Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Prof Prolapse said:
turbobloke said:
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.turbobloke said:
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. I thought I made it quite clear in my, admittedly laymans explanation, that I was referring to heat as energy. But for the purposes of my arguement the two are interchangable.
Whether heat is a bulk property or not it is irrelevent as in the context we are talking about transfer of energy.
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bulls
t mechanism rears it's head again!).In much the same way as the cold glass of a greenhouse increases a warm greenhouse further by convection, the cold layer of CO2 provides energy/heat/photons to the ground/layers of atmosphere beneath it by radiation and the external work you keep banging on about as if it somehow undermines the greenhouse theory in both of the above examples is the sun.
And then you probably wonder why people don't take you seriously, are increasingly unwilling to debate with you and accuse you of not understanding the science upon which your world view rests. You really are unbelievable!
turbobloke said:
People’s Daily Online, 16 November 2010
Visiting Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou expressed on Monday his support for carbon tax and transaction tax advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Following a working lunch with the French president at the Elysee Palace, Papandreou told the press he and Sarokzy discussed a new mechanism for the stability of the European Union, which should be financed by carbon tax on Europe level and a tax on financial transactions. With this new mechanism, Europe would have substantial sources of income.
Oh my god! I thought I'd heard it all but this . . .Visiting Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou expressed on Monday his support for carbon tax and transaction tax advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Following a working lunch with the French president at the Elysee Palace, Papandreou told the press he and Sarokzy discussed a new mechanism for the stability of the European Union, which should be financed by carbon tax on Europe level and a tax on financial transactions. With this new mechanism, Europe would have substantial sources of income.
Great advert for the argument though, the Greek Pm; excellent financial acumen he and his colleagues have demonstrated. Let's follow his lead. What could go wrong?
Lost_BMW said:
Prof Prolapse said:
turbobloke said:
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.turbobloke said:
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. I thought I made it quite clear in my, admittedly laymans explanation, that I was referring to heat as energy. But for the purposes of my arguement the two are interchangable.
Whether heat is a bulk property or not it is irrelevent as in the context we are talking about transfer of energy.
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bulls
t mechanism rears it's head again!).In much the same way as the cold glass of a greenhouse increases a warm greenhouse further by convection, the cold layer of CO2 provides energy/heat/photons to the ground/layers of atmosphere beneath it by radiation and the external work you keep banging on about as if it somehow undermines the greenhouse theory in both of the above examples is the sun.
And then you probably wonder why people don't take you seriously, are increasingly unwilling to debate with you and accuse you of not understanding the science upon which your world view rests. You really are unbelievable!
turbobloke said:
People’s Daily Online, 16 November 2010
Visiting Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou expressed on Monday his support for carbon tax and transaction tax advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Following a working lunch with the French president at the Elysee Palace, Papandreou told the press he and Sarokzy discussed a new mechanism for the stability of the European Union, which should be financed by carbon tax on Europe level and a tax on financial transactions. With this new mechanism, Europe would have substantial sources of income.
So, just a power/money grab. As most have seen for some time.Visiting Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou expressed on Monday his support for carbon tax and transaction tax advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Following a working lunch with the French president at the Elysee Palace, Papandreou told the press he and Sarokzy discussed a new mechanism for the stability of the European Union, which should be financed by carbon tax on Europe level and a tax on financial transactions. With this new mechanism, Europe would have substantial sources of income.
don4l said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bullst mechanism rears it's head again!).
You can do a little experiment to check if this is true.t mechanism rears it's head again!).All you need is a reading lamp, a sheet of white paper and a mirror!
Use the lamp to illuminate the paper. Hold the mirror above the brightly lit paper and reflect the photons back onto the paper (making sure that the lamp is not directly illuminating the mirror).
Does the paper get brighter? Why not? After all, these photons are the same as the ones, apart from their frequency, as the ones that you claim "radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground".
Don
--
If the mechanism proposed is that there is a bulk transfer of heat from the colder layer to the warmer layer whereby the cooler layer becomes cooler and the warmer layer becomes wrmer, then this would be a complete nonsense.
Ali G said:
don4l said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bullst mechanism rears it's head again!).
You can do a little experiment to check if this is true.t mechanism rears it's head again!).All you need is a reading lamp, a sheet of white paper and a mirror!
Use the lamp to illuminate the paper. Hold the mirror above the brightly lit paper and reflect the photons back onto the paper (making sure that the lamp is not directly illuminating the mirror).
Does the paper get brighter? Why not? After all, these photons are the same as the ones, apart from their frequency, as the ones that you claim "radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground".
