weather

[Old Rocks]

Well, folks, it is just weather.

The Russians have lost at least 20% of their grain crops, and it looks like they will lose a major portion of the winter wheat as well. Pakistan just had over 1 million acreas of crops destroyed by flooding. There is also extensive heat and flooding damage to crops in China. European crops, while not as badly affected as the Russian crops, still look to be down by 5% to 10%. Only Australia seems to have an increased potential for a better wheat crop, but only by 1 million tons.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This can only mean that the Magical Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster is off its low carb diet!

 

[Old Rocks]

Mindless derision from the mindless. But what else can one expect of the Krudesater.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is the exact same stupidity Chris posted.

I know you're a fan of Goebbels "Big Lie" but I assure you, your AGW nonsense WILL get shot down everytime you post it, no matter how many times you post it.

Again, if deminimus increases in CO2 are so powerful it should be no trouble at all for you to demonstrate that in a laboratory

Show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes ANY of the effect for which you give it credit.

I'm never going to stop asking you to prove it and you're never going to stop avoiding answer the challenge directly.

You Lose.

 

[westwall]

This is the exact same stupidity Chris posted.

I know you're a fan of Goebbels "Big Lie" but I assure you, your AGW nonsense WILL get shot down everytime you post it, no matter how many times you post it.

Again, if deminimus increases in CO2 are so powerful it should be no trouble at all for you to demonstrate that in a laboratory

Show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes ANY of the effect for which you give it credit.

I'm never going to stop asking you to prove it and you're never going to stop avoiding answer the challenge directly.

You Lose.

More importantly let them pump 500ppm, or 1000ppm (it honestly doesn't matter) more CO2 into the atmosphere then show us how you can get 101 units of energy when only 100 was put into the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says quite clearly for every interaction energy is lost. There are at least 6 interactions involved with the commensurate loss of energy with each one. So how does it get warmer with ever reducing energy?

 

[IanC]

This is the exact same stupidity Chris posted.

I know you're a fan of Goebbels "Big Lie" but I assure you, your AGW nonsense WILL get shot down everytime you post it, no matter how many times you post it.

Again, if deminimus increases in CO2 are so powerful it should be no trouble at all for you to demonstrate that in a laboratory

Show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes ANY of the effect for which you give it credit.

I'm never going to stop asking you to prove it and you're never going to stop avoiding answer the challenge directly.

You Lose.

More importantly let them pump 500ppm, or 1000ppm (it honestly doesn't matter) more CO2 into the atmosphere then show us how you can get 101 units of energy when only 100 was put into the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says quite clearly for every interaction energy is lost. There are at least 6 interactions involved with the commensurate loss of energy with each one. So how does it get warmer with ever reducing energy?

Now you appear to be doing what you accuse the alarmists of doing. Distorting truths into half truths and misdirecting. Energy can't be created or destroyed (but it can be changed into an equivilent) and the entropy of a system must go down. In this case the temp of the world depends on the heat sources in (primarily the sun) versus the heat sources out (primarily radiation escaping into outer space). Entropy is USABLE energy gradients. Swapping heat back and forth between molecules doesn't create or destroy energy but it does lessen entropy because all the molecule tend towards the same temperature. AGW says that feedback loops slow down the escape of radiation into space. That is not saying heat is magically created.

jus sayin

 

[westwall]

This is the exact same stupidity Chris posted.

I know you're a fan of Goebbels "Big Lie" but I assure you, your AGW nonsense WILL get shot down everytime you post it, no matter how many times you post it.

Again, if deminimus increases in CO2 are so powerful it should be no trouble at all for you to demonstrate that in a laboratory

Show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes ANY of the effect for which you give it credit.

I'm never going to stop asking you to prove it and you're never going to stop avoiding answer the challenge directly.

You Lose.

More importantly let them pump 500ppm, or 1000ppm (it honestly doesn't matter) more CO2 into the atmosphere then show us how you can get 101 units of energy when only 100 was put into the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says quite clearly for every interaction energy is lost. There are at least 6 interactions involved with the commensurate loss of energy with each one. So how does it get warmer with ever reducing energy?

Now you appear to be doing what you accuse the alarmists of doing. Distorting truths into half truths and misdirecting. Energy can't be created or destroyed (but it can be changed into an equivilent) and the entropy of a system must go down. In this case the temp of the world depends on the heat sources in (primarily the sun) versus the heat sources out (primarily radiation escaping into outer space). Entropy is USABLE energy gradients. Swapping heat back and forth between molecules doesn't create or destroy energy but it does lessen entropy because all the molecule tend towards the same temperature. AGW says that feedback loops slow down the escape of radiation into space. That is not saying heat is magically created.

jus sayin

Actually Ian that is EXACTLY what they are saying. I distorted nothing. Their basic premise is that when solar energy hits the Earth some of it, instead of being radiated away into space, is directed back to Earth thereby increasing the overall heat in the system. If the second Law of Thermodynamics holds to be true, and to the best of my knowledge it has so far withstood every test, then what they claim is physically impossible.
It violates that fundamental principle. I merely used a huge CO2 amount to show how the problems with their theory.

How is that hyperbole?

 

[IanC]

More importantly let them pump 500ppm, or 1000ppm (it honestly doesn't matter) more CO2 into the atmosphere then show us how you can get 101 units of energy when only 100 was put into the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says quite clearly for every interaction energy is lost. There are at least 6 interactions involved with the commensurate loss of energy with each one. So how does it get warmer with ever reducing energy?

Now you appear to be doing what you accuse the alarmists of doing. Distorting truths into half truths and misdirecting. Energy can't be created or destroyed (but it can be changed into an equivilent) and the entropy of a system must go down. In this case the temp of the world depends on the heat sources in (primarily the sun) versus the heat sources out (primarily radiation escaping into outer space). Entropy is USABLE energy gradients. Swapping heat back and forth between molecules doesn't create or destroy energy but it does lessen entropy because all the molecule tend towards the same temperature. AGW says that feedback loops slow down the escape of radiation into space. That is not saying heat is magically created.

jus sayin

Actually Ian that is EXACTLY what they are saying. I distorted nothing. Their basic premise is that when solar energy hits the Earth some of it, instead of being radiated away into space, is directed back to Earth thereby increasing the overall heat in the system. If the second Law of Thermodynamics holds to be true, and to the best of my knowledge it has so far withstood every test, then what they claim is physically impossible.
It violates that fundamental principle. I merely used a huge CO2 amount to show how the problems with their theory.

How is that hyperbole?

When a CO2 molecule absorbs IR it then turns around and gives off its own black body radiation, because the direction of the radiation is random some of it does return earthward. Overall the frequencies that CO2 absorbs are pretty quickly transformed into other frequencies but there is still an effect on how fast infrared energy escapes from the earth into space

Skeptics shouldn't be denying this effect: just its size and importance.

There are easy targets in the AGW case that should be pointed out. CO2 is constantly being released by warm tropical oceans and reabsorbed by colder ones. The vast amount of this churning totally overwhelms the amount we put into the air and effectively wipes out the exaggeration that CO2 stays in the atmosphere 600 years. The gradual warming of the oceans since the little ice age probably accounts for much of the increase in CO2. Eg- one of the reasons that the temp/CO2 increases have an 800 year lag time ( that Al Gore was so careful to disguise).

Anyways, I was just pointing out that your statement (as it is) could easily be taken as invoking fundemental physics laws where they were not applicible.

