Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'German Physicists Trash Global Warming


ExpandMyMind

Recommended Posts

and your saying 88 days of being pointed away from the sun isn't long enough for mercury to cool off to freeze water,

Where am I saying that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    36

  • MARAB0D

    23

  • Mattshark

    22

  • Startraveler

    20

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Also it would nice to hear what people think of this statement from this same source:

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

when it comes to the AGW theory it seems something weird happens in science - data stops being your friend. or at least is only your friend when it tells you what you want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when it comes to the AGW theory it seems something weird happens in science - data stops being your friend. or at least is only your friend when it tells you what you want to hear.

You have to remember the money that has been spent on those models and the arrogance of those who produce them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when it comes to the AGW theory it seems something weird happens in science - data stops being your friend. or at least is only your friend when it tells you what you want to hear.

I assume you use the phrase "AGW theory" to obscure the fact that there are two questions here:

1) Does atmosphere/atmospheric composition affect planetary surface temperatures and

2) Are human alterations in atmospheric composition large enough to have effects.

This thread is about question 1, which you'll note has nothing to do with human beings. For some reason, in their bid to downplay question 2 some folks are attempting to reject a fairly self-evident answer to question 1.

Edited by Startraveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you use the phrase "AGW theory" to obscure the fact that there are two questions here:

1) Does atmosphere/atmospheric composition affect planetary surface temperatures and

2) Are human alterations in atmospheric composition large enough to have effects.

This thread is about question 1, which you'll note has nothing to do with human beings. For some reason, in their bid to downplay question 2 some folks are attempting to reject a fairly self-evident answer to question 1.

so the paper is not going to be addressed. have you even read it startraveler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following caught my attention in the above:

The strength of the new study
, published online in Geophysical Research Letters,
is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data
, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice,
and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

From the conclusion of the paper which is the topic of this thread:

A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect.

There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand, continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics.

In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.

You cannot argue with the points in bolding.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me the equation and I will be able to get my own statistics, you will have to excuse me but I would rather not simply take yours on faith.

You have had the data formatted before or you wouldn't have been able to produce your linear 'rise' in temp and the logarithmic relationship statistics. Having 800,000 years worth of ice-core data formatted for use would be a keeper for anyone with something to say on the topic, why would you delete them ? Anyhow all you have to do is copy and paste as columns into your software or via notepad or excel.

The only effort I want from you is the pasting of the equation, let me be the judge of its usefulness. The anomaly is not my claim it is well known in the climate change field and, as I have said many times, a number of hypotheses have been suggested...including by authors you have previously linked me to. :w00t:

Sooooo you claim to do mathematical modelling but you don't know how to do a regression? Ok. You can do it and stats program from the regression menus.

What from just the temp data? Yes I would. I couldn't really be bothered with going through and arranging them all since they on different scales time wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooooo you claim to do mathematical modelling but you don't know how to do a regression? Ok. You can do it and stats program from the regression menus.

What from just the temp data? Yes I would. I couldn't really be bothered with going through and arranging them all since they on different scales time wise.

I know plenty about regressions.

No need for you to do anything other than post this elusive mathemtical logarithmic relationship that you have at your fingertips.

If you are struggling to find it ask your supervisor for help, but he'll be thinking the same as everyone else...." bloody students ".

BS-er. :w00t:

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the paper is not going to be addressed. have you even read it startraveler?

The bulk of this thread has been addressing the ideas and conclusions found in the paper. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

And I've only read part of it; there's a great deal of fluff physics in there that isn't really necessary to the paper's thesis but makes it a lot denser (more opaque, one might say) and longer than it needs to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bulk of this thread has been addressing the ideas and conclusions found in the paper. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

And I've only read part of it; there's a great deal of fluff physics in there that isn't really necessary to the paper's thesis but makes it a lot denser (more opaque, one might say) and longer than it needs to be.

You did not answer, where is the atmospheric pressure in the radiation laws. Do not you think such clarification may be critical for this discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not answer, where is the atmospheric pressure in the radiation laws.

Is there a reason you dispute things you agree with? In Post #16 you said "the actual radiation into open space happens in atmosphere" and in Post #44 you said "But the heat balance (incoming and outgoing heat) remains the SAME as for a planet with no atmosphere." Both are correct, meaning the radiating temperature that we calculate using the equilibrium constraint will correspond to a pressure level in the atmosphere. As you've pointed out (and erroneously claimed I disagree with), the surface of the planet is not the radiating layer because we have an atmosphere.

