2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[edthecynic]

wirebender, you are just as crazed as the CAGW true believers. a blanket significantly lowers the escape of heat from the body which means it takes less energy to keep the core at 37C. the energy from the sun is very constant so if something chokes off the escape of radiation then the same amount of energy from the sun can heat the surface to a higher temperature. you argue insignificant points and refuse to listen when they are refuted. the next time it is really cold in your area talk off your clothes to warm up and go outside for a sleep. with any luck we wont have to listen to your BS anymore.

Unlike you, ian, I respect the laws of nature. The second law predicts that when a cooler blanket is placed over a warmer body, energy transfers from the warmer body to the cooler blanket. An infrared camera will demonstrate this and all you have to do is look. The surface temperature of the body drops wherever the blanket touches. The atmosphere can not be analogized as a blanket because there is no restriction of convection or conduction in the open atmosphere by so called greenhouse gasses. You keep demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of physics.

You have been shown the math and your faith keeps you from seeing the truth. Unfortunate.

You may respect the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but you don't understand it. The first 5 words are "In a closed thermodynamic system" but the atmosphere is not a closed thermodynamic system so the second Law can not and does not apply.

 

[wirebender]

You may respect the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but you don't understand it. The first 5 words are "In a closed thermodynamic system" but the atmosphere is not a closed thermodynamic system so the second Law can not and does not apply.

Where are you getting your laws? Where are you reading that the laws of physics only apply to closed systems?

The Clausius statement reads as follows:

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

The Kelvin statement reads as follows:

No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work.

The idea that the laws of nature only apply to certain situations is patently rediculous.
They are laws of nature, not laws of systems.

 

[wirebender]

example- a light bulb comes to equilibrium temperature when the glass bulb is radiating away the same amount of energy as it is receiving from the filament. if you toss a blanket on the bulb it will initially drop the temperature of the bulb but then the temp will continue to rise until the outside of the blanket is radiating away the same amount of energy that the filament is emitting. unfortunately a blanket is not a good conductor of heat so the inside of the blanket need to get very hot to transmit enough energy to get the outside warm enough. typically hot enough to start a fire. so your initial, transient drop in temp is followed by a steady increase until equilibrium is reached or a fire starts.

Again, the result of blocking convection and conduction. Your problem is that you are attempting to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to radiation. Your blanket analogy doesn't work in the atmosphere.

You have been shown the math but your faith is stronger. Sad, but alas, it is the state of things.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is the Greenhouse Effect.

Describe the physics by which you believe wrapping a -15 degree object in a -20 degree blanket results in a 30 degree temperature rise. Simply stating that it is the greenhouse effect doesn't carry much weight. Jump in your freezer and see how much of a greenhouse effect your 36 degree body generates in the 17 degree freezer.


You will be starting off with a considerably warmer temperature than the blackbody temperature of the earth and the atmosphere in the freezer is not nearly as cold as the average temperature of the atmosphere. My bet is that you don't manage any greenhouse effect at all.

If you survive, let me know how it worked out for you.

The temperature of the radiation from the sun is thousands of Kelvin.

 

[code1211]

This is the Greenhouse Effect.

Describe the physics by which you believe wrapping a -15 degree object in a -20 degree blanket results in a 30 degree temperature rise. Simply stating that it is the greenhouse effect doesn't carry much weight. Jump in your freezer and see how much of a greenhouse effect your 36 degree body generates in the 17 degree freezer.


You will be starting off with a considerably warmer temperature than the blackbody temperature of the earth and the atmosphere in the freezer is not nearly as cold as the average temperature of the atmosphere. My bet is that you don't manage any greenhouse effect at all.

If you survive, let me know how it worked out for you.

Since we know for certain that the temperature at the Earth's surface is considerably warmer than the -20 degrees you cite, we know that you are either not in touch with the reality of the situation or are simply being arbitrary.

The average temperature of the blanket is meaningless since the part of the blanket touching the Earth is about 70 degrees warmer than the temperature you have cited if f or about 35 if c.

The incoming energy from the Sun is the variable you have omitted in your consideration. Unlike the analogy to the cold blanket on a cold body, the source of the heat is not from beneath the blanket but rather from above.

In a very real sense, while the "blanket" does spread and retain the heat nicely, it also reflects some and homogenizes it throughout the surface area affected by all the other climate impacts, too.

A quick check of the surface temperature of Mercury reveals that on average, it's not a bad place, but the sunny portions and the dark portions are pretty horrible.

No blanket there at all and the warm side is hot enough to melt lead.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?

 

[Old Rocks]

You're talking about a short period of time in order to make your point. Who ever said the warming would be constant? I think you're taking the deniers' "they don't take into account natural cycles" meme and giving it too much credence. This seems like another case of "they only count when I want them to count".

Natural cycles is ALL WE TALK ABOUT! It's you silly people who invested these magical powers into the CO2 molecule. You are the ones who claim that so long as CO2 increases there can be nothing but a warming. It's YOU who claimed that natural cycles were no longer in play.

Sheesh, keep your lies straight konny!

hahahaha. no kidding. they take one easily measured component of the climate system and treat it like it is the control knob even though it probably has negligable effect, especially at these concentrations. if it was going from 10ppm to 50ppm that would make a sizable difference, of course we wouldnt be here because there wouldnt be plants to feed animals at those concentrations but it would be much more important in that range.

A23A

 

[westwall]

Natural cycles is ALL WE TALK ABOUT! It's you silly people who invested these magical powers into the CO2 molecule. You are the ones who claim that so long as CO2 increases there can be nothing but a warming. It's YOU who claimed that natural cycles were no longer in play.

