Global warming is not anthropogenic

Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

What I am aware of is that you said the surface and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temp. In the next paragraph you said that in the case of melting ice, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the surface. (Due to convention).

Now which one is it?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

What I am aware of is that you said the surface and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temp. In the next paragraph you said that in the case of melting ice, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the surface. (Due to convention).

Now which one is it?

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: Petes got a point ITN.

duncan, I'd like to take a crack at it.

What point do you believe that Pete has?

All the points that I see are just repeated drivel that never change no matter how many times they are explained.

.

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

The base of the atmosphere is the contact surface so it is where the molecules of gas contact the molecules of the solid/liquid surface.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The Second Law says they are at the same temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The nature of gas is that as pressure lessens, so does temperature

Pete Rogers wrote:
so convection occurs.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It makes no difference to the 2nd Law requirement for equality of temperature with the surface at the base.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

Heat has no temperature.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

Heat has no temperature.

Pete, ITN ignores the standard definition of heat is the energy released by a molecule while temperature is the volume relative to mols which is temperature.

James___ wrote:
...deleted wandering buzzwords...
I'm not sure why ITN thinks I'm insulting his intelligence for by mentioning this.
If standard definitions can't be agreed upon then there is no sense in having a debate, is there?

James___ wrote:
edited to make known, when KE for 1 mol of atm is divided by Avagrado's number (6.022 x 10^23), then we can know what value heat has.

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

What I am aware of is that you said the surface and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temp. In the next paragraph you said that in the case of melting ice, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the surface. (Due to convention).

Now which one is it?

Are you that ignorant? Most glaciers melt from the bottom up. It's all that weight. And if the surface temperature of the Earth is increasing, wouldn't it make sense for some of that warm surface temperature to conduct itself to cooler surface areas?
And if glaciers fracture even more, then the heat from the bottom of the glacier can be convected to the surface of the glacier by creating an airflow.
Oops, I forgot, it's the Norwegian jet stream. Yep, your simple answer for everything you don't understand.

Pete Rogers wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

What I am aware of is that you said the surface and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temp. In the next paragraph you said that in the case of melting ice, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the surface. (Due to convention).

Now which one is it?

Are you that ignorant? Most glaciers melt from the bottom up. It's all that weight. And if the surface temperature of the Earth is increasing, wouldn't it make sense for some of that warm surface temperature to conduct itself to cooler surface areas?
And if glaciers fracture even more, then the heat from the bottom of the glacier can be convected to the surface of the glacier by creating an airflow.
Oops, I forgot, it's the Norwegian jet stream. Yep, your simple answer for everything you don't understand.

There is no place for incivility in a scientific examination - that is for buffoons not scientists - control yourself man.
The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight - look at the ice-age cycles versus temperature. If weight was in control then the larger the glaciation; which would be due to reduced insolation in the first place: the more extensive the melt and consequent retreat of the glaciers, which is the opposite of what happens. Ice cannot be compressed so the heat-energy per unit volume cannot be increased by pressure therefore weight cannot cause temperature change. Gases alone can have their temperatures increased by weight gain and even this is denied by the likes of IBdaMann and ITN, but not yourself perhaps - unless you are he. Their problem is that they proceed from assumptions without authenticating them first; but never ever review them in the light of information that conflicts with them - they are instead regarded as axioms which was proudly admitted and defended as a virtulous act - thus awarding themselves the infallibility due to religion. Don't make the same mistake, always be open-minded.
As insolation increases; the low temperatures necessary to maintain ice are driven closer to the poles and the ice at the perimeters melts by conduction at the edge. Of course warmer surface areas conduct to cooler ones, that's why we get the melt - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

What I am aware of is that you said the surface and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temp. In the next paragraph you said that in the case of melting ice, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the surface. (Due to convention).

Now which one is it?

Are you that ignorant? Most glaciers melt from the bottom up. It's all that weight. And if the surface temperature of the Earth is increasing, wouldn't it make sense for some of that warm surface temperature to conduct itself to cooler surface areas?
And if glaciers fracture even more, then the heat from the bottom of the glacier can be convected to the surface of the glacier by creating an airflow.
Oops, I forgot, it's the Norwegian jet stream. Yep, your simple answer for everything you don't understand.

