eb_kidd

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?

Peer pressure is absolutely right. We have a society of people who are so desperate to appear as "woke" or "enlightened" or "intellectual" in the eyes of others that they will swallow these doomsday scenarios hook, line, and sinker, then dare lash out any anyone who dares to present a contrary argument. The laughable thing is when these people scold others about "science" they clearly do not understand themselves. For the record, I have never said that we should NOT be concerned with AGW whatsoever, or that we shouldn't take common-sense steps to reduce our current levels of carbon dioxide production. In fact, I have been involved myself in developing alternate technologies for such ends. However, I see a clear and present danger when the Al Gores and Greta Thunebergs of the world are able to mau-mau large portions of the population into accepting their prophesies of gloom and doom as gospel truth, given that the eco-scare-mongers have had a p*ss-poor track record to date concerning their dire predictions for this planet. However, skepticism seems to touch a nerve with some folks, who seem more concerned with open displays of virtue-signaling than dealing with real issues.

Present them in your own words and we can discuss it. For starters, I presented data regarding the correlation between total CO2 produced, rate of annual production, and current CO2 concentration to present my central argument, which is that there are equilibrium processes in effect that negate this idea that there's some "runaway train" scenario in our near future, meaning within the next 50 to 100 years, a time period that calm, rational, informed people can use to develop policy without a bunch of panicking Nervous Nellies running around in circles demanding that we must do something tomorrow or else. Should you see any errors in my data, or have another interpretation that offers a better explanation, feel free to offer it to us. I also have questions about other aspects of the AGW issue, including the assumption that the surface temperature increases of the late 20th Century are all due to an increase in CO2 levels. Some of my skepticism here is based on the short time frame of temperature measurements, especially when assuming that the late 1800's represent some type of stable baseline w/r/t those measurements, as there were a number of significant events in the 19th Century that resulted in substantial cooling, including volcanic explosions of Tambora in 1815 (Google "Year without a summer") amd Krakatoa in 1815. Prior to that, there was a noticeable cooling trend in the northern hemisphere at the tail of the Medieval Warm Period (appx 900-1300 AD) when average temperatures were actually WARMER than today yet man-made CO2 emissions were negligible compared to today. FWIW, my primary issue is that I disagree with this whole idea that carbon dioxide in its present order of magnitude is even a significant greenhouse gas. The idea of runaway heating of CO2 neglects numerous factors. Start with the overall mode of the earth acting as blackbody radiator. Yes, it emits IR radiation in the dreaded 1500 nm absorption band, but what is the net effect? It's HEAT that at one point gets transferred to the other gases in the atmosphere, primarily the main greenhouse gas, the one that has a much more substantial and significant "greenhouse gas" - WATER vapor. In fact, as surface temperatures increase, the proportion of heat removed due to the endothermic evaporation of water at the earth's surface increases significantly. Do you doubt me? If so, do the math yourself, and look at the change in relative heat removal for a surface increase from 20C to 21C. (273K to 274K). The Stefan-Boltzmann law (heat flux i.e. [energy]/[area][time] = K*sigma*T^4) tells us for that 1 C temp increase, radiation will increase by (274/273) to the fourth power, or about 1.014x (1.4% increase in heat flux). Meanwhile, look at the equilibrium vapor pressures for water at 20C and 21C which would be 17.5 and 18.6 torr respectively. Again, in doing the math, (18.6/17.5) = 1.0628. In other words, an increase of 6.3% in VLE-driven evaporation of water at the earth's surface. Evaporation of surface water along with the screening of visible spectrum sunlight of that same water vapor are the primary mechanisms for regulating surface temperature on this planet. CO2 is a relatively minor player in the greater scheme of things.

Based on what evidence? You make these claims but what type of proof is there? For starters, there's no physical way that we're going to just stop all "greenhouse gases" without killing all life on this planet. However, reductions in the present rate of production would result of course in lower overall concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere as a new equilibrium point is established. Once again, I ask the question: where are the numbers? Do tell us what level of atmospheric CO2 is acceptable to you, then explain to us the cost (in terms of dollars/lives/whatever) to get there. I have never argued that we should NOT try to reduce CO2 emissions where it is economically feasible to do so. I merely take issue with the type of hysterical over-reaction by those prone to panic that will only result in bad decisions being made.

