Only 6% of scientists vote Republican

[piezoe]

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.



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.




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.

Please don't make me be unkind. I am going to pay far more attention to Woodcock or Salby than to you, because they are well trained scientists, and handling dimensions, units and labels is second nature to them. You are obviously not a well trained scientist. I will keep in mind that any of us including myself, Woodcock and Salby can be wrong.

Concentration is typically amount per volume. But volume of course can find other expression so long as density is known, and amount means quantity. If you know the concentration you know the quantity. You can of course compute ppm as molecules of CO2 per million air molecules if you know the mole fractions of air's components, and you will. You can also compute ppm as grams of CO2 per million grams of air molecules. These numbers won't be the same, so you had best know what exactly is being reported when you see ppm. Keep in mind that ppm is a label, not a unit.

I could go much further, but I am not inclined to teach chemistry here.

 

[Lucrum]

I could go much further, but I am not inclined to teach chemistry here.

Just as well. AGW nutters aren't interested in chemistry or science in general for that matter.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Only 6% of scientists vote Republican. And not only because of the global warming thing. Can anyone guess the other reason?

They actually have money in the bank and don't rely on public funding to make a living?

 

[stu]

Please don't make me be unkind. I am going to pay far more attention to Woodcock or Salby than to you, because they are well trained scientists, and handling dimensions, units and labels is second nature to them. You are obviously not a well trained scientist. I will keep in mind that any of us including myself, Woodcock and Salby can be wrong.

I'm not trying to make you be unkind. I'm trying to make you be honest about basic known science.

Both Woodcock and Salby have to submit papers if they have new or alternative ideas about measuring for CO2 or whatever. Neither have submitted any nor do they back up their assertions with data that stands standard science scrutiny. The reason they do what they do is anyone's guess, but it isn't science.

Concentration is typically amount per volume. But volume of course can find other expression so long as density is known, and amount means quantity. If you know the concentration you know the quantity. You can of course compute ppm as molecules of CO2 per million air molecules if you know the mole fractions of air's components, and you will. You can also compute ppm as grams of CO2 per million grams of air molecules. These numbers won't be the same, so you had best know what exactly is being reported when you see ppm. Keep in mind that ppm is a label, not a unit.

No one is saying you cannot get quantity measurement by either method. Why are you making these fake arguments up all the time?

There is a reason why you do quantity measurement from dry air. It is not a concentration measurement it is a quantity measurement.

The reason being wet air analysis is subject to data variation because of the different temp and air pressures throughout the atmosphere.
Dry air is not affected that way and is therefore a more accurate measurement. Both return similar values but dry air is the accurate of the two. Science 101.


You say Woodcock is using dry air. In that case if he is measuring air masses which are representative of extremely large areas of the atmosphere, he must show 372 ppm.

If he isn't then he is either pissing around, doing it wrong, or has found a unique way of discovering quantity of gas in air. If it is the last of those then he needs to present some hard valid reasoning for throwing over classical science with a revolutionary method beggaring all understanding.

I could go much further, but I am not inclined to teach chemistry here.

No kidding. Not to be unkind either but that's one true thing you have said. You're certainly not teaching chemistry.

 

[Ricter]

Almost all scientists depend on government grants of one form or another. Also, science has become very politicized in recent decades (it always has been to some extent). So it's no surprise that most scientists vote for the "big government" party...or should I say the "bigger government" party. (Many elected Republicans are just slightly to the right of the Dems.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

 

[futurecurrents]

If all scientists agreed tomorrow to stop donating to parties, expressing political opinions in public, or even voting, Republicans would not gratefully start agreeing with scientific consensus around global warming or embrace public health recommendations to reduce unplanned pregnancy and STDs. They wouldn’t even come around on the now 154-year-old theory of evolution. They oppose these ideas because they come in conflict with Republican ideological concerns. In a larger sense, conservatives aren’t going to abandon their discomfort with empiricism, because it’s so destabilizing to their political authority.

Since scientists have no ability to stop Republicans from attacking science, their only real option is to take power away from Republicans by supporting Democrats. Scientists, like most people trying to do good work in this world, would far prefer to have the support of all policy-makers. Since that’s not an option, it does no good to scold them for looking out for their own interests.

 

[jsp326]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

Citing a Wikipedia article = admitting your ignorance.

 

[Ricter]

Citing a Wikipedia article = admitting your ignorance.

Let's see a source for your claim, then.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Please don't make me be unkind.

Who, you, Pie?



You old devil you.

 

[piezoe]

I'm not trying to make you be unkind. I'm trying to make you be honest about basic known science.

Both Woodcock and Salby have to submit papers if they have new or alternative ideas about measuring for CO2 or whatever. Neither have submitted any nor do they back up their assertions with data that stands standard science scrutiny. The reason they do what they do is anyone's guess, but it isn't science.





No one is saying you cannot get quantity measurement by either method. Why are you making these fake arguments up all the time?

There is a reason why you do quantity measurement from dry air. It is not a concentration measurement it is a quantity measurement.

The reason being wet air analysis is subject to data variation because of the different temp and air pressures throughout the atmosphere.
Dry air is not affected that way and is therefore a more accurate measurement. Both return similar values but dry air is the accurate of the two. Science 101.


You say Woodcock is using dry air. In that case if he is measuring air masses which are representative of extremely large areas of the atmosphere, he must show 372 ppm.

If he isn't then he is either pissing around, doing it wrong, or has found a unique way of discovering quantity of gas in air. If it is the last of those then he needs to present some hard valid reasoning for throwing over classical science with a revolutionary method beggaring all understanding.



No kidding. Not to be unkind either but that's one true thing you have said. You're certainly not teaching chemistry.

Woodcock, being a scientist, simply recognized that ppm calculated by multiplying mole fraction by a million could be interpreted as molecules per million molecules. That's all. There are twelve more molecules of CO2 now per hundred thousand air molecules than there was in the late nineteenth century. That is obviously not enough more to have a measurable effect. And the data confirms that. That was his point.

You said something about woodcock and Salby having to submit papers. Woodcock is retired and doesn't have to do anything if he doesn't feel like it. Frankly, I doubt he'll be bothered by your not agreeing with him. He probably doesn't know you exist. And how on earth would you know whether Salby has "submitted papers", unless you have corresponded with him recently? Chances are he has, in which case they'll be under review. That can take a long time if the paper is controversial. Be patient. I'm confident you'll see further papers from him in due time.