There is no place for incivility in a scientific examination - that is for buffoons not scientists - control yourself man.
The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight - look at the ice-age cycles versus temperature. If weight was in control then the larger the glaciation; which would be due to reduced insolation in the first place: the more extensive the melt and consequent retreat of the glaciers, which is the opposite of what happens. Ice cannot be compressed so the heat-energy per unit volume cannot be increased by pressure therefore weight cannot cause temperature change. Gases alone can have their temperatures increased by weight gain and even this is denied by the likes of IBdaMann and ITN, but not yourself perhaps - unless you are he. Their problem is that they proceed from assumptions without authenticating them first; but never ever review them in the light of information that conflicts with them - they are instead regarded as axioms which was proudly admitted and defended as a virtulous act - thus awarding themselves the infallibility due to religion. Don't make the same mistake, always be open-minded.
As insolation increases; the low temperatures necessary to maintain ice are driven closer to the poles and the ice at the perimeters melts by conduction at the edge. Of course warmer surface areas conduct to cooler ones, that's why we get the melt - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

@GasGuzzler, I apologize for calling you ignorant. When you say that people who are 1/2 Norwegian are a problem in the US, you are debating fact and are not ignorant for being what some in Europe would call a bigot. But in the USA you are Johnny A-OK.

@Pete, have previously posted about the slowing of the Gulf Stream and the heat it is releasing. And with heat, since it's KE = 1.5 atm * k * T/n, then for each molecule, KE actually needs to be multiplied by the number of electrons a molecule has to know how much heat that molecule releases.
An example is that a water molecule has 10 electrons. This means that when
1.5atm * k * T = KE then KE * 10 gives the amount of heat a single molecule of water in the Gulf Stream can release.
This is because as the velocity decreases that water travels, the less heat it can store. This is because the elements in a water molecule can become less excited as velocity decreases. Think wind chill but about 1,000 times greater effect.

Pete Rogers wrote:

You outrank me in this, but I would say that circulatory systems are still a zero-sum game, by which I mean the heat energy comes from the sun and is not altered in amount by these systems (liquid or gas), but that they are all about divisions and concentrations of heat and their various transports to unpredictable destinations, but; turbulence notwithstanding: the total heat in the system - including the compressible atmosphere - is what the sun and gravity provide.
With the opening theory of this thread - which I am trying to establish as being knowledge by exposing it to scientific objection, (so feel free to have a rational pop at it any time, that can only assist) - I believe it is being shown that although certain frequencies of IR emission are intercepted by Greenhouse (misleading name) Gases (a process misleadingly called the GE) this does not have the claimed thermal consequence - the ATE - which is the simple result of atmospheric compression of heat transferred from the surface comfortably accounting for it and leaving nothing for the GE. This being so GGs in their entirety, let alone our measly contribution to them, are irrelevant to Global Warming.
Climate change is then shown to be by natural variation as it always has been, so we can get back to controlling real pollutants that poison things instead of the current torment of mankind by the high priests of the Human Climate Change religion restricting us and intimidating the gullible majority with the usual instrument of control - fear.

Pete Rogers wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

What I am aware of is that you said the surface and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temp. In the next paragraph you said that in the case of melting ice, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the surface. (Due to convention).

Now which one is it?

Are you that ignorant? Most glaciers melt from the bottom up. It's all that weight. And if the surface temperature of the Earth is increasing, wouldn't it make sense for some of that warm surface temperature to conduct itself to cooler surface areas?
And if glaciers fracture even more, then the heat from the bottom of the glacier can be convected to the surface of the glacier by creating an airflow.
Oops, I forgot, it's the Norwegian jet stream. Yep, your simple answer for everything you don't understand.

There is no place for incivility in a scientific examination - that is for buffoons not scientists - control yourself man.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight - look at the ice-age cycles versus temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If weight was in control then the larger the glaciation; which would be due to reduced insolation in the first place: the more extensive the melt and consequent retreat of the glaciers, which is the opposite of what happens.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Ice cannot be compressed so the heat-energy per unit volume cannot be increased by pressure therefore weight cannot cause temperature change.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Gases alone can have their temperatures increased by weight gain

Pete Rogers wrote:
and even this is denied by the likes of IBdaMann and ITN,

Pete Rogers wrote:
but not yourself perhaps - unless you are he.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Their problem is that they proceed from assumptions without authenticating them first;

Pete Rogers wrote:
but never ever review them in the light of information that conflicts with them

Pete Rogers wrote:
- they are instead regarded as axioms which was proudly admitted and defended as a virtulous act

Pete Rogers wrote:
- thus awarding themselves the infallibility due to religion. Don't make the same mistake, always be open-minded.

Pete Rogers wrote:
As insolation increases; the low temperatures necessary to maintain ice are driven closer to the poles and the ice at the perimeters melts by conduction at the edge. Of course warmer surface areas conduct to cooler ones, that's why we get the melt - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote: ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

What I am aware of is that you said the surface and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temp. In the next paragraph you said that in the case of melting ice, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the surface. (Due to convention).

Now which one is it?

