Jan
Climate Change — so what?
If you have not yet noticed, some of the best information, both detailed explanations and links to wonderful resources, can be found in the comments on articles here on the site, and on our Open Thread. Some very smart people, including we suspect, some academics incognito, contribute very useful knowledge.
Today reader Ronald Kitching made a comment that includes a link to an easy-to-read presentation that as he says is, “an easily understood presentation by Hans Schreuder. Please note that Mr. Schreuder is a member of Mensa. He is a genuine scientist and his logical arguments are irrefutable. A reasonably well educated person of 16 to 17 years of age could understand this presentation.”
It’s titled “Climate Change – So What” and you can download the PDF here, download the Powerpoint presentation here or go directly to its home at nothingtodowithco2.com.
Possibly related posts:
Dick,
Do you not understand what this means?
For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, probabilities of observing a decrease in entropy approach zero.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
It means that for masses greater than a few picograms heat can only flow from hot to cold.
———–
Here is what your other link actually says:
On Page 5,
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that heat will not transfer from a colder to a hotter body without some external source of energy.”
Then on page 27 we see this:
The net flow of heat between them is given by an adaptation of Equation 2-12.
Q = BC*A (T1^4 – T2^4)
where:
A = surface area
T1 = temperature of the first body
T2 = temperature of the second body
“Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the net flow of heat is from hot to cold, and the second law is still satisfied.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2819861/Thermodynamics-Hand-Book-Volume-2
The NET they are refering to is NET SUBTRACTION of the two fields!…not that some heat is absorbed by the cooler body!
——–
Here is another link you provided:
The net power in [W] transferred through radiation from a body with surface A and surface temperature T1 to the enclosure with surface temperature T2 then is:
Prad = e*BC*A (T1^4 – T2^4)
http://www.nat.vu.nl/envphysexp/REAL%20Experiments/Heat%20radiation/Radiation_Theory.html#anchor175491
Net refers to subtraction…AGAIN.
——————
This link you provided:
“Absorption and Emissivity
Radiation heat transfer must account for both incoming and outgoing thermal radiation.”
This is EMISSIVITY that they are talking about.(ie. what ever energy is absorbed by a body has to be radiated)
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/heat_transfer/radiation/overview_rad.cfm
——————-
You left this out of this link you posted:
“When two bodies are at different temperatures, thermal energy transfers from the one with higher temperature to the one with lower temperature. Heat always transfers from hot to cold.”
http://www.tufts.edu/as/tampl/en43/lecture_notes/ch1.html
———————-
This link you provided violates the Law of Conservation of Energy!
“When things are at different temperatures, however, the hotter objects give off more energy in the form of radiation than they take in; the reverse is true for the colder objects.”
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Heattransfer.html
If the hotter object “give off more energy in the form of radiation than they take in” there was CREATION OF ENERGY!
———————
You left out:
“If there is a temperature difference in a system, heat will always move from higher to lower temperatures.’
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/transfer.html
————-
And finally…Did you notice the example in this link you provided:
Example 3-2:
A vehicle is to be parked overnight in the open away from large surrounding objects. It is desired to know if dew or frost may form on the vehicle top. Assume the following.
* Convection coefficient, h, from ambient air to vehicle top is 6.0 W/m2-°C.
* Equivalent sky temperature is -18°C.
* Emissivity of vehicle top is 0.84.
* Negligible conduction from inside vehicle to top of vehicle.
“Under steady-state conditions the energy convected to the vehicle top is equal to the energy radiated to the sky.”
http://bama.ua.edu/~jharrell/PH105-F08/class_notes/CH20.doc
Did you notice that the -18 deg C SKY did not heat UP THE vehicle!
Just like it CAN’T heat up a Warmer Earth!…DUH!
Why am I not surprised?
“If the hotter object “give off more energy in the form of radiation than they take in” there was CREATION OF ENERGY!”
No, it means there was a transfer of energy from the warmer object to the colder object, as required by the 2nd law, and the warmer object became cooler.
