The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.num-analysis

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Science w/o Math
Replies: 3   Last Post: Apr 13, 2013 11:57 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Bret Cahill

Posts: 243
Registered: 9/18/09
Science w/o Math
Posted: Apr 13, 2013 11:18 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> >If no energy was transferred out then the temp. increase rate would
> >be
> >several degrees/ month instead of several degrees/century.

> >That's not the case, however. Instead all that green and other
> >visible light coming in [near the peak] gets reradiated at the longer
> >wavelengths where the CO2 can block that [much greater] energy
> >leaving
> >than what it blocks coming in.

> I think you are out of your class with this,
> if no energy were radiated out by the atmosphere,
> the temperature would probably rise quite a bit
> more than several degrees the first month.

Have you done _any_ research or any calculations?

If so, then present the numbers. It would help explain AGW to

If you don't have any numbers then answer this question:

How many scientists do you know that don't rely on applied math before
they make conclusions?

> And while water vapor may absorb solar
> IR incoming, chances are CO2 does not in
> any measurable amount.

It's certainly measurable which is proven by the chart. It just isn't
nearly as much as the reradiated IR trapped by the CO2.

Bret Cahill

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.