Are you that ignorant? Most glaciers melt from the bottom up. It's all that weight. And if the surface temperature of the Earth is increasing, wouldn't it make sense for some of that warm surface temperature to conduct itself to cooler surface areas?
And if glaciers fracture even more, then the heat from the bottom of the glacier can be convected to the surface of the glacier by creating an airflow.
Oops, I forgot, it's the Norwegian jet stream. Yep, your simple answer for everything you don't understand.

There is no place for incivility in a scientific examination - that is for buffoons not scientists - control yourself man.
The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight - look at the ice-age cycles versus temperature. If weight was in control then the larger the glaciation; which would be due to reduced insolation in the first place: the more extensive the melt and consequent retreat of the glaciers, which is the opposite of what happens. Ice cannot be compressed so the heat-energy per unit volume cannot be increased by pressure therefore weight cannot cause temperature change. Gases alone can have their temperatures increased by weight gain and even this is denied by the likes of IBdaMann and ITN, but not yourself perhaps - unless you are he. Their problem is that they proceed from assumptions without authenticating them first; but never ever review them in the light of information that conflicts with them - they are instead regarded as axioms which was proudly admitted and defended as a virtulous act - thus awarding themselves the infallibility due to religion. Don't make the same mistake, always be open-minded.
As insolation increases; the low temperatures necessary to maintain ice are driven closer to the poles and the ice at the perimeters melts by conduction at the edge. Of course warmer surface areas conduct to cooler ones, that's why we get the melt - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

@GasGuzzler, I apologize for calling you ignorant. When you say that people who are 1/2 Norwegian are a problem in the US, you are debating fact and are not ignorant for being what some in Europe would call a bigot. But in the USA you are Johnny A-OK.

I appreciate that change of tone which allows us to share minds. Without good faith of this type everything is doomed to circularity as we end up dealing with testosterone from downstairs rather than electricity from upstairs, so I take my hat off to you for allowing us to take that step. Excuse me for saying so, but you confuse me a little as I'm sure I never said anything about 1/2 Norwegians - let alone anything derogatory - where did that idea come from please?

@Pete, have previously posted about the slowing of the Gulf Stream and the heat it is releasing. And with heat, since it's KE = 1.5 atm * k * T/n, then for each molecule, KE actually needs to be multiplied by the number of electrons a molecule has to know how much heat that molecule releases.
An example is that a water molecule has 10 electrons. This means that when
1.5atm * k * T = KE then KE * 10 gives the amount of heat a single molecule of water in the Gulf Stream can release.
This is because as the velocity decreases that water travels, the less heat it can store. This is because the elements in a water molecule can become less excited as velocity decreases. Think wind chill but about 1,000 times greater effect.

You outrank me in this, but I would say that circulatory systems are still a zero-sum game, by which I mean the heat energy comes from the sun and is not altered in amount by these systems (liquid or gas), but that they are all about divisions and concentrations of heat and their various transports to unpredictable destinations, but; turbulence notwithstanding: the total heat in the system - including the compressible atmosphere - is what the sun and gravity provide.
With the opening theory of this thread - which I am trying to establish as being knowledge by exposing it to scientific objection, (so feel free to have a rational pop at it any time, that can only assist) - I believe it is being shown that although certain frequencies of IR emission are intercepted by Greenhouse (misleading name) Gases (a process misleadingly called the GE) this does not have the claimed thermal consequence - the ATE - which is the simple result of atmospheric compression of heat transferred from the surface comfortably accounting for it and leaving nothing for the GE. This being so GGs in their entirety, let alone our measly contribution to them, are irrelevant to Global Warming.
Climate change is then shown to be by natural variation as it always has been, so we can get back to controlling real pollutants that poison things instead of the current torment of mankind by the high priests of the Human Climate Change religion restricting us and intimidating the gullible majority with the usual instrument of control - fear.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteI would point out that science requires doubting and questioning which is the antithesis to your religion which requires unquestioning obedience and belief.

You don't need to point that out. I don't know any scientist who doesn't know that

Pete Rogers wrote: It is for you to explain where my exposures of your flaws are deficient

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteYes, I necessarily treat my observations as axioms. They are, after all, my observations. I will never presume to not have observed them.

To treat your observations as axioms "They are, after all, my observations" is to declare yourself infallible,

Pete Rogers wrote:Please look again and you will see my objection is against the illogicality

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteYou and I are going to have fun, guaranteed.

You are quite right, I am indeed, but I am not so sure about you as I think you may lack humility which means that for you to be proved wrong is perceived as personal humiliation so it will be resisted even when it has long been self-evident to bystanders that you are incorrect.

Pete Rogers wrote:No experiment has ever replicated a thermal effect for the interception of IR in an atmosphere,

Pete Rogers wrote: so what is the reply "Jabberwocky" supposed to convey

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteThere is no such term as the "Jubjub bird," "frumious Bandersnatch" or "thermal potency" in science or in anything you have defined.

