Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Considered comments and questions rising from getting the maths pdf.
#1
Hello All,
Please post considered comments or questions arising in regards of this thread
titled, "I just do not "get" the "maths" of climate science." here.

Thanks in advance,
Derek.
Reply
#2
"So, the calculation for my "sum" would look something like,

1/2 pint of water at 20C - emission of energy + received energy from hotter object
+
1/2 pint of water at 40 C - received cooler energy from cooler object - emission of energy
=
I pint of water at 30 C."

I think the answer will not be 30C. You have to first work in metric (500g water at 20C + 500g water at 40C) then use the right equation to determine the amount of heat in each 500g of water. Then work out the combined heat in the adiabatically mixed 1kg. I did a few rough calculations and the temp may actually be 33.3333C.

It has been a long time, however since I studied heat capacity and temperature and calorimetry so take this with a pinch of salt. AS I may have got this wrong.

I'm just alerting you to the possibility that since the centigrade scale is relative to OC that simply averaging the temps may not work as simply as you would intuitively think. One needs to consider the amount of heat in each body of water, add the total heat and mass and then re-calculate the temperature of the total mass. Or my preferred approach would be experimental. In my previous job I could have done this experiment by mixing the contents of two jacketed reactors of water and measuring the temp.

I hope someone who is knowledgeable in calorimetry comes to our rescue!

HOWEVER, although an interesting science exercise- I think this is not relevant to back radiation of IR and heat in the atmosphere.
This web page almost describes the problem you have set :-

http://www.learnthermo.com/examples/ch08/p-8a-3.php
Reply
#3
Thank you Climate Realist, firstly my apologies I meant to link back to here for you
from the thread where our discussion lead to me putting this piece together.
You have obviously found this thread now, so all is well.

I deliberately did not spend much time on my relative version of the "sum",
as I decided it would be a minefield. I think I have however highlighted how much the physics should be questioned
in the "Maxwellian" part of the piece, by including the links and quotes of Professor Claes Johnson's pieces.

That said, the suggestion that you would get 33.333C for mixing fluids is very interesting,
maybe this hints at the missing "leeway" to include cooler cooling hotter for a version including radiative transfer of the "sum". ?

I did not change the units deliberately because I do not know which would be best as yet, if anything develops.
So, I kept to C for simplicity of explanation and continuity.

Reply
#4
Derek,

Have you had a chance to review the comments about geometry at the page where we were talking, which have been posted since your last comment? I'm still trying to understand both sides of the question, and while I think that DeWitt Payne has given a comprehensible explanation of "the three models" which has each model receiving total incoming radiation (TIR) of 341.5*A watts, consistent with the three formulae you wrote, it still seems to me that there are some loose ends in your presentation regarding 1) what *exactly* is done with this radiation once it is received, and 2) what the intended rationale is for such measures. Payne's comments (as well as Jeff Id's) about the above-mentioned questions #1 and #2 are not completely clear to me, but in fairness, neither are yours. All three of you seem to believe that the answers to these two questions are obvious, or elementary. I respectfully disagree, and as proof I cite the fact that each of the three of you seem to have different answers, yet you are all relatively smart people.

Interestingly, in regard to the matter of answers seeming obvious to their expositors, the calculation that I had said was "simple" turned out to be a bit more in-depth than I had thought, and after much consideration, I am still not convinced that the rhetorical record on that page (to include your main presentation) clearly shows that ANY of us know how much energy is being put into each model. It is a somewhat easier matter to determine how much SHOULD be going in. But that is a different question. (And even *that* is something I'm not yet convinced of, even though you, Payne and Id seem to agree that it's 341.5*A watts.)

You said you wanted to see if people agreed with you, and as far as I'm concerned, I neither agree nor disagree with your overall geometric argument, because on this matter, neither *your* argument nor those of your critics is yet clear to me. All of you seem, at times, to make huge, sweeping assumptions that certain things are known or obvious to your audience. Well, speaking for myself, much of these assumptions are not known to me, and of those that are, some of these are far from obvious.

If you want to persuade, you have to build your case on a strong foundation. You can be right; your correctness can be something that would be obvious to the reasonable person when presented with a properly prepared case; and yet you can still fail to persuade, due to the error of "weak foundation".

