Climate Change - the big debate

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

turbobloke

83,159 posts

194 months

Tuesday 16th November 2010
quotequote all
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.


BliarOut

69,948 posts

173 months

Tuesday 16th November 2010
quotequote all
Prof Prolapse said:
mybrainhurts said:
Why hide behind another name, Micra man...?
Actually the Mirca is GFs although there was a time when I spent more time driving it than my own due to mechanical repairs. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to provide your own vehicle history to critique?

No hiding. Just boredom setting in. I thought the name "G_T" showed a profound lack of imagination.

Edited by Prof Prolapse on Tuesday 16th November 14:14
Funny, when I play word association games the first word that comes to mind after prolapse is rectum.

hidetheelephants

14,245 posts

127 months

Tuesday 16th November 2010
quotequote all
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.
Translated:
My extended family are whooping it up on the EU parliament gravy train, and I'd like to postpone it's halting by any and all means.

don4l

10,058 posts

110 months

Tuesday 16th November 2010
quotequote all
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.

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
--




Blib

34,110 posts

131 months

Tuesday 16th November 2010
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
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.
Translated:
My extended family are whooping it up on the EU parliament gravy train, and I'd like to postpone it's halting by any and all means.
I bet his Chinese hosts were laughing up their sleeves at that.
Advertisement

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

110 months

Tuesday 16th November 2010
quotequote all
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.
You argue semantics as if it means anything.

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 bullst 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.
You asked above for an explanation of how your theory contradicts the 2nd law - you get the most concise, context founded, explanation one could hope for (amongst the many others offered previously) and yet then snipe and argue around nonsense, misunderstandings and irrelevances.

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!

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

110 months

Tuesday 16th November 2010
quotequote all
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 . . .

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? furious

The real Apache

39,726 posts

218 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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.
You argue semantics as if it means anything.

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 bullst 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.
You asked above for an explanation of how your theory contradicts the 2nd law - you get the most concise, context founded, explanation one could hope for (amongst the many others offered previously) and yet then snipe and argue around nonsense, misunderstandings and irrelevances.

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!
I wonder why anyone still bothers, I gave up on him pages ago

grumbledoak

23,403 posts

167 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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.

Ali G

3,526 posts

216 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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.

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
--
Without trying to second guess Prof Prolapse, is the mechanism which is being suggested not just that the 'greenhouse' gases (for want of a better name) reduce the rate of cooling of the planet's surface? Thought this a given, but maybe I'm completely barking up the wrong tree.

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.

turbobloke

83,159 posts

194 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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.

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
--
Without trying to second guess Prof Prolapse, is the mechanism which is being suggested not just that the 'greenhouse' gases (for want of a better name) reduce the rate of cooling of the planet's surface? Thought this a given, but maybe I'm completely barking up the wrong tree.

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.
With regard to your 'complete nonsense' statement: quite.

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.

Ali G

3,526 posts

216 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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 wink

Ta!

turbobloke

83,159 posts

194 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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

Ali G

3,526 posts

216 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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 yes

I'll have a look - thanks.

don4l

10,058 posts

110 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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.

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
--
Without trying to second guess Prof Prolapse, is the mechanism which is being suggested not just that the 'greenhouse' gases (for want of a better name) reduce the rate of cooling of the planet's surface? Thought this a given, but maybe I'm completely barking up the wrong tree.

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.
No. Many people say that the cooler layer is also radiating (which is indeed true), and that some of it (roughly 50%) is radiating back towards the Earth which raises the temperature of the Earth's surface. I believe that this is what PP was referring to.

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
--

Ali G

3,526 posts

216 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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.

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
--
Without trying to second guess Prof Prolapse, is the mechanism which is being suggested not just that the 'greenhouse' gases (for want of a better name) reduce the rate of cooling of the planet's surface? Thought this a given, but maybe I'm completely barking up the wrong tree.

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.
No. Many people say that the cooler layer is also radiating (which is indeed true), and that some of it (roughly 50%) is radiating back towards the Earth which raises the temperature of the Earth's surface. I believe that this is what PP was referring to.

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
--
OK!

I'll not be drawn into this one..

rovermorris999

4,497 posts

123 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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?

Ali G

3,526 posts

216 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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?
Agree yes


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..

nelly1

5,476 posts

165 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
Well, Canada's out with only a month to Cancun - Link

Who'll be next to jump ship?

Ace-T

6,577 posts

189 months

Wednesday 17th November 2010
quotequote all
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:

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 smile
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED