Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
There IS an asteroid on the way. Degrasse Tyson was talking about it not long ago. It will come by in 2029, (they have the exact date. Friday the 13th oddly enough), where it will come very close indeed. Silly close, in fact. Then it will return 7 years later. Depending on how close it gets in 2029 in the 'keyhole', will depend if it hits us or not.
http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
Edited by Blue Meanie on Tuesday 9th November 00:53
Blue Meanie said:
There IS an asteroid on the way. Degrasse Tyson was talking about it not long ago. It will come by in 2029, (they have the exact date. Friday the 13th oddly enough), where it will come very close indeed. Silly close, in fact. Then it will return 7 years later. Depending on how close it gets in 2029 in the 'keyhole', will depend if it hits us or not.
http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
I must admit if a Scientist says it's going to Impact in 2029 and blast away all the CO2 from the atmosphere, where will that leave all the Windymills?http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
Edited by Blue Meanie on Tuesday 9th November 00:53
Have the Windymills been designed to withstand the blast?
Blue Meanie said:
There IS an asteroid on the way. Degrasse Tyson was talking about it not long ago. It will come by in 2029, (they have the exact date. Friday the 13th oddly enough), where it will come very close indeed. Silly close, in fact. Then it will return 7 years later. Depending on how close it gets in 2029 in the 'keyhole', will depend if it hits us or not.
http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
Oh great, thanks - I was just going to try and sleep! http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
Edited by Blue Meanie on Tuesday 9th November 00:53
If anyone is interested in DeGrasse Tyson, he did a fascinating talk at the Scicafe at the AMNH. he talks about the asteroid here..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KRZQQ_eICo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KRZQQ_eICo
Blue Meanie said:
There IS an asteroid on the way. Degrasse Tyson was talking about it not long ago. It will come by in 2029, (they have the exact date. Friday the 13th oddly enough), where it will come very close indeed. Silly close, in fact. Then it will return 7 years later. Depending on how close it gets in 2029 in the 'keyhole', will depend if it hits us or not.
http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
Was just watching that video with the sound off......and I STILL enjoyed watching it!!!http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
Edited by Blue Meanie on Tuesday 9th November 00:53
That Degrasse Tyson is a pretty entertaining speaker
Blue Meanie said:
There are fundamental problems:Attributing Physical and Biological Impacts to Anthropogenic Climate Change
1) climate change has not been attributed to humans
2) therefore the title makes an unsubstantiated leap of faith
3) physical and biological impacts of natural climate change have been occurring since dot and since life formed respectively
Ali G said:
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
The 'Yes Virginia' scenario has a source of external work on the system in the form of an electrical power supply which actually operates on/via one of the two components, and the rise in temperature derives from that external work when overall energy transfer rates from that component are reduced so that the external work being done raises the internal energy i.e. temperature of that component...what is the source of external work operating on a warm, lower atmospheric layer supposedly heated by a cooler higher layer by supposedly reducing the overall rate of energy transfer (heat loss) from it?
If you say 'the Sun' then there is very little IR in the radiation incident from the Sun as the Sun is too hot as a black body source, and both upper and lower layers transmit almost all of it to the ground. So the ground is where the extra heat emerges anyway.
If you then say 'the ground' or 'a layer of air below the one we're considering' as per the claimed greenhouse effect where a cooler upper atmosphere layer is said to be able to heat a warmer lower layer, then that's not an external source of work. It would be like saying that the layer of the heating element below the outer surface is the source of external work in 'Yes Virginia' - it's not, the source of external work is the distant electricity generator - all the inner layers are doing is transmitting at I^2.R rate from the external power supply converted via the resistance of the heating element core.
Also in the real world there is an enormous heat sink in contact with the near-surface layer, called 'the Earth' which is totally missing in the 'Yes Virginia' analogy, and there is less for free and forced convection to do in 'Yes Virginia' whereas both operate effectively in the lower troposphere.
We must also remember that the cool shielding layer in the 'Yes Virginia' analogy is metallic and capable of efficiently reducing the overall energy transfer rate away from the warm heated component by reflection, and by re-radiation following broad absorption, whereas the upper atmospheric layer can only re-radiate energy it has already absorbed and in the supposed enhanced greenhouse effect this absorption is due to carbon dioxide, yet due to the quantum nature of absorption by carbon dioxide, it absorbs at three narrow defined frequencies/wavelengths of IR only and not across the entire IR spectrum so at least 92% of radiation from lower layers passes on through unlike the situation in 'Yes Virginia'.
