Recent Comments

Prev  2588  2589  2590  2591  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  Next

Comments 129751 to 129800:

129751. BarryW at 03:48 AM on 11 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Yes, decadal periods are too short to determine whether there are long term trends. If you calculate trends using 30 yrs over the length of the Hadley global anomaly data you get the following: Total number of trends calculated: 1551 total positive trends 994 total negative trends 560 total trends gt .1 deg per decade 444 Which leads to the question is not if the climate is warming but how much? Here is a plot of the trends in Deg/Yr Notice the peaks at 60 yr intervals. Even if the temps are going up on the long term it appears we are due for a decrease over the next 30 years, which is not going to do much for those that are trying to promote changes based on near term measurements.
129752. Philippe Chantreau at 03:04 AM on 11 May 2009
        How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
        Tree, your argument is flawed on several counts. First there is the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do not dispute at all the reality of AGW. Second is the fact that the overwhelming majority of "skeptics" are not scientists. Most of the ones who are come from different areas of practice. The true dissenting climate scientist are a very small minority. Their ideas, when they have any alternative to propose, have not been ignored. You're equating a "wealth of scientific papers" with rethoric. That does not make any sense. The problem stated in the post you refer to is exactly that what is contained in a wealth of scientific papers can not be so easily communicated as good rethoric, no matter how empty. WA earlier had a great example of rethoric by calling 21% of the past 2 years "much." Anyone reading that and not bothering to actually look at the data could easily interpret it as "most of the time" although it is quite far from it. By using this one little word, WA can convey the message (without actually saying so) that most of the past 2 years saw positive anomaly, although the data shows exactly the opposite.
129753. Ron Cram at 00:35 AM on 11 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        John, you are quite correct that start and end dates can change statistical results dramatically. These are issues that need to be discussed. But they need to be discussed, in part, within the context of relevant physical theories. For example, everyone knows about the warm period from 1975 to 2007. The climate regime shift that occurred in 1975 was very strong. A similarly strong climate regime shift happened in about 1942 from a warm period to a cool period. This is discussed in the 2002 Bratcher and Giese paper http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002GL015191.shtml Based on observations Bratcher and Giese made in 2002, they predicted a return to a cool climate regime "soon" based on observations they made on the oscillation in the tropical Pacific ocean. Others have written about the link between shifts in the PDO from its cool phase to warm phase in 1975. And the PDO did shift back into a cool phase in late 2007. While one can claim the planet was still warming from 1999 to 2007, it is very hard to ignore the strong drop in temperature between 2007 and 2008. It will take time to see if this is the start of a persistent trend. But to be honest, looking at surface temps is not really a good metric for monitoring climate change. James Hansen wrote about the radiative imbalance due to anthropogenic CO2 and claimed the earth's energy budget was out of balance causing the oceans to warm and this stored heat was "heat in the pipeline" that would show up in the atmosphere later. I really do not like this way of thinking about it. The oceans are an important part of the climate system. In fact, because water stores heat so much more efficiently than the atmosphere, the ocean is the best place to monitor climate change. If Jim Hansen is correct that OC2 has caused the earth's energy budget to be out of balance, the oceans should be warming year over year consistently. After all, where else can the heat go? But Josh Willis from JPL has published on this. The oceans have not warmed since 2003. This is a significant finding because the start and end dates do not play a big role. Because of the nature of the physics involved, warming should be measurable year over year consistently because the signal is significantly more than noise, this is THE most important climate metric we can study. Roger Pielke, an ISI highly cited climatologist, has blogged on this at http://climatesci.org/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/ Ocean heat content really gets to the heart of the issue of "warming vs. cooling." It should be discussed more often.
129754. theTree at 18:45 PM on 10 May 2009
        How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
        I'd like to comment in the first paragraph: "I would suggest that scientists are not always completely effective at communicating their science to the average person. Global warming skeptics, on the other hand, have a wide range of rhetorical techniques that are quite successful in sowing doubt." Whilst I'm still without an opinion on anthropogenic climate change (through lack of knowledge on this complex subject), this opener certainly rings alarm bells with me. Chiefly: 1. Having 'scientists' on the one hand and 'global warming skeptics' on the other. This suggests that skeptics aren't scientists and proponents are. This is no more accurate than the reverse: that most proponents are layman and skeptics are scientists. Consider the hoards of ill informed protesters... 2. The assertion that global warming skeptics are adept at rhetoric whilst proponents struggle in this area. The wealth of scientific papers supporting anthropogenic climate change, plus the unrelenting media support, contradicts this. As the authors personal views are so obvious, I immediately worry there will be a bias in the text. And, in a complex subject area where bias and misinformation is rife, its not something I as a confused layman can afford! And aside from anything else, it makes someone still considering a skeptical point of view feel alienated and patronized - hardly the point of this website. Its a good article, but the absolute need for objectivity shouldn't be forgotten, no matter what gets publicized elsewhere.
129755. Quietman at 03:19 AM on 10 May 2009
        Climate's changed before
        This is why we get a warning when El Nino is beginning by volcanic eruptions in Chile. It's not the volcano that causes El Nino, it's just a symptom of the tectonic activity and it's accompanying vulcanism. And I have to stop for now since my grandson is having a tamtrum and I can't think straight with the noise.
129756. Quietman at 03:14 AM on 10 May 2009
        Climate's changed before
        The temperature of the ocean floor is variable. The depths have a thinner crust in general so transfer more heat and the volcanic active areas transfer heat from the magma directly to the water. The proximate temps change rapidly simply because the the amount of cold water available to sink this heat. But just like applying heat to the bottom of a pot of water, convection currents are created in both up and down directions. Some of these are fairly constant coming from the ocean depths but some are highly variable where volcanic activity exists and this can be at any depth along the ridges. At times of eruptions or even just increased plate movement the heat released into the water increases and either creates a new current or strengthens the existing current. As explained in the volcano thread, the ENSO is a real time example of this very driver. The subduction of the pacific plate under the Andes slows and speeds up in an irregular cycle. It's irregular because of the continental crust being uneven densiity and shape and made of materials of various ores with different melting points.
129757. Quietman at 02:59 AM on 10 May 2009
        Climate's changed before
        The changes in climate from changes in the Earth are not immediately obvious unless you realize that ocean currents have a much stronger effect than air currents. This is because the atmosphere is not efficient as a buffer, ie. GHGs are not as efficient as the ocean (or any body of water) at storing energy including heat. What is key to understanding how oceans drive climate is the convection currents (upwelling and downwelling currents). We know that ocean temperatures are not globally uniform. Some bodies of water are warmer or cooler than others. But what is more important is that the depths are different temperatures and the colder water sinks while the hotter water rises. Simple. Next comes the more complex part.
