Climate Change - the big debate

[Blue Meanie]

Oh, and there is an app for that!

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-climate/id37184...


Actually, I've been poking through it all day, and it is very good indeed. Has alsorts of information, and lins to different bits and bobs here and there. Mikey likes it!

Edited by Blue Meanie on Thursday 11th November 05:15

[G_T]

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"?

At least I think that's what's inferred... Number 52 I believe?

Is that what you are reduced to, asking a question of a posters mate who (as far as we know) has no more qualifications than you do?

Wheres the appeals for peer reviewed research then?

Presumably you can find the sources to answer that question yourself??

Well there's actually no doubt in my mind that it doesn't contradict the second law of themodynamics. I don't think it really requires a reference to all... But all the same:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-ther...

(references at the bottom and link to more info).

I ask because I do enjoy it when feeble attempts are made to explain why it does contradict the law. Especially the "quantum-mechanism", which was very similar to the explanation provided by people who believe the earth is flat.

As you know I like to call this explanation of why greenouse gases contradict the 2nd law as the "quantum-bullst mechanism".

Turbobloke also seems to be far more concerned with why the effect is insignificant, which is not an answer to the question.

I wonder if he could perchance offer something a little more relevant?

[turbobloke]

It's not clear from what you just wrote, that you understand my position any more than you do the Second Law.

The notion of an unassisted cooler atmosphere layer at altitude heating a warmer lower layer near the surface is pure junk. That's not a matter of degree of significance it's a matter of reality compared to fantasy junkscience.

The point about insignificant change, meaning effectively zero, was that the analogy in 'Yes Virginia' needs wholesale overhaul to be close to what happens in the atmosphere even with a source of extrernal work clouding matters (no pun intended).

Remember that 'Yes Virginia' includes external work - so it's outside of the Second Law in the First Place

[grumbledoak]

G_T said:

Well there's actually no doubt in my mind that it doesn't contradict the second law of themodynamics. I don't think it really requires a reference to all... But all the same:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-ther...

I get the impression your specialism is medical? Perhaps you should stick to it.

[G_T]

turbobloke said:

It's not clear from what you just wrote, that you understand my position any more than you do the Second Law.

The notion of an unassisted cooler atmosphere layer at altitude heating a warmer lower layer near the surface is pure junk. That's not a matter of degree of significance it's a matter of reality compared to fantasy junkscience.

The point about insignificant change, meaning effectively zero, was that the analogy in 'Yes Virginia' needs wholesale overhaul to be close to what happens in the atmosphere even with a source of extrernal work clouding matters (no pun intended).

Remember that 'Yes Virginia' includes external work - so it's outside of the Second Law in the First Place

Come along now TB. You said that the greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It was number 52 in your list. All I want to know is, in layman's terms, why this is the case.

Cool layers above warmer ones doesn't in itself indicate junk science to me TB, why only this morning I put my colder coat over my warmer shirt and felt significantly warmer throughout my trip to work. It seems somewhat counter-intuitive to dismiss something on that basis alone as against the second law.

Lasty,is this colder layer above or below the proposed height at which greenhouse gases accumulate? Only that would support the theory of an insulating layer wouldn't it?

[grumbledoak]

The analogy is inappropriate, you fool. It's just more plausible sounding junk.

[G_T]

grumbledoak said:

The analogy is inappropriate, you fool. It's just more plausible sounding junk.

My poor straw man.

[grumbledoak]

G_T said:

My poor straw man.

Indeed it is.

[turbobloke]

grumbledoak said:

G_T said:

My poor straw man.

Indeed it is.

Indeed it is.

The analogy plainly has a source of external work, so unless there is a response to this aspect of my post a day or two ago there's not going to be much to add except that, unassisted, a cooler atmospheric layer at altitude is not capable of heating a warmer atmospheric layer near the ground. This is not a matter for debate and is not the same position as the 'Yes Virginia' scenario which clearly is 'assisted' in that there is a source of external work so the position is outside the remit 2nd Law - many expressions of the 2nd Law actually make this point so as to be clear:

2nd Law
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

2nd Law
The second law of thermodynamics states that heat can not be transferred from a body at a lower temperature to a body at a higher temperature without the application of energy from an external source.

[Blib]

GT said:

why only this morning I put my colder coat over my warmer shirt and felt significantly warmer throughout my trip to work.

Genius.

[turbobloke]

Blib said:

GT said:

why only this morning I put my colder coat over my warmer shirt and felt significantly warmer throughout my trip to work.

Genius.