I am not aware that anyone has said there are such terms so why are you using them?

Pete Rogers wrote: As you know I believe that there is no thermal potency to the process of interception of IR by GG's as explained in the original argument put at the beginning.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wroteScience doesn't care about your feelings or anyone's opinions. Science doesn't care about who agrees on what.

Both pro and anti GE scientists agree on one thing,

Pete Rogers wrote: The statement that both sides agree on the ATE is nothing to do with feelings as far as I am aware, but it is an inescapable fact that compression causes temperature rise.

Pete Rogers wrote: Looking at it epistemologically ...

Pete Rogers wrote:No, this is wrong because it contains an elementary error! To be correct this error should be removed and the amended point read

"1) There is no matter in the known universe that can spontaneously increase in heat content without additional energy."

Pete Rogers wrote:The force which causes the compression is providing energy by performing negative work.

Pete Rogers wrote:An allegory might be to take a river and add permanent compression in the sense of narrowing it. The river would flow much faster - permanently - whilst its energy was unchanged. The speed of the river being the allegory for temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote: Proof please. Declarations and claims don't mean anything without it

Pete Rogers wrote: I have dealt with this paper.

Pete Rogers wrote: In the case of our atmosphere the weight of a column of air from the surface to the top is 14lb psi.

Pete Rogers wrote: "The physics definition of "work" is: ... Work can be either positive or negative: if the force has a component in the same direction as the displacement of the object, the force is doing positive work.

Pete Rogers wrote:... his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law of Thermodynamics,

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

You outrank me in this, but I would say that circulatory systems are still a zero-sum game, by which I mean the heat energy comes from the sun and is not altered in amount by these systems (liquid or gas), but that they are all about divisions and concentrations of heat and their various transports to unpredictable destinations, but; turbulence notwithstanding: the total heat in the system - including the compressible atmosphere - is what the sun and gravity provide.
With the opening theory of this thread - which I am trying to establish as being knowledge by exposing it to scientific objection, (so feel free to have a rational pop at it any time, that can only assist) - I believe it is being shown that although certain frequencies of IR emission are intercepted by Greenhouse (misleading name) Gases (a process misleadingly called the GE) this does not have the claimed thermal consequence - the ATE - which is the simple result of atmospheric compression of heat transferred from the surface comfortably accounting for it and leaving nothing for the GE. This being so GGs in their entirety, let alone our measly contribution to them, are irrelevant to Global Warming.
Climate change is then shown to be by natural variation as it always has been, so we can get back to controlling real pollutants that poison things instead of the current torment of mankind by the high priests of the Human Climate Change religion restricting us and intimidating the gullible majority with the usual instrument of control - fear.

I am mindful of how much Europe is warming. And with the link I posted about oceanic circulation, it did mention that our oceans can both store and release heat content. Water is about 1,000 times denser than air. And we know that it's cooler when the wind is blowing.
And the reason for the Gulf Stream and the MOC slowing is probably because of tectonic plate lift. And this could explain the primary mechanism by which we had the Medieval Warm Period and then the Little Ice Age.
An example is when the MOC (Meridional Overturning Circulation) moves far enough south, then the Arctic will cool again and glaciers will gain mass. This is because the heat in the Gulf Stream will be released before it gets to Europe.
It is helpful to remember that the Gulf Stream transports equatorial heat up into the northern hemisphere and the arctic region as well. And if the Gulf Stream is releasing more heat, the laws of thermodynamics states that it will move to a cold area like the arctic. And the arctic is warming faster than places at lower latitudes.

Pete Rogers wrote:

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

You outrank me in this, but I would say that circulatory systems are still a zero-sum game, by which I mean the heat energy comes from the sun and is not altered in amount by these systems (liquid or gas), but that they are all about divisions and concentrations of heat and their various transports to unpredictable destinations, but; turbulence notwithstanding: the total heat in the system - including the compressible atmosphere - is what the sun and gravity provide.
With the opening theory of this thread - which I am trying to establish as being knowledge by exposing it to scientific objection, (so feel free to have a rational pop at it any time, that can only assist) - I believe it is being shown that although certain frequencies of IR emission are intercepted by Greenhouse (misleading name) Gases (a process misleadingly called the GE) this does not have the claimed thermal consequence - the ATE - which is the simple result of atmospheric compression of heat transferred from the surface comfortably accounting for it and leaving nothing for the GE. This being so GGs in their entirety, let alone our measly contribution to them, are irrelevant to Global Warming.
Climate change is then shown to be by natural variation as it always has been, so we can get back to controlling real pollutants that poison things instead of the current torment of mankind by the high priests of the Human Climate Change religion restricting us and intimidating the gullible majority with the usual instrument of control - fear.