129758. Quietman at 02:45 AM on 10 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick Re: "I do not see any reason to expect changes in the geothermal heat flux itself to have a significant climateic impact on regional to global scales over most of geologic time." See the maps I posted links to on page 14 here and the additional maps in the "Climate's changed before" thread. I'll try to explain in that thread.
129759. Patrick 027 at 14:36 PM on 9 May 2009
        It's the sun
        I accept tectonic drivers of climate on the millions of years time scale via geographical changes (directly forcing climate changes, also shaping some aspects of the carbon cycle) and geologic CO2 emissions. (Obviously this can all affect biological evolution and that will have climatic effects as well.) (I also accept that climate can affect geology - an example is that dry conditions have something to do with the heights achieved by the Andes, though I forget the details (lack of erosion leading to less sediment fed into the subduction zone?)) I do not see any reason to expect changes in the geothermal heat flux itself to have a significant climateic impact on regional to global scales over most of geologic time.
129760. Quietman at 03:38 AM on 9 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick As we discussed in the Volcano thread, Continental Drift was considered a steady gradual process until quite recently. Not we know that it is not. The recent increase alone is proof of that (I won't rehash details here). I know that you do not accept the hypothesis of a tectonic driver of climate, this is understandable as it is an opposing hypothesis, but I think with a little more study it will prove to be important to understanding climate.
129761. tommybar at 03:16 AM on 9 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Often I've heard how 1934 was the hottest year in US climate records. Often in response, people will say then that 1998, and closely behind 2005 are the warmest 'global' recorded years. Take a look at this: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:GHCN_Temperature_Stations_png The vast majority of sites going back over 90 years are in the continental USA. So, the long term records are really only good for the USA and parts of western Europe. These areas have also become much more urbanized over these time periods, so the UHI effect is very important. Now days we have a much more 'global' temperature gathering network. So, I have to wonder--how do we know what the true global temperatures were, say in the 30's? i.e., if we had the capabilities then to record remote locations, that 'global' temperature may have been higher--or even lower. There seems to be so much in our temperature records that are suspect. The US shows a definite cooling trend, with the 'global' trend there as well--so I'd say it's cooling now after a couple of decades of warming. Going back further, I think a lot of guess work come's into play.
129762. Patrick 027 at 03:03 AM on 9 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Sometimes the possibilities for unknown quantities can be bracketed by known quantities. Most of the geothermal heat escaping the Earth is through slow conduction through rock, not generally subject to rapid fluctuations (mere 1000s of years) on a regional or global scale. (Depending on how deep hydrothermal circulations penetrate, that portion of heat transport may be locally quite variable, but it depends on some more steady supply of heat from below.) From the thermal conductivity and thermal gradients, a heat flux can be estimated. The average concentrations of major heat producing radioactive isotopes has been estimated in various rock types. Understanding of geophysics, geochemistry, plus data, yields an understanding of how those isotopes are likely distributed within the Earth; generally, they are concentrated in the crust (especially continental crust) relative to the mantle, and especially relative to the core. Mantle convection rates can be estimated from continental drift; there is also seismography and physics. Core convection (at least partly driven by latent heat of inner core growth, compositional variations formed by inner core growth, and cooling from above) is linked the the magnetic field. Possible long-term global cooling rates can be bracketed by evidence of past tectonic behavior and knowledge of heat sources (including tidal deformation). Etc, Etc, etc... PS while one point in space and time has only one measurable value of each of the electric field and the magnetic field, spatial variations can be analyzed mathematically (Fourier analysis) to find linearly superimposed components that have various wave vectors. Systems that resonant at different frequencies will detect different parts of the spectrum. Photons with different energies will be absorbed or emitted by associated energy transitions.
129763. tommybar at 02:45 AM on 9 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Often I've heard how 1934 was the hottest year in US climate records. Often in response, people will say then that 1998, and closely behind 2005 are the warmest 'global' recorded years. Take a look at this: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:GHCN_Temperature_Stations_png The vast majority of sites going back over 90 years are in the continental USA. So, the long term records are really only good for the USA and parts of western Europe. These areas have also become much more urbanized over these time periods, so the UHI effect is very important. Now days we have a much more 'global' temperature gathering network. So, I have to wonder--how do we know what the true global temperatures were, say in the 30's? i.e., if we had the capabilities then to record remote locations, that 'global' temperature may have been higher--or even lower. There seems to be so much in our temperature records that are suspect. The US shows a definite cooling trend, with the 'global' trend there as well--so I'd say it's cooling now after a couple of decades of warming. Going back further, I think a lot of guess work come's into play.
129764. Olympus Mons at 00:10 AM on 9 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Hi Steve and David. Sorry for having upset you both. Was not intentionally. English is not my native language (I’m Portuguese) so I have to concede that although I can not see how or when I have trolled (if I really know what that is) I might really have. Based on previous paragraph I will assume that calling someone troll is not really “Foul language, trolling, personal attacks or non-relevant links will be deleted” , because the moderator as allow it to be in here. About WA, thank you David for even considering It could be the same person. I’m sort of honored. PS: actually I think me and WA (given the obvious differences) are made of the same cloth (hope I get it right) and actually we were born like this. It’s how our brain is sort of organized. Same is truth for you and Steve. Your brains are “organized” the way they are and that has a huge influence on how you perceive reality. But that is my turf and, in there, Im pretty sure you would be upset. Oh boy, you both would, really quickly.
129765. Quietman at 15:14 PM on 8 May 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        Lee I don't understand 508/509 so I'll ignore it. 510 I do understand. I worked in an emissions testing lab for 10 years before going out in the field. According to the Federal Register the goal is to limit CO, NOx and HC by converting it to CO2 and water vapor as the end product of combustion. Why would we intentionally produce pollution? The answer is that it is not pollution and is a very weak GHG. May I suggest a quick read of this A sensitive subject Nature Reports Climate Change Published online: 30 April 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2009.41
129766. Gord at 14:28 PM on 8 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Quiteman - I agree. I, generally, covered this in my first Post #243, where I identified the Earth's molten core as an energy source. I think the number of under-sea volcanos and vents remains a largely unknown quantity. AGW'ers and others have simply dismissed this source of energy as insignificant. It certainly contributes some warming.
129767. David Horton at 10:56 AM on 8 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Steve, I got into trouble, earlier in this thread from ... You are quite right to call OM on trolling, and WA is also trolling, as I suggested (and I have suspicions of homer). Neither (if they are indeed separate people) are adding anything other than denialist talking points. Over and over.
129768. Quietman at 08:23 AM on 8 May 2009
        Climate's changed before
        Patrick These maps show the progression of the 3rd Ice Age (Carboniferous-Permian) beginning before it's onset in the Devonian through the End of the Permian. Devonian Early Carboniferous Late Carboniferous Permian These two maps show the 4th Ice Age (current) and the modern world (current interglacial): Current Ice Agea> Current Interglacial I already posted the Eocene and Miocene in the "It's the Sun" thread so I wont repeat them here. Compare the Ice Age maps to the earlier Ice Age and you can see easily how different the earth was and how unlikely another glacation actually is at this point. Think about it. What do you think caused the long extreme cycles in the late part of the this age?
129769. Quietman at 07:58 AM on 8 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord In all fairness I need to point out that the earth's vulcanism kept alive by gravitational stress* is a second but much weaker heat source. * work energy converted to heat + residual heat from the formation of the earth. References are listed in the Volcano thread.
129770. Quietman at 07:41 AM on 8 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Correction to 327 and 348 PETM was not intended, Eocene Optimim was intended, the PETM marks a spike that begins the EO when prosimians such as Eosimias were evolving in China shortly after India met Eurasia. In the first map Africa and India are have not closed the gap. VERY active tectonics, unbelieveably active movements of continental masses. Geologically speaking super fast. PE of the Earth.
129771. Steve L at 07:09 AM on 8 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Dear RG, go to this "hottest arguments" part of this website and look up your favorite skeptic arguments: http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php The "we're coming out of an ice age" argument is currently number 26, I believe. To Homer: I failed to find you a citation of a scientific paper, so I'm resorting to rhetoric: permafrost is melting from the top down, not the bottom up; same with the oceans; etc -- heating from the earth's core is not consistent with observations. To OM: Yours are the actions of a troll. Specify exactly what you want to argue about, choose the appropriate venue, and use scientific arguments. Changing topics, throwing in needless character assassinations, and simply calling explanations "Jokes" is a waste of everyone's time.
129772. Dan Pangburn at 01:46 AM on 8 May 2009
        Models are unreliable
        Since 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 18.4% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase and since 2002 the trend shows a DECREASE of 0.8°C/century. This separation shows the lack of connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and average global temperature. Many Climate Scientists are completely unaware of some relevant science and understand other relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum). The missing science proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See my pdf linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the proof. Or email at danpangburn@roadrunner.com As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t it is becoming more and more apparent that many climate scientists have made an egregious mistake and a whole lot of people have been mislead.
129773. Dan Pangburn at 01:37 AM on 8 May 2009
        It's the sun
        The Solar Grand Maximum that went on for about 70 years has ended. The 30 year or so PDO uptrend that combined with the Solar Grand Maximum to produce the late-20th-century temperature run up has started its 30 year downtrend. The PDO downtrend combined with the quiet sun is going to result in continued planet cooling. The sun has not been this quiet this long since 1913. Sunspot changes may be a catalyst for cloud changes and therefore have much greater influence than TSI.
129774. John Cross at 01:03 AM on 8 May 2009
        Are sea levels rising?
        Hey John: interesting post - you could almost call it fractal skepticism since it is almost like the "no warming since 1998" argument but on a different scale. Wondering Aloud: I have not seen AIT, but I believe that Gore does not put a time frame on the 20 foot rise. Regards, John
        Response: LOL, 'fractal skepticism'. Just when I thought this website couldn't get any nerdier, you've just taken it up a notch. Kudos, John :-)
129775. cold beer please at 23:53 PM on 7 May 2009
        CO2 lags temperature
        Temps drive CO2. That position stands. Amplifying effect - could be a thousand things! Studies on the ability of CO2 to "reflect" infrared show that the ability to reflect(absorb) does NOT impove with denser concentrations once past a certain level. This means that Co2 is done with it's "Amplifying effect" once a cetain CO2 level is acheived under normal conditions - I would assume that has to do with the wavelength itself and not CO2. (call in the phycisists) http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
129776. cold beer please at 22:51 PM on 7 May 2009
        Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
        Two recent Arctic Ice updates: Beginning in early January 2009, sensor drift caused an underestimation of ice that grew until the error was finally caught in the mid-February. Internet visitors who look to the NSIDC for data sent emails to the center and, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean. (See NSIDC) MORE . . . (May 4, 2009) Ice in the Arctic is often twice as thick as expected, report surprised scientists who returned last week from a major scientific expedition. The scientists - a 20-member contingent from Canada, the U.S., Germany, and Italy - spent one month exploring the North Pole as well as never-before measured regions of the Arctic. Among their findings: Rather than finding newly formed ice to be two metres thick, "we measured ice thickness up to four metres," stated a spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research of the Helmholtz Association, Germany's largest scientific organization. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/04/lawrence-solomon-deep-arctic-ice-surprises-scientific-expedition.aspx More info to come from Polar 5.
129777. cold beer please at 22:26 PM on 7 May 2009
        There is no consensus
        AND on May 6, 2009 - this from Great Britain. Interview: Just two years ago, Mike Hulme would have been about the last person you'd expect to hear criticising conventional climate change wisdom. Back then, he was the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, an organisation so revered by environmentalists that it could be mistaken for the academic wing of the green movement. Since leaving Tyndall - and as we found out in a telephone interview - he has come out of the climate change closet as an outspoken critic of such sacred cows as the UN's IPCC, the "consensus", the over-emphasis on scientific evidence in political debates about climate change, and to defend the rights of so-called "deniers" to contribute to those debates. . . More here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/
129778. cold beer please at 22:17 PM on 7 May 2009
        There is no consensus
        Frankly, I think the Skeptics have won point #3 onthis list at this time in history - there is less and less "consensus" Japan, Jan 2009, has walked away from the IPCC "Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report" that from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ More . . . Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes: "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.
129779. homer at 13:44 PM on 7 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        I would like to add a comment about averages - they are made up of extremes. Perhaps humans get caught up with their own existance, particularly if it is possible that change is a 'threat' to their stable lifestyle. I would be very surprised if the climate remained the same. One area which has been little discussed with global warming is the 'reflective ability of clouds'. As the temp and humidity go up more cloud reflects radiation, so limiting further absorption within the lower atmosphere. Expansion of the tropical zones ought to occur. If the sun is not responsible for variation seen ,could the slight increase in temp be coming from within the earth rather than exterior ? Why assume core activity remains constant ? For 'olympus mons' on feedback - observe a specie of tree which may have existed in an area for say several million years. If its climatic zone is specific then it stands as an example of 'averaging' the seasons over a much greater span than our personal memories. Thank you for the opportunity.
129780. Quietman at 12:33 PM on 7 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "chris at 19:00 PM on 29 April, 2009 Re #327 Your timings and causes are incorrect Quietman. The collision of the African and Eurasian plates that "squeezed out" the Tethys Ocean and drove the crumpling and nappe formation that raised the Alps occurred 20-ish million years ago. It had nothing to do with the PETM." I guess that you should take that up with Dr. Chris Beard (Ph.D.) since I took that right out of his book "The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey". It happens to be key to the study of primate evolution and how we got to Africa from Asia. The mountains did not rise until well after the collision and are not proof that the collision took place as late as only 20 million years ago, especially since our ancestors were in Africa MUCH earlier. Morotopithecus was already bipedal and walking around Africa 23 million years ago. Early Eocene Map (Before landbridge) Miocene Map (after landbridge) Better stick to subjects that your familiar with. Oh wait, I forgot, you not familiar with those facts either.
129781. Rick Gibson at 07:49 AM on 7 May 2009
        There's no empirical evidence
        Let me see if I understand this. This seems to be the argument. First, CO2 levels are rising. Second, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Third, during the last 30 years, global temperatures have been rising. Fourth, the things that ordinary cause temperatures to rise -- such as increased solar activity -- are not causing the current rise in temperature. Therefore, increased C02 is causing global warming. Of these four points, I believe that no one disputes one and two. Yes, CO2 levels are rising. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I do not think anyone denies either of those two assertions. But, there are a number of points that I think an honest scientist would want to explore. How much is CO2 rising, compared to the past? Do we have more or less CO2 now than we did in various past times? When we put more CO2 into the air, what happens to it? Does it get absorbed by the ocean, or does it stay in the air forever? What other things in the atmosphere are increasing or decreasing? I would feel much more confidence in the global warming theory if they would address points of this sort, which seem like pretty obvious questions to me. But, for the moment, lets just say that points one and two are basically undisputed. I believe that is true. Point three is the pivot the argument. The whole theory stands or falls on it. It is basically saying that there is a huge, unexplained increase in global temperatures in the last 30 years, which we have to explain. But is that true? First off, during the last ten years, there has been no increase. Of course, one can say -- and it is true -- that a ten year period means little or nothing in climate science. But think about that. If ten years means nothing, why is 30 years of such huge importance? If the whole theory rests on 30 years, but 10 of those years are AWOL, how good is the theory? And how can we say that the usual suspects do not explain the increase, when there has been no increase for ten years? What we are basically talking about is a twenty year trend, which stopped ten years ago. So what? Excuse me, but I have read enough climate science to realize that 10 or 20 year trends do not mean much. Most climate cycles operate over 100s if not 1000s of years.
        Response: "CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  I do not think anyone denies either of those two assertions"
        
        Sadly, there are many who deny the assertion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, even despite observations of an enhanced greenhouse effect. Much of the discussion on this website of late have been on that topic alone.
        
        "during the last ten years, there has been no increase"
        
        Statistically, this isn't true, the trend in global temperature has still been increasing. Don't fall into the trap of comparing single points in a noisy signal - that is not the way to determine a long term trend. More importantly, the physical reality is that the planet is still accumulating heat. There is still an energy imbalance. Satellites and ocean heat measurements find more energy is still coming in than going out.
129782. Rick Gibson at 07:28 AM on 7 May 2009
        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        I completely agree with the substantive points made in this essay. I disagree, however, with its conclusion. Let me explain. The basic point made in this essay is that many factors influence temperature change over a time frame of a few years to a decade. Thus, decade long data does not necessarily tell us anything. I totally agree. But, from that you conclude, therefore the skeptics are wrong. No, that conclusion does not follow from your evidence. What your evidence indicates is that the temperature data from the last decade does not prove anything one way or the other. It does not prove the skeptical case. It also does not prove the global warming case. It simply proves nothing. You also do not address the real issue, which is, if we want to assess the theory of global warming, what time frame for climate data is, in fact, relevant? As I understand it, the basic skeptic's case is as follows. There are many natural trends in global climate, which generally operate on a time frame of centuries, not decades. The world, in general, had a cooling period, which bottomed out at roughly the time of the American Revolution. Since then, with some ups and downs, the long-term trend has been up. The global warming theories say that this long trend proves their theory. However, the skeptical answer is that this upward trend: (a) started before the Industrial Revolution; and (b) is a natural trend, which should be expected, after the prior natural downturn. What is the scientific answer to those skeptical points?
129783. Gord at 18:11 PM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - If "refusing to be resonable" includes denying the validity of the fundamental Laws of Science, then I am guilty as charged. Unfortunately, you have confirmed that you are in denial of established science. Too bad.
129784. Gord at 11:25 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Interference "In physics, interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that result in a NEW WAVE pattern." "The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant displacement at a point is equal to the vector sum of the displacements of different waves at that point. If a crest of a wave meets a crest of another wave at the same point then the crests interfere constructively and the resultant wave amplitude is greater. If a crest of a wave meets a trough of another wave then they interfere destructively, and the overall amplitude is decreased." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference ------------------- Electromagnetic radiation "Interference is the superposition of two or more waves resulting in a NEW WAVE pattern. If the fields have components in the same direction, they constructively interfere, while opposite directions cause destructive interference." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave ------------------------------- The Resultant Electromagnetic Vector Field is the ONLY EM field that can be measured at any single point. It is, in fact, a NEW WAVE produced by interference and the component parts cannot be measured at a single point. The Resultant EM Field will be continuous if the components are continuous. For Heat Transfer by Radiation between bodies, as long as each body has a temperature, the resultant EM field will be continuous. If one body maintains a temperature that is warmer than the cooler body the continuous resultant EM Field will only propagate from warm to cold. There will be zero EM wave propagation from cold to warm and therefore there will be zero energy transfer from the cold body to the warm body. Just like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics clearly states.
129785. Patrick 027 at 09:54 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "You only seem to only read the "parts" you want to see." No, as you can now see, I was getting to that. But no matter, I doubt you'll try to understand the physics. You're just wrong, Gord. There's no use arguing with someone who refuses to be reasonable, so that's it. We're done.
129786. Patrick 027 at 09:50 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "Note that the Electromagnetic Force is also one of the four fundamental forces ....as is Gravity." Did I ever say otherwise? My point was that the second law of thermodynamics does not operate on the same level - there is no 'second law of thermodynamics' field or force, etc. It is a consequence of the statistics of disorganized processes (whatever forces are involved in those processes). ""The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are: the strong nuclear force (which holds quarks together, along with its residual strong force effect that holds atomic nuclei together to form the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (which causes certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces."" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force) I've known that since before I was 10. ""In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules. The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons.""...""The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity." " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force) I've also known that for a long time. I know that the energy flux of an electromagnetic wave is described by the Poynting vector, which is the cross product of the electric and magnetic field vectors - perhaps multiplied by a constant; I don't have all the details memorized but I do understand the concept. ""In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon ) Yep, I've known that for a long time, too. "Photons DO NOT PROPAGATE BY THEMSELVES...THEY REQUIRE AN ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD FOR PROPAGATION." "Photon energy is "Carried" by propagating Electromagnetic Fields." This may be splitting hairs, but I think the label 'photon' applies to a wave packet in electric and magnetic fields, so it is a but redundant to say that a photon needs electromagnetic fields to propagate. But I agree that photons do propagate by waves in electromagnetic fields. "EM Fields are Vector Fields and follow Vector Addition Mathematics." "Photon energy can ONLY be carried in the direction of propagation of the EM field." "If the EM field has a magnitude of zero...it CANNOT CARRY any Photon energy." "If two opposing EM Fields are summed....the Resultant Vector Field can only have ONE magnitude and only ONE direction of propagation." "When summing opposing fields produced by Hot and Cold objects, the Resultant Vector Field will ALWAYS propagate from the Hot object to the Cold object." What happens when two wave packets (photons) go by each other in opposite directions. Their fields linearly superimpose. So do their associated Poynting vectors. There may be a moment in space and time where the energy flux is zero. BUT, the wave packets, in their linear superposition, continue to propagate and move on. Each photon continues along with its energy. "There is ZERO EM Field propagation from Cold to Hot and therefore ZERO PHOTON ENERGY can flow from Cold to Hot." This may be splitting hairs, but if you insist on only ever using the resultant field and not any contributing components, then you cannot say that the field propagation from cold to hot is zero if the field propagation from hot to cold is nonzero. If you are refering to the same field each time, then if the energy flux positive in one direction, the energy flux must be negative in the opposite direction. Hence, the resultant field propagation from cold to hot is negative. (***... in a vacuum and in most ordinary materials. It is possible to have a material with a negative index of refraction, and in such a case, group velocity (which is in the same direction as the energy flux) can be opposite the phase propagation. See also 'metamaterials'.) "Further, there is no difference between Electromagnetic Fields produced by macroscopic radiators or microscopic radiators. They both are described by the same Electromagnetic Field physics." Yes, of course. But your apparent assumption that the only meaningful energy flux is that of the total electromagnetic field doesn't make as much sense when dealing with wave packets emitted and absorbed over time intervals smaller than the time of propagation, and it doesn't make as much sense when dealing with macroscopic effects of microscopic processes. If you have two antenna and they are continuously emitting and absorbing electromagnetic radiation with no variance in time (outside of the wave cycles themselves), then I suppose taking the energy flux of each set of waves emitted by each antenna individually may seem less meaningful than taking the total energy flux of the electromagnetic field, which - except for the wave cycles themselves - will always be of one value and will always be in one direction (at any one point in space, or zero. BUT the energy transitions that emit and absorb photons are generally quantized, and a macroscopic object can have many available energy transitions (pairs of occupied and unoccupied energy levels) within any given interval of the spectrum; the density of associated states and the strength of their interaction with photons (in emission and absorption - there is a physical symmetry in that, by the way) help determine optical properties. There can also be many energy transitions (pairs of occupied and unoccupied states) that cannot emit or absorb photons, but in some such pairs, one of the states may also in a pair of states that forms an energy transition that could emit or absorb a photon. Whether an energy transition is available for emiting or absorbing a photon depends on which of the pair of states is occupied. As with the distribution of internal energy among molecules and among their available degrees of freedom (for the energies available - some degrees of freedom are quantized and require a minimum energy available to contribute to heat capacity), there is a tendency for energy to be distributed among states (including photons) in a particular way (for photons, blackbody radiation) when in local thermodynamic equilibrium (a statistical equilibrium, in which individual energy transitions are still occuring, but the reverse transitions occur at the same rate - this equilibrium requires that a sufficient fraction of each set of energy states is occupied so that the rate at which transitions from those states to other states is high enough to balance the rate of the reverse transitions). The point here is, the "two opposing EM Fields" each consist of many individual photons that are emitted from one object and absorbed in the other (and not all in the same set of opposing directions; they are generally emitted and can be absorbed over a wide range of directions, with exchange among objects generally only limited by the solid angle each encompasses relative to points on the other's surface). Summing the two EM fields in a macroscopic average describes the resultant energy flux on a macroscopic scale, but this does not mean that individual photon emissions and absorptions do not both occur in both objects. And on the microscopic scale, these photons' linear superposition can fluctuate, just as the density of a gas fluctuates on a molecular scale (molecules are concentrations of mass). "This is NOT a "miraculous event" as you seem to believe!" Each individual photon is emitted, and then over some nonzero time, propagates to where it is absorbed. If you insist this path never goes from macroscopic colder to macroscopic warmer, then I would like to know either: How is the emission or nonemission of a photon determined by nonlocal conditions at a future time? or: How is the absorption or nonabsorption of a photon determined by nonlocal conditions in the past (because a single photon does not carry information within itself about the temperature of the object which emitted it, only the specific energy transition that emitted it; and remember, in a macroscopic object in local thermodynamic equilibrium, some molecules are more energetic than others, etc.)?
129787. Gord at 09:36 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You only seem to only read the "parts" you want to see. You missed this part: There is ZERO EM Field propagation from Cold to Hot and therefore ZERO PHOTON ENERGY can flow from Cold to Hot. This is NOT a "miraculous event" as you seem to believe! This is also why the 2nd Law does not use the word "net" in it's description and uses "not possible". This completely complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer equations and validates the Law of Conservation of Energy. ------------------- This confirms what I have been saying all along: -The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is correct as written (surprise, surprise). -The Heat Transfer equations are correct as written (surprise, surprise). -The Law of Conservation of Energy is violated if there is any flow of energy from cold to hot (surprise, surprise). -Back Radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot reach the warmer Earth's surface and cause warming (surprise, surprise). -Trenberth's Energy Budget violates both the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Energy and actual measurements. and, - AGW is SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
129788. GMB at 07:30 AM on 6 May 2009
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        We don't want the ocean to absorb all the CO2. If the oceans absorb it all the rest of the biosphere cannot get the benefit out of it. It would be a great tragedy if the oceans were just absorbing it all. But the good news is as you say. The oceans are only absorbing some of the excess. Thats good luck. Only a complete retard would say otherwise.