I'm still listening for more, because I find this question to be one of the most interesting that is out there, right now.

Regards,

RTF
Reply
#5
RTF writes,

Quote:You said you wanted to see if people agreed with you, and as far as I'm concerned, I neither agree nor disagree with your overall geometric argument, because on this matter, neither *your* argument nor those of your critics is yet clear to me. All of you seem, at times, to make huge, sweeping assumptions that certain things are known or obvious to your audience. Well, speaking for myself, much of these assumptions are not known to me, and of those that are, some of these are far from obvious.

Maybe you can specify what is not clear to you?



It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#6
(01-05-2011, 05:44 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: RTF writes,



Maybe you can specify what is not clear to you?

I have already specified quite a bit that is not clear to me. Or, if Derek prefers, he can take the conversation in a different direction. I have opened many doors for different directions to go in. There are many aspects of his geometric argument which have not yet been done justice by anyone, here or at the Air Vent -- not by me, not by him, and not by the others posters at either location.

Have you read my entire conversation with him at the Air Vent?

I have spent the last several days doing not much else besides thinking and writing about this very subject on these two pages. I have expressed my lack of clarity on many specific questions, and most of them have not yet been addressed by anyone other than me. I couldn't even begin to count them.

RTF
Reply
#7
Thank you Richard T Fowler, I genuinely appreciate that you have commented here, and elsewhere, I assume the Air vent blog, but,
I have not had time to read them yet.

I hope you understand when I say I feel a little burnt out at the moment (especially after yesterdays "epic"), and need a rest.
I will come back as soon as I have had time to rest, and then consider where "we" are up to.
I will in due course chase up your comments you mention, and respond.

But, tonight, I want a night off, and to get drunk.
Then unfortunately I am back on my four day on and off shift system that I have to work.
I hope to get back by next Wednesday, if not a little sooner.

Reply
#8
Very well, rest up and I'll check back later. Yes, that was tAV where we spoke.

"Richard" is fine, by the way.

RTF
Reply
#9
Thank you Richard.

Today family intervenes, but I do have time to post some "background" that may be of use in helping work out where I am coming from, so to speak.
Otherwise my pdfs may appear a little "out of nowhere" so to speak.

It will be easiest for me to provide some links to other threads on this forum (which is by no means an exhaustive list),
where over the last few years discussions have been continuing that have really been responsible for where I am at now.
(Some of the discussions listed below have been resurrected / continued from a lost old version of the forum, so they are older than they may appear to be here and now.)

1) The one assumption of the
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “theory”
(or, so called Man made climate change)
modeling you should understand.

It is worth noting the above was written before I started questioning whether there was a greenhouse effect at all.
In some ways this piece should be rewritten from my perspective now, but it still is useful in that it provides a "history" in other relevant aspects to AGW.

2) Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
This thread is really where things took off for me, specifically,
Terry Oldberg's posts, especially post 13 in the thread.
In short Terry seems to suggest to me that,
Gavin Schmidt created the greenhouse effect by confusing a radiation intensity with a heat flow, and further that
Gavin then assigned a vector to this "heat flow" that we know does not exist.
ie, Before Gavin,
[Image: NASAradiationbudget.gif]

after Gavin,
[Image: global_energy_budget_components.png]

And much more besides.

3) Eureka …Revisited. (The untold “discovery”)
This thread is where the basis is, in my usual "warts and all" approach described to how I came up with the below plot.
[Image: Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg]

I also put my first version of what does a greenhouse AND it's surrounding actually show simile in this thread.
Plus a lot more besides of relevance to the pdfs you are aware of so far from tAV.

4) The below thread also HAS to be mentioned, Richard111 has been an inspiration too many times to list. Thank you Richard111.
Layman struggles with Science

5) There is also a thread in a private discussion within this forum (invisible to those without permission to see) titled " Derek - Smelling the coffee. "
Which for obvious reasons I can not link to.
However one of the scariest links / pieces I have come across so far in regards of "AGW science" is mentioned within that thread.
Eco-Imperialism – every Environmentalist’s Dream

I hope this puts "things" into a better perspective of where my pdfs have come from.
I am most "loyal" to SST in all this, because without HIS forum I would never have done, what I have done.
That said, loyal in this context does not mean blinkered, it means this is where so far
I have found to be the best place to discuss "things" from a wide and varying a view point/s as possible.