 

[westwall]

Now you appear to be doing what you accuse the alarmists of doing. Distorting truths into half truths and misdirecting. Energy can't be created or destroyed (but it can be changed into an equivilent) and the entropy of a system must go down. In this case the temp of the world depends on the heat sources in (primarily the sun) versus the heat sources out (primarily radiation escaping into outer space). Entropy is USABLE energy gradients. Swapping heat back and forth between molecules doesn't create or destroy energy but it does lessen entropy because all the molecule tend towards the same temperature. AGW says that feedback loops slow down the escape of radiation into space. That is not saying heat is magically created.

jus sayin

Actually Ian that is EXACTLY what they are saying. I distorted nothing. Their basic premise is that when solar energy hits the Earth some of it, instead of being radiated away into space, is directed back to Earth thereby increasing the overall heat in the system. If the second Law of Thermodynamics holds to be true, and to the best of my knowledge it has so far withstood every test, then what they claim is physically impossible.
It violates that fundamental principle. I merely used a huge CO2 amount to show how the problems with their theory.

How is that hyperbole?

When a CO2 molecule absorbs IR it then turns around and gives off its own black body radiation, because the direction of the radiation is random some of it does return earthward. Overall the frequencies that CO2 absorbs are pretty quickly transformed into other frequencies but there is still an effect on how fast infrared energy escapes from the earth into space

Skeptics shouldn't be denying this effect: just its size and importance.

There are easy targets in the AGW case that should be pointed out. CO2 is constantly being released by warm tropical oceans and reabsorbed by colder ones. The vast amount of this churning totally overwhelms the amount we put into the air and effectively wipes out the exaggeration that CO2 stays in the atmosphere 600 years. The gradual warming of the oceans since the little ice age probably accounts for much of the increase in CO2. Eg- one of the reasons that the temp/CO2 increases have an 800 year lag time ( that Al Gore was so careful to disguise).

Anyways, I was just pointing out that your statement (as it is) could easily be taken as invoking fundemental physics laws where they were not applicible.

Hello Ian,

The last time I checked the laws of physics are allways applicable. They don't just stop working. CO2 does absorb IR radiation (in the 14.5 micron wavelength) and this makes it possible for the CO2 to interfere with the long wavelength radiation emitted from the Earth back to space. However H2O does the exact same thing over a much broader spectrum (including the 14.5 micron wavelength) and as it constitutes 95% of all GHG's the possible effect (if any) of CO2 is lost in the background of water vapor.

Another problem with any CO2 GHG effect is the Beer-Lambert Law of radiative absorbtion
which basically says the absorbtive value of a given wavelength decays on a logarithmic basis. Thus while the first 20ppm of CO2 might have an effect the remaining 300 or 500ppm will have a miniscule effect.

Add to this the fact that the CO2 concentrations rise 800 or so years after the warming has been initiated and one can very easily hypothesize that the CO2 rise we see today is the effect of the MWP which coincidentally occured about 800 years ago.

Finally the alarmists love to hype the "acidification" of the oceans due to CO2 abundance. The very real problem with this little hypothesis is the fact that when corals were evolving the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were on the order of 8000ppm as opposed to the 390ppm or so we see today. That is an excellent example of the Beer-Lambert Law in action.

 

[IanC]

This is the exact same stupidity Chris posted.

I know you're a fan of Goebbels "Big Lie" but I assure you, your AGW nonsense WILL get shot down everytime you post it, no matter how many times you post it.

Again, if deminimus increases in CO2 are so powerful it should be no trouble at all for you to demonstrate that in a laboratory

Show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes ANY of the effect for which you give it credit.

I'm never going to stop asking you to prove it and you're never going to stop avoiding answer the challenge directly.

You Lose.

More importantly let them pump 500ppm, or 1000ppm (it honestly doesn't matter) more CO2 into the atmosphere then show us how you can get 101 units of energy when only 100 was put into the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says quite clearly for every interaction energy is lost. There are at least 6 interactions involved with the commensurate loss of energy with each one. So how does it get warmer with ever reducing energy?

the first law says energy cannot be lost or created. that is the law relevent to your first sentence.

the second law states that entropy must increase overall in a system. your second sentence is incorrect.

your third sentence is an appeal to authority (incorrectly stated) because there is no energy lost. perhaps you meant that the wavelength was getting longer on average because of entropy but I don't know because it was poorly stated.

your fourth sentence implies that the person you are rebutting has made a logical error or a mistake in reasoning but your previous statements are so messed up that it makes no sense.

I'm sorry but I hold people, who's knowledge and opinion I respect, to a higher standard than some idiot that just regurgitates talking points without understanding them. You were off track and I thought you'd like to be told.

BTW, I think I misspoke earlier on entropy. more entropy means less information/gradient, I said lessen but I meant increase.

 

[IanC]

Actually Ian that is EXACTLY what they are saying. I distorted nothing. Their basic premise is that when solar energy hits the Earth some of it, instead of being radiated away into space, is directed back to Earth thereby increasing the overall heat in the system. If the second Law of Thermodynamics holds to be true, and to the best of my knowledge it has so far withstood every test, then what they claim is physically impossible.
It violates that fundamental principle. I merely used a huge CO2 amount to show how the problems with their theory.

How is that hyperbole?

When a CO2 molecule absorbs IR it then turns around and gives off its own black body radiation, because the direction of the radiation is random some of it does return earthward. Overall the frequencies that CO2 absorbs are pretty quickly transformed into other frequencies but there is still an effect on how fast infrared energy escapes from the earth into space

Skeptics shouldn't be denying this effect: just its size and importance.

There are easy targets in the AGW case that should be pointed out. CO2 is constantly being released by warm tropical oceans and reabsorbed by colder ones. The vast amount of this churning totally overwhelms the amount we put into the air and effectively wipes out the exaggeration that CO2 stays in the atmosphere 600 years. The gradual warming of the oceans since the little ice age probably accounts for much of the increase in CO2. Eg- one of the reasons that the temp/CO2 increases have an 800 year lag time ( that Al Gore was so careful to disguise).

Anyways, I was just pointing out that your statement (as it is) could easily be taken as invoking fundemental physics laws where they were not applicible.

Hello Ian,

The last time I checked the laws of physics are allways applicable. They don't just stop working. CO2 does absorb IR radiation (in the 14.5 micron wavelength) and this makes it possible for the CO2 to interfere with the long wavelength radiation emitted from the Earth back to space. However H2O does the exact same thing over a much broader spectrum (including the 14.5 micron wavelength) and as it constitutes 95% of all GHG's the possible effect (if any) of CO2 is lost in the background of water vapor.

Another problem with any CO2 GHG effect is the Beer-Lambert Law of radiative absorbtion
which basically says the absorbtive value of a given wavelength decays on a logarithmic basis. Thus while the first 20ppm of CO2 might have an effect the remaining 300 or 500ppm will have a miniscule effect.

Add to this the fact that the CO2 concentrations rise 800 or so years after the warming has been initiated and one can very easily hypothesize that the CO2 rise we see today is the effect of the MWP which coincidentally occured about 800 years ago.

Finally the alarmists love to hype the "acidification" of the oceans due to CO2 abundance. The very real problem with this little hypothesis is the fact that when corals were evolving the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were on the order of 8000ppm as opposed to the 390ppm or so we see today. That is an excellent example of the Beer-Lambert Law in action.

the laws of physics are always in effect but specific laws are not always applicable to the situation.

the 15 micron shoulder is specific to CO2, the other two peaks for CO2 are the ones that are swamped by H2O.

I agree with you that the oceans are a huge vault for both heat and CO2. I think the Alarmists are too captivated by their pet atmospheric CO2 theories to find the real drivers, the sun and the oceans.

 

[westwall]

This is the exact same stupidity Chris posted.

I know you're a fan of Goebbels "Big Lie" but I assure you, your AGW nonsense WILL get shot down everytime you post it, no matter how many times you post it.