129789. GMB at 07:27 AM on 6 May 2009
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        "As for human CO2 emissions, about 40% is being absorbed, mostly by the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level over the past 800,000 years (Brook 2008). A natural change of 100ppm takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years." Hang on a minute. Where are you getting THAT from? How are you assuming that? I've never found a CO2 proxy record that comprehensive? If we had such a record we could bring this racket to a close with a bit of luck. What are you going on for that hyper-confident statement? Is it the ice-cores? Or is it just some bogus model that someone plugged into the computer. Obviously if humans have contributed to higher levels thats a good thing. THAT is what the science says. And it doesn't say anything else.
129790. Patrick 027 at 04:52 AM on 6 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "If two opposing EM Fields are summed....the Resultant Vector Field can only have ONE magnitude and only ONE direction of propagation."..."When summing opposing fields produced by Hot and Cold objects, the Resultant Vector Field will ALWAYS propagate from the Hot object to the Cold object." Thank you, Gord, for finally admitting that there are opposing fields from the Hot and Cold objects. I don't know why you made such a fuss about Kiehl and Trenberth giving the opposing fields - you could have just done the math to find the resultants.
129791. Gord at 21:41 PM on 5 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You said.... "I suspect your work with electromagnetic waves was limited to the macroscopic level (and perhaps had nothing to do with thermal emissions, but rather with emission of waves due to some work input - organized electrical currents and magnetic fields, etc.). For shorter wavelengths, particularly those in which the bulk of radiant energy is emitted thermally at temperatures typical of the Earth and atmosphere, or at any higher temperatures, it is convienient to think of photons. Feel free to take a vector sum of energy fluxes from all linearly superimposed electromagnetic waves if you want to - there is nothing wrong with that, you will get the net energy flux, but this does not change the fact that photons often go by the same location in space in many directions, including opposite directions,...." And, You said... "Your interpretation of it requires miraculous events - that an object emits or does not emit a photon depending on the temperature of another object at some distance and at a future time." "It is not as fundamental as gravity and electromagnetism,...." "It is not a result of some 'physical force' that actually drives heat from a hot object to a cold object in the same way that gravity pulls matter together and electromagnetism describes the interaction of charged particles, etc." ---------- Your statements show that you do not understand Radiative Heat transfer, or even more generally, Electromagnetic Field transfer of energy. Photons DO NOT PROPAGATE BY THEMSELVES...THEY REQUIRE AN ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD FOR PROPAGATION. Heat Radiation Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2 --- Properties of electromagnetic waves "An electromagnetic wave, although it CARRIES no mass, does CARRY energy." "A more common way to handle the energy is to look at how much energy is CARRIED by the wave from one place to another." http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/EMWaves.html --- Photon energy is "Carried" by propagating Electromagnetic Fields. EM Fields are Vector Fields and follow Vector Addition Mathematics. Photon energy can ONLY be carried in the direction of propagation of the EM field. If the EM field has a magnitude of zero...it CANNOT CARRY any Photon energy. If two opposing EM Fields are summed....the Resultant Vector Field can only have ONE magnitude and only ONE direction of propagation. When summing opposing fields produced by Hot and Cold objects, the Resultant Vector Field will ALWAYS propagate from the Hot object to the Cold object. There is ZERO EM Field propagation from Cold to Hot and therefore ZERO PHOTON ENERGY can flow from Cold to Hot. This is NOT a "miraculous event" as you seem to believe! This is also why the 2nd Law does not use the word "net" in it's description and uses "not possible". This completely complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer equations and validates the Law of Conservation of Energy. --------------- Further, there is no difference between Electromagnetic Fields produced by macroscopic radiators or microscopic radiators. They both are described by the same Electromagnetic Field physics. Note that the Electromagnetic Force is also one of the four fundamental forces ....as is Gravity. Electromagnetic force "The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are: the strong nuclear force (which holds quarks together, along with its residual strong force effect that holds atomic nuclei together to form the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (which causes certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces." "In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules. The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons." "The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force --- Photon "In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon ---------------- This post demonstrates how little you actually understand about Electromagnetic Fields and how they relate to Radiative Heat transfer and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your posts are rife with errors and it is a tedious task to point them all out....and, this post was just a minor start. Of course, you will probably produce a great deal of unsupported rambling opinions and then try to re-write the definitions posted above. Comedy is one of your strong points.
129792. ginckgo at 15:11 PM on 5 May 2009
        A Great Science Fiction Writer Passes - Goodbye Dr. Crichton
        Actually all the novels I've read by Crichton are heavily founded on either misunderstood or misrepresented 'science', so much so that I'd be tempted to not class them as 'science fiction' any more than Star Wars is science fiction. Even worse, there is a strong undercurrent of distrust and even denigration of a perceived scientific elite, plus a fair amount of ignorance of the scientific method. Yes, his books are great page turners, but they are less useful to learn about science, than the Da Vinci Code is to learn about history.