Yes, I deliberately "expose" my own arguments weaknesses (warts and all approach), as well as attempting to show / highlight weaknesses in others arguments.
To me that is a necessary often absent in most people's attempts at discussions. I will unhappily admit I do not do well enough in this respect myself.
But I do try to, and do not object to my failings therefore neccesarily being pointed out, or raised.
Hence, I do intensely dislike debate and debating / discussion tactics used,
in particular this summary of debating tactics. The Nizkor Project - Fallacies.
Especially when such tactics are used to poorly disguise supposed "discussion".
Which more often than not, such "discussions" are not discussions at all, they are simply negatively intended (poorly disguised) "climate" debates..
Exposing one's own arguments weaknesses is surely a prerequisite to discussion.

My next piece will be in regards of where does oil come from, I have at least 3 viewpoints to cover, one biotic, and two abiotic.
So, I am going to be working on that as well, as "we" here have a similar length of research into this topic/s as well.

All in all I think they seem to add up to a "bigger picture".

yours,
Derek.
Reply
#10
Where is the data that supports the level of convection and evaporation being so small and radiation being the major release of heat from the earths surface?? Any references to research work to support these diagrams??

And radiation at what wavelength?? As CO2 interacts at certain narrow bands with IR.
Reply
#11
Derek,

Hmm, interesting. Some of this *is* relevant to our discussion, particularly the vectorial references. I am not well versed in nonlinear math, but I'm going to try to get up to speed on it as fast as possible.

The BG and AG stuff (Before Gavin and After Gavin) may also be relevant. But, have you noticed that the outgoing numbers don't tie out on the BG chart? You have the big red arrow which as far as I can see totals to 58%, but in order for the outgoing total to be 100%, the big arrow would have to be 64%. They have written in the number "64%", but the constituents they identify only add to 58%.

Perhaps you can cite the study for which this diagram was developed.

RTF
Oops, wait a minute. I see it now. It does add to 64. Very confusing diagram.

Sorry for the tangent.

Have to review most of all this stuff a little later.

RTF

Reply
#12
The plots are both NASA's own plots Richard, as NASA released them.
The first one being the earlier one, they are not too keen to be reminded about these days..

I will also continue our discussion regarding the shape issues of the models on the thread for considered comments arising from the free to all pdf,
in respect of the shape issue that still seems to elude so many.
Reply
#13
(01-07-2011, 08:14 AM)Richard T. Fowler Wrote: Derek,

Hmm, interesting. Some of this *is* relevant to our discussion, particularly the vectorial references. I am not well versed in nonlinear math, but I'm going to try to get up to speed on it as fast as possible.

The BG and AG stuff (Before Gavin and After Gavin) may also be relevant. But, have you noticed that the outgoing numbers don't tie out on the BG chart? You have the big red arrow which as far as I can see totals to 58%, but in order for the outgoing total to be 100%, the big arrow would have to be 64%. They have written in the number "64%", but the constituents they identify only add to 58%.

Perhaps you can cite the study for which this diagram was developed.

RTF
Oops, wait a minute. I see it now. It does add to 64. Very confusing diagram.

Sorry for the tangent.

Have to review most of all this stuff a little later.

RTF

I interpret that to mean that the outgoing energy is not matched by the incoming energy - hence they suggest this is the greenhouse effect and this is why the earth is "33C hotter than it should be".

I say this is nonsense!

Reply
#14
It is possible, Derek that oil is made by both biotic and abiotic means.
Reply
#15
(01-08-2011, 06:33 PM)Climate Realist Wrote: It is possible, Derek that oil is made bu both biotic and abiotic means.

It is certainly possible Climate Realist, but to date I have not seen any biological processes agreed whereby "we" go from dead plant or animal to "fossil fuel" oil (not coal, I am for this piece not interested in coal as such).
If anyone knows of such I would be very interested in it, because as of yet the biotic part of the piece I have (in my head so far) is very sparse in this regard.