[Ali G]

Probably not a popular position to be in on this thread, but can't see a problem in principle why a cooler layer in the atmosphere would not further reduce the rate of cooling of the planet which is heated by an eternal source (the sun). This, afterall, is the fundamental principle why we can live on a habitable planet. However, there are many other considirations to be made.

In lower layers, this warming effect is apparently saturated in accordance to Beer Lambert, but otherwise would continue to operate with increasing levels of CO2 - and I am ignoring convection..

Guess the issue therefor is for layers beyond the effect of warming from the planet's surface. Again, in principle, cannot see why a layer warmed by a further external source (remembering that this cannot come directly from IR from the surface due to Beer Lambert) could not in turn contribute to the reduction in cooling of the planet's surface. However, this would be subject to an external source being present (and TB has stated that direct warming of CO2 from the sun in the upper atmosphere is miniscule due to lack of available IR in the specific wavelenghts) and would also be subject to Beer Lambert, since inward radiation towards the surface from high level CO2 would be subject to the same saturation effect and may never reach the surface of the planet.

So, ignoring some very important factors (convection, Beer Lambert, limited available IR radiation from sun) I would be inclined towards supporting a cooler layer in the upper atmosphere having the ability to influence the temperature of the surface, but in practice I don't think this would happen...

Trying to steer clear of 2nd law here...

[grumbledoak]

Ali G said:

and I am ignoring convection..

Yeah. You are.

[G_T]

turbobloke said:

grumbledoak said:

G_T said:

My poor straw man.

Indeed it is.

Indeed it is.

The analogy plainly has a source of external work, so unless there is a response to this aspect of my post a day or two ago there's not going to be much to add except that, unassisted, a cooler atmospheric layer at altitude is not capable of heating a warmer atmospheric layer near the ground. This is not a matter for debate and is not the same position as the 'Yes Virginia' scenario which clearly is 'assisted' in that there is a source of external work so the position is outside the remit 2nd Law - many expressions of the 2nd Law actually make this point so as to be clear:

2nd Law
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

2nd Law
The second law of thermodynamics states that heat can not be transferred from a body at a lower temperature to a body at a higher temperature without the application of energy from an external source.

I'll ignore the obvious selective quoting and rather amusing misunderstanding of my statement. I should also point out that the analogy of a greenhouse is equally unreliable as my coat. Convection in greenhouse vs. radiation etc. but both serve to illustrate the point I was trying to make.

Ahh Turbobloke you have explained your misunderstanding wonderfully.

The 2nd law does indeed state that the net result of a heat transfer must be from a higher to lower temperature. But that is not being disputed.

The net result in the greenhouse gas theory is consistent as it explains that the net heat transfer goes from the "warmer" planet to the "colder" space beyond. It is simply the rate of this loss that is effected by the prescence of greenhouse gases.

To explain further (and to keep it simple as much as possible), the theory goes that heat is radiated from the surface of the planet up through the atmosphere whereupon some (but crucially not all) is absorbed by greenhouse gases (amongst others but that isn't the point here).

To obey basic physical laws in this case the heat must then be passed on, as convection, conduction and radiation. Now conduction and convection will only flow in one direction as you've pointed out. Radiation however, is not selective. Photons are emitted in all directions with roughly 50% being out to space and 50% being back towards the Earth.

As not all energy is absorbed by these gases the effect is significantly less than 50% of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface is returned to it. So there is still a considerable net loss to space. Otherwise the planet would get continously warmer very quickly.

So no breach in the 2nd law.

Also, shock-horror, we have shown an example cooler objects providing heat to warmer ones. But the net result is still cooling. (I await the first moron to show a picture of frozen lightbulb or something equally bafflingly stupid as perfect proof of their own ignorance).

[Ali G]

grumbledoak said:

Ali G said:

and I am ignoring convection..

Yeah. You are.

Quite comfortable that I am - and am also quite comfortable that convection has a very major effect in the lower layers (as per the 'proper' analysis of the greenhouse effect).

[grumbledoak]

Ah. Arrogant smirking.

Who thinks G_T is this bloke?

[Prof Prolapse]

grumbledoak said:

Ah. Arrogant smirking.

Who thinks G_T is this bloke?

I'll give you this grumbleoak at least you're consistent. I though the law of averages would have meant you, Guam, Lost_BMW, blue_meanie and blairout would have accidentally said something vaguely intelligent by now.

I'm reminded of an analogy involving monkeys and typewriters.

I didn't try to be arrogant with my writing, but some of you are evidently quite slow on the uptake so I was trying to keep it simple.

But that comment did make me smirk.

[turbobloke]

G_T said:

turbobloke said:

grumbledoak said:

G_T said:

My poor straw man.

Indeed it is.

Indeed it is.

The analogy plainly has a source of external work, so unless there is a response to this aspect of my post a day or two ago there's not going to be much to add except that, unassisted, a cooler atmospheric layer at altitude is not capable of heating a warmer atmospheric layer near the ground. This is not a matter for debate and is not the same position as the 'Yes Virginia' scenario which clearly is 'assisted' in that there is a source of external work so the position is outside the remit 2nd Law - many expressions of the 2nd Law actually make this point so as to be clear:

2nd Law
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

2nd Law
The second law of thermodynamics states that heat can not be transferred from a body at a lower temperature to a body at a higher temperature without the application of energy from an external source.

I'll ignore the obvious selective quoting and rather amusing misunderstanding of my statement. I should also point out that the analogy of a greenhouse is equally unreliable as my coat. Convection in greenhouse vs. radiation etc. but both serve to illustrate the point I was trying to make.

Ahh Turbobloke you have explained your misunderstanding wonderfully.

I don't have one, so your misperception is growing wonderfully.

G_T said:

The 2nd law does indeed state that the net result of a heat transfer must be from a higher to lower temperature. But that is not being disputed.

Take a look at the blog beloved of ZondaMark's friend.

G_T said:

It is simply the rate of this loss that is effected by the prescence of greenhouse gases.

The rate of cooling from the ground up? That's not heating from the sky down.

G_T said:

To explain further (and to keep it simple as much as possible)

For other believers' benefit, fair enough.

G_T said:

the theory goes that heat is radiated from the surface of the planet up through the atmosphere whereupon some (but crucially not all) is absorbed by greenhouse gases (amongst others but that isn't the point here).

Huh?

G_T said:

To obey basic physical laws in this case the heat must then be passed on, as convection, conduction and radiation. Now conduction and convection will only flow in one direction as you've pointed out. Radiation however, is not selective. Photons are emitted in all directions with roughly 50% being out to space and 50% being back towards the Earth.

We had that discussion many pages ago. A single act of emission and absorption, or focusing on one or two acts, of absorption and emission does not describe heating or cooling, which is a net effect over time based on the overall distribution of energy.

G_T said:

As not all energy is absorbed by these gases the effect is significantly less than 50% of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface is returned to it.

In the case of carbon dioxide at least 92% goes on through.

G_T said:

So there is still a considerable net loss to space. Otherwise the planet would get continously warmer very quickly.

Yes, there is no human signal

G_T said:

So no breach in the 2nd law.

The 2nd Law is breached if, unassisted, a cooler atmospheric layer at altitude were to heat a warmer lower layer. Which is what you are claiming with your misunderstanding of single localised events of emission and absorption as cooling and heating, which is not the case. Heating and cooling are net effects over time based on particulate energy distributions and not single acts of absorption or emission. This is the mistake you keep making.

G_T said:

Also, shock-horror, we have shown an example cooler objects providing heat to warmer ones.

No you haven't. You've described a localised event of emission leading to a localised event of absorption, but the bulk property of temperature will change over time in a net manner according to the shift in energy distribution, and a cooler object cannot heat a warmer one without external work.

My understanding is clear, your misunderstandings are clear also.

[mybrainhurts]

Guam said:

Prof Prolapse said:

grumbledoak said:

Ah. Arrogant smirking.

Who thinks G_T is this bloke?

I'll give you this grumbleoak at least you're consistent. I though the law of averages would have meant you, Guam, Lost_BMW, blue_meanie and blairout would have accidentally said something vaguely intelligent by now.

I'm reminded of an analogy involving monkeys and typewriters.

I didn't try to be arrogant with my writing, but some of you are evidently quite slow on the uptake so I was trying to keep it simple.

But that comment did make me smirk.

Ah a change of name to something finally appropriate, given your obsession with Quanta, then having a name illustrative of what exudes from your Quantum singularity, passing as debate is way past Irony.

Consider me impressed

Why hide behind another name, Micra man...?

[Diderot]

Prof Prolapse said:

grumbledoak said:

Ah. Arrogant smirking.

Who thinks G_T is this bloke?

I'll give you this grumbleoak at least you're consistent. I though the law of averages would have meant you, Guam, Lost_BMW, blue_meanie and blairout would have accidentally said something vaguely intelligent by now.

I'm reminded of an analogy involving monkeys and typewriters.

I didn't try to be arrogant with my writing, but some of you are evidently quite slow on the uptake so I was trying to keep it simple.

But that comment did make me smirk.

His arse fell out in sympathy with the arse falling out of MMUGWT.