cypress

What are you so worked up about?. I started this thread to show what what both you and I see as obvious. Namely that life by chance alone is a non-starter. Hoyle did an fair job of demonstrating this point and while those who disagree with his particular world view find him all the more offensive all the while still agreeing with his conclusion so I used his analysis as a reference point in this discussion. Now what I said is that a causal mode other than random chance is required to generate the information we observe in biological systems, there is a huge difference. I wished to avoid discussing these sources in this thread to keep it more focused. I am sorry that frustrates you, but I urged you to start a new thread so it could be discussed. On information in particular Skeptic and I did start a new thread on that particular issue but skeptic seems to have lost interest and it has not progressed much. I invite you to contribute. It is in the Computer Science area. Such venom and I think misplaced too. Throughout the entire thread I have claimed that life by chance alone is not a reasonable position and those, including you, who took exception to the analysis (except skeptic) happen to agree with the conclusion of the analysis .... Are you suggesting that the analysis is wrong but it stumbled onto the correct conclusion? OK. I guessed that you would back away from the statement you know of evidence of real observed natural processes that do generate biologically active components without intervention by any intelligent agent and your statement you can show that these components under correct conditions with energy but no intelligent intervention drives chemical reactions to create the complexity we call life. As for me. Although I am fairly certain how it was not, I do not know how the necessary biological information was generated. I don't think anybody does. I can't tell you what I don't know, and I am sorry that frustrates you. It seems we are in the same boat, so I am in good company since you have refused to support your claims.

Are you still looking for help with this?

I reviewed your post Skeptic and didn't see much that has not been addressed previously. One issue that stands out is the formulation of your appeal to the ignorance about what may be beyond the observable universe. I asked Cap'n this but you should weigh in on it too: If we persist with Mr. Skeptic's speculation that the mere possibility of an infinite universe with infinitely many planets gives us a real potential for any possible outcome somewhere no mater how small the probability. This seems to be what you are suggesting. Is this valid reasoning? Do I have that right? I'm not sure why you insist that I am peddling some "God". I am however interested in the best current explanation and in that process I refrain from dismissing explanations out of hand. The first time you raised this issue I suggested that you start a new thread. I suspect that your "real story of life" like Skeptic's is more speculation than real but just to be sure I understand your claim, you are now saying you know of evidence of real observed natural processes that do generate biologically active components without intervention by any intelligent agent. Furthermore you can show that these components under correct conditions with energy but no intelligent intervention drives chemical reactions to create the complexity we call life. Is this your claim? I note that you declined before, but since this thread is now in speculations it now fits well to raise it here. Please confirm or clearly define your claim.

Perhaps some day it will be more than a dream.

If we persist with Mr. Skeptic's speculation that the mere possibility of an infinite universe with infinitely many planets gives us a real potential for any possible outcome somewhere no mater how small the probability. This seems to be what you are suggesting. Is this valid reasoning?

And we would be clueless about it. Then you agree that citation to probabilistic resources from outside the observable universe cannot influence events on earth including life from non life as I previously argued.

Had I offered the model as evidence I would have provided Spencer's link to the model and description of it. What I offered was the content and discussion of the paper as evidence. Have another look at section 3 in the paper where the evidence is presented. It shows a good match between the PDO index and radiative forcing indicating that forcing is driven by the PDO. Do you have an argument against the evidence he presents regarding the observed relationship between PDO Index and Radiative forcing?

Were this true a lawyer arguing a rape case could use this same argument to claim DNA evidence is invalid because the incredible improbability of two people sharing the same gene markers is meaningless in light of the possibility the universe is infinite. Nobody accepts this argument and it is refreshing to know you don't either when you agreed life by chance alone is not a reasonable position and thus why this thread is over. Try this argument in court and see how far it gets you. Your position is outrageous. I have previously admitted the error and poor wording regarding the relationship between temperature and entropy and have corrected it. Prose is not a strong point of mine. Perhaps but there are plenty of human made devices capable of rearranging molecules into less probable configurations and thus reducing the entropy of a system of molecules. Yes, so do I. Life would be drab if everyone always agreed. I disagree. Low probability is used on a regular basis to reach conclusions affecting events on earth where the conclusion is far more important than the one we are discussing. This is because we know that probabilistic resources that don't interact with the event in question cannot not influence the outcome. This is why the lawyer from above will be dismissed out of hand. Infinite universe speculations lead to no end of illogical results, like the court example, but there are far more ridiculous examples and it is why most origin of life researchers reject the argument you are making. It is also why I reject it. But we are going in circles and you have even admitted that you agree life from non-life by chance is an unreasonable position. So I don't see any reason to continue to persist. I didn't have to prove the universe is finite, it is enough to show that speculation that it might be infinite is irrelevant.

No. First off the measure of energy density is Heat Capacity so mass density is not precisely correct and higher temperatures distribute energy over a broader set of possible states and thus represents a broader energy density distribution. Have another look at the article where it describes the distribution of possible energy states. Since this is thermal entropy the relevant consideration is all possible distributions of thermal energy and entropy is a measure of probability. Lower entropy systems have the distribution of energy occupying fewer of the total available positions since there are less permutations when the thermal energy is concentrated. For the same mass of material, at higher temperatures the total number of occupied permutations is greater since broader spectrum of energy levels are occupied so entropy is higher than for the same mass at lower temperatures. Systems where energy is less distributed (more concentrated) within a particular system are lower-entropy than the same system with greater distribution of thermal energy. In this way, in a system with a temperature gradient, heat energy diffuses from high density areas to low density areas and the entropy of the system increases.

I guess you missed the part where I said there has been a new thread started that includes a discussion on the supporting information. It's ok it happens to the best of us.

I think they are in the ballpark particularly when you consider the simplicity of Spencer's model and the purpose of it. In addition, we have subsea wells in the Gulf of Mexico in depths from 300 meters to 2000 meters. We must monitor deep Ocean currents continuously to avoid issues with our pipeline risers and it is common for us to see vertical mixing well below 500 meters sometimes as far as 1100 meters. The references have the same order of magnitude but if you don't care for it, I won't attempt to support it any further. Throw out is model completely and it makes no difference since the purpose of the model is past him. Why? Because it is a red herring issue. The model has no direct relationship to the evidence presented in section three. Remember his very simple and therefore likely to be not too accurate model was intended to demonstrate to him that his hypothesis was worthy of investigation. Having decided to investigate he provides a fair amount of real evidence to support his hypothesis and it stands alone independent of the model. As far as models go they can never substitute for evidence so let's stop harping on a red herring. It is the evidence in section three that supports his hypothesis. Models, especially those with significant assumptions built into them do not provide evidence as Swansont indicated and I agree. His model can be completely bogus (though I suspect it has some merit) and it does not change a thing about the evidence he did present. Do you have anything against the actual evidence?

I think you have underestimated my ability to support an argument and you have clearly misinterpreted the argument I did make. No matter. The poster that I made my argument to was interested in going further than my argument and I am happy also to support not only that skeptics have presented evidence but also that the evidence is worthy of consideration. I asked the poster to start a new thread since it represented a topic change. swanson beat him to it. I'm not so sure of that. How does one objectively rank quantity and quality of evidence. It is a tough thing to do. As far as I can see the only "evidence" that has ever been presented by AGW proponents is a bunch of GCM's that spit out a rendition of the garbage they plug into them. I see a fair amount of evidence that the Earth's climate changes over time and that it ebbs and flows around some longer term averages that seem to shift abruptly from time to time. I see evidence that the globe has been warming in spurts and fits since the Little Ice Age ended in the 1700's up to about 2003. After that, we don't have enough data to describe where it is going and we can't say with any degree of certainty what caused it. The warming is not out of the too much ordinary given history. Perhaps it is a couple tenths of a degree higher than past empirical correlations, its hard to say. I have no intention of dismissing any expert completely. A poster asked a question and I answered it. Perhaps you read more certainty into my posts than intended. I am encouraged then because it was not my intent with these posts. I am saving that for other threads. It is used so often by all sides, yours included, I am going to have to disagree. It seems like a very good coping tool.

If models that use assumed values don't constitute evidence (and I agree they do not) we must properly reject the AGW proponents GCM models. Where does that leave us? It is these models that provide the basis to claim CO2 warming on the order of 2-3 degrees C for a doubling in CO2 concentration to 560 ppm. Without the GCM's the IPCC has nothing to demonstrate that AGW is real. First off the Dr. Spencer does not use his simple model as evidence. Here is what he says about evidence: So if he is not using this simple model as evidence, why does he offer it? Here is what he says: He wanted to se if his hypothesis was on the right track before he invested a great deal of time in it. However, here are two references providing measurements indicating the 800 meter number is a reasonable value to use, thus indicating his simple model is serving his purpose. Mellor, G. L., and P. A. Durbin, 1975: The structure and dynamics of the ocean surface mixed layer. Journal of Physical Oceanography. Levitus, Sydney (1982), Climatological Atlas of the World Ocean, NOAA Professional Paper 13, U.S. Department of Commerce. Section three contains a summary of the evidence supporting his hypothesis. He covers this evidence in much greater detail in a book that he has since had published. He makes a pitch for it on his site. So your complaint appears to be a red herring since you and your source have misidentified the purpose of his simple model and you in particular seem to have glossed over the evidence he does offer.

Ball valves can take too long to open to a sufficient flow coefficient for the short pressure profile of an air cannon. In addition as DJBruce indicated they are expensive. If you do use a ball valve you will definitely need a very large one to overcome the low initial flow coefficients when the valve is opened just a bit. To see this observe the profile of cross sectional area as a function of % open and contrast that to a slide valve. I can help you determine the required valve size based on the desired energy/pressure profile you are looking for based on muzzle velocity. No sense guessing. In addition ball valves are unbalanced and commercial ones are designed to seal tight thus for both reasons require too much opening energy. I suggest you obtain or construct an inexpensive balanced slide valve. For only 100 psi you can make or buy one made of thin pvc or similar. Consider using lubricated O rings for seals or add a small bleed hole to your pressure chamber to adjust for leakage. Spring load the thing so it opens as rapidly as possible. Good luck.

Uncertainty can be due to error or incompleteness. I see no reason to specify exclusions.

Here is an article by a Dr. Roy Spencer A NASA Science Team leader for Microwave Temperature Sensing. He is a skeptic who promotes this viewpoint. I'll start here. Although this particular article does not quantify the breakdown between warming that is accounted for by natural oscillations and those that are not, it presents evidence to suggest that "most" of the recent trend is natural. In another section of the article he provides an indicator that CO2 forcing might ultimately account for 0.44 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentration to 560 ppm but cautioned that the data set was too short and he was unwilling to extend this shorter term result (30 years) to a long term (100 years plus) trend . I do note that this is consistent with what he described as "most" of the warming observed since the 1800's and is consistent with the figures I provided. I will pause here for discussion.

I am fairly sure it does, here are a couple lines from the article discussing dispersal of energy and thus a reduction in the energy density in the sense I mean. The advantage of uniform use of ‘dispersal' is its correct common-meaning applicability to examples ranging from motional energy becoming literally spread out in a larger volume to the cases of thermal energy transfer from hot surroundings to a cooler system, as well as to distributions of molecular energies on energy levels for either of those general cases.

Would you prefer the term energy density rather than energy concentration? Here is a link that describes it this way Is there a relevant point to your question, because I'm stumped. This thread is done. The conclusion is unanimous that life by chance alone is a nonstarter irrespective of any speculations about this universe.

It would be more accurate to describe this as your opinion rather than fact. Surely the detractors believe they have good arguments. Can I assume you still have nothing to contribute to the topic of this thread?

I'm relieved then that I didn't claim it did. He made the claim earlier in the original thread but the post I quoted was one I found particularly interesting and worthy of using as a starting for this thread. Go figure. If this is all you have against me it must be a slow night.

Yes, I didn't say that quite right, thanks for pointing that out. I should have said that heat energy flows from higher energy concentration (lower entropy) to lower energy concentration (higher entropy).

Uh, no Skeptic was. It was his claim that caused me to start this thread.

It's funny though that everyone here, you included, and finally even the person who initially took exception and caused this thread to be created in the first place all agree with my initial premise that life from non-life by chance alone is a non-starter. That is hardly the outcome one would expect from the claims you are making of me.

I find that engineering technicians are often wrong about such things. Go ahead and start a new thread though and explain precisely where I erred. Although I do make mistakes from time to time, it is nearly impossible that I could successfully design, construct and put into operation $200 Million dollar 30 thousand horsepower turbine driven gas compressor packages and not have the slightest clue about thermodynamics, mass and heat transfer or entropy. I'll wait for your first post in a new thread because this one is completed.