Please describe what those "tipping points" are, and what you consider to be "irreversible".

You bring up another point that the eco-chicken-littles refuse to acknowledge, which is that the during the time that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by 1.4 x, human population has increased by 2.5x. Approximately 10% of the annual CO2 production currently comes from human respiration, and given that the ratio of livestock to humans is about 1:1 on a weight basis, another 10% is the result of mammalian and avian respiration. Natural causes result in another appx 5-7%, and non-fuel-production related industrial processes (cement making, plastics/polymer/pharmaceuticals production, coke for steel, etc) result in a few percent more, so the actual CO2 produced by consumption of fossil fuels for energy generation purposes is about 2/3 of the total.

I'm with you on that one. :p

Please do tell me what comprises a "Climate Science" degree and what particular areas of study might be relevant: Thermodynamics? Chemical Kinetics? Heat and Mass Transfer? Inorganic carbon chemistry? All of those were part of the Chem E curriculim @ Cal. Feel free to share your academic credentials with us should you think that mine are inadequate to understand the basics of the subject at hand. In smoothing the data for the expected noise at a given point, the 2ppm value is relatively constant. Vastly overstated, which is why the doom-and-gloom types refuse to respond with specifics. We can "do something about it" once we have a grasp on a verifiable quantitative model and the time frame necessary to make such changes. Why is such info not presented directly? There's a reason, and it has a lot to do with the fact that the so-called runaway "hockey stick" model is total BS. The fact is that Nature has its own equilibrium mechanisms to deal with CO2 production, and those mechanisms are clearly in action. There has been an estimated 18-20x increase in the total man-made CO emissions since 1960, and a ~3,8x increase in annual emissions (2.5x increase in population x 1.5 increase in emissions per capita) YET the total increase of CO2 (a MINOR greenhouse gas, the most significant one is H2O) has only been 1.4x during that same time frame. Care to propose a mathematical model that explains where all the rest of that CO2 went? Clearly it doesn't all remain in the atmosphere and even a first-order rxn kinetics model grossly over-predicts that amount (we would have 1500ppm of CO2 if that were true). Do the math yourself - you will find that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as a function of production rate is more on the order of a CUBIC ROOT (x to the ~0.3 power). Hardly a runaway scenario there. What makes you think that scientists in academia are any more intelligent or intellectually honest that the scientists who work in industry? The latter have to actually prove themselves at one point to earn their keep.

NAME those "best scientists" and please tell us EXACTLY what it is they claim. Come on, give us an executive summary along the lines of what level of atmospheric CO2 concentration presents a significant danger, what that danger is in QUANTITATIVE terms, and based on the current and steady concentration increase of 2ppm/year (which as been constant since 1960), how many years it will take us to get to that level. We can continue the discussion from there. It would certainly be such if they whip up hysteria about problems they really don't understand that well in the first place, and start pushing for policies that may either be over-reaction or don't really address the problem in question. I learned a long time ago that when politicians start working people up in a panic about something, its because they don't want people questioning them or examining the possible consequences of what they are proposing. In fact, I have listened to a lot of scientists and academics about a number of things, and have given some of them the impression that I actually learned something about "science", enough that the University of California, Berkeley awarded me a Baccalaureate in Chemical Engineering some time ago. You want to discuss the specifics of "climate change"? I'm all for it, and would be happy to point out a number of areas where I am quite the skeptic of the chicken-little-we're-all-going-to-die crowd. Your turn...

LOL - agreed. :D I dread the whole environment of weddings, and of having to deal with people as subjects in general. That's probably why 99.5% of my images have nobody in them. The only time I ever dealt with "people pics" as part of a compensated gig was as a photojournalist/stringer for a local metropolitan paper in Southern California during my community college days, and covering the weekend police beat. In that case, I really didn't care if my subjects liked my pics or not, as in some cases they were either under arrest or deceased.

"Climate change" is the catch-all excuse politicians and bureaucrats use to deflect attention from their own malfeasance, incompetence and ignorance. The dangers of drought, high temperatures and excessive fuel on the ground are well known to those who have paid attention, a prime example of that being some of the disastrous forest and brush fires we have experienced in California over the last 2 decades. The politicians and bureaucrats simply devote their energies elsewhere, and when a debacle like this happens, they use it as an excuse to demand more power and tax money.