Don
--
If the mechanism proposed is that there is a bulk transfer of heat from the colder layer to the warmer layer whereby the cooler layer becomes cooler and the warmer layer becomes wrmer, then this would be a complete nonsense.
As to the first one, there needs to be a thought or two about which layer of the atmosphere is being considered, and then a third or fourth thought to what mechanisms operate. In the troposphere where we all live and pay taxes, radiative transfer is not the only energy transfer mechanism available so making sweeping statements or generalised conclusions from a position that treats it as the only pathway will not end well. Is anybody apart from the IPCC and its Boy Scouts still operating in blinker mode?
For wider aspects, refer back to the note from Prof Wood posted by a fellow PHer some time ago, also the curious NASA website energy balance diagram I've posted in several threads that other scientists dispute - not least in the light of Trenberth's Climategate comment that this is, in spite of public pronouncements to the contrary, open house territory. Which is enough, not wishing to offer the lead-in to three attrition loops.
turbobloke said:
With regard to your 'complete nonsense' statement: quite.
Good to see we are in agreement - don't think there was any doubt that we were.turbobloke said:
As to the first one, there needs to be a thought or two about which layer of the atmosphere is being considered, and then a third or fourth thought to what mechanisms operate. In the troposphere where we all live and pay taxes, radiative transfer is not the only energy transfer mechanism available so making sweeping statements or generalised conclusions from a position that treats it as the only pathway will not end well. Is anybody apart from the IPCC and its Boy Scouts still operating in blinker mode?
It's a very complex system - the more I study it, the more complexities become apparent. Modelling it would be a very serious challenge and making assumptions in order to make it more approachable are frought with the danger of making the entire exercise invalid.turbobloke said:
For wider aspects, refer back to the note from Prof Wood posted by a fellow PHer some time ago, also the curious NASA website energy balance diagram I've posted in several threads that several scientists dispute - not least in the light of Trenberth's Climategate comment that this is, in spite of public pronouncements to the contrary, open house territory. Which is enough, not wishing to offer the lead-in to three attrition loops.
Trying to avoid more attrition loops - just trying to clarify things for my own understanding 
Ta!
With parallel transfer modes, and more degrees of freedom than models can allow...
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1117-john-christy...
Also:
"Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 'A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data', Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 - 1110
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1117-john-christy...
Also:
"Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 'A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data', Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 - 1110
turbobloke said:
With parallel transfer modes, and more degrees of freedom than models can allow...
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1117-john-christy...
Also:
"Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 'A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data', Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 - 1110
Chaotic http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1117-john-christy...
Also:
"Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 'A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data', Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 - 1110
I'll have a look - thanks.
Ali G said:
don4l said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bullst mechanism rears it's head again!).
You can do a little experiment to check if this is true.t mechanism rears it's head again!).All you need is a reading lamp, a sheet of white paper and a mirror!
Use the lamp to illuminate the paper. Hold the mirror above the brightly lit paper and reflect the photons back onto the paper (making sure that the lamp is not directly illuminating the mirror).
Does the paper get brighter? Why not? After all, these photons are the same as the ones, apart from their frequency, as the ones that you claim "radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground".
Don
--
If the mechanism proposed is that there is a bulk transfer of heat from the colder layer to the warmer layer whereby the cooler layer becomes cooler and the warmer layer becomes wrmer, then this would be a complete nonsense.
It is clearly poppycock, and that is why I suggested the above experiment.
It will prove to PP that he is mistaken, and he has already said that he will be happy to admit his error if given irrefutable proof.
I await PP's response.
Don
--
don4l said:
Ali G said:
don4l said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bullst mechanism rears it's head again!).
You can do a little experiment to check if this is true.t mechanism rears it's head again!).All you need is a reading lamp, a sheet of white paper and a mirror!
Use the lamp to illuminate the paper. Hold the mirror above the brightly lit paper and reflect the photons back onto the paper (making sure that the lamp is not directly illuminating the mirror).
Does the paper get brighter? Why not? After all, these photons are the same as the ones, apart from their frequency, as the ones that you claim "radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground".
Don
--
If the mechanism proposed is that there is a bulk transfer of heat from the colder layer to the warmer layer whereby the cooler layer becomes cooler and the warmer layer becomes wrmer, then this would be a complete nonsense.
It is clearly poppycock, and that is why I suggested the above experiment.
It will prove to PP that he is mistaken, and he has already said that he will be happy to admit his error if given irrefutable proof.
I await PP's response.
Don
--
I'll not be drawn into this one..
turbobloke said:
With parallel transfer modes, and more degrees of freedom than models can allow...
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1117-john-christy...
Also:
"Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 'A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data', Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 - 1110
Having read the contents of that link, it beggars belief that 'the science is settled' keeps getting peddled on the mainstream media. Can someone please lock our political leaders in a room with that article until they have read and understood it?http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1117-john-christy...