In addition, the cool upper atmosphere component in the real world has an 'active ingredient' i.e. carbon dioxide that makes up about 0.03% by volume of the material it's a part of. This is the component said to be doing the absorbing and re-radiating. To look at pre- and post-industrialisation, the starting point should be 230ppmv increasing to 390ppmv i.e. 0.023% to 0.039%
In the real world the situation is also very different in that we're not imagining the sudden introduction of an entire cool component somehow shielding the warm one, when there was nothing there before. The agent actually doing the supposed shielding and re-radiating was already present at 230ppmv and is now 390 ppmv so the analogy should not have the sudden total introduction of something, it should have an increased presence of the cool component, as above. The capacity of the extra material to have any effect should also be on a logarithmic relationship to ppmv rations, working withing the IPCC flawed view of Beer Lambert as a temperature device.
One final point, the cool element in the real world is not of the same density as the warm element, since the atmosphere thins out considerably with height.
In summary, the analogy should have a starting point in which the temperature is taken when there is an efficient heat sink attached to the warm component, the cool component is already there but contained within an inert matrix to represent the thinning out, even then with only 0.023% of its bulk mass active, and with the property of allowing at least 92% of radiation to pass through it, also the warm component should be acted on by free and forced convection. Then, the cool component should have its active ingredient increased by 390/230 but so as to create only a very small effect much less than this ratio (log law) as per the atmosphere. Others may wish to suggest a role for the changes of state relating to the atmosphere and surface in terms of latent heat.
The result would be...and then you realise that Essenhigh (see my responses to the Believer blog) has shown using atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics that the overall atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is not controlled by human emissions but by partition equilibria responding to natural changes in temperature - so mankind didn't put the second 'shielding' component in place for the above modified 'Yes Virginia' situation and so is not responsible for any effect however immeasurably small and indistinguishable from zero.
Which is where we came in. There is no human signal visible in (etc).
turbobloke said:
Blue Meanie said:
There are fundamental problems:Attributing Physical and Biological Impacts to Anthropogenic Climate Change
1) climate change has not been attributed to humans
2) therefore the title makes an unsubstantiated leap of faith
3) physical and biological impacts of natural climate change have been occurring since dot and since life formed respectively
Me elsewhere said:
Now as you have access to the paper, any chance you can give us any data regarding what proves it, rather than simply "likely as the IPCC said so"... After all, CO2 history clearly shows that prior to the rise after the 1940's we had a slump, and before that a rise, and before that a slump. This very same rise and slump has been occurring since the late 1800's. How can you attribute a rise in temperature to man, when that very same rate of temperature rise has been seen in the years directly before mankind could NOT have had any effect at all, all taken over such a small timescale in planetary time.
These people do seem to be quite 'religious' oddly enough, considering they are supposed to be atheists I'm arguing with. I've been accused of being under the pay of big oil, a conspiracy theorist, not caring for the environment, and basically they think the science is settled. One person even said "well you believe in aerodynamics, why don;t you believe in AGW?"... Odd people, they really are. Blue Meanie said:
turbobloke said:
Blue Meanie said:
There are fundamental problems:Attributing Physical and Biological Impacts to Anthropogenic Climate Change
1) climate change has not been attributed to humans
2) therefore the title makes an unsubstantiated leap of faith
3) physical and biological impacts of natural climate change have been occurring since dot and since life formed respectively
Me elsewhere said:
Now as you have access to the paper, any chance you can give us any data regarding what proves it, rather than simply "likely as the IPCC said so"... After all, CO2 history clearly shows that prior to the rise after the 1940's we had a slump, and before that a rise, and before that a slump. This very same rise and slump has been occurring since the late 1800's. How can you attribute a rise in temperature to man, when that very same rate of temperature rise has been seen in the years directly before mankind could NOT have had any effect at all, all taken over such a small timescale in planetary time.
These people do seem to be quite 'religious' oddly enough, considering they are supposed to be atheists I'm arguing with. I've been accused of being under the pay of big oil, a conspiracy theorist, not caring for the environment, and basically they think the science is settled. One person even said "well you believe in aerodynamics, why don;t you believe in AGW?"... Odd people, they really are. 
FFS!
turbobloke said:
Ali G said:
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
The 'Yes Virginia' scenario has a source of external work on the system in the form of an electrical power supply which actually operates on/via one of the two components, and the rise in temperature derives from that external work when overall energy transfer rates from that component are reduced so that the external work being done raises the internal energy i.e. temperature of that component...what is the source of external work operating on a warm, lower atmospheric layer supposedly heated by a cooler higher layer by supposedly reducing the overall rate of energy transfer (heat loss) from it?
If you say 'the Sun' then there is very little IR in the radiation incident from the Sun as the Sun is too hot as a black body source, and both upper and lower layers transmit almost all of it to the ground. So the ground is where the extra heat emerges anyway.
If you then say 'the ground' or 'a layer of air below the one we're considering' as per the claimed greenhouse effect where a cooler upper atmosphere layer is said to be able to heat a warmer lower layer, then that's not an external source of work. It would be like saying that the layer of the heating element below the outer surface is the source of external work in 'Yes Virginia' - it's not, the source of external work is the distant electricity generator - all the inner layers are doing is transmitting at I^2.R rate from the external power supply converted via the resistance of the heating element core.
Also in the real world there is an enormous heat sink in contact with the near-surface layer, called 'the Earth' which is totally missing in the 'Yes Virginia' analogy, and there is less for free and forced convection to do in 'Yes Virginia' whereas both operate effectively in the lower troposphere.
We must also remember that the cool shielding layer in the 'Yes Virginia' analogy is metallic and capable of efficiently reducing the overall energy transfer rate away from the warm heated component by reflection, and by re-radiation following broad absorption, whereas the upper atmospheric layer can only re-radiate energy it has already absorbed and in the supposed enhanced greenhouse effect this absorption is due to carbon dioxide, yet due to the quantum nature of absorption by carbon dioxide, it absorbs at three narrow defined frequencies/wavelengths of IR only and not across the entire IR spectrum so at least 92% of radiation from lower layers passes on through unlike the situation in 'Yes Virginia'.
In addition, the cool upper atmosphere component in the real world has an 'active ingredient' i.e. carbon dioxide that makes up about 0.03% by volume of the material it's a part of. This is the component said to be doing the absorbing and re-radiating. To look at pre- and post-industrialisation, the starting point should be 230ppmv increasing to 390ppmv i.e. 0.023% to 0.039%
In the real world the situation is also very different in that we're not imagining the sudden introduction of an entire cool component somehow shielding the warm one, when there was nothing there before. The agent actually doing the supposed shielding and re-radiating was already present at 230ppmv and is now 390 ppmv so the analogy should not have the sudden total introduction of something, it should have an increased presence of the cool component, as above. The capacity of the extra material to have any effect should also be on a logarithmic relationship to ppmv rations, working withing the IPCC flawed view of Beer Lambert as a temperature device.
One final point, the cool element in the real world is not of the same density as the warm element, since the atmosphere thins out considerably with height.
In summary, the analogy should have a starting point in which the temperature is taken when there is an efficient heat sink attached to the warm component, the cool component is already there but contained within an inert matrix to represent the thinning out, even then with only 0.023% of its bulk mass active, and with the property of allowing at least 92% of radiation to pass through it, also the warm component should be acted on by free and forced convection. Then, the cool component should have its active ingredient increased by 390/230 but so as to create only a very small effect much less than this ratio (log law) as per the atmosphere. Others may wish to suggest a role for the changes of state relating to the atmosphere and surface in terms of latent heat.
The result would be...and then you realise that Essenhigh (see my responses to the Believer blog) has shown using atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics that the overall atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is not controlled by human emissions but by partition equilibria responding to natural changes in temperature - so mankind didn't put the second 'shielding' component in place for the above modified 'Yes Virginia' situation and so is not responsible for any effect however immeasurably small and indistinguishable from zero.
Which is where we came in. There is no human signal visible in (etc).
Your discussion above warrants further digesting!
Ali G said:
turbobloke said:
Ali G said:
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
The 'Yes Virginia' scenario has a source of external work on the system in the form of an electrical power supply which actually operates on/via one of the two components, and the rise in temperature derives from that external work when overall energy transfer rates from that component are reduced so that the external work being done raises the internal energy i.e. temperature of that component...what is the source of external work operating on a warm, lower atmospheric layer supposedly heated by a cooler higher layer by supposedly reducing the overall rate of energy transfer (heat loss) from it?
If you say 'the Sun' then there is very little IR in the radiation incident from the Sun as the Sun is too hot as a black body source, and both upper and lower layers transmit almost all of it to the ground. So the ground is where the extra heat emerges anyway.
If you then say 'the ground' or 'a layer of air below the one we're considering' as per the claimed greenhouse effect where a cooler upper atmosphere layer is said to be able to heat a warmer lower layer, then that's not an external source of work. It would be like saying that the layer of the heating element below the outer surface is the source of external work in 'Yes Virginia' - it's not, the source of external work is the distant electricity generator - all the inner layers are doing is transmitting at I^2.R rate from the external power supply converted via the resistance of the heating element core.
Also in the real world there is an enormous heat sink in contact with the near-surface layer, called 'the Earth' which is totally missing in the 'Yes Virginia' analogy, and there is less for free and forced convection to do in 'Yes Virginia' whereas both operate effectively in the lower troposphere.