Sheesh, keep your lies straight konny!

hahahaha. no kidding. they take one easily measured component of the climate system and treat it like it is the control knob even though it probably has negligable effect, especially at these concentrations. if it was going from 10ppm to 50ppm that would make a sizable difference, of course we wouldnt be here because there wouldnt be plants to feed animals at those concentrations but it would be much more important in that range.

A23A

And the Lord spaketh, and his High Priests did convey His Word to the savages and they did give unto Him all their possessions...and it was good....for the High Priests

 

[wirebender]

The temperature of the radiation from the sun is thousands of Kelvin.

True. Which prompts me to ask you why the energy budget upon which AGW alarmism is based says that only 342 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches the top of the atmosphere and of that only 168 watts per square meter reach the surface.

 

[wirebender]

[
No blanket there at all and the warm side is hot enough to melt lead.

So you are saying that the atmosphere is a source of cooling rather than warming. Somehow that doesn't jibe with the hypothesis of AGW alarmis. I agree with you that the atmosphere keeps us cool. Look at the moon. Roughly the same amount of incoming solar energy but no atmosphere. Very hot in the daylight. We would be just as hot if we had no atmosphere. Good observation, poor application of the observation to the claims of AGW alarmists.

 

[wirebender]

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?

Read for comprehension rocks. He just compared earth with mercury. Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of and is very hot in the daytime. Our moon has no atmosphere to speak of and is also very hot in the daytime. We have an atmosphere and are relatively cool in the daytime. It is clear that it is our atmosphere that is keeping us cool.

GHG's other than water vapor have no capacity to hold energy within the atmosphere. Feel free to describe the mechanism by which you believe it can happen and name a physical law that supports and predicts the mechanism.

 

[wirebender]

And the Lord spaketh, and his High Priests did convey His Word to the savages and they did give unto Him all their possessions...and it was good....for the High Priests

Good one. I blew my morning beverage out my nose. Interesting that he would hold up anything from penn state as proof of anything considering the, uh um, legal problems they are having concerning climate science these days.

I guess it falls under the same headding as catholics defending child molesting priests. When the faith is strong, one simply can't bring one to disparage the messenger.

 

[code1211]

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?

As always, half a truth is better than none. GHG, as I understand the effect does warm the Earth. Without them, the planet would be a frozen globe with no life. No CO2 means no carbon and no carbon based life.

The difference in what you inferred and in what i implied is the degree.

As I understand it, CO2 is but one of many factors affecting our current climate. Additions seem to have a pretty weak effect at that at the current concentrations.

Add more and the change is hardly noticeable. Take it all away and it's fatal.

Where's the part where I said that CO2 is responsible for the current warming? That's your position as I understand it.

 

[code1211]

[
No blanket there at all and the warm side is hot enough to melt lead.

So you are saying that the atmosphere is a source of cooling rather than warming. Somehow that doesn't jibe with the hypothesis of AGW alarmis. I agree with you that the atmosphere keeps us cool. Look at the moon. Roughly the same amount of incoming solar energy but no atmosphere. Very hot in the daylight. We would be just as hot if we had no atmosphere. Good observation, poor application of the observation to the claims of AGW alarmists.

You are being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.

Hot in the Sun light and very cold in the dark.

 

[konradv]

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?

As always, half a truth is better than none. GHG, as I understand the effect does warm the Earth. Without them, the planet would be a frozen globe with no life. No CO2 means no carbon and no carbon based life.

The difference in what you inferred and in what i implied is the degree.

As I understand it, CO2 is but one of many factors affecting our current climate. Additions seem to have a pretty weak effect at that at the current concentrations.

Add more and the change is hardly noticeable. Take it all away and it's fatal.

Where's the part where I said that CO2 is responsible for the current warming? That's your position as I understand it.

Kind of light on hard facts to be calling the effects of added CO2 "weak" and "hard noticeable". Given a 35% +/- increase in CO2 over historical averages, that would be an additional 13% of "forcing" on a logrithmic scale. 'Hardly insignificant' would be more like it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.

 

[westwall]

And the Lord spaketh, and his High Priests did convey His Word to the savages and they did give unto Him all their possessions...and it was good....for the High Priests

Good one. I blew my morning beverage out my nose. Interesting that he would hold up anything from penn state as proof of anything considering the, uh um, legal problems they are having concerning climate science these days.

I guess it falls under the same headding as catholics defending child molesting priests. When the faith is strong, one simply can't bring one to disparage the messenger.

Sorry for the beverage loss....cultists are rather single minded.

 

[westwall]

OK, Code, so you are stating that GHGs, indeed, are responsible for the present warmth that we enjoy. So, then, how do you square that with saying that adding to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will not increase the amount of energy retained?

As always, half a truth is better than none. GHG, as I understand the effect does warm the Earth. Without them, the planet would be a frozen globe with no life. No CO2 means no carbon and no carbon based life.

The difference in what you inferred and in what i implied is the degree.

As I understand it, CO2 is but one of many factors affecting our current climate. Additions seem to have a pretty weak effect at that at the current concentrations.

Add more and the change is hardly noticeable. Take it all away and it's fatal.

Where's the part where I said that CO2 is responsible for the current warming? That's your position as I understand it.

Kind of light on hard facts to be calling the effects of added CO2 "weak" and "hard noticeable". Given a 35% +/- increase in CO2 over historical averages, that would be an additional 13% of "forcing" on a logrithmic scale. 'Hardly insignificant' would be more like it.

The problem dear konny is the "forcings" only seem to work in computer models. The real world seems to not pay so much attention to them.

 

[westwall]

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.

Ancient history and now superceded by improved science.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ocean Currents and Climate

Article for the curious.

Ancient history and now superceded by improved science.

And of course you've read my link, so, post the new and improved version so I may become up to date.