Again, if deminimus increases in CO2 are so powerful it should be no trouble at all for you to demonstrate that in a laboratory

Show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes ANY of the effect for which you give it credit.

I'm never going to stop asking you to prove it and you're never going to stop avoiding answer the challenge directly.

You Lose.

More importantly let them pump 500ppm, or 1000ppm (it honestly doesn't matter) more CO2 into the atmosphere then show us how you can get 101 units of energy when only 100 was put into the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says quite clearly for every interaction energy is lost. There are at least 6 interactions involved with the commensurate loss of energy with each one. So how does it get warmer with ever reducing energy?

the first law says energy cannot be lost or created. that is the law relevent to your first sentence.

the second law states that entropy must increase overall in a system. your second sentence is incorrect.

your third sentence is an appeal to authority (incorrectly stated) because there is no energy lost. perhaps you meant that the wavelength was getting longer on average because of entropy but I don't know because it was poorly stated.

your fourth sentence implies that the person you are rebutting has made a logical error or a mistake in reasoning but your previous statements are so messed up that it makes no sense.

I'm sorry but I hold people, who's knowledge and opinion I respect, to a higher standard than some idiot that just regurgitates talking points without understanding them. You were off track and I thought you'd like to be told.

BTW, I think I misspoke earlier on entropy. more entropy means less information/gradient, I said lessen but I meant increase.

Here is a brief overview of the 2nd Law.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

More entropy means overall less energy.

 

[Douger]

Well, folks, it is just weather.

The Russians have lost at least 20% of their grain crops, and it looks like they will lose a major portion of the winter wheat as well. Pakistan just had over 1 million acreas of crops destroyed by flooding. There is also extensive heat and flooding damage to crops in China. European crops, while not as badly affected as the Russian crops, still look to be down by 5% to 10%. Only Australia seems to have an increased potential for a better wheat crop, but only by 1 million tons.

Expand your mind.
Research the cold that just happened in South America.
Look at your own movie.
You will see food prices rocket like never before.
Get ready !
2 AM. I need to check on my greenhouse to make sure the fans are running

 

[IanC]

More importantly let them pump 500ppm, or 1000ppm (it honestly doesn't matter) more CO2 into the atmosphere then show us how you can get 101 units of energy when only 100 was put into the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says quite clearly for every interaction energy is lost. There are at least 6 interactions involved with the commensurate loss of energy with each one. So how does it get warmer with ever reducing energy?

the first law says energy cannot be lost or created. that is the law relevant to your first sentence.

the second law states that entropy must increase overall in a system. your second sentence is incorrect.

your third sentence is an appeal to authority (incorrectly stated) because there is no energy lost. perhaps you meant that the wavelength was getting longer on average because of entropy but I don't know because it was poorly stated.

your fourth sentence implies that the person you are rebutting has made a logical error or a mistake in reasoning but your previous statements are so messed up that it makes no sense.

I'm sorry but I hold people, who's knowledge and opinion I respect, to a higher standard than some idiot that just regurgitates talking points without understanding them. You were off track and I thought you'd like to be told.

BTW, I think I misspoke earlier on entropy. more entropy means less information/gradient, I said lessen but I meant increase.

Here is a brief overview of the 2nd Law.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

More entropy means overall less energy.

<Furrowed brow and increasing concern about the competency assigned to West via accrued reasonable posts>

Either you have a fundamental flaw in your understanding of physics or you are more concerned with appearing to be right than actually being truthful.

If you add one cup of water at
1C to one cup of water at 99C, you get two cups of water at 50C. There has been no energy lost. You have lost entropy, and there is a fundamental difference between the two that you seem misunderstand or just refuse to acknowledge.


More entropy means less usable energy gradients that can be used to produce change in one locality at the expense of a different one. No energy is created or destroyed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, folks, it is just weather.