We must also remember that the cool shielding layer in the 'Yes Virginia' analogy is metallic and capable of efficiently reducing the overall energy transfer rate away from the warm heated component by reflection, and by re-radiation following broad absorption, whereas the upper atmospheric layer can only re-radiate energy it has already absorbed and in the supposed enhanced greenhouse effect this absorption is due to carbon dioxide, yet due to the quantum nature of absorption by carbon dioxide, it absorbs at three narrow defined frequencies/wavelengths of IR only and not across the entire IR spectrum so at least 92% of radiation from lower layers passes on through unlike the situation in 'Yes Virginia'.
In addition, the cool upper atmosphere component in the real world has an 'active ingredient' i.e. carbon dioxide that makes up about 0.03% by volume of the material it's a part of. This is the component said to be doing the absorbing and re-radiating. To look at pre- and post-industrialisation, the starting point should be 230ppmv increasing to 390ppmv i.e. 0.023% to 0.039%
In the real world the situation is also very different in that we're not imagining the sudden introduction of an entire cool component somehow shielding the warm one, when there was nothing there before. The agent actually doing the supposed shielding and re-radiating was already present at 230ppmv and is now 390 ppmv so the analogy should not have the sudden total introduction of something, it should have an increased presence of the cool component, as above. The capacity of the extra material to have any effect should also be on a logarithmic relationship to ppmv rations, working withing the IPCC flawed view of Beer Lambert as a temperature device.
One final point, the cool element in the real world is not of the same density as the warm element, since the atmosphere thins out considerably with height.
In summary, the analogy should have a starting point in which the temperature is taken when there is an efficient heat sink attached to the warm component, the cool component is already there but contained within an inert matrix to represent the thinning out, even then with only 0.023% of its bulk mass active, and with the property of allowing at least 92% of radiation to pass through it, also the warm component should be acted on by free and forced convection. Then, the cool component should have its active ingredient increased by 390/230 but so as to create only a very small effect much less than this ratio (log law) as per the atmosphere. Others may wish to suggest a role for the changes of state relating to the atmosphere and surface in terms of latent heat.
The result would be...and then you realise that Essenhigh (see my responses to the Believer blog) has shown using atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics that the overall atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is not controlled by human emissions but by partition equilibria responding to natural changes in temperature - so mankind didn't put the second 'shielding' component in place for the above modified 'Yes Virginia' situation and so is not responsible for any effect however immeasurably small and indistinguishable from zero.
Which is where we came in. There is no human signal visible in (etc).
Also needed is why anybody should go further when Essenhigh, using atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics (not the 2nd Law) has shown that the overall atmospheric carbon dioxide level is not driven by human emissions but by partition equilibria adjusting to natural temperature shifts. Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide: Essenhigh R.H., Energy Fuels, 23 (5),2773–2784 (2009)
As you will appreciate the 'Yes Virginia' scenario is clearly not operating without an external source of work, so it's not a Second Law violation.
VPower said:
Blue Meanie said:
There IS an asteroid on the way. Degrasse Tyson was talking about it not long ago. It will come by in 2029, (they have the exact date. Friday the 13th oddly enough), where it will come very close indeed. Silly close, in fact. Then it will return 7 years later. Depending on how close it gets in 2029 in the 'keyhole', will depend if it hits us or not.
http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
I must admit if a Scientist says it's going to Impact in 2029 and blast away all the CO2 from the atmosphere, where will that leave all the Windymills?http://fora.tv/2007/02/09/Death_By_Black_Hole#Neil...
Edited by Blue Meanie on Tuesday 9th November 00:53
Have the Windymills been designed to withstand the blast?
If we turn the windymills round and reverse the electricity, they will blow this asteroid thingy back into space...
Will I get a Nobel Prize for this...?
I'm surprised this wasn't blamed on global warming. Interesting comment re:cloud cover.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9...
LOL, the BBC aren't allowed to bombard readers with climate change propaganda any more, as they've worked out it has the opposite effect.
Whales 200 years ago had perfect skin!
article said:
In blue whales the symptoms of sunburn seemed to be worsening during the period the study took place.
"This is the first evidence that the Sun's rays can cause skin lesions in whales," said Ms Martinez-Levasseur.
"The increase in skin damage seen in blue whales is a matter of concern, but at this stage it is not clear what is causing this increase. A likely candidate is rising ultraviolet radiation as a result of either ozone depletion, or a change in the level of cloud cover." snip
You've got to laugh! How much do they get for such revelations?"This is the first evidence that the Sun's rays can cause skin lesions in whales," said Ms Martinez-Levasseur.
"The increase in skin damage seen in blue whales is a matter of concern, but at this stage it is not clear what is causing this increase. A likely candidate is rising ultraviolet radiation as a result of either ozone depletion, or a change in the level of cloud cover." snip
Whales 200 years ago had perfect skin!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff