eb_kidd
-
Posts
84 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
IIRC Arista, Holga, Foma 100 should all be pretty much the same emulsion.
-
No, but I will cut you some slack and figure that you are not familiar with certain idiomatic expressions common to both American and UK English, which you have apparently taken as a personal affront. Well, I would say that when you use an overly used insult to basically ignore what you were just told in the very post you responded to, that if the shoe fits (another idiomatic English expression BTW).
-
Methinks you have a hard time handling criticism in general, and have a habit of getting nasty with people who dare present differing points of view. I believe there's a description of such behavior in DSM V...
-
Or other factors, such as demand changes due to population growth, transportation, wars or civil unrest, or the unit of measurement such as debasement of local currency. It would be interesting to see how that chart projected into the 19th century, especially due to the cold winters following the 1815 Tambora explosion which resulted in shorter growing seasons in Northern Europe for several years afterwards.
-
Thanks for confirming what I already suspected - you are not only rude and condescending, but a humorless twit as well.
-
At least MO produced some documentation to back up his argument. You should try that some time yourself.
-
By any chance is there any correlation between the price of rye in Göttingen and the price of tea in China?
-
Equilibrium phenomena are by definition "negative feedback" in that the net driving forces push the system to a stable state.
-
Feel free to conduct that "analysis" and present it here. So far all you have done is evade questions and call other people names.
-
Your "point" seems to be that you can merely parrot what others have told you, have no intellectual curiosity in learning specifics of the issue yourself, and take great delight in openly denigrating those who do not share your views. If you think I'm off-base, feel free to let me know, but you're going to have to present something of substance to the discussion which you have failed to do so far.
-
I have tried to avoid getting personal, but you need to be called out on your tactics. Why do you feel compelled to attack me and make derisive comments instead of merely presenting your reasons for disagreement regarding my position on this subject? The fact that you accuse me of being a "denier" when I have made my position on this subject QUITE CLEAR is pretty much proof that you have no interest in conducting an argument based on any semblance of facts and logic. In addition, our steadfast refusal to answer any of my questions also makes it clear that despite your pretentions to the contrary, you don't really have a basic understanding of the issue yourself.
-
All reasonable questions - yes, water vapor does have a faster "dynamic" as you put it, but that is actually beneficial to the temperature regulation process. The rate of heat removal will depend on what is the limiting process step, evaporation at the surface/air interface or diffusion away from that interface. I may have my own opinions here given that I am a chemical engineer by education, but I am of the view that relative kinetic rates of given processes are not properly accounted for in many of the highly publicized "models", given that they seem to wind up overestimating the rate of "damage" as one might say by 3-5x. Just so you know, I appreciate how you present particular points, read my reply, and respond with your thoughts in kind. It's quite nice to engage with people who can conduct an adult discussion without making personal attacks and snide comments in the process.
-
Funny how you scold others for "high school debate tactics" when you used loaded, misleading terms in your own comments. For starters, nobody here is a "denier". Of course "climate change" exists - it has been going on for billions of years, ever since the creation of this planet. And yes, increasing concentrations of CO2 can have SOME effect. But before making wild claims that we're all going to hell in a handbasket because of "climate change", people need to ask (and get detailed answers) to some basic questions: How much temperature change is actually occurring? How much of that change is attributed to increased CO2 levels vs other phenomena (solar cycles, etc)? At what level of CO2 is there a significant effect, and WHAT is that significant effect, in terms of QUANTIFIABLE evidence? Given the empirical evidence available (current level, documented rate of increase), what is the period of time before we reach that "significant" level. Are CO2 levels part of a reversible (i.e. equilibrium-regulated) or irreversible process? If we desire to reduce CO2 concentrations to given acceptable level, WHAT is that level, and what are the costs vs. benefits in maintaining that level? These are all reasonable questions to ask, nobody should feel embarrassed or be ridiculed for asking such questions, yet to do such results in condescension from certain people. Once again, why?
-
From the article you quote: The primary reasons why water vapor cannot be a cause of climate change are its short atmospheric residence time and a basic physical limitation on the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere for any given temperature (its saturation vapor pressure). The change in saturation vapor pressure with temperature is on the order of more than 6%/degree C in the temperature range in question, more than 4x that of the rate of increase of blackbody radiation per the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so evaporation of water becomes more significant as temperatures increase. In addition, that saturated vapor at the surface isn't necessarily static - it's transported away from the liquid-water interface via a number of mechanisms, so Pvap is more of an indicator of relative kinetic rates. Go out to the desert in the southwestern US (Arizona, NM) some summer afternoon and watch the cumulonimbus clouds build up during the day. Heat sucked in through vaporization near the surface, adiabatic expansion until the water vapors rise high enough to cause condensation, at which slightly over 50% of the heat is radiated outwards toward space. There's your cooling mechanism right there.
-
You disagree with me, yet you can't explain how you specifically disagree with particular points in your own words. Why is that?