You still refuse to even attempt to explain why photons emitted by an object at one temperature CANNOT be absorbed by an object at a higher temperature (and it has nothing to do with magnetic fields). If you STILL don’t get the elementary concept of net energy flow, then you have more problems than I can deal with and further posts would be a waste of time.
Read Dick read! See Dick read! See Dick see! Run! Dick Run! Run away from junk science Dick! Run! Run! Run!
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html
Dick,
Are you serious?
If the warmer object can radiate more energy than it receives, where did the extra energy come from?
You better get a patent on that perpetual motion machine really quickly.
—————-
I have already explained why photons can’t flow from hot to cold objects….many times.
- The 2nd Law says “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.”
- The EM fields that carry Photon energy are Vector fields and only propagate in the direction of the larger EM field (hot to cold).
- If heat could flow from cold to hot, it would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
- The Electomagnetic Force (a vector quantity that moves zero mass Photons) is always greater in hot to cold direction. Objects do not move in the direction of the weaker force.
- Actual measurements PROVE that Back Radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer Earth.
All your links use the term NET to describe the NET SUBTRACTION OF EM FIELDS…THE RESULT IS EM FIELD PROPAGATION “ONLY” FROM HOT TO COLD.
All the above is simple Physics known and used for over a hundred years.
——————
There simply is no rational behaviour in AGW Cult members, just like the Heaven’s Gate Cult, the Jonestown Cult or any number of Cults throughout history.
The Cult Test Questions 1 to 10
1. The Guru is always right.
“The Guru, his church, and his teachings are always right, and above criticism, and beyond reproach.”
2. You are always wrong.
“Cult members are also told that they are in no way qualified to judge the Guru or his church. Should you disagree with the leader or his cult about anything, see Cult Rule Number One. Having negative emotions about the cult or its leader is a “defect” that needs to be fixed.”
3. No Exit.
“There is simply no proper or honorable way to leave the cult. Period. To leave is to fail, to die, to be defeated by evil. To leave is to invite divine retribution.”
4. No Graduates.
“No one ever learns as much as the Guru knows; no one ever rises to the level of the Guru’s wisdom, so no one ever finishes his or her training, and nobody ever graduates.”
5. Cult-speak.
“The cult has its own language. The cult invents new terminology or euphemisms for many things. The cult may also redefine many common words to mean something quite different. Cult
-speak is also called “bombastic redefinition of the familiar”, or “loading the language”.”
6. Group-think, Suppression of Dissent, and Enforced Conformity in Thinking
“The cult has standard answers for almost everything, and members are expected to parrot those answers. Willfulness or independence or skeptical thinking is seen as bad. Members
accept the leader’s reality as their own.”
7. Irrationality.
“The beliefs of the cult are irrational, illogical, or superstitious, and fly in the face of evidence to the contrary.”
8. Suspension of disbelief.
“The cult member is supposed to take on a childish naïveté, and simply believe whatever he is told, no matter how unlikely, unrealistic, irrational, illogical, or outrageous it may be. And he does.”
9. Denigration of competing sects, cults, religions, groups, or organizations.
“This is commonplace, and hardly needs any explanation.”
10. Personal attacks on critics.
“Anyone who criticizes the Guru, the cult or its dogma is attacked on a personal level.”
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html
Gord, I liked that so much I’ve turned it into an article!
http://www.climategate.com/100-reasons-why-anthropogenic-global-warming-a-cult
So you think that if the atmosphere warms by absorbing IR photons radiated by the Earth, thus reducing the temperature difference, it has no effect on the heat flow from the Earth to the atmosphere?
Thats quite a list. Every last one of them fits the AGW-denial cult perfectly.
1 through 10 that is. When I copied the post I didn’t catch the link at the bottom. 6-10 are especially appropriate.
“Author: Gord
Comment:
Dick,
“Are you serious?”
Quite serious. Are you? Surely you’re just “pulling my leg”!
“If the warmer object can radiate more energy than it receives, where did the extra energy come from?”
In this case, it comes from sunlight.
“You better get a patent on that perpetual motion machine really quickly.
—————-
“I have already explained why photons can’t flow from hot to cold objects….many times.”
Yes, I’ve seen your mantra many times.
“- The 2nd Law says “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.”
As I have said many times, the net heat flow is always from the warmer Earth to the cooler atmosphere, as required by the 2nd law.
“- The EM fields that carry Photon energy are Vector fields and only propagate in the direction of the larger EM field (hot to cold).
“- The Electomagnetic Force (a vector quantity that moves zero mass Photons) is always greater in hot to cold direction. Objects do not move in the direction of the weaker force.”
Photons are wave packets, not static EM fields. They propagate in all directions, regardless of any ambient EM fields, which have no effect on their motion since photons have no charge.
“- Actual measurements PROVE that Back Radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer Earth.”
Again, as I have said, the heat flow is always from the warmer Earth to the cooler atmosphere, as required by the second law.
“All your links use the term NET to describe the NET SUBTRACTION OF EM FIELDS…THE RESULT IS EM FIELD PROPAGATION “ONLY” FROM HOT TO COLD.”
None of them say a word about EM fields. They are all explicitly about the subtraction of photons absorbed from photons emitted to determine net heat flow.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
[...] laugh at this absurd notion, for He is The One. Others are unworthy to even stand in his presence.In a comment here on our site, Gord alerted us to the test when he posted the first 10 points of “The Cult Test.”It [...]
The Washington Times seems to agree!
EDITORIAL: More errors in temperature dataRate this story – The Washington Times
“The global warming cult sees its superstitions shattered”
“Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ top climate-change official, announced his resignation yesterday. Good riddance. The bureaucrat’s departure is no surprise because his pseudo-
scientific global warming religion was proved to be a hoax on his watch.”
“Joseph D’Aleo, the first director of meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org, are well-known and well-respected scientists. On Jan. 29, they released a startling study showing that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically
eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures drove up the average measured
temperature. The stations eliminated were in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea and more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was
dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.”
“The hysteria is based on fraud.”
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/
Gord:
Is there any response by the CRU folks to this stuff? If they had any justification for their acts, they should be shouting it from the treetops. I’ve not heard that yet on anything they’ve done -not the erased MWP history (or the subsequent ice age), not on the reduced number of stations, particularly those at high altitudes or in northern locations, etc.
I am shocked – SHOCKED! – that the Washington Times agrees.
Denis,
I have not seen much on the response by the CRU either.
Most of the “defenders” of AGW are simply repeating the same mantra as before.
—-
Bernie Sanders: Climate Change Skeptics Like Those Who Downplayed Nazism
“Inhofe is pressing for a reappraisal of the government’s position on climate change following revelations of errors in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (deemed “trivial” by Sanders) as well as the so-called “Climategate” controversy. He wants an investigation into what he calls “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation,” complete with testimony from former Vice President Al Gore.
But as the New York Times notes, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson did not give an inch when it came to the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
“The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” she said. “That conclusion is not a partisan one.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6236161.shtml
The science is not “settled” in the sense that there is nothing more to be learned about climatology. It can be considered “settled” in the limited sense that we have a good grasp on the physical laws that govern the climate.
The real problem is in predicting the magnitude and timing of the climate’s response to the forcings. The physical laws that govern the climate tend to be non-linear, and non-linear systems are very sensitive to initial conditions. There are also many positive and negative feedback loops, plus heat storage reservoirs, like the oceans, involved. The thermal inertia of the oceans means that there will be a considerable time lag between a change in the climate forcings and the arrival at a new equilibrium. We are probably nowhere near reaching an equilibrium just from the anthropogenic forcings that have already occurred.
This business of giant heat reservoirs is not supported by observation. The deep ocean always sits close to 0 degrees C because it collects the sinking meltwater off the ice caps. This temperature is set by the physical property of water — it always melts at the same temperature. There is no state change in the deep oceans, just a constant.
Thus, the ocean temperature only gets interesting near the surface. The actual surface temperature of the ocean does change, but not by much because warming of the ocean surface encourages evaporation and cooling discourages evaporation so a strong negative feedback cycle limits surface temperature changes to a few degrees. The only remaining factor is the depth of the surface warm layer which has been measured by the Argos buoys and they show steady cooling. Also Argos shows a strong yearly cycle of change that is much larger than any warming or cooling trend. The yearly cycle demonstrates that the oceans do react to change reasonably quickly and return every year to their previous state. Unless you can find a secret hidden variable somewhere that Argos can’t see, there is no long term state change. No such thing as temperature momentum.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
NOAA have merged Argos (recent) with other measurements (older data) and they put the turning point (from warming to cooling) at around 2003 which is roughly consistent with other indicators. A more detailed focus on just the Argos data is here:
http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/all-oceans-are-steadily-cooling/
Also shows recent cooling since some time prior to 2005.
When I click on the NOAA link I see a very clear upward trend.
Like anyone thinks the NOAA data is worth a crap?
http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/noaa-admits-temperature-error-and-faulty-equipment-but-they-are-still-going-to-keep-the-flawed-temperature-record-and-%E2%80%9Cnew-highs%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-2/
Oh I forgot this is the game of Parcheesi I mean Pachauri.
Rule #1. Screwed up data is always good if it makes our AGW believer point of view.
Rule #2. Real data that doesn’t prove what we want is always crap.
Lisa Jackson is what she was meant to be at EPA-a political hack and sop to the climate change mob. Phil Jones “no statistically significant warming since 1995″ even when Jones speaks it just doesn’t get through. What more proof do you need that this has never been about science. Tim Wirth “even if global warming turns out to be incorrect we have to ride this for all it’s worth” (slight paraphrase) The ride is ending but it’s been so good for so long they don’t want to stop.
“nonpartisan” and “politician” don’t compute….
Gord:
Perhaps this reference will help in your discussion (if you both haven’t given up!) with Dick: (In any event you may find it interesting).
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html
Pure bunk. See my post in this thread:
http://www.climategate.com/now-satellite-radiation-data-debunks-global-warming-theory/comment-page-1#comment-5862
Dick,
First, I noticed that you failed to address this in your response:
“- If heat could flow from cold to hot, it would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.”
(see my post on Feb 8 regarding this)
—-
Regarding “If the warmer object can radiate more energy than it receives, where did the extra energy come from?”, you said…”In this case, it comes from sunlight.”
Gee, I think Trenberth’s Energy Budget Diagram makes the point that IT DOES NOT COME FROM SUNLIGHT.
Right from Trenberth’s Energy Budget Diagram:
- Solar Energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface is 168 w/m^2.
- Earth surface radiation is 390 w/m^2.
- Back Radiation from the Colder Atmosphere absorbed by the warmer Earth Surface is 324 w/m^2.
If the only energy source, the SUN, only provides 168 w/m^2, how can the the Earth radiate 390 w/m^2 and the atmosphere radiate 324 w/m^2?
So, Where did the extra energy energy come from?
——————————-
You said…
“Photons are wave packets, not static EM fields. They propagate in all directions, regardless of any ambient EM fields, which have no effect on their motion since photons have no charge.”
Photons DO NOT PROPAGATE BY THEMSELVES!…they require a PROPAGATING EM FIELD to CARRY the PHOTON ENERGY from one place to another!
(see the Physics links I posted on Feb 9…AGAIN)
I see you are in “denial” of established Physics.
—-
Here is another link that PROVES that your “opinion” above is just “babbling”.
Cancellation of Light Waves
“Eventually the bubble becomes so thin that cancellation occurs for all wavelengths and the bubble appears black against a black background.”
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/bubbles/bubble_colors.html
Notice the light can be completely cancelled in the Soap Bubble….BY DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE OF EM LIGHT WAVES!
And, the link explains the Physics so clearly, a grade school student could understand it.
In fact, the whole phenomena of Light Interference dis-proves your “babbling rant”.
———————————–
Finally, you said…
“None of them say a word about EM fields. They are all explicitly about the subtraction of photons absorbed from photons emitted to determine net heat flow.”
That is really HILARIOUS!
Here is a link you provided:
The net power in [W] transferred through radiation from a body with surface A and surface temperature T1 to the enclosure with surface temperature T2 then is:
Prad = e*BC*A (T1^4 – T2^4)
http://www.nat.vu.nl/envphysexp/REAL%20Experiments/Heat%20radiation/Radiation_Theory.html#anchor175491
Divide both sides of the equation by A the Area and expand, you get:
Prad/A = e*BC*T1^4 – e*BC*T2^4 and the units are Watts/ Meter^2
Net CLEARLY refers to subtraction of TWO EM FIELDS!
—-
Here are more Physics Links for you:
Heat Radiation (THE EQUATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS YOUR LINK)
Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot”), the radiation
is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
Heat flux
“Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time. In SI units, it is measured in [W·m-2]. It has both a direction and a magnitude so it is a vectorial quantity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux
So there is MORE PROOF, “net” CLEARLY refers to subtraction of TWO EM FIELDS THAT ARE VECTOR QUANTITIES!
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO HEAT ENERGY FLOWING FROM COLD TO HOT!
——-
The Cult Test Questions 1 to 10
1. The Guru is always right.
“The Guru, his church, and his teachings are always right, and above criticism, and beyond reproach.”
3. No Exit.
“There is simply no proper or honorable way to leave the cult. Period. To leave is to fail, to die, to be defeated by evil. To leave is to invite divine retribution.”
7. Irrationality.
“The beliefs of the cult are irrational, illogical, or superstitious, and fly in the face of evidence to the contrary.”
8. Suspension of disbelief.
“The cult member is supposed to take on a childish naïveté, and simply believe whatever he is told, no matter how unlikely, unrealistic, irrational, illogical, or outrageous it may be. And he does.”
Dennis,
Thanks for your excellent link.
NASA’s “climate section” is full of crap…just like this:
Global change: How do we know?
Certain facts about Earths climate are not in dispute:
“- The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
This is so wrong, it is an absolute lie.
The AIRS instrument (used to measure Back Radiation from a -20 deg C atmosphere) uses IR detectors that have been COOLED far below the -20 deg C atmosphere temperature to make the
direct measurement POSSIBLE!
————————————
The AIRS Instrument:
Notice the amount of “Cooling” modules?
They are used to cool the IR detectors in the Focal Plane Assembly.
Cryogenic Cooling Systems
-Dewar Assembly
-Cryocooler Assembly
-Radiators and Earth Shield Assembly
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/instrument/
—
Dewar Assembly
“The focal plane assembly operates at 58 K for high sensitivity and is packaged in a permanent vacuum dewar which mates directly to the 155 K grating spectrometer.”
58K = -215 deg C !!
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/instrument/dewar/
—
Cryocooler Assembly
“Low vibration, long life focal plane operation near 58 K is critical to the success of AIRS..”
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/instrument/cryocooler/
—
Radiators and Earth Shield Assembly
“It extends around the spectrometer and operates in the 171-190 K temperature range. The second stage radiator provides extended cooling to 145-160K.”
“The AIRS Earth Shield Assembly provides shielding of the cold radiator surfaces to earth radiation.”
145K = -128 deg C, 160K = -113 deg C !!!
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/instrument/radiators/
—
Focal Plane Assembly
“The PV modules consist of 1, 2 or 4 bi-linear arrays of back-side-illuminated HgCdTe detectors,…”
“The AIRS FPA is unique in its hybrid PV/PC approach and required special care in the routing, shielding and grounding of very low noise (nV) PC signals in the presence of high level (V) PV signals. A total of 526 leads interconnect to the motherboard assembly using a series of 10 high-density, thin-film flex cables specifically designed for cryogenic operation.”
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/instrument/focal_plane/
—————————————–
Their statement that “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS.” is an outright LIE.
The mid-19th century “Science” they are refering to is the obsolete Science produced by Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 who believed that heat could flow from cold to hot objects and certainly had ZERO influence on the “scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS.”
Maxwell discovered EM fields in 1864 and has formed the basis of modern Heat Radiation Physics ever since.
ALL Back Radiation direct measurement instruments use COOLED IR detectors because:
“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.”
Then they add the AGW Cult spin…”Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”
In fact, the design of the AIRS instrument completely Dis-Proves “Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”