I am mindful of how much Europe is warming. And with the link I posted about oceanic circulation, it did mention that our oceans can both store and release heat content. Water is about 1,000 times denser than air. And we know that it's cooler when the wind is blowing.
And the reason for the Gulf Stream and the MOC slowing is probably because of tectonic plate lift. And this could explain the primary mechanism by which we had the Medieval Warm Period and then the Little Ice Age.
An example is when the MOC (Meridional Overturning Circulation) moves far enough south, then the Arctic will cool again and glaciers will gain mass. This is because the heat in the Gulf Stream will be released before it gets to Europe.
It is helpful to remember that the Gulf Stream transports equatorial heat up into the northern hemisphere and the arctic region as well. And if the Gulf Stream is releasing more heat, the laws of thermodynamics states that it will move to a cold area like the arctic. And the arctic is warming faster than places at lower latitudes.

I am not at all sure about this line of enquiry if you will permit me to explain.
The Ocean absorbs and circulates solar heat-energy with great local variability, but emits IR leading to global equilibrium regardless of any and all heat transport occurring within its system. It is the overall net effect which is the planetary determinant not any localised or subsidiary perturbations. The mediaeval warm period can be taken to be just the most recent previous high in our cycle of inter-glacial temperature peaks and troughs.
Here is the chart I refer to and which was accepted until it turned out to block the ambitions of the IPCC to turn the species on itself; and away from its preoccupations with the cruelties of corrupt power: and was then made the subject of a game of political football and then ice-hockey being forced into the shape of a hockey stick at the end of the process in order to cancel the visualisation of the actual cooling context being exhibited on the more historic scale. This corrupting act was the one revealed by the leaking of the "Climategate" emails, now part of public amnesia courtesy of what can only be seen as the censorship of what, accordingly, must be a united mercenary media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

After we emerged; at breakneck speed: from the last glacial period a temperature maximum was reached around 7,500 years ago since when we have cooled; meaning today's temperatures are lower than this Holocene Maximum (HM): the graph has gone up and down thereafter as a result of alterations to net insolation - which is always fluctuating - so after the first post-HM cooling we get recoveries, including the Minoan warm period which maxed out below the HM then cooled following which we get others, such as the the Babylonian Warm period which fell short of the Minoan, then similarly the Roman Warm period at less than the Babylonian. Next is the Mediaeval warm period which maxed out below the Roman in which grapes were harvested further north than in mediaeval times - for instance. After falling off into the the little ice-age we get our contemporary warm period; due to the inevitable recovery: which seems to have maxed out and if so is below the mediaeval one when the Vikings farmed and harvested Barley in Greenland a thousand years ago - try doing that with standard barley today and you get the very concrete idea behind all this.
In my considered view we endanger our chances of understanding the big-picture in this way if we try to tackle the thing from the inside trapping ourselves in labyrinthine compexities - which are better simplified - in forcing ourselves to seek some kind of constructed explanation wrought from the workings of turbulence in our thermal circulatory systems. In truth they cannot guide us much beyond the discovery of reasons for systematic local climate variations - if even that. They are convection systems at the end of the day - robbing Peter of heat in order to warm Paul if you see what I mean.
When entering a labyrinth always attach a thread to the portal and unreel it as you go along, so you can always get out. The thread here is tied to a post at the entry on which is a sign bearing the legend "Remember the 2nd Law". It is the 2nd Law which guarantees overall equilibrium notwithsatnding the impoderable complexities of a turbulent circulatory system the following of which will take you on a journey with no end and to nowhere in this sense.
My advice - which I hope will be taken as well intended and sincere - is to remember that; faced with the current fear-mongering: only variations in net insolation can alter the equilibrium temperature of the Earth, or indeed any planet. Circulatory systems can only contribute to local differences - albeit over extended periods.

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

You outrank me in this, but I would say that circulatory systems are still a zero-sum game, by which I mean the heat energy comes from the sun and is not altered in amount by these systems (liquid or gas), but that they are all about divisions and concentrations of heat and their various transports to unpredictable destinations, but; turbulence notwithstanding: the total heat in the system - including the compressible atmosphere - is what the sun and gravity provide.
With the opening theory of this thread - which I am trying to establish as being knowledge by exposing it to scientific objection, (so feel free to have a rational pop at it any time, that can only assist) - I believe it is being shown that although certain frequencies of IR emission are intercepted by Greenhouse (misleading name) Gases (a process misleadingly called the GE) this does not have the claimed thermal consequence - the ATE - which is the simple result of atmospheric compression of heat transferred from the surface comfortably accounting for it and leaving nothing for the GE. This being so GGs in their entirety, let alone our measly contribution to them, are irrelevant to Global Warming.
Climate change is then shown to be by natural variation as it always has been, so we can get back to controlling real pollutants that poison things instead of the current torment of mankind by the high priests of the Human Climate Change religion restricting us and intimidating the gullible majority with the usual instrument of control - fear.