129793. Gord at 09:58 AM on 5 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - Once again, here is the 2nd Law: "Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3 Here are YOUR statements: "The NET flow of heat can be and often is the difference between two larger values, the heat flow only in one direction and the heat flow in the opposite direction." "...the "hyperphysics" website seems to imply otherwise, implicitly defining THE flow of heat as the NET of non-work energy flows." --- THE 2ND LAW DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WORD "NET" AT ALL! YOUR INCLUSION OF THE WORD "NET" IS YOUR "OPINION" AND NOT BASED ON REALITY! IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? -------------------- Regarding my statement: "ANY flux that EXCEEDS the 342 w/m^2 of THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE is an UNDISPUTABLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!" Your reply was: "You can't even add or subtract, Gord. My God, how could you have ever been an engineer?" Besides being rude, you have not explained how any Flux could exceed the 342 w/m^2 of THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE and NOT VIOLATE THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!!! Don't you know that ANY energy that exceeds the SOURCE ENERGY means that ENERGY WAS CREATED? The Law of Conservation of Energy CLEARLY STATES...ENERGY CAN NEVER BE CREATED! Yet Trenberth's Energy Budget shows that the Earth's surface radiates 390 w/m^2 WHICH IS GREATER THAN 342 w/m^2 (THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE)!!! Is 390 GREATER THAN 342? Where did the "extra" 42 w/m^2 come from? Come on, Patrick ANSWER these simple QUESTIONS! Or, are you going to attempt a hilarious re-write of The Law of Conservation of Energy too? -------------------- I included a defintion of a perpetual motion machine, but you only replied to "part" of the definition. I will repost what I actually posted: Perpetual motion "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed." "Perpetual motion violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both" "A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited 'free' energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion --- Your response was a number of rambling questions which I will not repeat followed by another unsupported "Opinion": "THESE phenomena are not what is meant when one speaks of a perpetual motion machine." Looks like you are ready to re-define what Perpetual Motion is as well! -------------------- Like I said, your Posts are rife with errors and unsupported rambling opinions. Replying to all your errors and unsupported rambling opinions is just too tedious. Your inability to understand even the most basic physics is very apparent from your posts. However, your demonstated lack of scientific knowledge has not impeded your willingness to re-write some fundamental Laws of Science. I find this both amusing and astonishing. It's a good thing that you are an amateur, at least the Public will not be in any danger.
129794. Patrick 027 at 04:09 AM on 5 May 2009
        It's the sun
        OMG, how could you not be getting this!!!??? (Do you not want to get this? Has this whole exchange been a joke to you?) "Once again, I only managed to get past the second line of your post #334 before the tedium of response became too much to handle." THEN CONSIDER THIS THIRD LINE: "If most scientific debates start with acceptance of basic laws, why do you refuse to accept the laws of blackbody radiation (Planck's formula, etc.) - demonstrated by experiments, and clearly given in the same "hyperphysics" website that you quote for the second law." ---------- "In both cases you have re-written the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics based entirely on your "Opinion"!" ... "The rest of your post #334, posts #335, #336 and #337 are rife with errors and unsupported rambling opinions." Are high school and college level physics/science textbooks based entirely on someone's opinion? Are they just someone's unsurported ramblings? (You find a typo here and there, of course, but there's a bigger picture here.) "Yes you have!"[contradicted laws of physics] That's only your opinion, Gord, and not once have you backed it up; it's sad if you think you have. ---------- ""The NET flow of heat can be and often is the difference between two larger values, the heat flow only in one direction and the heat flow in the opposite direction."" IF there is a problem with that statement, it is simply incorrect terminology. YOU had identified each individual flux of energy in Kiehl and Trenberth's diagram as a flow of heat, and I also tend to think of it the same way, but the "hyperphysics" website seems to imply otherwise, implicitly defining THE flow of heat as the NET of non-work energy flows. The strict definition of heat given by "hyperphysics" includes the flow of heat that most of us would call a flow of heat, but it excludes other things most of us casually refer to as heat: internal energy, thermal energy, enthalpy (which can be confusing because 'heat capacity' sounds like it means the amount of heat an object can hold for each unit of temperature increase, whereas, as is implied by "hyperphysics", technically it only means the amount of heat an object gains/loses for each unit temperature change) - and furthermore, a distinction is made between internal energy and thermal energy, the later apparently excluding potential energy involved in molecular motions, etc., which is not how I am used to thinking of it. "In fact, a "NET flow" contradicts "not possible", which is part of the 2nd Law description!" No, it is not possible for the NET flow to spontaneously be from cooler to warmer... What is impossible is for a spontaneous decrease in entropy in a closed system - it is impossible for THE flow of heat to be from cooler to warmer spontaneously - but that can be the net flow of internal energy, thermally-emitted photons, etc. AND I EXPLAINED WHY. ------------------- "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. " Are you now going to say that in a closed system, an electron in an atom must eventually stop moving (and not just pause, but completely stop)? Are you saying that within an object at room temperature, all molecular-scale motions must eventually cease, even if the object remains at room temperature? And so on with chemical equilibrium (that the forward and reverse reactions must both eventually cease?), and radiative equilibrium (that the energy density of photons within a chamber must go to zero?), even if those chemicals, and that chamber, remain at some nonzero temperature? THESE phenomena are not what is meant when one speaks of a perpetual motion machine. The continual molecular motion, the continual exchange of photons, the continual forward and reverse chemical reactions - these are not perpetual motion machines, they do not break any laws of thermodynamics or physics in general, and ... I don't know if most high schools teach much about blackbody radiation, but I expect successful high school science students to know about molecular motions and chemical reactions. ----- "ANY flux that EXCEEDS the 342 w/m^2 of THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE is an UNDISPUTABLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!" You can't even add or subtract, Gord. My God, how could you have ever been an engineer?
129795. Gord at 18:34 PM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You said... "Nothing I've argued goes against high school science or science at any level." Yes you have! I will show just a few of many, many examples. ---------------------------- "Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3 Here are some of your posts regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: --- Your Post #253 "With regards to the second law of thermodynamics, what it says about spontaneous heat flow only being from warmer to cooler and not the other way around - it is important to remember that this is NET flow. The NET flow of heat can be and often is the difference between two larger values, the heat flow only in one direction and the heat flow in the opposite direction." --- Your Post #259 With reference to my statement about the 2nd Law "I don't see any mention of "NET" heat flow." You said... "Okay, but that's what they mean. The world doesn't make sense if otherwise - why?" "The atmsophere and surface both radiate in each other's directions and recieve some of each other's emissions. This happens because while one is colder than the other, niether is at absolutely zero, nor is either perfectly transparent at all relevant wavelengths. The atmosphere does thermally emit radiation, and some of it reaches the surface." --- In both cases you have re-written the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics based entirely on your "Opinion"! In fact, a "NET flow" contradicts "not possible", which is part of the 2nd Law description! This is a rather hilarious modification of the 2nd Law that any high school science student would easily pick up. ---------------------------- With regard to the incoming Solar Flux of 342 w/m^2 (the ONLY energy source) and The Law of Conservation of Energy: Your Post #281 "The conservation of energy implies that if an object absorbs more energy than it emits, it will have a net energy gain. If it absorbs less than it emits, it will have a net energy loss." "Set aside the second law of thermodynamics for a moment; having radiant fluxes greater than 342 W/m2 does not violate the conservation of energy." "Mutual exchange of radiant energy could not be used to drive a perpetual motion machine by breaking the conservation of energy because it does not break that law." --- ANY flux that EXCEEDS the 342 w/m^2 of THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE is an UNDISPUTABLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY! Again, ANY high school science student would easily pick up the obvious errors you made in your post. --------------------- I will re-post part of my post #243 that has the definition of a Perpetual Motion Machine: Perpetual motion "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed." "Perpetual motion violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both" "A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited 'free' energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion --- Patrick, your Posts above have violated both the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics AND The Law of Conservation of Energy and in FACT, describes a perpetual motion machine. You have done this numerous times in your other posts as well. ANY, high school science student would easily see how you have created a perpetual motion machine. ---------------------- ---------------------- Once again, I only managed to get past the second line of your post #334 before the tedium of response became too much to handle. The rest of your post #334, posts #335, #336 and #337 are rife with errors and unsupported rambling opinions. Far too many errors and to go into at this time, however, I will repeat what I have already posted: --------------- Your posts are a just a jumble of "opinions" with absolutely no supporting evidence at all. What you call "simple observations", "basic logic" and "a general understanding of physics" is about as far away as you can get from a rational reading of the, extremely clear, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In fact, your posts continually use "opinion examples" that not only violate the 2nd Law, they also clearly violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, Electromagnetic Field Physics, Radiative Heat transfer equations, Vector mathematics and actual measurements. Sometimes your posts include rambling opinions and questions that are really "astounding" and demonstrates a total inability to understand even basic physics. The sheer quantity of these opinions and questions (that are so easily answered by most high school science students) are just too tedious to respond to. ---------------------- Most "Scientific" debates start with the acceptance of basic Laws of Science as being valid and proceed from there. Opinions and statements are backed up with supporting evidence and verified scientific measurements. You do not do this in any of your posts.
129796. Patrick 027 at 03:04 AM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        ""Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."" The question of interpretation arises from this: DEFINE HEAT. Apparently hyperphysics defines heat as the net flow of energy when it comes to photons, and perhaps would not consider linearly superimposed fluxes that are components of the whole process to be heat fluxes individually. Is that correct or incorrect? It doesn't matter so much to me - it's just a matter of defining the word; I already understand the concept.
129797. Patrick 027 at 02:59 AM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        "Your interpretation of it requires miraculous events - that an object emits or does not emit a photon depending on the temperature of another object at some distance and at a future time." As opposed to local conditions.
129798. Patrick 027 at 02:57 AM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        ... In other words, it would help if you learned the underlying microscopic processes that give rise to thermodynamic properties and laws.
129799. Patrick 027 at 02:54 AM on 4 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord, for the last time (PS thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore, but I guess we both can't resist the urge to respond): Nothing I've argued goes against high school science or science at any level. If most scientific debates start with acceptance of basic laws, why do you refuse to accept the laws of blackbody radiation (Planck's formula, etc.) - demonstrated by experiments, and clearly given in the same "hyperphysics" website that you quote for the second law. You have turned that one part of a website into a religious scripture that can only be understood your way - while other parts of the SAME website require a different interpretation when it comes to radiative energy fluxes. "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF SCIENCE and there is absolutely nothing "miraculous" about it!" It is not as fundamental as gravity and electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics, and the conservation laws, and the laws of motion, etc, in the sense that the second law describes behaviors of systems that are obeying these other laws and not doing anything highly improbable (like all the molecules in some macroscopic object suddenly moving in the same direction and speed as a result of random processes on a spatial scale smaller than the macroscopic object). On the other hand, one could consider it more fundamental because it could be expected to apply to a variety of other universes with other physical laws. I agree that it is not miraculous. Your interpretation of it requires miraculous events - that an object emits or does not emit a photon depending on the temperature of another object at some distance and at a future time. I suspect your work with electromagnetic waves was limited to the macroscopic level (and perhaps had nothing to do with thermal emissions, but rather with emission of waves due to some work input - organized electrical currents and magnetic fields, etc.). For shorter wavelengths, particularly those in which the bulk of radiant energy is emitted thermally at temperatures typical of the Earth and atmosphere, or at any higher temperatures, it is convienient to think of photons. Feel free to take a vector sum of energy fluxes from all linearly superimposed electromagnetic waves if you want to - there is nothing wrong with that, you will get the net energy flux, but this does not change the fact that photons often go by the same location in space in many directions, including opposite directions, and for radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium within some isothermal expanse of sufficient opacity, provided isotropic refraction properties of the medium, photons at each energy will be evenly distributed among all directions, all polarizations, all times within a given time interval, all locations within the region considered. For thermal emissions, net flux of photons and thus of their energy is caused by some temperature gradient that can be 'seen' at the wavelength considered - that is, the medium is not too opaque to hide temperature variations from view but not too transparent or reflective (some of the opacity has to be from emissivity) to let those temperature variations be invisible. If you don't trust physicists, talk to other engineers. Ask them about the thermodynamics of blackbody radiation.
129800. Gord at 16:33 PM on 3 May 2009
        It's the sun
        Patrick - You said... "Furthermore, Gord and some others with related arguments are arguing points that can easily be argued against based on rather simple observations from everyday life, basic logic, and just a general understanding of physics; it isn't really necessary to know all the ins and outs of QED to see that Gord's version of the 2nd law required some rather miraculous processes." I find this statement typical of your posts. ------------------- First, there is no "Gord's version of the 2nd law". "Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3 I did not write the above description of the 2nd Law nor have I attempted to CHANGE IT, as you have! The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF SCIENCE and there is absolutely nothing "miraculous" about it! You have stated your "opinions" regarding the 2nd Law and actually pretend to have presented evidence that the 2nd Law is somehow lacking. This is readily apparent in your statement that I quoted above. ------------------- Your posts are a just a jumble of "opinions" with absolutely no supporting evidence at all. What you call "simple observations", "basic logic" and "a general understanding of physics" is about as far away as you can get from a rational reading of the, extremely clear, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In fact, your posts continually use "opinion examples" that not only violate the 2nd Law, they also clearly violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, Electromagnetic Field Physics, Radiative Heat transfer equations, Vector mathematics and actual measurements. Sometimes your posts include rambling opinions and questions that are really "astounding" and demonstrates a total inability to understand even basic physics. The sheer quantity of these opinions and questions (that are so easily answered by most high school science students) are just too tedious to respond to. ---------------------- Most "Scientific" debates start with the acceptance of basic Laws of Science as being valid and proceed from there. Opinions and statements are backed up with supporting evidence and verified scientific measurements. You do not do this in any of your posts.

Prev  2588  2589  2590  2591  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  Next