And again, this follows from fairly basic thermodynamics. If we lift a parcel of air at temperature T0 and pressure p0 and lift it, letting it expand adiabatically to a new temperature and pressure (T,p) we know that T0p0-R/cp = Tp-R/cp because the process is isentropic (R and cp are obviously the standard constants associated with the gas in question). We can use that to come up with a conserved (in adiabatic processes) potential temperature θ = T(p0/p)-R/cp, i.e. the temp of the parcel if we reduce the pressure to p. It doesn't take much to get the dry adiabat, T(p) = θ(p0/p)R/cp, where θ takes on some constant value T(p).

So what happens when we consider what we already know (and you and I both agree upon)? Namely, that the equilibrium radiating temperature will refer to some layer in the atmosphere--with temp and pressure (Trad, prad)--and not the planet's surface. Given the above, we know that an atmosphere with a temperature profile given by the dry adiabat will have a surface temperature of Ts = (ps/prad)R/cpTrad. That first term on the right will be greater that 1, reflecting the fact that the surface temperature will be greater than the temperature of the radiating level in the atmosphere (which we already calculating to be somewhere around the 250-255 K range). This, of course, is what we experience since surface temperatures tend to be above freezing (meanwhile, as you said, "the actual radiation into open space happens in atmosphere" at a layer that's cooler than the planet's surface). This is a back of the envelope calculation that doesn't take into account factors that may affect the temperature profile of a planet (and it's based on a dry adiabat instead of a moist adiabat, etc) but it should get the point across that the notion that thermodynamics somehow forbids the presence of an atmosphere from raising surface temperatures is blatantly false. Which, again, is something we already know empirically by actually considering other planets in the solar system.

The planet radiates at a temperature that's colder than the temperature of the surface. In the absence of an atmosphere, Ts = Trad (again, with the uniform temperature approximation; if we assume no heat mixing mechanisms and more lunar or Mercury-esque surface, the distribution will work differently but the average will be equivalent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a reason you dispute things you agree with? In Post #16 you said "the actual radiation into open space happens in atmosphere" and in Post #44 you said "But the heat balance (incoming and outgoing heat) remains the SAME as for a planet with no atmosphere." Both are correct, meaning the radiating temperature that we calculate using the equilibrium constraint will correspond to a pressure level in the atmosphere. As you've pointed out (and erroneously claimed I disagree with), the surface of the planet is not the radiating layer because we have an atmosphere.

And again, this follows from fairly basic thermodynamics. If we lift a parcel of air at temperature T0 and pressure p0 and lift it, letting it expand adiabatically to a new temperature and pressure (T,p) we know that T0p0-R/cp = Tp-R/cp because the process is isentropic (R and cp are obviously the standard constants associated with the gas in question). We can use that to come up with a conserved (in adiabatic processes) potential temperature θ = T(p0/p)-R/cp, i.e. the temp of the parcel if we reduce the pressure to p. It doesn't take much to get the dry adiabat, T(p) = θ(p0/p)R/cp, where θ takes on some constant value T(p).

So what happens when we consider what we already know (and you and I both agree upon)? Namely, that the equilibrium radiating temperature will refer to some layer in the atmosphere--with temp and pressure (Trad, prad)--and not the planet's surface. Given the above, we know that an atmosphere with a temperature profile given by the dry adiabat will have a surface temperature of Ts = (ps/prad)R/cpTrad. That first term on the right will be greater that 1, reflecting the fact that the surface temperature will be greater than the temperature of the radiating level in the atmosphere (which we already calculating to be somewhere around the 250-255 K range). This, of course, is what we experience since surface temperatures tend to be above freezing (meanwhile, as you said, "the actual radiation into open space happens in atmosphere" at a layer that's cooler than the planet's surface). This is a back of the envelope calculation that doesn't take into account factors that may affect the temperature profile of a planet (and it's based on a dry adiabat instead of a moist adiabat, etc) but it should get the point across that the notion that thermodynamics somehow forbids the presence of an atmosphere from raising surface temperatures is blatantly false. Which, again, is something we already know empirically by actually considering other planets in the solar system.

The planet radiates at a temperature that's colder than the temperature of the surface. In the absence of an atmosphere, Ts = Trad (again, with the uniform temperature approximation; if we assume no heat mixing mechanisms and more lunar or Mercury-esque surface, the distribution will work differently but the average will be equivalent).

OK, so radiation laws do not in fact take atmospheric pressure into account. Thank you for this. Also thank you for finally referring to some sensible physical model (not that I agree with it, but we have to start from something).

Now back to atmosphere... So in your model the radiating layer is formed by the air at the temperatures about -40 C, which on one side of it has the earth surface at the temperature, say 0 C (who cares?) and on the other side is exposed to the open space. Correct? This is exactly the part where Thermodynamics steps in, insisting that no heat can be transfered from a colder object to a warmer object. Period. You say this is false - congratulations, you have just invented Perpetum Mobile!

Now to the emitting layer itself. At which altitude would it be located? The changes of temperature within troposphere would be such that this layer must be between 7 km to 10 km of the altitude (roughly).

The vertical temperature profile

Averaging atmospheric temperatures over all latitudes and across an entire year gives us the average vertical temperature profile. This plot is sometimes called a standard atmosphere. The average vertical temperature profile suggests four distinct layers (Figure 1). In the first layer, called the troposphere, average atmospheric temperature drops steadily from its value at the surface, about 290K (63°F; 17°C) until it reaches of minimum of around 220K (−64°F; −53°C) at a level about 6.2 mi (10 km) high. This level, known as the tropopause, is just above the cruising altitude of large commercial jet aircraft. The drop of temperature with height, called the lapse rate, is nearly steady throughout the troposphere at 43.7°F (6.5°C) per 0.6 mi (1 km). At the tropopause, the lapse rate abruptly shrinks to very low values. Atmospheric temperature is roughly constant over the next 12 mi (20 km), then begins to rise with increasing altitude up to about 31 mi (50 km). This region of increasing temperatures is the stratosphere. At the top of the layer, called the stratopause, temperatures are nearly as warm as the surface values. Between about 31–50 mi (50–80 km) lies the mesosphere, where atmospheric temperature resumes its drop with altitude and reaches a very cold minimum of 180K (−136°F; −93°C) at the top of the layer (the mesopause), around 50 mi (80 km). Above the mesopause is the thermosphere, which as its name implies is a zone of high gas temperatures. In the very high thermosphere (about 311 mi (500 km) above Earth's surface) gas temperatures can reach from 500–2,000K (441–3,141°F; 227–1,727°C), depending on how active the sun is. However, these figures are somewhat misleading. Temperature is a measure of the energy of the gas molecules' motion. Although they have high energies, the molecules in the thermosphere are present in very low numbers, less than one millionth of the amount present on average at Earth's surface. If a person were in the thermosphere, it would feel to them much more like the icy cold of space because such a small number of energetic gas molecules would be unable to transfer much of their heat energy.

Read more: Atmospheric Temperature - The Vertical Temperature Profile http://science.jrank.org/pages/614/Atmospheric-Temperature-vertical-temperature-profile.html#ixzz0bQlXuOXx

The expansion of rising element of heated air is accompanied by cooling without general loss of the heat.

Rising air experiences a drop in temperature, even though no heat is lost to the outside. The drop in temperature is a result of the decrease in atmospheric pressure at higher altitudes. If the pressure of the surrounding air is reduced, then the rising air parcel will expand. The molecules of air are doing work as they expand. This will affect the parcel's temperature (which is the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the air parcel). One of the results of the Laws of Thermodynamics is that there is an inverse relationship between the volume of an air parcel and its temperature. During either expansion or compression, the total amount of energy in the parcel remains the same (none is added or lost). The energy can either be used to do the work of expansion, or to maintain the temperature of the parcel, but it can't be used for both. If the total amount of heat in a parcel of air is held constant (no heat is added or released), then when the parcel expands, its temperature drops. When the parcel is compressed, its temperature rises. In the atmosphere, if the parcel of air were forced to descend, it would warm up again without taking heat from the outside.
http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/adiabatic_processes.htm

From this it follows that one Mol of air at surface temperature, say, +20 C would have MORE contained heat than one Mol (28.5 g) at temperature +10 C - so for it to cool to the same -45 C as a result of adiabatic expansion, it has to rise HIGHER. This means when the planet is heated more, the entire troposphere would EXPAND and the radiation would happen at a higher altitude. This goes along the Principle of Le Chatelier, as the system in a state of equilibrium reacts on the introduced change of the parameters in a way to eliminate the change. If you heat water it starts to evaporate in order to cool itself. Pretty much the same happens with atmosphere - any "global warming" coming artificially from inside the system or from the increase of sun radiation would be compensated by expansion of Troposphere. And when the Troposphere expands the surface area of the radiating layer INCREASES enough to emit the excess heat too. Schematically Troposphere is a sphere, so its surface area is 4*3.14*R^2, and this R changes when the expansion takes place.

90% of the air is in Troposphere, as above it there is almost no gas molecules present - this means all available CO2 is always UNDER this dense radiating layer - how can it prevent the heat loss??? Once agin, thermodynamically it is impossible to emit the IR back as the "back" is hotter. The entire concept you follow is based on the idea that the IR quantum is emitted by a CO2 molecule in random direction (which seems to be correct if the Thermodynamics is not taken into account), while this random direction must be always along the gradient of temperatures - and this means towards open space. It is the same as gravity - a rock can only fall down, despite all directions may look equally possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the part where Thermodynamics steps in, insisting that no heat can be transfered from a colder object to a warmer object. Period.

Wait, you agree that

1) "the actual radiation into open space happens in atmosphere," i.e the radiating layer is in the atmosphere and not the planet's surface; and

2) the surface of the planet is warmer than the radiating layer in the atmosphere (i.e. the "warmer object" and "colder object")

If this is the case, we don't disagree on anything here. You're correct. The surface temperature is higher than the temperature of the radiating layer of the atmosphere above. Which has been my point from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, you agree that

1) "the actual radiation into open space happens in atmosphere," i.e the radiating layer is in the atmosphere and not the planet's surface; and

2) the surface of the planet is warmer than the radiating layer in the atmosphere (i.e. the "warmer object" and "colder object")

If this is the case, we don't disagree on anything here. You're correct. The surface temperature is higher than the temperature of the radiating layer of the atmosphere above. Which has been my point from the start.

If you re-read my first post about this heat transfer, it was also saying that the surface practically does not emit anything - but the "greenhouse theory" insists that the CO2 in Troposphere "intercepts" the IR radiation and sends it back to earth, at least in some part. While if the emission comes from atmosphere itself from the altitudes of 10 km or so, then no greenhouse effect is possible at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "greenhouse theory" is exactly what I've laid out above in this thread, with the further clarification that prad is determined by the infrared opacity of the atmosphere (with larger concentrations of greenhouse gases decreasing prad and thus increasing surface temperatures--see the temperature profile of the dry adiabat in my above post).

The surface is warmer than the radiating layer. We've agreed upon this fact and nothing about that violates the laws of thermodynamics (indeed it follows from them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "greenhouse theory" is exactly what I've laid out above in this thread, with the further clarification that prad is determined by the infrared opacity of the atmosphere (with larger concentrations of greenhouse gases decreasing prad and thus increasing surface temperatures--see the temperature profile of the dry adiabat in my above post).

The surface is warmer than the radiating layer. We've agreed upon this fact and nothing about that violates the laws of thermodynamics (indeed it follows from them).

Draw yourself an egg... The yolk would be the Earth, the white would be troposphere, the shell would be its outer layer which radiates. If all CO2 in IN the white, how can it intercept anything??? There is virtually no gases above the troposphere, you may as well consider atmosphere ending on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're looking for a conceptual explanation of this process, a former prof of mine co-wrote a good overview (in a slightly different context) on Real Climate a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're looking for a conceptual explanation of this process, a former prof of mine co-wrote a good overview (in a slightly different context) on Real Climate a few years ago.

OK...

Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas.

If you have some patience, let me explain WHY the conditions of the described test are inadequate for receiving the valid atmospheric data.

1. The tube presents a limited volume and its material, whatever it be, possesses its own heat capacity. When IR is passed it is absorbed and re-emmited by the CO2 molecules (as the gases CANNOT "store" the heat!). The absorbed IR increases not the molecular speed, but the oscillation frequency of the atomic bonds and places a molecule into excited state, which it at first available opportunity leaves by emitting a quantum of IR of the SAME energy (Conservation Laws). This IR, emitted randomly, is partially absorbed by the material of the tube itself and causes insignificant heating of it. Hence the loss is not depending on the concentration of CO2, as the experiment demonstrated! In any case, if the loss cannot be attributed to the concentration of the gas, it must have ANOTHER reason, as Dialectics tells us (there is no miracles, everything has its reason).

2. It is impossible to suggest that within this experiment the gradient of temperature from one end of the tube to another was equal to the difference of temperature between Earth surface and open space - but this is the real condition, in which the Earth heat is transfered. Precisely because there was no gradient, the heat was radiated by CO2 in random direction, otherwise the heat flux would've been directed towards the end of the tube.

Hence so much of gullible Mr Angstrom and inexperienced Herr Koch :) Now lets go to your professor...

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

We have just established that Earth surface does not radiate... Also we have consulted Thermodynamics and found that it is impossible to radiate heat from colder body to a warmer one.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Once again - if the air receives heat from Earth by conductance and transfers it up by convection followed by adiabatic expansion and cooling, then what the greenhous Effect has to do with this?

Just show what I wrote to your professor - and see if he commits suicide or not. In the latter case consider him an ignoramus and a fraudster :sk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not trying to return to kindergarten, one must understand that the only gas, which can really cause some sort of greenhouse effect in our atmosphere is WATER. The cloud may contain thousands of tons of it, and it has the heat capacity of its own, be it in a steam or gas form. This heat is then returns back to earth with the rain - and has to be gotten rid of once again - but practically this is compensated by the clear skies in the other places. Historically the planet definitely cools down, if we compare the temperatures at Mesosoyan period and now, but this well may be due to general slowing down of the tectonic activity and volcanic heat release, not even to the Sun radiation fall. Hence we have much less water in atmosphere as the evaporation is not that significant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not trying to return to kindergarten, one must understand that the only gas, which can really cause some sort of greenhouse effect in our atmosphere is WATER.

Marabod, this simply isn't true. We know that it isn't true because greenhouse gases are emitted when volcanoes erupt. We can measure the results. Gas bubbles are trapped in glaciers so we have access to tiny samples of climates from the past. We can look at the fossil record of what flora and fauna existed during each period. Global warming isn't a theory. We can measure it.

There are some people here who think that it's pointless to observe and measure things because God [or spirits, or "entities" or whatever] is in charge and can do whatever random thing He wants at any moment. You don't strike me as one of those people.

The ability of greenhouse gases to trap heat is like the ability of fire to produce heat or the ability of the moon to influence the tides. It's not a matter of theoretical debate. You may dislike liberalism but don't react by becoming one of the Flat Earthers.

Edited by Siara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marabod, this simply isn't true. We know that it isn't true because greenhouse gases are emitted when volcanoes erupt. We can measure the results. Gas bubbles are trapped in glaciers so we have access to tiny samples of climates from the past. We can look at the fossil record of what flora and fauna existed during each period. Global warming isn't a theory. We can measure it.

There are some people here who think that it's pointless to observe and measure things because God [or spirits, or "entities" or whatever] is in charge and can do whatever random thing He wants at any moment. You don't strike me as one of those people.

The ability of greenhouse gases to trap heat is like the ability of fire to produce heat or the ability of the moon to influence the tides. It's not a matter of theoretical debate. You may dislike liberalism but don't react by becoming one of the Flat Earthers.

You are not getting the point here, marabod knows that and most with a cubic inch of brain on this forum know that. The problem here is that we have a problem they, for ideological or economical reasons, don't like. So they come up with things they know can't be true like there are no greenhouse gases. But then again water in gas form (i.e vapor) is one.

Ths is not about science anymore. If even von Storch resigns as editor of a peer reviewed journal because they are forcing Exxon sponsored crap on him (and he was the most liberal editor where every denier could publish) then we know this is not about science anymore. The whole number is about propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know plenty about regressions.

No need for you to do anything other than post this elusive mathemtical logarithmic relationship that you have at your fingertips.

If you are struggling to find it ask your supervisor for help, but he'll be thinking the same as everyone else...." bloody students ".

BS-er. :w00t:

That'd be nice, but he'd probably be wondering why I am asking after I have finished ;)

If you did you wouldn't have made claims over a plain graph. That is bad at undergrad level and you would have ask for the results, not the equation.

I have posted others evidencing it, and yes, if you can only read the abstract, it is still good enough to be evidence. You are simply a refusing to acknowledge it like you have refused acknowledge everything I put up, how ever when a paper you like is up you agree with it with out question. And you have the nerve to call me a BS-er, rather ironic.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'd be nice, but he'd probably be wondering why I am asking after I have finished ;)

If you did you wouldn't have made claims over a plain graph. That is bad at undergrad level and you would have ask for the results, not the equation.

I have posted others evidencing it, and yes, if you can only read the abstract, it is still good enough to be evidence. You are simply a refusing to acknowledge it like you have refused acknowledge everything I put up, how ever when a paper you like is up you agree with it with out question. And you have the nerve to call me a BS-er, rather ironic.

There would have been no point asking your supervisor anyway, he would probably know as much as you about the mid-late holocene rise in CO2. Actually it was about time you finished....you're a bit old to be doing an MSc IMO.

Dance, Mattshark, dance. Just post the equation. BS-er. :w00t:

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I was a bit rude there, sorry. Just post the equation and we can put this to bed.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just post the equation and we can put this to bed.

What equation are you looking for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.