Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 7 of 9<<<56789>
08-09-2020 18:05
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
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?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
08-09-2020 19:18
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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. The Second Law says they are at the same temperature. The nature of gas is that as pressure lessens, so does temperature so convection occurs. It makes no difference to the 2nd Law requirement for equality of temperature with the surface at the base.

Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?
08-09-2020 20:08
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
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?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
08-09-2020 20:41
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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?


Conduction proceeds sideways as well as upwards and downwards in accordance only with the second Law and convection from warmer ground brings warmer breezes to help the melt also by the 2nd law at the contact surface. All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development.
08-09-2020 20:49
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
What kind of dressing do you like on your word salad paradox?
08-09-2020 21:04
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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.
08-09-2020 21:07
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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.

.


Presumably Duncan61 believes my point that there is indubitably an ATE and that it is the result of Gravity distorting the atmosphere thereby accomplishing negative work to provide the energy, not any GE. Before you give us your string of unsupported allegations that I predict would say no more than that this is drivel - without providing substance for that claim - please remember that you have first to explain why it is that whilst we all speak for ourselves and no-one else - according to your insistence - you are different and a special case of human in that you speak for everyone who believes in the GE and are accordingly able to tell us from your direct knowledge that the beliefs of each are different and tailor made. Get past that and we can listen to you otherwise, but not before and then only if you explain yourself. Science is what we are supposed to be doing - remember?
09-09-2020 01:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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.

Just because two materials are in contact with each other doesn't mean they are the same temperature. Example: warm hand holding an ice cube.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Second Law says they are at the same temperature.

WRONG. That is NOT the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the warmer material will cool and the cooler material will warm, tending towards the same temperature. It does NOT state they ARE the same temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The nature of gas is that as pressure lessens, so does temperature

Static pressure is not changing pressure. Redefinition fallacyl
Pete Rogers wrote:
so convection occurs.

WRONG. Convection occurs in all fluids.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It makes no difference to the 2nd Law requirement for equality of temperature with the surface at the base.

There is no 2nd law requirement for equality of temperature. The 2nd law states:
e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-09-2020 02:25
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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.
3/2kT is the kinetic energy at 1 1/2atm where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is temperature in kelvins.
This is where 3/2kT/n is where the temperature of 1 mol is divided by Avagrado's number which is the heat per molecule.
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?

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.

Edited on 09-09-2020 02:35
09-09-2020 08:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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.
Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Done. It is defined as a result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
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?
You do not get to declare 'the standard'. Heat is defined as a result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
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.


Avogadro, and this word salad means nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-09-2020 13:53
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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.
09-09-2020 17:37
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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.



@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.

Edited on 09-09-2020 17:51
09-09-2020 20:15
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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.
09-09-2020 20:28
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
Earthquakes 4.5 magnitude or greater around Greenland in a 10 year period. They went from 57 to 923.

from 60 to 70 years ago.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=20.30342,-178.24219&extent=84.9901,103.00781&range=search&timeZone=utc&search=%7B%22name%22:%22Search%20Results%22,%22params%22:%7B%22starttime%22:%221950-09-02%2000:00:00%22,%22endtime%22:%221960-09-09%2023:59:59%22,%22maxlatitude%22:84.99,%22minlatitude%22:50.595,%22maxlongitude%22:16.172,%22minlongitude%22:-91.406,%22minmagnitude%22:4.5,%22orderby%22:%22time%22%7D%7D

earthquakes over the last 10 years;
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=20.30342,-178.24219&extent=84.9901,103.00781&range=search&timeZone=utc&search=%7B%22name%22:%22Search%20Results%22,%22params%22:%7B%22starttime%22:%222010-09-02%2000:00:00%22,%22endtime%22:%222020-09-09%2023:59:59%22,%22maxlatitude%22:84.99,%22minlatitude%22:50.595,%22maxlongitude%22:16.172,%22minlongitude%22:-91.406,%22minmagnitude%22:4.5,%22orderby%22:%22time%22%7D%7D

@Pete, the area where CO2 most likely would be an issue is by causing an increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the #1 GHG. As for the earthquakes, most likely caused by tectonic plate lift related to glacial melt.
So when the guys in here say that there is nothing that shows our planet is experiencing warming in the northern hemisphere, the increase in earthquakes is a strong indicator.
09-09-2020 20:40
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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.
Edited on 09-09-2020 20:46
10-09-2020 00:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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.

Science is not an examination. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight - look at the ice-age cycles versus temperature.

The temperature of Earth is unknown. It was never known.
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.

What about the expanding glaciers?
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.

It can cause ice to melt though.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Gases alone can have their temperatures increased by weight gain

There is no weight gain in the atmosphere. Static pressure is not dynamic pressure.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and even this is denied by the likes of IBdaMann and ITN,

Lie. You are conflating static pressure with dynamic pressure.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but not yourself perhaps - unless you are he.

Yet another lame sock accusation (YALSA).
Pete Rogers wrote:
Their problem is that they proceed from assumptions without authenticating them first;

Theories of science exist. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just discard them.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but never ever review them in the light of information that conflicts with them

There isn't any.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- they are instead regarded as axioms which was proudly admitted and defended as a virtulous act

They are not axioms. They are theories of science which you simply discard and deny.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- thus awarding themselves the infallibility due to religion. Don't make the same mistake, always be open-minded.

Open minded does not mean just discarding science. It is YOU that is not open minded. Inversion fallacy.
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.

Actually, putting pressure on ice causes it melt. Not because of increasing temperatures, but because of the peculiar characteristics of water.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2020 00:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Define 'greenhouse gas'. There is no such thing as ATE.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2020 10:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
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

I was directing it towards you and not to other unnamed scientists. You don't know this. You mocked my nonacceptance of your WACKY religious beliefs. You need definitely need a refresher course in science fundamentals.

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

Nope. It is for you to support your WACKY claims of ATE and you have not done that. Ergo, your WACKY claims are dismissed.


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,

Nope. While you are reviewing science fundamentals take a refresher on English vocabulary.

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

Nope. Your objection was that I continue to doubt your WACKY religious claims instead of immediately and obediently falling in line without question.

Did I mention that your religion is WACKY?

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.

Your projection is excellent but you now need to begin supporting your WACKY claims of ATE.

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

No experiment has ever replicated Jesus' removal of original sin.

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

Your empty term "thermal potency." Does it affect the emissivity of the fruimous Bandersnatch as the Norwegian Jet Stream carries it through the ozone hole? I have a standing bet with GasGuzzler over this. He claims that my claims are a bunch of hooey but you and I both know that he never took your "thermal potency" into consideration.

GasGuzzler's going down. It will be glorious ... unless your "thermal potency" turns out to be a bunch of hooey, that is ... but you and I both know that it's totally thettled thienth! Totally.

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?

"Thermal potency" is your term.

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.

Surely GasGuzzler is going down!

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,
Nothing inanimate can either care or not care, so that is an incorrect statement.[/quote]
Incorrect. All inanimate objects "don't care."

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.

... because it has thermal potency ... and maybe even a fruimous Bandersnatch, yes?

Pete Rogers wrote: Looking at it epistemologically ...

How about you just read it?

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."


Nope. The MANUAL:

Heat Content: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat content" is a powerful obfuscation of the term "heat." Whereas "heat" can shift between meaning "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient, the term "heat content" can refer to multiple terms at the same time, greatly minimizing the warmizombie's need to backpedal when questioned about his argument's semantics.

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

I need a definition, not an allegory. There is no such thing in reality as a negative force or a negative distance ergo there is no way to even manufacture negative work so either define it or drop it.

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.

What you are describing would increase pressure but reduce current, thus reducing the overall flow.

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

Pointing out your errors do not involve accompanying proofs.

If you want to use Stefan-Boltzmann, you have to use it correctly.

Pete Rogers wrote: I have dealt with this paper.

Nope. You haven't addressed it at all.


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.

Does anything about your statement strike you as a little off?

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.

OK. Now I know what you think you mean.

You have the wrong force. Gravity is not the force in question. Would you care to guess what the correct one is?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-09-2020 10:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
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"?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-09-2020 16:03
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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.
10-09-2020 16:23
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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
Edited on 10-09-2020 16:49
10-09-2020 19:02
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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

Thanks. If you recall the argument that initiates this thread you will see that - unless it be overthrown - CO2 has no effect on Global Warming.
We seem to be in a phase of political truth rather than logical truth, however. What happens with politcal truth is that someone comes along with a doozie of a scare and the Politicians react. It doesn't matter to the politician whether the thing is true or false provided people are moved by it. When this happens there is a vacancy for a shepherd to lead the flock to safety and because a huge landslide majority go along with what they are told; particularly if it is scary: everyone will line up behind him to be on the safe side and start bleating. The politician commissions experts to support his position, some of whom have learned that you don't get a second bite at the cherry if you shoot the plan of the man who holds the purse strings down in flames, so the finding - which will be forced down our throats as the epitome of science - will resonate with the political need and be trumpeted by a tame media as our only hope of salvation. By the time those people who know all about this disgraceful method; of frightening the gullible many as the means to power: find the truth out and try to reveal it, it is too late. They are branded as Conspiracy theorists or irresponsible nobodies capable of endangering mankid with their recklessness. Hans Christian Andersson wrote "The Emperor's New Clothes" as the antidote. We really enjoy that story about how honesty exposes the conceit of power without realising that in world beyond our front doors the story ends with all the little boys being shot or imprisoned, and exactly the same for any Toto the dogs . Look at Manning an Assange as just 2 examples. Their manifold exposees included countless horrors, including the soldier who tortured the 6 year old to death with an electric drill - all vanished from the mind of the flock.
This is the Ancient technique used by Oligarchs, Pension Salesmen, Mafiosi and many more besides "Find them, frighten them, solve their problem"
Here is how it worked 80 Years ago.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)"

Covid 19 strikes me as another cock and bull story too because so many non-government epidemiologists say the same important things against it.

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
[/quote]

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.
10-09-2020 20:56
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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.



With thermodynamics, if the Gulf Stream slows, then it's KE = Q - W. If it is accelerating, then it is KE = Q + W. This changes how much energy it can store.
The Earth's orbit is becoming more elliptical. And according to Milankovitch, this is when the planet cools, right? I was just checking out the Earth's solar position over the last 120 years and I remembered something. I'm glad that you reminded me but I'm not able to mention it at this time. I do have my own goals that I'm pursuing and this is a debate I don't need to win.



When you read this, our planet should be getting cooler but it isn't. Incoming solar IR is actually decreasing.

"When the Earth's orbit is more elliptical, the planet spends more time farther away from the sun, and the Earth gets less sunlight over the course of the year. These periods of more-elliptical orbits are separated by about 100,000 years. Ice ages occur about every 100,000 years, and they line up exactly with this change in the Earth's elliptical shape."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080213113037.htm
10-09-2020 22:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
James must be happy. He has someone to trade word salad with.
10-09-2020 23:02
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
Into the Night wrote:
James must be happy. He has someone to trade word salad with.

Indeed!

Better Pete than you or I...
10-09-2020 23:13
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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.
11-09-2020 01:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-09-2020 02:38
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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'.



It's when you exercise your morning constitution. You don't shat, there is no "balance".
11-09-2020 04:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
Into the Night wrote: Define 'ecological balance'.


It means getting a proper variety of meats, fruits and vegetables in your diet.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-09-2020 15:47
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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?
11-09-2020 19:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
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?


Daytime: The bottom of the daytime atmosphere is of a lower temperature than the solid surface and thus the solid surface acts to heat the atmosphere and the atmosphere acts to cool the solid surface. The moon's daytime solid surface has no atmosphere to cool it.

Nighttime: The bottom of the nighttime atmosphere is of a higher temperature than the solid surface and thus the solid surface acts to cool the atmosphere and the atmosphere acts to heat the solid surface. The moon's nighttime solid surface has no atmosphere to heat it.

Let me know if you have any questions.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-09-2020 07:25
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
In the Australian outback the sand can get so hot it will burn the skin off your feet but the air temperature is no where near that.Pete are you trying to claim that the surface and air temperature are the same.Over the ocean is even more dramatic the air temperature can be over 50.C but the sea is still at 25.C
12-09-2020 10:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-09-2020 03:39
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
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.
Edited on 13-09-2020 04:00
13-09-2020 17:38
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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 temperature.

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

Hmmmm. That is not at all what I mean by "thermal potency" - how could it be and why do you ask?
13-09-2020 18:02
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
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???


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
13-09-2020 18:29
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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.

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.

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

When radiation hits your body you will soon want to cool off in the water - whose temperature is little different in the daytime than it is at night (unlike the solid world) - 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.

The thing that is monitored is the air temperature. It must be monitored in the shade or the solid parts of the equipment would be heated by uv giving a false reading and a reading that would differ depending on the material of which the thermometer was constructed.
13-09-2020 19:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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.

Sorry. You can't separate out individual molecules like that. That's ignoring Kirchoff's law and the definition of temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly, either you do not know the requirements of the 2nd law

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >-= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. This law applies to any given (closed) system. It also defines 'heat' and what it means. It also defines the direction of heat. There is no requirement that there is no heat.
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.

Ignoring Kirchoff's law again, the nature of gasses, and the zeroth law of thermodynamics, which gives the concept of temperature. You are denying science.
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.

No need for gasses for convection to occur. Convection occurs in all fluids, including gasses.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Hmmmm. That is not at all what I mean by "thermal potency" - how could it be and why do you ask?

Because you keep using this buzzword. Define 'thermal potency'.


No argument presented. Denial of science. Buzzwords. Redefinitions.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-09-2020 19:37
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
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???

These are fair questions and deserve proper answers.

First we are in the world of fluid dynamics, remember, so the contact molecules keep changing by convection, but the common contact temperature is maintained at the equilibrium dictated by prevailing circumstances because of the 2nd Law. There are no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th... ? layers sitting waiting for contact, but if there were - say by chance - they would still convect. The higher you go the cooler it gets because of pressure reduction.

Second, every time a system input changes by variation in insolation - even by no more than a passing cloud - the system at the surface adjusts jointly to the new equilibrium dictated by the new circumstance. That's all I mean by "to and fro" and it happens continuously because of the 2nd Law - not despite it.
13-09-2020 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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.

There is no such thing as 'latent delay'. There is no delay of any kind in heating water. It just takes more heat to make a gram of water change by 1 degree than dirt. You are making up numbers. There is no 800 years before ocean water can change temperature. There is zero.
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.

Okay. Go for a swim in the ocean at a Gulf state such as Florida, then go for a swim in the Bering Sea. Let's see you show how these are the same temperature of water.
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,

Did you know there's ice at the poles and not at the equator in the ocean?
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.

Anything from less than 30 deg F to some 95 deg F.
Pete Rogers wrote:
When radiation hits your body you will soon want to cool off in the water

Depends on the radiation. You might want to see a doctor instead, especially one skilled in nuclear radiation sickness or possibly a sunburn specialist.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- whose temperature is little different in the daytime than it is at night (unlike the solid world)

Ocean water can and does change temperature considerably from day to night.
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.

UV light does not result in thermal energy upon absorption. It does not heat anything. UV light results in conversion to chemical energy or even direct ionization up on absorption.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The thing that is monitored is the air temperature.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or it's atmosphere.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It must be monitored in the shade or the solid parts of the equipment would be heated by uv

UV doesn't heat anything. Visible light doesn't heat any thing. You need infrared for that. Most of the light from the Sun is infrared.
Pete Rogers wrote:
giving a false reading and a reading that would differ depending on the material of which the thermometer was constructed.

The material of which the thermometer is constructed does not change what the thermometer reads. Mercury thermometers, alcohol thermometers (such as you find in garden stores and home centers), and bimetallic thermometers (such as you find in older thermostats), wax thermometers (such as you find in automotive thermostats), an thermocouples (such as you find in jet engines), and electronic thermosensors all record on common temperature scales. They can all be read as Fahrenheit, Celcius, or Kelvin scales. They will all read the same temperature on those scales (assuming the device is built to measure that particular temperature range).

Thermometers are used to measure air temperature. Ships at sea and many buoys also measure ocean water temperature.

But there are not enough thermometers to measure a global temperature.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 7 of 9<<<56789>





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact