Correlation between solar activity and global mean surface temperature :
Correlation between global mean surface temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere:
Conclusion
The cause of both global warming and increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is solar, not anthropogenic.
Tony, I remain skeptical severe winters cause higher rates of deaths in the UK than miilder winters. The aged are supposed to be at highest risk for death from the cold, particularly the elderly poor who can’t afford to buy more fuel. However, I’m not sure there’s a strong link here. My skepticism would fade if you could show me mortality rates of the elderly poor go up every time the temperature plummets. I emphasize “rates” because I know the UK has an aging population, and more old people would die even if there was no change in the mortality rate, simply because there are more old people to die.
‘Theorem Given any state with non-uniform thermodynamic potentials, there is a state having (1) the same globally conserved quantities, and (2) spatially uniform thermodynamical potentials, and (3) higher entropy.’
Recognisable instantly as a pompous restatement of the laws of thermodynamics. What all of this neglects is real effects on molecules in a gravity field. There is a difference in particle velocities under gravity than not. In the normal course of events – in what is normally measured as temperature – this would tend to create a small temperature effect. Small because the gravity effects on velocity are small relative to typical molecular velocities at ambient temps. But the question is – does this affect the vertical distribution of velocities?
There are real differences in molecular dynamics under gravity than not – and these differences cannot be understand in terms of statistics. It is possible to move from the particle to the average state – but not the reverse. It leads me to discount all arguments based on assuming the same statistics apply to both states. Something technically known as begging the question.
A clarification, I’m suggesting the diagram shows the roughly 2000 transition from a wave-2 to our current wave-3 pattern.
You could actually find out something Maxy – rather than simply pulling it out of your arse.
In a thermally isolated non-radiative gas with gravity, the conserved quantity is potential temperature, a function of temperature and pressure, not temperature or internal energy itself. An isothermal atmosphere has a gradient of potential temperature. It can be shown that mixing this to a uniform potential temperature (a dry adiabatic lapse rate) gives a higher entropy than an isothermal state. Furthermore once you have a uniform potential temperature, there is nothing you can do without adding energy to further increase the entropy. The highest entropy state for an isolated gas in gravity is therefore one with a constant potential temperature. Only when you take away gravity (or pressure gradients) does this reduces to an isothermal state. The key is that temperature is not a conserved quantity when there is a pressure gradient. Any vertical mixing would change that temperature. Related to the isothermal state not being sustainable in a bounded gas is that there would also be a downward heat flux in such a state, whether by molecular diffusivity or by any turbulent eddies present.
Curious George | December 6,angech – energy in does NOT equal energy out on an hourly basis; on a 12-hour basis; on a daily basis; on a weekly basis; or on a yearly basis.
As one of the voices of reason on this blog, I appreciate your comment.
The sun is the source of energy for the earth, basically.
The sun’s energy is practically constant.
The earth receives this energy which varies.
A little on the wobble and inclination of the earth as it is not completely spherical hence the amount of energy received is in slow flux but never mentioned 1-2% [guess].
A lot on the elliptical orbit which may vary the input up to 6% [guess].
A lot on the albedo which can vary markedly for a number of factors you are aware of -3 to + 6 [guess].
Conservation of energy and black body emissivity dictates that the energy we receive in 24 hours [rotation period of the earth +/_] should be equal.
I cannot be more insistent on that.
As a corollary to that it is true that the energy in on an hourly basis; on a 12-hour basis; on a daily basis; on a weekly basis; or on a yearly basis,
for the earth as a whole must be equal. I do not wish to nitpick on endogenous earth heat or energy trapped by chemical processes and photo-sensitivity, just the big picture.
Soros’s son and friends were interested in any candidate that would push Kansas to the left, even if they still end up right of center. There was a lot more out of state right wing money in that race.
If you have 10s of millions, you might not be too concerned about spending 1 or 2 for a opportunity to lead.
But don’t worry, it didn’t happen, Kansas will be represented by a 78 year old resident of Virginia. A senator who doesn’t bother to show up for work most of the time. A guy who has been in Washington for nearly half a century taking orders from his party bosses.
Water can store heat, which means less current emissions on its way to the TOA. Here’s what it looks like.
Rob, are these variations in heat content purely due to the closeness of the sun to the earth in January/February?
I’m surprised that this discussion continues.
In the spirit of explaining why the gravito-thermal effect is impossible, without including mathematics, here is an attempt.
My assumptions are –
1. There is a column of gas of cylindrical or other regular cross section containing sufficient energy to maintain the gas in a gaseous state.
2. The volume is enclosed by boundaries which isolate the system, allowing no energy into or out of the system.
3. Under these conditions, the gas will occupy the enclosed volume fully, and will be everywhere the same temperature.
4. A gravitational field is introduced such that the axis of the cylinder is normal to the field – or end on, if you prefer.
5. Gravity acts on the gas, causing compression at the bottom of the cylinder, and heat results therefrom.
Unfortunately, assumption 2 prevents assumption 5. Energy is required to perform the work that compresses the gas, and the system allows no energy to cross its boundary. The laws of thermodynamics implicitly state that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Assumption 5 explicitly states that the force of gravity causes heating, therefore energy has crossed the boundary, in contravention of the requirement that this is not allowed.
If some smarty pants changes my assumption to allow the force of gravity to transfer energy across the system boundary, you must allow the compressed and warmed gas to transfer energy by radiation across the boundary as well. Its temperature will drop, until the enclosed volume will once again be everywhere the same temperature, albeit with a pressure and density gradient due to the effects of gravity.
Anybody that wishes to introduce the concept of potential energy emerging due to the introduction of a previously non existent gravity field has created additional energy within an isolated system, which is once again forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.
The only way that the gravito-thermal effect can occur, is to adopt one way Warmist physics, which allows gravity to do work across a barrier which does not allow it, but does not allow energy to cross the barrier in the other direction. This allows the creation of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, precisely as described by Graeff and others.
Obviously, given my well known and characteristic humility, I welcome constructive criticism, particularly if I have failed to express myself clearly. If you wish to find fault, please quote exactly the words with which you disagree. I may have inadvertently included or excluded something that I should not have. I await the barrage.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Faustino: The review that references “potentially catastrophic” is presumably a reference to pp128-129 (in the chapter on Uncertainty), which says:
pp128: If reality turns out to be better than we’d thought (climate sensitivity is low, ecosystems are resilient, people find ways to adapt) then business as usual might not be so bad.
pp129: But if reality turns out to be worse than we’d thought (climate sensitivity is high, ice sheets disintegrate, the amazon burns up, bread baskets become dust bowls) then business as usual could be catastrophic.
Is that really so bad? Does it really not touch on your point of finding ways to “increase our capacity to deal well with whatever future unfolds”?
How about pp193 (in the closing chapter), which says:
Lots of economists dream of carbon pricing… but it’s okay if your dream is different [four vignettes: all-out mobilization, government-funded clean energy research, planning and adaptation, and low-carbon lifestyles].
So: Do you want to change your suspicion about whether the book touches on your ideas? I hope so!
Girma, I’m all for transparency in science, but some of your lines become so transparent they can’t be seen. Remember, science is about revealing.
Water can store heat, which means less current emissions on its way to the TOA. It can capture solar and hold it which moderates fluctuations.
True. but energy in equal energy out.
The total amount of energy in the sea/atmosphere/earth is a measure of the impedance of those mediums. The capacity to hold heat depends on the density of those mediums and their conductance and emissivity. at the end of 24 hours an ice block can only be an ice block if the local conditions are right. There is no extra energy ever stored in the system as a whole.
Ragnaar: So you don’t believe in market failures relating to pollution? Or for that matter market failures relating to the public-goods aspect of R&D?
But I agree with you about brokers not being able to pick winners. This is covered in my Cartoon Introduction to Economics, Volume 1: Microeconomics. I hope you’ll take a look: http://standupeconomist.com/category/books/
Oopsie! $1 Billion in UN Funds to Fight Climate Change Built Coal Power Plants Instead
MF – the bottom of the gas warms, but the top of your cylinder would cool – no net energy change.
Next.
Correction, there would be some net energy increase via the gravitational field – unless the container blocked gravity. That’s how the energy gets introduced.
In general, the closer one gets to the equator, the higher the winter death rate; the farther you get from the equator the lower the winter death rate.
This appears to be driven by the quality of housing. Finland, for example, does very well on winter deaths, and you can bet Pekka knows how to insulate his house.
.
