Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Ali G said:
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 terms of your answering your own question - doesn't that just sum up the issue, and the nonsense of the non-scientists' claims of mechanisms/effects based on a deliberately partial consideration of the factors that suit and the ignoring of those that don't?G_T said:
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).
Let's ignore for now the number of non-sentences and nonsensical writing in that textual chaos! Though it is ironic that you should refer to monkeys with typewriters; you should stop yours working when it's in the midst of an epileptic seizure.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).
As you choose, as ever, to dismiss energy states, kinetic theory and correct definitions of temperature - under the blanket dismissal of anything 'quantum' which you clearly see as a dirty word - perhaps you might like to go back and consider energy states, the mechanisms of energy transfer between molecules (and your pet gasses), absorption rates, wavelengths and time scales etc. more carefully.
For example see:
J. Howare, D. Burch & D. Williams: "Near-infrared Transmission Through Synthetic Atmospheres."
or
"Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis." by Goody
And a primer on the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution, and energy curves/gradients could be useful for you, as a 1st step into understanding the science you are clearly still struggling with.
Edited by Lost_BMW on Friday 12th November 01:17
Lost_BMW said:
Ali G said:
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 terms of your answering your own question - doesn't that just sum up the issue, and the nonsense of the non-scientists' claims of mechanisms/effects based on a deliberately partial consideration of the factors that suit and the ignoring of those that don't?G_T said:
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.
Do you have an appreciation of the radiative properties of a gas relative to convection and conduction?It's fairly critical to your argument to understand if it forms a significant transfer of energy at all or is, to all intents and purposes, zero.
IainT said:
G_T said:
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.
Do you have an appreciation of the radiative properties of a gas relative to convection and conduction?It's fairly critical to your argument to understand if it forms a significant transfer of energy at all or is, to all intents and purposes, zero.
One key to his regular but feeble attempts to argue 'science' and inability to persuade on here. He can copy and paste for sure, but I doubt he reads any of it and certainly not with any understanding. Mind you, the man is a scientist!
turbobloke said:
The threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study. Researchers have shown that the world's tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today.
Noooo surely not. This past decade is the Edited by Diderot on Friday 12th November 21:29
Diderot said:
turbobloke said:
The threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study. Researchers have shown that the world's tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today.
Noooo surely not. This past decade is the Edited by Diderot on Friday 12th November 21:29
More so than previously thought!
odyssey2200 said:
Diderot said:
turbobloke said:
The threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study. Researchers have shown that the world's tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today.
Noooo surely not. This past decade is the Edited by Diderot on Friday 12th November 21:29
More so than previously thought!
Blue Meanie said:
odyssey2200 said:
Diderot said:
turbobloke said:
The threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study. Researchers have shown that the world's tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today.
Noooo surely not. This past decade is the Edited by Diderot on Friday 12th November 21:29
More so than previously thought!
An interesting article in The Scotsman this morning.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Scotland-39ri...
"Scotland 'risking a blackout' in a bid to go green."
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Scotland-39ri...
"Scotland 'risking a blackout' in a bid to go green."
Article said:
THE "lights could go out" over Scotland unless new power stations are built in the next two years to ward off a looming electricity crisis, the head of one of Scotland's most successful companies has warned Alex Salmond.
Rupert Soames, chief executive of power supply firm Aggreko, told the First Minister that the National Grid will lose a third of its capacity by 2018 as a string of nuclear, gas and oil-fired power stations across the UK are retired - including several in Scotland.
Mr Soames claimed that no other industrialised country in the world is at risk of losing so much of its energy supply at the same time - and without a realistic back-up plan.
He urged both the Scottish and UK governments to postpone green energy targets by a decade. Unless "the concrete is poured" on a new fleet of power stations within the next two years, Mr Soames warned, "we will be in serious danger of the lights going out".
His warning came as British Gas announced it will increase bills by an average of 7 per cent from 10 December. British Gas blamed rising wholesale prices.
• Winter blues come early as gas bills set to increase 7 per cent
• Premium- Leader: MSPs must see the light on unrealistic green targets
Mr Soames, the boss of the FTSE 100 firm - which has supplied energy for events including the World Cup and the Beijing Olympics, accused Scottish ministers of "wishful thinking" on renewable energy targets, which are among the most ambitious in the world.
"There is a danger in some quarters (in Scotland] of believing that if you wish things to be true, they will be true," he told an audience of MSPs and business leaders at the annual Business in the Parliament conference in Edinburgh. He said: "Scotland might wish to be a major exporter of renewable energy to Europe, and might wish to see an interconnector built across the North Sea, but does anyone really believe that we can get one built in the next ten years?"
Mr Soames attacked politicians for being too focused on long-term targets several decades away, and for having no "Plan B" when it comes to addressing the threat of more immediate energy shortages.
"We may wish the replacement to be wind; we may wish it to be tidal; but wishing isn't going to make it happen," he said. "We need a Plan B."
Rupert Soames, chief executive of power supply firm Aggreko, told the First Minister that the National Grid will lose a third of its capacity by 2018 as a string of nuclear, gas and oil-fired power stations across the UK are retired - including several in Scotland.
Mr Soames claimed that no other industrialised country in the world is at risk of losing so much of its energy supply at the same time - and without a realistic back-up plan.
He urged both the Scottish and UK governments to postpone green energy targets by a decade. Unless "the concrete is poured" on a new fleet of power stations within the next two years, Mr Soames warned, "we will be in serious danger of the lights going out".
His warning came as British Gas announced it will increase bills by an average of 7 per cent from 10 December. British Gas blamed rising wholesale prices.
• Winter blues come early as gas bills set to increase 7 per cent
• Premium- Leader: MSPs must see the light on unrealistic green targets
Mr Soames, the boss of the FTSE 100 firm - which has supplied energy for events including the World Cup and the Beijing Olympics, accused Scottish ministers of "wishful thinking" on renewable energy targets, which are among the most ambitious in the world.
"There is a danger in some quarters (in Scotland] of believing that if you wish things to be true, they will be true," he told an audience of MSPs and business leaders at the annual Business in the Parliament conference in Edinburgh. He said: "Scotland might wish to be a major exporter of renewable energy to Europe, and might wish to see an interconnector built across the North Sea, but does anyone really believe that we can get one built in the next ten years?"
Mr Soames attacked politicians for being too focused on long-term targets several decades away, and for having no "Plan B" when it comes to addressing the threat of more immediate energy shortages.
"We may wish the replacement to be wind; we may wish it to be tidal; but wishing isn't going to make it happen," he said. "We need a Plan B."
Article said:
Niall Stuart, chief executive of trade body Scottish Renewables, admitted Scotland did face electricity supply problems in the short-term which could not be overcome solely through green energy generation, such as wind and tidal.
"Mr Soames is right in that we face massive challenges to replace the loss of existing generation in the network," Mr Stuart told The Scotsman. "We will need a mixture of other forms of generation for the foreseeable future. However, what he completely fails to understand is that Scotland is part of the British network and we need to focus on our massive strengths and the economic and environmental benefit of renewables.
"Our research clearly shows Scotland can aim to be 100 per cent renewables in the medium-term."
I believe that only once the full ramifications to society of this madness become absolutely clear, will the whole gravy train hit the buffers. "Mr Soames is right in that we face massive challenges to replace the loss of existing generation in the network," Mr Stuart told The Scotsman. "We will need a mixture of other forms of generation for the foreseeable future. However, what he completely fails to understand is that Scotland is part of the British network and we need to focus on our massive strengths and the economic and environmental benefit of renewables.
"Our research clearly shows Scotland can aim to be 100 per cent renewables in the medium-term."
Edited by Blib on Saturday 13th November 09:50
Blib said:
I believe that only once the full ramifications to society of this madness become absolutely clear, will the whole gravy train hit the buffers.
It either needs to happen soon - or maybe this will help with the madness...http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/pover...
turbobloke said:
Blib said:
I believe that only once the full ramifications to society of this madness become absolutely clear, will the whole gravy train hit the buffers.
It either needs to happen soon - or maybe this will help with the madness...http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/pover...
king joking..mondeoman said:
turbobloke said:
Blib said:
I believe that only once the full ramifications to society of this madness become absolutely clear, will the whole gravy train hit the buffers.
It either needs to happen soon - or maybe this will help with the madness...http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/pover...
king joking..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff