Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
ZondaMark said:
I've asked him but the idea has been side-stepped. I told him he's got nothing to lose if he knows he's right. Perhaps his no-show is because he himself isn't a climate specialist, and so relies on everything fed to him by the consensus. If it was me, I could just open up a new account and dive straight in.
Possibly your diagnosis is correct but may I indicate a possibly helpful point of protocol and time saving which I'm sure would be appreciated by existing contributors...while anybody is free to join up and post anything they wish within PH rules, and nobody apart from the Mods should or will interfere with that, it must surely be a matter of basic decency to read through the two halves of the CC Big Debate thread and the Climate Cat thread before hitting those remaining 125 attrition loops deriving from the believer blog.To have so many points already aired and debated at length is actually a useful and helpful resource (I would think) so to get the best out of "diving straight in" there are perhaps some steps to be taken if the stepper inner is expecting more back than to be referred to existing threads.
Moreover their input is really only needed on two related fronts:
1) There is no visible signal in global climate temperature data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The IPCC agree.
Draft:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' The answer to this question in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter is 'We do not know'."
Published:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter."
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 Ch 8 Section 8.6)
2) There is no causality in ice, floods, bears, etc in the absence of 1. There is peer reviewed research on this e.g. Gray on hurricanes, there's Barredo's paper on floods, the study on arctic ocean ice, and so on.
What do you think, ZondaMark?
turbobloke said:
ZondaMark said:
I've asked him but the idea has been side-stepped. I told him he's got nothing to lose if he knows he's right. Perhaps his no-show is because he himself isn't a climate specialist, and so relies on everything fed to him by the consensus. If it was me, I could just open up a new account and dive straight in.
Possibly your diagnosis is correct but may I indicate a possibly helpful point of protocol and time saving which I'm sure would be appreciated by existing contributors...while anybody is free to join up and post anything they wish within PH rules, and nobody apart from the Mods should or will interfere with that, it must surely be a matter of basic decency to read through the two halves of the CC Big Debate thread and the Climate Cat thread before hitting those remaining 125 attrition loops deriving from the believer blog.To have so many points already aired and debated at length is actually a useful and helpful resource (I would think) so to get the best out of "diving straight in" there are perhaps some steps to be taken if the stepper inner is expecting more back than to be referred to existing threads.
Moreover their input is really only needed on two related fronts:
1) There is no visible signal in global climate temperature data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The IPCC agree.
Draft:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' The answer to this question in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter is 'We do not know'."
Published:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter."
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 Ch 8 Section 8.6)
2) There is no causality in ice, floods, bears, etc in the absence of 1. There is peer reviewed research on this e.g. Gray on hurricanes, there's Barredo's paper on floods, the study on arctic ocean ice, and so on.
What do you think, ZondaMark?
ZondaMark said:
I agree (he decided to rubbish everything put forth in here, based only on a couple of pages, solely on the amount of referencing, and then had the audacity to accuse you of cherry picking) and I too have yet to see your 2 key points challenged, but I was referring to the idea that I was a troll of some sort - if I was I would just set up a new account and, having followed most of the debate raised in here, would be able to dive straight in (as opposed to using an account on which I make serious contributions to various topics brought up in the Gassing Station).
Have you ever tried telling a priest that God doesn't exist?Same thing.
Carbon Trading dead in the US...
Article said:
Unlike the American voluntary scheme, the European cousin of the CCX, the European Climate Exchange (ECX), continues to trade due to the mandatory carbon caps of the Kyoto Protocol. But the future of the ECX will be in doubt unless a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol is introduced. That treaty expires in 2012. But the ineffectual Copenhagen Climate Conference (2009) exposed an inability among international politicians to agree on climate change. If this stalement persists then the European ECX may likely suffer the same fate as Chicago’s CCX.
k1600ssred7 said:
For the benefit of G_T re his attack on TB's answer for no.52:
Second Law of Thermodynamics:
It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one. (German physicist Rudolf Clausius)
Greenhouse effect: (from http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.htm...
XXIV. Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse
By Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author)
THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.
I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.
To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a themometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.
There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.
Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.
Yes that proves it's all bSecond Law of Thermodynamics:
It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one. (German physicist Rudolf Clausius)
Greenhouse effect: (from http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.htm...
XXIV. Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse
By Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author)
THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.
I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.
To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a themometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.
There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.
Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.
ks.Maybe if the author had some yoghurt pots and elastic bands he could also have perfected cold fusion.
Guam said:
G_T said:
ZondaMark said:
Fancy another?
ETA: is the wiki up-to-date btw?
Can you do me a favour Mark, ask your mate whether the idea of the greenhouse effect violates the "2nd law of thermodynamics"?ETA: is the wiki up-to-date btw?
At least I think that's what's inferred... Number 52 I believe?
Wheres the appeals for peer reviewed research then?
Presumably you can find the sources to answer that question yourself??
If
ZondaMark said:
It's part of an exchange on Facebook in response to an article that was posted. He refused to argue with 'deniers of science', so I thought I'd come here and get some science for him.
Like I say, I've asked him but the idea has been side-stepped. I told him he's got nothing to lose if he knows he's right. Perhaps his no-show is because he himself isn't a climate specialist, and so relies on everything fed to him by the consensus. If it was me, I could just open up a new account and dive straight in.
You could always give us access to the Facebook page/group! Like I say, I've asked him but the idea has been side-stepped. I told him he's got nothing to lose if he knows he's right. Perhaps his no-show is because he himself isn't a climate specialist, and so relies on everything fed to him by the consensus. If it was me, I could just open up a new account and dive straight in.
Be an interesting
I'm having a bit of a discussion with some 'believers' on an atheism website I go to. Ironically they are comparing skeptics to creationists, and are insistent that the skeptics are not scientists. I gladly pointed out that ALL scientists SHOULD be skeptical. It;s part of their job description.
turbobloke said:
G_T said:
turbobloke said:
52. "2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory" "The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed"
Ah thermos dynamics! A cooler upper atmospheric layer cannot heat a lower one. That would be contrary to the 2nd law.
LOL! Yes because heat radiation doesn't exist!Ah thermos dynamics! A cooler upper atmospheric layer cannot heat a lower one. That would be contrary to the 2nd law.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 7th November 08:44
Happy to be put corrected - as ever
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff