GW Johnson wrote:Since the climate has been getting warm enough of late to cause desertification and sea level rise problems, it's clear we ought not do those things that make the problem worse!
Yes well this is the real trouble isn't it? there is no evidence that carbon emissions make the problem worse. If there were, we'd have a clear path ahead. there simply isn't such evidence. more than 20 years ago, environmental scientists ASSUMED hti was so based upon popular tripe and have always ever supported the notion. now we have evidence of the kinds of monkey-business they're involved in--professional "climate scientists" who regularly falsify data and deliberately misinterpret data, so they can continue to propagate this pathological science. They got caught, and yet people still think there is evidence the Earth is warming and we are causing it with carbon emissions.
Look, the Earth is not warming, and there is no evidence that if it were, this could possibly be caused by carbon emissions. That's the short of it, folks.
Ever hear of "Paul Ehrlich and the Population Bomb" ? It predicted DIRE consequences if we didn't stop people from having babies. That was over 40 years ago, and it's predictions turned out to be all bullshit.
GW Johnson wrote:Since the climate has been getting warm enough of late to cause desertification and sea level rise problems, it's clear we ought not do those things that make the problem worse!
Yes well this is the real trouble isn't it? there is no evidence that carbon emissions make the problem worse. If there were, we'd have a clear path ahead. there simply isn't such evidence. more than 20 years ago, environmental scientists ASSUMED hti was so based upon popular tripe and have always ever supported the notion. now we have evidence of the kinds of monkey-business they're involved in--professional "climate scientists" who regularly falsify data and deliberately misinterpret data, so they can continue to propagate this pathological science. They got caught, and yet people still think there is evidence the Earth is warming and we are causing it with carbon emissions.
Look, the Earth is not warming, and there is no evidence that if it were, this could possibly be caused by carbon emissions. That's the short of it, folks.
Ever hear of "Paul Ehrlich and the Population Bomb" ? It predicted DIRE consequences if we didn't stop people from having babies. That was over 40 years ago, and it's predictions turned out to be all bullshit.
For 25 years environmentalists have been arguing that the planet will undergo huge waves of starvation once we hit 8 billion people--that the planet cannot support more than that many humans. Well, when you go to look at how they arrived at that figure, you'll find all kinds of crazy assumptions. You can arrive at whatever figure you like, if you're willing to make assumptions, but that's not science. The trouble is that these last 20 years, the political climate has been such that scientists don't need to do science to get grants and prestige--they just have to parrot back the standard AGW talking points. In many circles you are ostracized if you don't. After many years I finally ended my subscription to New Scientist because they are so involved in this mindless assumption game. They portray the "climate change" position as the only reasonable position and their editorial board is ruthless in how they publish even notes to the editor. This stuff is ubiquitous.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
firstly, the second law of thermodynamics works across surfaces not volumes,
Uh. I looked at the link and in fact it says no such thing. Perhaps you have something better. Until then I will assume you have nothing and are just pulling stuff from.....
The reason I asked the question is that thermo (which I have studied in rather great detail) says no such thing. Other wise there would be no heading called:
Three-dimensional problem
in your link.
Now snow/ice accretion may be a two dimensional problem. But the second law? I don't think so.
I think what he may have been trying to say is that radiation is a function of surface area. This is true, but radiation is not going to be responsible for nearly as much heat flow in and out of the ice caps as say, conduction and convection with the oceans, so not so much an issue.
When you are considering the heat flow on and off the planet, radiation becomes your prime thermal transfer because the Earth is surrounded by vacuum. You cannot apply that to the ice caps.
i'm not talking about radiation (as in vacumm). take two pieces of ice. throw one against a wall so that it breaks into pieces. which melts quicker. how hard can that be to understand?
chrismb wrote:The thing I don't like about the whole deal is that, as an engineer I have asked to see what the actual atmospheric absorption looks like. A typical thing an engineers would ask for, but seemingly not something scientists would want to see.
Everyone is throwing plenty of 'science' and/or 'b*llshyte' at the theories for IR absorption, but the solution is simple - zap an IR laser up to space and back to earth, see what gets absorbed.
Until someone actually does that - and it is so simple if you really wanted to have that information, compared with any other approach - then I will take my own counsel on this. Once I see some actual IR absorption data for the atmosphere, then I'll take a view on it.
Anyone got any??.....
Chris, to get a real reading of absorption/albedo you can't use one frequency. You have to look at the entire spectrum, especially since high frequencies are absorbed and re-radiated as lower frequencies. It is pretty complex, but there are a handful of NASA sats on order to do the kinds of inquiry you're here suggesting. That data will be enlightening if once we have it, it is not reworked in the pseudo-scientific ways presently dominating climate science circles, especially including NASA.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
MSimon wrote:
All heat flow is a function of surface area. Are you saying that heat flow is slowed by reducing the surface area of the ice caps? The constant is the flow itself, so what you get with smaller surface area is larger temperature gradient--which essentially balances the heat flow. Means the caps will be colder, which is in fact why the ice is thickening.
Uh. I looked at the link and in fact it says no such thing. Perhaps you have something better. Until then I will assume you have nothing and are just pulling stuff from.....
The reason I asked the question is that thermo (which I have studied in rather great detail) says no such thing. Other wise there would be no heading called:
Three-dimensional problem
in your link.
Now snow/ice accretion may be a two dimensional problem. But the second law? I don't think so.
I think what he may have been trying to say is that radiation is a function of surface area. This is true, but radiation is not going to be responsible for nearly as much heat flow in and out of the ice caps as say, conduction and convection with the oceans, so not so much an issue.
When you are considering the heat flow on and off the planet, radiation becomes your prime thermal transfer because the Earth is surrounded by vacuum. You cannot apply that to the ice caps.
i'm not talking about radiation (as in vacumm). take two pieces of ice. throw one against a wall so that it breaks into pieces. which melts quicker. how hard can that be to understand?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:
Yes well this is the real trouble isn't it? there is no evidence that carbon emissions make the problem worse. If there were, we'd have a clear path ahead. there simply isn't such evidence. more than 20 years ago, environmental scientists ASSUMED hti was so based upon popular tripe and have always ever supported the notion. now we have evidence of the kinds of monkey-business they're involved in--professional "climate scientists" who regularly falsify data and deliberately misinterpret data, so they can continue to propagate this pathological science. They got caught, and yet people still think there is evidence the Earth is warming and we are causing it with carbon emissions.
Look, the Earth is not warming, and there is no evidence that if it were, this could possibly be caused by carbon emissions. That's the short of it, folks.
Ever hear of "Paul Ehrlich and the Population Bomb" ? It predicted DIRE consequences if we didn't stop people from having babies. That was over 40 years ago, and it's predictions turned out to be all bullshit.
For 25 years environmentalists have been arguing that the planet will undergo huge waves of starvation once we hit 8 billion people--that the planet cannot support more than that many humans. Well, when you go to look at how they arrived at that figure, you'll find all kinds of crazy assumptions. You can arrive at whatever figure you like, if you're willing to make assumptions, but that's not science. The trouble is that these last 20 years, the political climate has been such that scientists don't need to do science to get grants and prestige--they just have to parrot back the standard AGW talking points. In many circles you are ostracized if you don't. After many years I finally ended my subscription to New Scientist because they are so involved in this mindless assumption game. They portray the "climate change" position as the only reasonable position and their editorial board is ruthless in how they publish even notes to the editor. This stuff is ubiquitous.
I also used to have a subscription to New Scientist. I ended mine for their support of AGW and their hostility to religion. ( I am agnostic, but I see religion as a positive influence on mankind.)
Diogenes wrote: The answer is simple. Water is NOT a Net positive feedback effect. It is a Net NEGATIVE feedback effect.
Sorry, water VAPOR IS a net positive feed-back mechanism.
Thank providence that this is a multi-pase problem and water VAPOR turns into water DROPLETS which are a net negative mechanism.
Diogenes wrote: The answer is simple. Water is NOT a Net positive feedback effect. It is a Net NEGATIVE feedback effect.
Sorry, water VAPOR IS a net positive feed-back mechanism.
Thank providence that this is a multi-pase problem and water VAPOR turns into water DROPLETS which are a net negative mechanism.
GIThruster wrote:
I think what he may have been trying to say is that radiation is a function of surface area. This is true, but radiation is not going to be responsible for nearly as much heat flow in and out of the ice caps as say, conduction and convection with the oceans, so not so much an issue.
When you are considering the heat flow on and off the planet, radiation becomes your prime thermal transfer because the Earth is surrounded by vacuum. You cannot apply that to the ice caps.
i'm not talking about radiation (as in vacumm). take two pieces of ice. throw one against a wall so that it breaks into pieces. which melts quicker. how hard can that be to understand?
Diogenes wrote: The answer is simple. Water is NOT a Net positive feedback effect. It is a Net NEGATIVE feedback effect.
Sorry, water VAPOR IS a net positive feed-back mechanism.
Thank providence that this is a multi-pase problem and water VAPOR turns into water DROPLETS which are a net negative mechanism.
Okay, you got me on a lingual technicality.
Water in the air then.
you know you guys are both using the term positive feedback a little loosely here.
What on Earth have the heat equation and the divergence theorem got to do with the plausibility of an ice sheet putting on mass over the bulk of its upper surface while the edges break up? I'm afraid happyjack27 has produced not a straw man but a red herring...
93143 wrote:What on Earth have the heat equation and the divergence theorem got to do with the plausibility of an ice sheet putting on mass over the bulk of its upper surface while the edges break up? I'm afraid happyjack27 has produced not a straw man but a red herring...
Well who can blame him? Every time a piece of an ice shelf breaks off, we get video and people claiming this is AGW. How often does the media explain the ice itself is thickening and growing?
This is why politics has no place in science.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
