are saying, Woodstock is ignoring that.

His measurements are not at all important and might as well be computed from using mole fraction fairy farts per million teaspoons per second to conclude a totally bogus negligible increase.
They'd be just as valid as your ridiculous comments are when you confirm computation is done in moles (mole fraction) but Woodstock uses moles so he gets a different result when he uses moles!!!

Woodstock, just like Salsby, is putting garbage in to get bullshit out. He is presumably being absurd on purpose. They get some attention from it. But why on Earth you would buy their crap is the mystery.