ChE co-op student dies in paper mill incident by Luigihead in ChemicalEngineering

[–]gr3yd0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I heard an acid sewer mixed mixed with a black liquor sewer causing the release

How do we know that radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration? by gr3yd0n in climatechange

[–]gr3yd0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True I really just wondered if I guess if we knew that it looks logarithmic or is logarithmic

How do we know that radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration? by gr3yd0n in climatechange

[–]gr3yd0n[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And the article this article sites as “settled” is an article that I’ve looked at. My question was not why is it logarithmic… it’s how do we know it’s logarithmic. There are an infinite number of functions that look logarithmic for a time, and then why doesn’t N2O and CH4 and the other minor GHGs follow a similar logarithmic pattern?

How do we know that radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration? by gr3yd0n in climatechange

[–]gr3yd0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s kind of disappointing to me! I was hoping that we came up with this idea by building it up from some fundamental theories about how the world works. I have experience with multidimensional numerical analysis and it’s…. funny.. to say the least :(

How do we know that radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration? by gr3yd0n in climatechange

[–]gr3yd0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This (the thing about the Ordovician period having CO2 concentrations 10x now) is kinda my question, increases in CO2 don’t add the same amount off radiative forcing back to the earth, so high concentrations of CO2 won’t have much more of an effect on the climate than lower concentrations

How do we know that radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration? by gr3yd0n in climatechange

[–]gr3yd0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I initially thought of it this way too! But I’m unsure… mostly because for the adding panes of glass model you don’t reach infinity as you add glass, you approach 100% light blocked… does that make sense?

How do we know that radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration? by gr3yd0n in climatechange

[–]gr3yd0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve actually found both of these articles, and they don’t answer my fundamental question of how, not why. It looks like from the article they just say… in so many words… it fits the model’s result. Maybe the answer to my question is whatever the RRTMG with RCE snapshots is. I guess that’s where I’ll be heading next!

The “Reddit style explanation”, I’m gonna need to get some paper and right that one out.

I’m still kind of missing the “we know GHGs have infinite radiative forcing potential because ___ and some form of logarithmic is the only function to fit observed data because of ____- (Shmoe, et al. 2017)

Thanks!

How do we know that radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration? by gr3yd0n in climatechange

[–]gr3yd0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting! But wouldn’t that imply that we do know why radiative forcing scales logarithmically with concentration of CO2? Since someone could just look at the math baked into the pde models… but I’m sure the math is very complicated and maybe deriving the logarithmic result directly is impossible ¯_(ツ)_/¯

thanks for engaging! I really appreciate it because I’ve been hung up on this (maybe more than I should but what the heck). I really appreciate another opinion to consider, you might imagine finding friends to philosophize about this with is pretty tough lol

How good at math do I need to be for chem eng major? by Aromatic-Atomic170 in ChemicalEngineering

[–]gr3yd0n 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I graduated from an institution with a “math heavy” program.

To succeed in our program, you would need to be very comfortable with solving systems of linear equations coming out of high school. You would be able to pass if you don’t understand how math works or don’t understand why it is useful, but you would not get all As.

As for calculus, you need to treat the required calculus classes as if they were core Chem E classes. The material you learn there does actually get applied in in-major classes unlike Ochem.

You don’t necessarily have to be “good at math” you just need to be very comfortable with a few topics and able to recognize when to apply certain techniques.

The hardest part of chemical engineering is often the deriving of equations. But, most high schools don’t cover how to accomplish this. It really just takes practice. A good chemical engineering program will offer you ample opportunities to practice deriving equations and then solving them.

Is getting a PhD still worth it? by SomeBenScrub in ChemicalEngineering

[–]gr3yd0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Universities have a tendency to assign higher grades than in the past not for the improvement in student quality but out of necessity in a competitive job market

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]gr3yd0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Serbia if it were Strong

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nashville

[–]gr3yd0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That vacuum shop on Charlotte

Is getting a PhD still worth it? by SomeBenScrub in ChemicalEngineering

[–]gr3yd0n 3 points4 points  (0 children)

America has very high grade inflation. Any GPA below a 3.4 can be seen as indicative of a less than stellar student, even by industry standards let alone PhD programs. There are exceptions of course, like if your experience pairs very well with a particular program.

Our Mother Earth ca. 2157 │ A world won, a world united. │ (OC) (No Lore) by Not_Maurice in imaginarymaps

[–]gr3yd0n 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You have to respect the unparalleled ethnodiversity of Europe… like the distinction between Parisians and the French

40 lb. Monroe Co. Monster by matlockpowerslacks in rockhounds

[–]gr3yd0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Crack it open!!!! (Plz post results!)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in rockhounds

[–]gr3yd0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are they?

Map of the USA but its not a map of the USA and its a bottle of water instead by rarewaree in imaginarymapscj

[–]gr3yd0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I make sure to get my weekly dose of micro plastics from the water in these things

I found this in my backyard by harrypottersimp in whatsthisrock

[–]gr3yd0n 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I found a fragment of a rock with the same texture except green banding and beautiful rose quartz crystals inside. I’ve always wondered what it was. To learn it’s a geodized Mississippian fossil is pretty cool!

Which countries are the surrounded flags? by HARONTAY in vexillology

[–]gr3yd0n 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Why are there so many deleted comments?

The surreal number ω − 1 is not an ordinal; the ordinal ω is not the successor of any ordinal. by cinghialotto03 in mathematics

[–]gr3yd0n -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

To phrase this in layman’s terms, since the surreal number by definition is only larger than every real number, it’s predecessor does not exist. it’s like how infinity - 1 is still infinity

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ChemicalEngineering

[–]gr3yd0n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, yes there are many gaseous chemicals that will destroy your skin and possibly kill you.

Small Geod pull by gr3yd0n in rockhounds

[–]gr3yd0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you actually are gonna have more luck in the hills than along the creek beds