I am mindful of how much Europe is warming. And with the link I posted about oceanic circulation, it did mention that our oceans can both store and release heat content. Water is about 1,000 times denser than air. And we know that it's cooler when the wind is blowing.
And the reason for the Gulf Stream and the MOC slowing is probably because of tectonic plate lift. And this could explain the primary mechanism by which we had the Medieval Warm Period and then the Little Ice Age.
An example is when the MOC (Meridional Overturning Circulation) moves far enough south, then the Arctic will cool again and glaciers will gain mass. This is because the heat in the Gulf Stream will be released before it gets to Europe.
It is helpful to remember that the Gulf Stream transports equatorial heat up into the northern hemisphere and the arctic region as well. And if the Gulf Stream is releasing more heat, the laws of thermodynamics states that it will move to a cold area like the arctic. And the arctic is warming faster than places at lower latitudes.

I am not at all sure about this line of enquiry if you will permit me to explain.
The Ocean absorbs and circulates solar heat-energy with great local variability, but emits IR leading to global equilibrium regardless of any and all heat transport occurring within its system. It is the overall net effect which is the planetary determinant not any localised or subsidiary perturbations. The mediaeval warm period can be taken to be just the most recent previous high in our cycle of inter-glacial temperature peaks and troughs.
Here is the chart I refer to and which was accepted until it turned out to block the ambitions of the IPCC to turn the species on itself; and away from its preoccupations with the cruelties of corrupt power: and was then made the subject of a game of political football and then ice-hockey being forced into the shape of a hockey stick at the end of the process in order to cancel the visualisation of the actual cooling context being exhibited on the more historic scale. This corrupting act was the one revealed by the leaking of the "Climategate" emails, now part of public amnesia courtesy of what can only be seen as the censorship of what, accordingly, must be a united mercenary media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

After we emerged; at breakneck speed: from the last glacial period a temperature maximum was reached around 7,500 years ago since when we have cooled; meaning today's temperatures are lower than this Holocene Maximum (HM): the graph has gone up and down thereafter as a result of alterations to net insolation - which is always fluctuating - so after the first post-HM cooling we get recoveries, including the Minoan warm period which maxed out below the HM then cooled following which we get others, such as the the Babylonian Warm period which fell short of the Minoan, then similarly the Roman Warm period at less than the Babylonian. Next is the Mediaeval warm period which maxed out below the Roman in which grapes were harvested further north than in mediaeval times - for instance. After falling off into the the little ice-age we get our contemporary warm period; due to the inevitable recovery: which seems to have maxed out and if so is below the mediaeval one when the Vikings farmed and harvested Barley in Greenland a thousand years ago - try doing that with standard barley today and you get the very concrete idea behind all this.
In my considered view we endanger our chances of understanding the big-picture in this way if we try to tackle the thing from the inside trapping ourselves in labyrinthine compexities - which are better simplified - in forcing ourselves to seek some kind of constructed explanation wrought from the workings of turbulence in our thermal circulatory systems. In truth they cannot guide us much beyond the discovery of reasons for systematic local climate variations - if even that. They are convection systems at the end of the day - robbing Peter of heat in order to warm Paul if you see what I mean.
When entering a labyrinth always attach a thread to the portal and unreel it as you go along, so you can always get out. The thread here is tied to a post at the entry on which is a sign bearing the legend "Remember the 2nd Law". It is the 2nd Law which guarantees overall equilibrium notwithsatnding the impoderable complexities of a turbulent circulatory system the following of which will take you on a journey with no end and to nowhere in this sense.
My advice - which I hope will be taken as well intended and sincere - is to remember that; faced with the current fear-mongering: only variations in net insolation can alter the equilibrium temperature of the Earth, or indeed any planet. Circulatory systems can only contribute to local differences - albeit over extended periods.

You'll like this answer then.

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/3-phases-to-cc-d6-e3297.php#post_61371

p.s., When you say;
The thread here is tied to a post at the entry on which is a sign bearing the legend "Remember the 2nd Law". It is the 2nd Law which guarantees overall equilibrium notwithsatnding the impoderable complexities of a turbulent circulatory system the following of which will take you on a journey with no end and to nowhere in this sense.