Also:
"Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 'A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data', Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 - 1110
rovermorris999 said:
turbobloke said:
With parallel transfer modes, and more degrees of freedom than models can allow...
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1117-john-christy...
Also:
"Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 'A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data', Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 - 1110
Having read the contents of that link, it beggars belief that 'the science is settled' keeps getting peddled on the mainstream media. Can someone please lock our political leaders in a room with that article until they have read and understood it?http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1117-john-christy...
Also:
"Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 'A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data', Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 - 1110
They'll never understand it - its a bit beyond them. However, if they can be locked up long enough to stop building windymills and 'carbon trading' (another bubble yet to burst..) and get on with solving immediate energy concerns (i.e. going nuclear) it would be a start..
Salient point from the link..
The three issues were (1) the surface temperature record is flawed in many ways, but is flawed in particular as a metric to detect greenhouse-imposed warming, (2) direct tests of the socalled fingerprint of climate model temperature changes versus observations indicated significant differences, failing simple hypothesis tests, and (3) the critical value of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases was overstated because it had not been properly calculated. All of these were supported by peer-reviewed publications which even now continue to appear.
'Nuff said..
Why the BBC cannot be trusted on 'Climate Change': the full story
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
Apologies if a repost, but I particularly liked this bit:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
Apologies if a repost, but I particularly liked this bit:
James Delingpole in the Telegraph Online said:
...no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC...
Trace Ali G said:
don4l said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bullst mechanism rears it's head again!).
You can do a little experiment to check if this is true.t mechanism rears it's head again!).All you need is a reading lamp, a sheet of white paper and a mirror!
Use the lamp to illuminate the paper. Hold the mirror above the brightly lit paper and reflect the photons back onto the paper (making sure that the lamp is not directly illuminating the mirror).
Does the paper get brighter? Why not? After all, these photons are the same as the ones, apart from their frequency, as the ones that you claim "radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground".
Don
--
If the mechanism proposed is that there is a bulk transfer of heat from the colder layer to the warmer layer whereby the cooler layer becomes cooler and the warmer layer becomes wrmer, then this would be a complete nonsense.
Ace-T said:
Why the BBC cannot be trusted on 'Climate Change': the full story
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
Apologies if a repost, but I particularly liked this bit:
Great read any time, thanks for the link...good job Delingpole was a bit restrained http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
Apologies if a repost, but I particularly liked this bit:
James Delingpole in the Telegraph Online said:
...no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC...
Trace Just come back from NS (Canada) where the power company Emera is erecting 36 windmills with a total power rating of 27mW on Browns Mountain near Antigonish. Visited the site and spoke to the Emera engineers and asked about the rating etc. Got a surprising (? not really) answer, probably because they realised I wasn't a greenie; max output 27mW, expected output going on experience less than 4mW and that only intermittently.
Who pays? NS and Canadian government i.e. the dumb public taxpayer..... 100% of investment and 30% pA of the running costs go to Emera!?!?!?
The engineer stated clearly they wouldn't have built them by themselves but if the Government was throwing money at them why not take it?!?!?!?
NOBODY in the area wanted them, but as it's Crown land it was forced on them... total cleared land 280 acres (OF TREES.. how green is that?!?!?)!!!!! concrete tonnage for bases 6000 tons per base = 216 THOUSAND Tons and 12 miles of roadway, by the way not normal roads but 200 yards wide clearcut!!!!
and the tw@s have scared all the deer so there was a fecked up expensive hunting trip down the tubes!!!
Green is the new brown shirt!!! feckin econazis....
Who pays? NS and Canadian government i.e. the dumb public taxpayer..... 100% of investment and 30% pA of the running costs go to Emera!?!?!?
The engineer stated clearly they wouldn't have built them by themselves but if the Government was throwing money at them why not take it?!?!?!?
NOBODY in the area wanted them, but as it's Crown land it was forced on them... total cleared land 280 acres (OF TREES.. how green is that?!?!?)!!!!! concrete tonnage for bases 6000 tons per base = 216 THOUSAND Tons and 12 miles of roadway, by the way not normal roads but 200 yards wide clearcut!!!!
and the tw@s have scared all the deer so there was a fecked up expensive hunting trip down the tubes!!!
Green is the new brown shirt!!! feckin econazis....
Edited by JMGS4 on Thursday 18th November 08:44
4MW expected from 27MW? That bad? I'd have expected perhaps 10-15MW average over a year which is bad enough for all that investment! When you consider a single generating set from an average power station produces around 500MW continuously you see what a complete waste of time these wind turbines are! 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff