|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 22, 2013 12:36:06 GMT
Andrew, You are incorrect. That means that you are plain wrong. And for heaven's sake, learn about the basics of the Earth's climate rather than trying to come off as if you know what you are talking about: because you do not. There are several laws of physics which state, by their very operation, that the Earth can never become a 'greenhouse' - among them, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. And, do I need to remind you that C02 is a thermostat that acts to shed excess heat from the Sun in the Earth's atmosphere back out into space? This is what I mean by people who claim to know what they are talking about, then presume to say, with a straight face, that "it should be clear to anybody that there are no laws of physics that the Earth can NEVER become warmer via CO2." That, Andrew, is gibberish. You know, Yale law school professor Dan Kahan conducted some ingenious experiments about the impact of opinion and ideological passions on people’s ability to think clearly. His conclusion, is that opinion, personal sentiments and ideology, including partisanship, 'can even undermine people's very basic reasoning skills. For instance, people who may be otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their ideological beliefs. In other words, say bye bye to the dream that education, journalism, scientific evidence, media literacy or reason can provide the tools and information that people need in order to make good, sound decisions. It turns out that in the public realm, a lack of information is not the real problem. The hurdle is how the human mind works, for no matter how smart or clever some people think they are, or how rational many people want to believe that they are, the truth is that their reasoning process turns out to be based an ex post facto way of what their emotions already want to believe. In other words, the judgments that you have are based on beliefs that you've already made beforehand, and which are impervious to the actual facts that contradict them. And nowhere is this most observed then in opinions about the factual and true operation of the Earth's climate, such the foolish ignorance of some to the very fact that CO2 is a trace gas that cannot, and does not, supercede the function of the Sun and the laws of physics that govern the Earth's entire climate. The Sun, alone, contains 99.8% of the total mass of our solar system, and rules the Earth's climate. And anyone, and I mean anyone, who says that a trace gas like CO2 can turn the Earth, via 'man-made global warming,' into a greenhouse does NOT have both oars in the water, nor all 52 cards in their deck. View AttachmentLess is more. What aspects of the first and second laws falsify CO2 being the cause of a warmer Earth? In order to cut down on the amount of typing you do, I suggest you restrict yourself to answering the question rather than repeating what you have already written. Andrew, Don't worry about 'the amount of typing' I do. And I will answer any question as I see fit. Get yourself educated on the basics of the Earth's climate and especially the laws of thermodynamics. They've been in operation since the origin of the Earth and are still in operation to this very day. As for your alarmism on the trace gas CO2, it's not even worth commenting on, since obviously you continue to not have both oars in the water. Get there, then we will talk.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 22, 2013 19:00:30 GMT
Less is more. What aspects of the first and second laws falsify CO2 being the cause of a warmer Earth? In order to cut down on the amount of typing you do, I suggest you restrict yourself to answering the question rather than repeating what you have already written. Andrew, Don't worry about 'the amount of typing' I do. And I will answer any question as I see fit. Get yourself educated on the basics of the Earth's climate and especially the laws of thermodynamics. They've been in operation since the origin of the Earth and are still in operation to this very day. As for your alarmism on the trace gas CO2, it's not even worth commenting on, since obviously you continue to not have both oars in the water. Get there, then we will talk. Theo, I am still waiting for you to tell me what aspects of the laws of thermodynamics are preventing CO2 from being reasoned as being capable of warming the Earth. How about you just cut all of the crap and get on with it please.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2013 1:30:41 GMT
Andrew, Don't worry about 'the amount of typing' I do. And I will answer any question as I see fit. Get yourself educated on the basics of the Earth's climate and especially the laws of thermodynamics. They've been in operation since the origin of the Earth and are still in operation to this very day. As for your alarmism on the trace gas CO2, it's not even worth commenting on, since obviously you continue to not have both oars in the water. Get there, then we will talk. Theo, I am still waiting for you to tell me what aspects of the laws of thermodynamics are preventing CO2 from being reasoned as being capable of warming the Earth. How about you just cut all of the crap and get on with it please. Well for cold CO2 to warm the surface would require a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For the sun to warm the surface more than its blackbody equivalent temperature would require a violation of the inverse square law of radiation. But after 18 months of laborious discussion you were never able to produce any empirical evidence that any other source of energy or process exists that could warm the surface in the simplistic manner suggested by climate science. And if you cannot establish that simplistic relationship empirically you may as well be claiming that Jupiter absorbs excess radiation and shoots it back out his arse to warm the surface.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2013 6:51:11 GMT
If a cold object is heated it rises in temperature until the cooling forces are equal to the heating forces.
If cooling from the object is subsequently reduced the object must rise in temperature until cooling forces are equal to heating forces.
Anybody who wants to argue that is false for 19 miserable months, is beyond all education.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2013 10:04:46 GMT
If a cold object is heated it rises in temperature until the cooling forces are equal to the heating forces. If cooling from the object is subsequently reduced the object must rise in temperature until cooling forces are equal to heating forces. Anybody who wants to argue that is false for 19 miserable months, is beyond all education. 1) The cooling for CO2 towards earth according to the Engineering Toolbox curve is zero. So the object must heat until it is emitting to space what it receives from the surface. 2) "If cooling from the object is subsequently reduced the object must rise in temperature until cooling forces are equal to heating forces." The surface one picometer above the surface is emitting on average more radiation that it is getting. But now you want to apply the Engineering curve and reduce the "cooling forces". You avoided doing that with the CO2. So I am not arguing that any of those points are false. I am only arguing you are not applying them consistently. Logically the CO2 should warm and emit what it absorbs via conduction to other gas molecules or to space. This of course creates a dilemma in the theory, it the CO2 is as warm as the surface, where does it get the energy from? The answer seems that logically what is going on here is radiation is absorbed and reemitted from TOA to the surface, back and forth, at the speed of light and the heat escapes at the rate of roughly 88% with each exchange so in a few microseconds the heat is lost to space. This would be consistent with the concept of resistance in conduction, but amounts to practically nothing for CO2. Water vapor though may be 100 times more powerful, but even that might not amount to a lot. I see the possibility of a model where GHG provides the opportunity for surface warming but does not establish the amount of it. Its my feeling that Dr. Roger Revelle concerned about the possibility of greenhouse gases causing warming of the surface, studied the effect for many years and never found a proof. One of his students Al Gore just started funding people that told him what he believed and it morphed into a movement, lacking science to disprove that which has never been proven. G&T lamented that their problem was they were also shooting in the dark as a schematic for the effect has never been offered, much less tested. Thats about where it stands. You have developed a cartoon model of this in your head but it doesn't work as you imagine it. That of course does not mean GHG do not warm the surface, it just means the process of how they do as described by you is illogical, inconsistent, and begs the question. Its clear that just about everybody has a different idea of how it works but nobody has any proof. Its like I characterized it, it could be the Roman God Jupiter shooting backradiation out of his arse as far as the amount of science supporting the effect is concerned. And of course for the 19th consecutive month you will be trying to convince me without a science paper to back you up. Really there is nothing more to say about it than that.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2013 13:39:33 GMT
If a cold object is heated it rises in temperature until the directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces.
If the cooling forces from the object are subsequently reduced the object must rise in temperature until the directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces.
Anybody who wants to argue that is false for 19 miserable months, is beyond all education.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2013 20:38:32 GMT
If a cold object is heated it rises in temperature until the directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces. If the cooling forces from the object are subsequently reduced the object must rise in temperature until the directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces. Anybody who wants to argue that is false for 19 miserable months, is beyond all education. The engineering toolbox curve for radiative heat loss entirely determines the amount of cooling by radiation all directions Iceskater. That is unless you dispute the engineering toolbox curve. A cool object cannot cool towards a warm object thus the cooling forces in that direction are a big fat zilch, none, nil, zero as can be. So until the object is warm enough to radiate all that it receives to space it must warm to the maximum amount of energy it receives. In fact if you apply the specification you reserve exclusively to the sun/earth radiation exchange the CO2 should not just warm to the same temperature of the surface it should warm more than that because of multiple layers of CO2 absorptions through the atmosphere. Steve's model compounded that warming, but Steve demurred entirely on schematically defining it. I think he left because of his own doubts, not from our argument but from doubt arising from observations and recognizing that he really cannot describe the process consistently and in compliance with thermodynamic laws. Even the IPCC document draft says the sun has more influence than originally believed. Thats earth shaking because then you have no idea whatsoever what "more" means. Does it mean all? The inability of the GHG warming theory advocates to demonstrate evidence of their theory and much less not even being able to describe it consistently suggests the topic entirely sits in the category of unknown to science as to what causes the surface temperature to be what it is. But like your ego add in politics and nobody, especially the IPCC is going to go anywhere near to admitting that. G&T had the right view of the process in my view. G&T admitted to not knowing the correct answer but suggested the amount of resistance to the flow of radiative energy through a gas is probably in the realm of what its thermal conductivity is. That intuitively makes sense. Doesn't mean its right and G&T admit they do not know it is right. So you create an imaginary world for one set of rules for how the earth warms a CO2 molecule and then you devise a completely different set of rules for how the sun warms the earth. We had a nice model for studying this effect that revealed exactly the thinking involved and when it became apparent to you that you were trapping yourself into admitting you were manipulating the rules you completely abandoned the thread. If you had the balls of a cockroach you would have completed that thread defining your specification in the process completely. But your balls are a lot smaller than that so you withdrew, pulled out, quit, gave up, abandoned your argument, refused to complete the specifications of the schematic, and ran away and hid. The only explanation is you ran out of explanation and saw the problem, but being so much lower than a cockroach you instead are now resorting back to your drive-by tactics as seen in this thread where you want somebody to argue how your undescribed, illogical, and inconsistent theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. Its intentionally drawn so if the 2nd law is invoked you can talk about some other section of the theory, invoke different paradigms, have CO2 act differently in a radiation field than the surface acts in a radiation field. Thats the game right Andrew? If somebody claims a violation of the 2nd law you say gee its not the cold molecule but the sun warms the surface. Yeah the sun warms the surface but the question is does it warm it more than the inverse square law requires? And if it does why can not the surface do the same to CO2 molecules? This is complex topic so it needs a schematic. You have to explain why you ran away from describing your theory. It appears to me some doubt started to creep in. And it took you a few days to shake it off. Now drive-by tactics they are less mentally taxing. You can avoid putting anything on paper so you can feel comfortable in the inconsistencies because the topic is complicated enough that the inconsistencies are not so apparent as when actually put on a schematic. You want to proselytize your viewpoint without a schematic because the schematic reveals your inconsistencies. So you would rather not go there. The thread sits in this archive patiently awaiting you to complete it. Now you are back to a drive by shell game where the shifting of the pea involves a shifting of physics. So what can anybody do about that if you refuse to advance a full engineering spec of the process? Where like a TV evangelist you simply claim the ability hear God, or whoever told you what you think, you spew out dogma and gospel! You want Theodore to tell you how your inconsistently described model violates the laws of thermodynamics. Your model remains obscure in its physics, arguments are constantly shifting paradigms. Nobody can argue your model with its constantly inconsistent and changing physics as its not laid out in concrete. Obviously if the person that taught you had a complete engineering specification for the process you were too incompetent to grasp it and thus remain impotent in explaining what you are talking about. So to humor your incompetence on this I actually drew up a different specification. Not one that I am trying to sell just one that operates inconsistently. You even ran away from that and demurred like a little princess from even trying to take on a single component of the specification. Must have seemed too logical for you also. So either start discussing this topic like an adult and take your lumps and say man. . . .I believe it works like this. . . .and describe it in a consistent manner using the specifications you believe in and feel you have support for. Stop the drive by nonsense please and if you have something to offer here offer it. P.S. Putting it more simply you need to apply your " directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces." argument consistently not just between the surface and CO2 but to sun and the earth relationship. There is no question that the surface radiates more than enough "directionless cooling" to not warm above the inverse square law of what it receives. So in the case of the sun/surface radiation exchange you invoke the engineering curve and do not use "directionless" radiation, but focus on "net cooling". For the surface/CO2 molecule radiation exchange you completely ignore "net cooling" and focus on "directionless" radiation. You have two different physical models here Andrew!!!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2013 23:32:07 GMT
If a cold object is heated it rises in temperature until the directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces.
If the directionless cooling forces from the object are subsequently reduced the object must rise in temperature until the directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces.
Anybody who wants to argue that is false for 19 miserable months, is beyond all education.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2013 0:53:33 GMT
If a cold object is heated it rises in temperature until the directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces. If the directionless cooling forces from the object are subsequently reduced the object must rise in temperature until the directionless cooling forces are equal to the heating forces. Anybody who wants to argue that is false for 19 miserable months, is beyond all education. Nobody has argued against that point Andrew! If you review my alternative model you will see that is how the alternative model is designed. This is the schematic for the alternative model. It complies with your statement above. Your molecular screen model shows the molecular screen losing heat towards the surface and thus not warming to equal the heating force. You need to fix this diagram so it complies with what you wrote above.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 25, 2013 1:16:17 GMT
>>Your molecular screen model shows the molecular screen losing heat towards the surface and thus not warming to equal the heating force.
Things do not 'warm to equal the heating force'. The expression is nonsense.
When things are heated, they continue to get warmer, until the cooling forces are equal to the heating forces
>>Your molecular screen model shows the molecular screen losing heat towards the surface and thus not warming to equal the heating force.
You need to fix this
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Sept 25, 2013 9:05:04 GMT
Extremely extreme UK weather at the beginning of the 19th century.Steven Goddard posted this cutting from the 14 October 1893 edition of the Warwick Examiner and Times: Link The article is concerned with drought, but during the early 1800’s all extremes of weather were experienced. Aside from terrible droughts, floods and the extreme cold were suffered. The winter of 1813/14 was one of the four or five coldest and snowiest winters in the CET record. We had to wait until 1962/63 (stunted solar cycle 20) for comparable, extended cold periods. This winter was last time that the 'tidal' River Thames froze over sufficiently to hold 'frost fairs' etc. The activities surrounding the fair lasted well into February, but around 5th/6th February, a thaw set in and the ice started to break up, helped by rain: some people were drowned and many booths were destroyed. The loose ice did much damage to shipping of all sizes on the river. (After this time, the removal of the old London Bridge in 1831, plus other work enabled the Thames to increase it's flow, and freezing of the tidal stretches has not occurred since.) Most commentators say this was the 'last great frost fair' held on the Thames. The greatest frost of the 19th century commenced on the 27th December 1813; the onset of the frost was accompanied by thick fog. The Spring & Summer 1812 were notably cold and wet. The anomaly for both seasons on the whole-series (CET) mean was around -1.5C, with March, April, June, July & August having anomalies in excess of -1C. April 1812 was unusually cold, with a CET value of 5.5degC (-2.4C) & thus one of the 'top-dozen' or so cold such-named months. It was the coldest Spring since 1799, and it was not to as cold again in Spring until 1837, though in this latter year, the summer was warm. By contrast, 1812 experienced one of the coldest summers across England & Wales using the CET series (began 1659). In addition to the extended cold, rainfall was often excessive. The months of February & March 1812 experienced EWP anomalies of 177% & 150% respectively, which with the cold ground, would have had a severe effect on the germination of crops sown, or about to be sown. Indeed, although April was drier than average, May, June and July were all wet (averaging ~135%), so sowing may have been impossible on heavier soils. The backwardness of the crops, plus the extended wet/cold weather, meant that the harvest that year was also delayed, as well as being of a low yield. From records in Yorkshire, the harvest began around 20th September, and was not finished until the second week of November (Wintringham Parish Register). The summer of 1808 was hot; July’s value of 18.4degC, it is in the 'top-10' of such-named months for warmth. In particular, there was a hot spell from the 12th to the 15th, with a peak around the 13th/14th, when the CET daily temperature (i.e. average of 24hr maximum & minimum) climbed to just over 24degC. Studies since that date have shown that individual day maxima were well above 25degC (possibly to 28degC) in the West of England; up to (almost certainly over) 32degC in London & possibly as high as 34degC in Kingston upon Hull (ER Yorkshire): however caution is required with all these values due to the differing instruments, exposure, accuracy of recording etc. It was undoubtedly a very hot spell though, as deaths (people & animals) from heat exhaustion were recorded, particularly from the agricultural areas in the east and north of England. One report at the time (from farm records in the eastern Fens), says that the temperature in the shade near London was 96 (degF), which converts to just over 35degC: the same reference notes that this spell is the "hottest day ever known in England. July the 13th: 'Hot Wednesday': shade temperatures 33 to 35degC in E. and SE England, 37degC (99degF) reported in Suffolk. Damaging hailstorm affected counties in SW England afternoon / evening of the 15th (presumably as the hot spell above was breaking down), primarily affecting Dorset, Somerset & Gloucestershire. The storm first hit areas in the Sherborne / Templecombe area late afternoon then moved (or developed) NNW'wards to reach Bristol mid-evening. From reports at the time, the diameter of much of the hail was of the order 11 cm, with much damage being recorded - including injury & death to people in the open. These extreme weather events occurred during a period of prolonged low solar activity during solar cycles 5 and 6. The graph below shows the similarity in sunspot amplitudes between cycles 5, 6 and the current cycle N°24. With the next cycle N°25 being forecast to be even weaker than the present cycle the meridional circulation patterns will continue, along with the resulting extremes of weather. I expect history will continue to be ignored and extreme events will be labelled “unprecedented” and the CAGW climate scientists will continue to point their fingers at CO2… UK weather history source: booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Nov 18, 2013 13:44:48 GMT
Judith Curry has posted a very interesting item about UK climate: "Interpretation of UK temperatures since 1956 Posted on November 15, 2013 | 364 Comments by Euan Mearns and Clive Best In this post we present evidence that suggests 88% of temperature variance and one-third of net warming observed in the UK since 1956 can be explained by cyclical change in UK cloud cover." judithcurry.com/2013/11/15/interpretation-of-uk-temperatures-since-1956/"Conclusions and consequences UK sunshine records suggest that cloud cover fluctuates in a cyclical manner. This imparts structure to the UK temperature record (confidence = very high) A combined CO2 radiative forcing and sunshine – surface temperature forcing model is optimised with NCF = 0.54 and TCR = 1.28?C (confidence = medium; uncertainty unquantified) Our empirically constrained value for TCR = 1.28?C is identical to the value of 1.3?C reported by Otto et al [7] Our model aggregates dT over a 56 year period and provides a good fit of calculated versus observed temperature based on dCloud and dCO2 alone. The consequences of the above are quite profound, especially when combined with the findings of Otto et al. It removes the urgency but does not remove the long-term need to deal with CO2 emissions. Global cloud cover as recorded by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology (ISCCP) [8] program also shows cyclical change that helps explain the global temperature record. The cause of temporal changes in cloud cover remains unknown." I'll leave it to the technically advanced of you to comment, but as a dweller under the cloud cover here, I find this fascinating!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 18, 2013 17:59:06 GMT
Judith Curry has posted a very interesting item about UK climate: "Interpretation of UK temperatures since 1956 Posted on November 15, 2013 | 364 Comments by Euan Mearns and Clive Best In this post we present evidence that suggests 88% of temperature variance and one-third of net warming observed in the UK since 1956 can be explained by cyclical change in UK cloud cover." judithcurry.com/2013/11/15/interpretation-of-uk-temperatures-since-1956/"Conclusions and consequences UK sunshine records suggest that cloud cover fluctuates in a cyclical manner. This imparts structure to the UK temperature record (confidence = very high) A combined CO2 radiative forcing and sunshine – surface temperature forcing model is optimised with NCF = 0.54 and TCR = 1.28?C (confidence = medium; uncertainty unquantified) Our empirically constrained value for TCR = 1.28?C is identical to the value of 1.3?C reported by Otto et al [7] Our model aggregates dT over a 56 year period and provides a good fit of calculated versus observed temperature based on dCloud and dCO2 alone. The consequences of the above are quite profound, especially when combined with the findings of Otto et al. It removes the urgency but does not remove the long-term need to deal with CO2 emissions. Global cloud cover as recorded by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology (ISCCP) [8] program also shows cyclical change that helps explain the global temperature record. The cause of temporal changes in cloud cover remains unknown." I'll leave it to the technically advanced of you to comment, but as a dweller under the cloud cover here, I find this fascinating! and yet So where is the need to deal with long-term CO2 emissions if clouds are not understood? Increasing CO2 levels appear to be a net benefit, not something to worry about. Maybe keeping up with the research on the subject of clouds is important, assuming it is correct. tinyurl.com/nye3akt
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Nov 18, 2013 21:07:34 GMT
24 is more like cycle 7 atm higher sun spot count .. ?
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Nov 19, 2013 11:16:24 GMT
Clouds: daytime and nightime, low and high clouds, winter, spring, summer, fall clouds... The only clear uncomfortable warming effects of clouds in Madrid is a cloudy summer-night with temps not falling below 30ºC until 4am. For the rest of cases, welcome clouds!
|
|