Coffeehouse Thread

153 posts

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    The greenhouse theory is not basic physics, because it violates the two basic thermodynamic physical laws;

    1. Conservation of energy
    2. Heat flows from hot to cold

    We've been saying on and on, that's not true. Radiation re-emitted by the atmosphere only slows the rate of heat transfer. Therefore, heat still flows from hot to cold. It just does so more slowly. This is not in violation of second law, it's perfectly allowed by it.

    This process isn't lossless, and the only reason warming results is because there is still continued input of energy from the sun. The earth isn't a closed system. Therefore, there is also no violation of conservation of energy and no one is claiming this is anything like a perpetuum mobile. Heat isn't "trapped" indefinitely, it just takes a longer time to leave.

    I've given sources that state why that is the case, and all you've done to say differently is to 1) give a source that talked about something else entirely (electron energy levels rather than heat) and didn't actually back up your claim (energy differential vs. absolute energy) and 2) say that somehow the fact that the earth isn't a perfect black body completely removes the surrounding energy from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (according to here, it just adds another term to the function, it doesn't remove parts of it), which you also haven't backed up with a source.

    Saying "it doesn't apply because the earth is not a black body" isn't enough. Why doesn't it apply? What changes about the physics when you're not dealing with black bodies? Why does radiation from the environment become irrelevant according to you in that situation?

    So give me something that proves that the radiation from (colder) surroundings cannot reduce the rate of heat loss. Give me something that proves the surrounding temperature term from the rate of heat loss equation I linked doesn't apply at all to objects that are not perfect black bodies. Until you can do so, you have not shown any cause to reject my argument thus far.

    And since we're talking about fundamental physics that doesn't just apply to climate science, I'd prefer it if you can use sources that aren't related to climate change to avoid bias. I've also deliberately been doing that. 

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @ScanIAm: correct, you also have to factor in the magnetic field and the intensity of the solar winds,..

    The peeling factor 馃槉

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot:

    Mass slows things down, not emitting radiation. It puts a lag on warming and cooling, net effect on the average temperature (with a constant mass) is zero.

    The greenhouse effect posted by evil and described by the ipcc is not about slowing down the transfer of heat, but about heat being derived from energy sent back down by emitted radiation by co2 in the atmosphere. I've stated many times that that theory violates the laws. I've asked you multiple times to post your version of the greenhouse effect,.

    The notion that heat takes longer to leave is folly. If it takes longer to leave, then it also must take longer to arrive. Net result, zero. But that is not what the theory describes. As with any heat transfer system, if the input is increased the output will increase also over time.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is a mathematical calculation model, not a description of what is taking place in real life. Any physicist will tell you that you cannot use it when and where you want and derive conclusions from it. Same reason the ether model is still a helpful tool. Therefore reducing real life objects to black bodies is helpful for calculations, but it can only be used for an outcome not for a behavior.

    The environment the object is in is indeed a key factor, but not the emitted radiation should be considered, but the energy levels of the objects. A high energy object will emit short wave radiation and a colder object will emit longer wave radiation. A high energy object will not absorb the long wave radiation, as it is emitting much shorter wave by itself. In order to calculate how much radiation is absorbed one has to deduct the field the object is in, from it's own radiation. But again, this is not proof that it will get absorbed. It will just emit less.

    I'll try and dig up more information about absorption and emission of radiation.

     

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Sven Groot:

    *snip*

    The notion that heat takes longer to leave is folly. If it takes longer to leave, then it also must take longer to arrive.

    *snip*

    The form in which the energy arrives is different from the form in which it leaves.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @cbae: not correct, only the wavelength is different, the energy has the same transport mechanism, radiation.

    For the radiation from the co2 in the atmosphere to be absorbed by the earth, it has to have a shorter wavelength then the radiation leaving the earth. It has to increase entropy. Because the co2 is a lower temperature then the surface, it emits radiation longer then the earth. Therefore the theory that radiation from co2 heats the planet, is nonsense.

    The atmosphere has three functions;

    1.  distribute heat around the planet
    2. create a lag on warming and cooling
    3. Raise the surface temperature by atmospheric pressure

    These three effects create a habitable planet and not co2 sending energy back to the planet.

    Ask any NASA engineer what the biggest problem in space is, cooling or warming. You will be surprised by the answer and you would be surprised by how resilient and efficient our climate system is.

    Yes, it is really that simple. Don't let these climate cahoots tell you otherwise. You are not messing up the planet by emitting co2. You do not have to pay Al Gore for his co2 certificates to enter heaven. It will still be waiting for you. If you want to conserve energy, fine, I'm all for that. I'm all for a cleaner environment. But co2 is not a pollutant, so we are diverting resources to a non issue that could be put to better use.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: not correct, only the wavelength is different, the energy has the same transport mechanism, radiation.

    *snip*

    The wavelength coming in and the wavelength going out are what make all the difference there, hoss.

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @cbae: care to elaborate?

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Sven Groot:

    I'll try and dig up more information about absorption and emission of radiation. 

    Good. If you can find sources (preferably ones that are not related to climate change) that unequivocally demonstrate all the stuff you discussed in that post, I will of course concede.

    And then I'll have to find my high school and university physics teachers, because they were all wrong. And the people who wrote my physics textbooks, they were wrong too. But I guess according to you they're all part of the worldwide climate change conspiracy.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: care to elaborate?

    Dude, go look up "greenhouse gases" on Wikipedia or wherever you get your information. If you don't know this, you're the last person who should be talking smack about the "greenhouse effect".

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    Ooops, I accidentally marked the previous post as spam. I was trying to touch the 'see more...' link on my phone and missed.

  • User profile image
    Charles

    @Maddus Mattus: Remember that the Greenhouse Effect is already in motion: biological systems produce Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Oxygen, etc.. as a side effect of living. The current mean temperature of our lovely planet remains relatively constant in a large part by the slowing down of the escape of heat from the planet's surface - and the greenhouse gasses we living things make help ensure a greenhouse shield remains in place.

    Nobody can argue that too much of a good thing is guaranteed not to turn into a bad thing when it grows in an uncontrolled way (too much in, not enough out). So, too many cars, too many fossil fuel power plants, too much livestock, etc... will result in a thicker heat shield over time (too much in, not enough out) which means more heat is trapped causing the mean temperature of the surface of the planet to increase. What happens next is somewhat obvious, but science is an imperfect science. That said, if mathematical models operating on empirical data tells us something, it tells us that the path forward will be increasingly warmer for those of us living on the planet's surface (so, life).


    C

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @Charles: Dr. Dyson says the climate models are full of fudge factors:

    http://motls.blogspot.ca/2013/04/dyson-climatologists-are-no-einsteins.html

    Dr. Motl:

    "At any rate, he is saying some things that should be important for everyone, especially every layman, who wants to understand the climate debate. The climatologists don't really understand the climate; they just blindly follow computer models that are full of ad hoc fudge factors to account for clouds and other aspects."

    "Freeman Dyson also mentioned that increased CO2 is probably making the environment better and he estimated that about 15% of the crop yields are due to the extra CO2 added by the human activity. I agree with this estimate wholeheartedly. The CO2 is elevated by a factor of K = 396/280 = 1.41 and my approximate rule is that the crop yields scale like the square root of K which is currently between 1.15 and 1.20."

  • User profile image
    Charles

    @Proton2: Nothing prevents Dr. Dyson from being wrong from time to time. Does his math account for all possible variations (aka variables)? Say, all that's probably going on - in reality, as It happens (the R constant?).

    Did he forget R? What is R, exactly?
    C

    EDIT: Removed "This amounts to arguing about the relative - and safe - amounts of the ingredients that make up a sausage, floating around fire." That's a reflection of the initial, illogical, human reaction. Logic mandates that this irrelevant information be removed from any formulation of a sensible question. Emotion is a side effect of sense. I think I finally get Jamie, man.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @Charles: A lot of people knowledgeable on the subject of climate change have read what Dyson has said on the topic and they agree with him, they say he is correct. Of course those on the activist side of the climate change issue do not agree with him.

    Here is an example of a climate scientist, Dr. Mike E Mann, fooling people into believing that the models have gotten it right:

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/

    - - -

    It appears that no matter how much information I provide, I can not change some peoples mind here. Time will probably do that however. Time is probably the only way this issue will be resolved.

    I am convinced that I am right for various scientific reasons, that there will be little warming caused from CO2. For those still unconvinced, you might want to consider what if you are wrong, you will have egg on your face, so you should be careful.

    I am putting this to rest now, here, and revisit in say a couple of years. I could end up being wrong, we shall see.

  • User profile image
    eajimefu

    But I am telling you that global warming and climate change as real as you are. I mean they exist whether it may be man-made or natural cause. Aren't you feeling the changes in the weather? And the warmer earth?

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    @eajimefu: I agree - it is observable in changes to species distributions (here in the UK the boundary between two species of barnacle has been slowly moving North over the last 25 years as the ocean temperatures in the South of England become too warm for the Northern species).

    But, hey, when did observable facts get in the way of theoretical arguments?

    Herbie

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    , Dr Herbie wrote

    @eajimefu: I agree - it is observable in changes to species distributions (here in the UK the boundary between two species of barnacle has been slowly moving North over the last 25 years as the ocean temperatures in the South of England become too warm for the Northern species).

    But, hey, when did observable facts get in the way of theoretical arguments?

    Herbie

    That's the well known Atlantic multidecadal oscillation :

    AMO

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @eajimefu: NASA scientists have concluded that whatever is happening, it isn't caused by Carbon :

    "TRCS: Without question, one of the most spectacular scientific accomplishments of the 20th century was the Apollo landing of humans on the moon and their return. The mission required exhaustive testing of the concepts, models, and equipment against all appropriate data. If the data did not exist, it had to be compiled. Last year, some retired members of the Apollo team, and others, formed The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team, volunteering to apply their skills to examine the scientific basis of the claim that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming and/or climate change, which they term as Carbon-based Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

    Last week, TRCS team issued their findings: "Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report." This clearly-written 21 page assessment states that the empirical evidence of Carbon-based AGW is sorely lacking.

    The major findings include:

     

    路 Carbon-based AGW is not settled.

    路 Natural processes dominate climate change (although many are poorly understood).

    路 Non-Carbon-based anthropogenic forcings are significant (land use change, urban heat island effect, black carbon, etc.)

    路 Carbon-based AGW impact appears to be muted.

    路 Empirical evidence for Carbon-based AGW does not support catastrophe.

    路 The threat of net harmful total global warming, if any, is not immediate and thus does not require swift corrective action.

    路 The US Government is over-reacting to concerns about AGW.

    The report sharply differs from the 1100-plus page Draft National Climate Assessment issued by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which is heavy on computer-driven speculation, but exceedingly light on physical evidence on Carbon-based AGW.

    Also, TRCS report illustrates that some of the threats exaggerated in the USGCRP report are without a scientific basis. For example, in the treatment of sea level rise, the USGCRP report projects, that due to uncertainty in the models, 21st century sea level rise will be anywhere between 7 inches to up to 4 feet, and even up to 6 feet. The TRCS report states that rapid sea level rise can only come from extreme melting of ice on Greenland and on Antarctica and such a melting would require centuries, not decades.

    The Northern Hemisphere is warming, and ice melt in Greenland needs monitoring. However, the TRCS report finds the 20th century warming to be in the range of natural variability. Further, suggesting that Antarctica will significantly contribute to sea level rise requires an ignorance of the extremely cold climate of Antarctica and its geology (the land mass is bowl-shaped). Thus there is no reason to assume a 21st century sea level rise to be significantly greater than 20th century rise 鈥 about 7 inches.

    Among examples of US government over-reaction concerning AGW, the report finds the EPA's determination that CO2 is a pollutant that must be controlled to be scientifically embarrassing.

    The report recommends that models be validated before used in critical decision-making, which has not been done for climate models, and it is unlikely to be done. The report states that the natural climate-change mechanisms must be successfully modeled before we can hope to successfully model the earth surface temperature response to CO2 emissions. The Climate Establishment has ignored natural mechanisms other than changes in solar irradiance (daylight).

    According to its web site, the FY 2012 budget request for the USGCRP was $2.6 Billion. The Apollo TRCS research team was self-financed 鈥 they paid for it without corporate or government support 鈥 which contradicts the saying you get what you pay for. The members of the TRCS research team should be congratulated for its contribution to empirical scientific work."

     

    http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/AGW%20Science%20Assess%20Rpt-1

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.