I have seen some verified (and repeatable) experiments for abiotic processes, but none for the biotic (supposedly) suggested processes.
There are peculiar observations that also support abiotic formation of hydrocarbons, such as the hydrocarbons on Titan's surface (Titan is one of Saturn's moons).

I use "(supposedly)" above in respect of biotic processes because I ain't found any yet.. So, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Reply
#16
In related discussions with Climate Realist on this forum, I tried a "new" way to explain what I mean and
have tried to convey in the post this thread is for considered comments arising from,
ie, http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...-1057.html
I just do not "get" the "maths" of climate science.

My comment was as follows,
" Imagine a black body if you will. It will cool on it's own at a certain rate. OK.
Now, in the presence of another black body that is cooler, will the first black body cool,
1) faster, (my described all radiation is absorbed relatively)
2) slower, (all radiation is positive view), or
3) at the same rate as if it were on it's own (Claes Johnson approach).

I am also thinking that the surface temperature of the black body needs to be taken into account,
as it is not uniform (it may have an average, but that is a different thing).
"
Reply
#17
(01-09-2011, 06:26 AM)Derek Wrote:
(01-08-2011, 06:33 PM)Climate Realist Wrote: It is possible, Derek that oil is made bu both biotic and abiotic means.

It is certainly possible Climate Realist, but to date I have not seen any biological processes agreed whereby "we" go from dead plant or animal to "fossil fuel" oil (not coal, I am for this piece not interested in coal as such).
If anyone knows of such I would be very interested in it, because as of yet the biotic part of the piece I have (in my head so far) is very sparse in this regard.

I have seen some verified (and repeatable) experiments for abiotic processes, but none for the biotic (supposedly) suggested processes.
There are peculiar observations that also support abiotic formation of hydrocarbons, such as the hydrocarbons on Titan's surface (Titan is one of Saturn's moons).

I use "(supposedly)" above in respect of biotic processes because I ain't found any yet.. So, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Living plants produce hydrocarbon gases (VOCs) in hot weather. That is a natural cause of summer haze you see over a forest. When the plants die, I can see that decomposition could produce more complex hydrocarbons (i.e. crude oil), however, biology is not my area, although plants are made of carbon compounds (cellulose) and water, so the ingredients are there for the potential for hydrocarbon formation. As for the precise mechanism, the biology is outside my area of knowledge. It is also possible that a biological process does occur, but at great depth, pressure and temperature so no-one has ever been able to observe this or replicate the process in a lab.

Enzymes and catalysts can also play a part in hydrocarbon formation.
(02-08-2011, 10:44 AM)Derek Wrote: In related discussions with Climate Realist on this forum, I tried a "new" way to explain what I mean and
have tried to convey in the post this thread is for considered comments arising from,
ie, http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...-1057.html
I just do not "get" the "maths" of climate science.

My comment was as follows,
" Imagine a black body if you will. It will cool on it's own at a certain rate. OK.
Now, in the presence of another black body that is cooler, will the first black body cool,
1) faster, (my described all radiation is absorbed relatively)
2) slower, (all radiation is positive view), or
3) at the same rate as if it were on it's own (Claes Johnson approach).

I am also thinking that the surface temperature of the black body needs to be taken into account,
as it is not uniform (it may have an average, but that is a different thing).
"

3) is the correct answer if heat is transmitted by radiation. (Claes is right).

1) is correct if the two bodies are in physical contact and the heat is transferred by conduction.

2) makes no sense in terms of physics and particularly thermodynamics, but it is the ridiculous position 2) that is the basis for the "back radiation causes the greenhouse effect" theory.

By bringing the question of different temperatures within the body itself you are over-complicating the issue. By saying the body has many temperatures, one then has to treat the one body as many bodies each with a varying temperature but in contact with each other. One then has to consider the conditions at the boundary between each one of these "bodies within a body" and whether heat is transferred by radiative or conductive means between each one of the micro bodies, and the rate of heat transfer between each one of these bodies. It is not necessary to do this, as you will get to the same result on the macro body model as for the micro body model.

This will lead to the solving of a whole series of differential equations- which Claes would no doubt love!

Derek, you could answer these questions for yourself by looking up some basic physics of heat transfer and physical chemistry, in particularly thermodynamics.

I believe that it is simply the fact that Thermodynamics is so difficult to understand that has allowed the fake greenhouse theory to come into being. Climatologists have simply ignored what they do not understand (thermodynamics) and cannot feed into a computer model, hence the "science" they study is utterly false.

Claes has spotted this and is really onto something. Pay attention to this man!
Reply
#18
(02-09-2011, 02:44 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: It is also possible that a biological process does occur, but at great depth, pressure and temperature so no-one has ever been able to observe this or replicate the process in a lab.

Any reasons why this seemingly possible thing to replicate in a lab is impossible to replicate in a lab??
This I find very dubious.
The abiotic oil theory has been shown by experiments employing such temperatures and pressures in a lab.

Climate Realist Wrote:By bringing the question of different temperatures within the body itself you are over-complicating the issue.

I did not intentionally, but I can see the way I worded the above could be misread as me trying to do so.

Climate Realist Wrote:By saying the body has many temperatures, one then has to treat the one body as many bodies each with a varying temperature but in contact with each other.

It is a valid point raised by someone else (that the surface has many different temperatures - hence sprectral emissions, not just at one frequency)
I have merely repeated here as it is relevant to the discussion.
This is possibly where my comment that Claes has the right answer, but how he gets there may be worth more consideration.

Climate Realist Wrote:3) is the correct answer if heat is transmitted by radiation. (Claes is right).

1) is correct if the two bodies are in physical contact and the heat is transferred by conduction.

Why not 1) for radiation? You have not given any reason why not, apart from "Claes is right".
I still can not see why a lower energy level can not lower a higher energy level JUST because it is transferred by radiation?

Climate Realist Wrote:Derek, you could answer these questions for yourself by looking up some basic physics of heat transfer and physical chemistry, in particularly thermodynamics.

I believe that it is simply the fact that Thermodynamics is so difficult to understand that has allowed the fake greenhouse theory to come into being. Climatologists have simply ignored what they do not understand (thermodynamics) and cannot feed into a computer model, hence the "science" they study is utterly false.

Your first sentence in this quote seems to be negated by your second sentence..
AND, as Claes points out THE problem is in the basic physics of heat transfer.
So, which basic text books would you suggest?
Should I think in waves or quanta, at what frequencies, etc, etc.
Before I dive enthusiastically into these basic texts you point me towards I must say, in a rather unspecified manner,
I will remember that Einstein never worked it out either.


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#19
For now, I will just answer this one:-

"Climate Realist' Wrote:
3) is the correct answer if heat is transmitted by radiation. (Claes is right).

1) is correct if the two bodies are in physical contact and the heat is transferred by conduction.

Why not 1) for radiation? You have not given any reason why not, apart from "Claes is right".
I still can not see why a lower energy level can not lower a higher energy level JUST because it is transferred by radiation?"

Consider a hot cup of tea. It loses heat to the colder air both by radiation and to the surface the cup is sitting on by conduction. Place a cup of tea on a cold metal workbench and it cools far more rapidly, because it is losing heat by BOTH conduction and radiation. Two means of heat loss. (Of course a cup of tea also loses heat via water evaporation as well, but let us ignore this route of heat loss for now), so the hot cup of tea in contact with the cold work bench gets colder faster than the cup held by the drinker by the handle as the main heat loss here is radiation. Because the tea on the bench is BOTH radiating and conducting heat to cooler bodies.

As for " Claes is right" I have already explained this about the activation energy of electron and bond shift in another post on this forum and how "cooler" radiation from a cooler body cannot heat a warmer body that is already emmitting "warmer" radiation.

A quick answer is that he IS right in his criticism of MMGW because he is the only person to have looked at and calculated the greenhouse theory from the perspective of thermodynamics. All climatologists (including Kiel and Trenberth) conveniently "forgot" about thermodynamics because they do not understand thermodynamics. This branch of Physics/Phisical Chemistry is the Achillies heel of the MMGW theory.

3) is also correct because the two bodies not being in contact, the only communication of radiation between the two is by the radiation.

There are two processes here:-

1) body A emits radiation of a certain wavelength (energy) determined by its temperature (wave, particle, wave/particle/photon, dual, does not matter).

2) body B receives radiation and if the radiation is of sufficiently low wavelength "higher energy" than body B then body B will be warmed by the radiation. This will only occur if A is hotter than B.

Radiation from B is of a longer wavelength and thus lower energy (colder radiation) than the warmer body "A" so warm body A cannot be warmed as it is already warmer than the radiation from B, is already emitting warmer "A" radiation so the cool B radiation will just be re-emitted from the surface of A.

I have spoken briefly to one of the Authors of "Slaying the Sky Dragon" (Hans Schreuder) about this and he confirmed my understanding is correct. I wanted to talk to Hans because, like myself, he is a chemist by education, training and career, so I knew we would understand one another.

It is quite simple Derek, no need to over complicate the matter to understand why the GHE from back radiation is an utterly false theory. Quite simple, but also quite hard to explain. Most of the politicians of the world and most of the climate scientists do not understand this. We are among the first few in the world who REALLY understand conceptually why the GHE theory from back radiation is utterly false.

It is also worth knowing that although radiation CAN transfer heat, this does not mean that IR radiation ALWAYS means heat. It depends on the relative temperature of the transmitting and receiving bodies.

Very simply, cold can never make warm any hotter. Heat always moves from hot to cold, never the other way round. It makes no difference if the means of heat transport is via conduction of via radiation. Not without work input such as a refrigerator which makes use of the expansion and contraction of gases.
Some reading:-

http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynami...ansfer.htm

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Related/Thermo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transf...ve_cooling

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/heat.html

More here:- http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&cli...i=&aql=&oq=

Interestingly, none of the articles, not even the Wikipedia article mentions the GHE theory from back radiation! That, I believe is because the GHE by back radiation contravenes the laws of thermodynamics, in particular the second law. This "physics" of heating by back radiation only seems to be spoken of by Climatologists and propagandists.
Reply
#20
Thank you Climate Realist for the considered reply.
I greatly appreciate your time and effort.
Please take this reply with a pinch of salt as I have not had time to follow up your links so far - I will though before my next reply.

I maybe having another "Watt" moment as such, but that is still proving very useful in my eyes as such.
(Watt original unit - no problem, W/m2 derived unit, still not sure of exact SI definition of - still searching, and
as for how W/m2 is worked out by the K&T budgets, and if applicable, as applied, well that's still anyone's "guess" as of yet...)

As far as the "maths" is concerned, I am not sure yet I have the differences properly mapped out.
I am a fan of Claes Johnson's approach, as I have already quite plainly stated, AND I am certain "back radiation" is unphysical and imaginary.
(Recent developments re hand held instruments {most specifically designed to EXCLUDE measurements of an atmosphere} IR "measurements" only confirm and strengthen this view) ..

But, I think you may not have quite understood my "query" as such as I mean to ask it.
Reading through your reply quickly seems to confirm this to me.

I would note,
" 1) body A emits radiation of a certain [peak] wavelength (energy) determined by its temperature (wave, particle, wave/particle/photon, dual, does not matter). "
Please note my addition, in bold and red.
I will try to explain more clearly what I mean when I have more time, but, for the time being maybe this will help.
Why does lower (energy) level radiation from a.n.other (cooler) body not lower the (energy) level of a body at a higher energy level?
Claes seems to suggest (in my understanding) that the lower energy level radiation (from a.n.other cooler body) is merely re-radiated by the hotter body with no effect upon the hotter body.
I hope your links will clear this up for me.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Considered comments and questions arising from In equals Out, or else BOOOM pdf. Derek 1 5,419 01-19-2012, 10:52 AM
Last Post: Derek
  Considered questions and comments arising from free to ALL "shape issue" pdf. Derek 37 57,937 09-18-2011, 01:12 AM
Last Post: Richard111
  I just do not "get" the "maths" of climate science. Derek 1 6,137 01-05-2011, 03:30 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)