Momentum can dictate thermodynamics. This link explains how the work done by a system. With the Gulf Stream, mass * distance = work. And when Time is considered, it shows the internal energy of the system, ie., 1/2mv^2 = KE.
And what this means is that as the Gulf Stream slows, it can't retain the heat it absorbs near the equator. And any stored energy will be released.
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-2/pages/3-3-first-law-of-thermodynamics

Pete Rogers wrote:

Thanks, but can you identify the part which contradicts the idea that there is no energy gain. The point being that the momentum is caused by insolation and whatever the thermal effects a surplus in one place is balanced by a defecit somewhere else where the heat energy was denied so to allow that surplus, meaning the balance is maintained. We must still be in the world of equilibrium temperatures whatever way the total heat energy contained in the oceans is mixed around mustn't we? Your comment would be appreciated.

Into the Night wrote:
James must be happy. He has someone to trade word salad with.

Into the Night wrote:
James must be happy. He has someone to trade word salad with.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
James must be happy. He has someone to trade word salad with.

And yet he still doesn't know that you guys don't like me because I'm an environmentalist. And on that note;

sus·tain·a·bil·i·ty
/səˌstānəˈbilədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: sustainability

the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level.
"the sustainability of economic growth"
avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
James must be happy. He has someone to trade word salad with.

And yet he still doesn't know that you guys don't like me because I'm an environmentalist. And on that note;

sus·tain·a·bil·i·ty
/səˌstānəˈbilədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: sustainability

the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level.
"the sustainability of economic growth"
avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance.

Word salad again. Define 'ecological balance'.

Into the Night wrote: Define 'ecological balance'.

GasGuzzler wrote:
What kind of dressing do you like on your word salad paradox?

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What kind of dressing do you like on your word salad paradox?

I always go for the thermodynamic dressing and leave the paradox to the numpties who not only think it possible for the base of the atmosphere in contact with the surface to be at different temperatures than it but consider it must be so!! Someone told me; perhaps it was you yourself - I don't remember: that you are one such numpty. Are they by any chance correct?

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What kind of dressing do you like on your word salad paradox?

I always go for the thermodynamic dressing and leave the paradox to the numpties who not only think it possible for the base of the atmosphere in contact with the surface to be at different temperatures than it but consider it must be so!! Someone told me; perhaps it was you yourself - I don't remember: that you are one such numpty. Are they by any chance correct?

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What kind of dressing do you like on your word salad paradox?

I always go for the thermodynamic dressing and leave the paradox to the numpties who not only think it possible for the base of the atmosphere in contact with the surface to be at different temperatures than it but consider it must be so!! Someone told me; perhaps it was you yourself - I don't remember: that you are one such numpty. Are they by any chance correct?

Nothing like a cool dip in a lake that's in contact with the hot air of the day.

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:... his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law of Thermodynamics,

You are saying that two differing temperatures violate the second law of thermodynamics when they come into contact?

Hmmmm. Is this what you mean by "thermal potency"?

.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:... his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law of Thermodynamics,

You are saying that two differing temperatures violate the second law of thermodynamics when they come into contact?

Hmmmm. Is this what you mean by "thermal potency"?

.

The thing that is the base of the atmosphere is the single molecule thick layer of gaseous material that is in contact with the single molecule thick layer of solid/liquid material that constitutes the planetary surface. Overall equilibrium - albeit to and fro - means these molecules; being in contact: must necessarily be at the same temperature or in breach of the 2nd Law - which is impossible.

Accordingly, either you do not know the requirements of the 2nd law as well as you think you do or you do not understand the particularity that defines the atmospheric base on the one hand and the planetary surface on the other or that they meet as layers of single molecules in contact and therefore have no alternative but to be at the same.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What kind of dressing do you like on your word salad paradox?

I always go for the thermodynamic dressing and leave the paradox to the numpties who not only think it possible for the base of the atmosphere in contact with the surface to be at different temperatures than it but consider it must be so!! Someone told me; perhaps it was you yourself - I don't remember: that you are one such numpty. Are they by any chance correct?

Nothing like a cool dip in a lake that's in contact with the hot air of the day.

You ever wonder why people like swimming in the Columbia River when it's 80º F./ or 26.7º C. more but not during the winter? I mean river temp in summer is 58º F./14.4º C. and in winter it's 55º F./12.7º C. Does a 3º F./1.7º C. water temp make that much difference?
And in climate news, the average summer temperature is much warmer but the water doesn't seem to warm much. And 93% of global warming heat is found in water. Wouldn't you think water would warm a bit more in summer since it's storing most of the heat of global warming?
This kind of gets into the Gulf Stream. Have swam in the Columbia River and have "sailed" (was on a freighter) on the Gulf Stream. And as ITN states, if you haven't been there then you can't know what it is.
And if we compare 2 different flows of water, why is one associated with heatwaves while the other isn't? Maybe ITN is right. Having been somewhere and understanding what's happening allows for a scientific comparison based on actual observation.
Of course, having lived in Norway am aware of how a flow of water can transport heat. And having lived in Washington state, I also know that water doesn't warm much during the summer. It's still cold.
Myself, I think this is overlooked when talking slight temperature variations over a few centuries on our planet.
Maybe if we go Asin47*solar constant for Seattle and the equator just go with the solar constant. Does the temperature difference between Seattle and the equator agree with this? Or does the w/m^2 at the equator equal that times Seattle's change in position relative to perpendicularity to the Sun?
This could actually be interesting guys. And once again we're back to;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qYF9DZPdw

because I wanta "ro

l" with ya'all.

p.s., from there we can consider things like how cold is it in the mountains where streams become rivers. Is it warmer away from streams? ie., water absorbs heat at higher elevations so it can't absorb it at lower elevations relative to it's change in velocity.
With Europe warming, how is that relative to the northern hemisphere between the equator and the arctic circle? Have average wind speeds increased?
Also has the ground temperature been monitored? This is on the surface and at depths of 1 foot or about ,3m for a depth of 10 to 20 measurements? If the ground is warming, is it because it is absorbing or emitting heat content?
Guys, we could have so muüuch fun with this.I just think that things like what I've mentioned have been ignored.
And with all this said, the coriolis effect is probably we have a thermohaline circulation. The Gulf Stream actually starts at the Cape of Good Hope. If the coriolis effect is slightly greater in the nrothern hemisphere then it's flow is accounted for by natural forces. It's path follows what the coriolis effect would cause.
And yes ITN, have been to both Australia and the African tectonic plate (Africa on water) so you might be right, again.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:... his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law of Thermodynamics,

You are saying that two differing temperatures violate the second law of thermodynamics when they come into contact?

Hmmmm. Is this what you mean by "thermal potency"?

.

The thing that is the base of the atmosphere is the single molecule thick layer of gaseous material that is in contact with the single molecule thick layer of solid/liquid material that constitutes the planetary surface.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly, either you do not know the requirements of the 2nd law

Pete Rogers wrote:
as well as you think you do or you do not understand the particularity that defines the atmospheric base on the one hand and the planetary surface on the other or that they meet as layers of single molecules in contact and therefore have no alternative but to be at the same temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The gaseous nature of the atmosphere means that convection starts from the base causing the obvious ascent of cooling gradients - thats all.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Hmmmm. That is not at all what I mean by "thermal potency" - how could it be and why do you ask?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:... his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law of Thermodynamics,

You are saying that two differing temperatures violate the second law of thermodynamics when they come into contact?

Hmmmm. Is this what you mean by "thermal potency"?

.

The thing that is the base of the atmosphere is the single molecule thick layer of gaseous material that is in contact with the single molecule thick layer of solid/liquid material that constitutes the planetary surface. Overall equilibrium - albeit to and fro - means these molecules; being in contact: must necessarily be at the same temperature or in breach of the 2nd Law - which is impossible.

Accordingly, either you do not know the requirements of the 2nd law as well as you think you do or you do not understand the particularity that defines the atmospheric base on the one hand and the planetary surface on the other or that they meet as layers of single molecules in contact and therefore have no alternative but to be at the same.

Hold up for a second there, Sparky.

Is the first "molecule thick layer" not in contact with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th... ?


How can you have "to and fro" and not be in violation of the 2nd LoT???

Pete Rogers wrote:
The liquid planet is much slower to warm than the solid. Compared to air or land, water is a slow conductor of heat. You know a kettle takes a while to warm, but if a finger comes in contact with similar heat, absorption is immediate - "ouch!". The difference is the latent delay between application of heat and acquisition of temperature when it comes to water and the larger the body of water the greater the latent delay. The latent delay of that vast body known as the ocean is at least 800 years, meaning that the warming oceans today are the end result of the latency of the mediaeval warm period and nothing to do with current conditions.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Furthermore - being fluid - the ocean convects heat towards cooler areas, tending to even things out a bit, so the sea is not so warm in summer necessarily.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The difference between day and night temperatures of air or solid objects is large and of the sea it is very small,

Pete Rogers wrote:
so on average the temperatures are not as different as we think when we happen to be lying on the beach, sunbathing, when we decide to do so.

Pete Rogers wrote:
When radiation hits your body you will soon want to cool off in the water

Pete Rogers wrote:
- whose temperature is little different in the daytime than it is at night (unlike the solid world)

Pete Rogers wrote:
- or head for shade where you will find the air tempeature is much less than that of solids being struck by UV. UV does not warm the air, that is done by conduction from the solid and liquid surface with which it is in contact.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The thing that is monitored is the air temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It must be monitored in the shade or the solid parts of the equipment would be heated by uv

Pete Rogers wrote:
giving a false reading and a reading that would differ depending on the material of which the thermometer was constructed.