The Russians have lost at least 20% of their grain crops, and it looks like they will lose a major portion of the winter wheat as well. Pakistan just had over 1 million acreas of crops destroyed by flooding. There is also extensive heat and flooding damage to crops in China. European crops, while not as badly affected as the Russian crops, still look to be down by 5% to 10%. Only Australia seems to have an increased potential for a better wheat crop, but only by 1 million tons.

you dope..........go google America - drought - 1930's - great plains..................asshat.

Last I checked, they're doing just fine.


But indded you hit the nail on the head............its weather!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

These environmentalists....................

They LIVE for events that are near catastrophy...........so they can get all hysterical and find a corresponding weather pattern.

Notice however that they are DEAD SILENT when the world goes into deep freeze???!!! An obvious non-story..............obviously!!!

Just last month, they were SKIIING in California!!!!

SKIING for Christsakes!!!!!!!!!![/B]

Never in the history of that mountain in Northern California had the mountain been open that late into the summer!!!


Conveniently ignored by the k00ks however!!!!






But these hysterical asshats will be right there at the fore posting up the next weather anomoly............and dollar to a dozen stale donuts it'll be one of the handful of environmentalist hysterics to have a meltdown!!!!!

Why?

Because these people can be relevant in the world via this crap.............like the traditional Italian family that must live thier lives in a state of perpetual angst, so too must the environmental whack jobs of this forum, live in perpetual angst over weather anomolies.


Trust me...........OCD has thousands of ways in presenting itself!!!

 

[Mr. H.]

The world goes hungry while the U.S. diverts 20% of its corn crop to make ethanol.

 

[Liberty]

Someone call al gore!!!

 

[konradv]

These environmentalists....................

They LIVE for events that are near catastrophy...........so they can get all hysterical and find a corresponding weather pattern.

Notice however that they are DEAD SILENT when the world goes into deep freeze???!!! An obvious non-story..............obviously!!!

Just last month, they were SKIIING in California!!!!

SKIING for Christsakes!!!!!!!!!![/B]

Never in the history of that mountain in Northern California had the mountain been open that late into the summer!!!


Conveniently ignored by the k00ks however!!!!






But these hysterical asshats will be right there at the fore posting up the next weather anomoly............and dollar to a dozen stale donuts it'll be one of the handful of environmentalist hysterics to have a meltdown!!!!!

Why?

Because these people can be relevant in the world via this crap.............like the traditional Italian family that must live thier lives in a state of perpetual angst, so too must the environmental whack jobs of this forum, live in perpetual angst over weather anomolies.


Trust me...........OCD has thousands of ways in presenting itself!!!

LOL!!! Where were you when I was golfing in Jan. year before last?!?! Seems YOU were deadly silent back then.

 

[westwall]

These environmentalists....................

They LIVE for events that are near catastrophy...........so they can get all hysterical and find a corresponding weather pattern.

Notice however that they are DEAD SILENT when the world goes into deep freeze???!!! An obvious non-story..............obviously!!!

Just last month, they were SKIIING in California!!!!

SKIING for Christsakes!!!!!!!!!![/B]

Never in the history of that mountain in Northern California had the mountain been open that late into the summer!!!


Conveniently ignored by the k00ks however!!!!






But these hysterical asshats will be right there at the fore posting up the next weather anomoly............and dollar to a dozen stale donuts it'll be one of the handful of environmentalist hysterics to have a meltdown!!!!!

Why?

Because these people can be relevant in the world via this crap.............like the traditional Italian family that must live thier lives in a state of perpetual angst, so too must the environmental whack jobs of this forum, live in perpetual angst over weather anomolies.


Trust me...........OCD has thousands of ways in presenting itself!!!

LOL!!! Where were you when I was golfing in Jan. year before last?!?! Seems YOU were deadly silent back then.

You weren't golfing in the northeast or Europe or the UK though were you I certainly wasn't golfing here...it was too damn cold!