<a href="http://www.masseygail.com/pdf/Tribe-Peabody_111(d)_Comments_(filed).pdf" rel="nofollow">Tribe's legal comments to EPA</a>
Comment on Open thread by David L. Hagen
↧
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä
JIm D,
Neither temperature nor potential temperature are conserved quantities in the language of physics. In nonrelativistic physics energy and mass are conserved, and so is electrical charge, but temperature and pressure are not.
Potential temperature is a useful variable in the discussion of convective atmosphere that may be stationary, but not in thermodynamic equilibrium. A convective atmosphere can be stationary only, when an external source heats continuously the surface and when heat is lost to the space from high altitudes. Such an atmosphere is very far from thermodynamic equilibrium.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Can the Fifth Amendment, which once was used to protected the rights of slave owners, now be used to protect the rights of polluters? I sure hope not.
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Rob Ellison
Dear Professor Mike
So if we don’t allow gravity to influence the mass of the air column – there is no gravity effect at all?
So perfectly true. Congratulations again on your perspicacity.
Life is too short for bad coffee
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
↧
Comment on Open thread by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Edim, perhaps you read the article before it was corrected. It was not specifically U.N, funds. If you return to the article, you will see the following paragraph at the end:
“This article was corrected to clarify that the nearly $1 billion were not specifically U.N. funds, but rather Japanese funds that Japan claimed at the U.N. were part of its contribution to a U.N. initiative on climate finance.”
Now it makes the Japanese seem sneaky. I suspect a language problem.
↧
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Steven Mosher
Thanks pekka
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Mike Flynn
Jim2,
The system is isolated. No energy passes into or out of it. Which words of mine do you disagree with?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
FOLLOWUP to DocMartyn’s ammonia tank question
Readings The online notes for MIT’s Thermodynamics course, in particular Section 8.1, Behavior of Two-Phase Systems, affirms the correctness of *both* of FOMD’s answers.
Full Answer In the limit of slow venting there is no ammonia-tank temperature change (and no pressure change either).
Whereas for fast venting the vapor pressure drops, the liquid-phase boils, and the tank gets frosty (as plenty of farm-kids have observed).
Question Will this respectful, well referenced (and hopefully correct) thermodynamical answer receive a passing grade from DocMartyn?
The world wonders!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Mike Flynn
Jim2,
Thanks. If energy is allowed into the system, it must also be allowed out. I have stated what happens in this case. Do you not agree with me?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Jim D
Potential temperature is a conserved variable in the language of meteorology. Its only source is diabatic heating, and its equation is derived from the laws of thermodynamics.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Ragnaar
angech:
I am an accountant so I see many things as they relate to accounting. The TOA primarily lets in solar energy. That is our revenue. Our spending is seen as TOA long wave emissions to space. The roughly 4 C the oceans have trapped is our savings account. It represents most of the past differences seen at the TOA. From time zero that’s all we’ve managed to hang on to. You are correct that everything that happens below the TOA basically zeros out, except for changes in our savings. Changes in savings is, though it’s hard to measure, directly proportional to changes in incoming and outgoing at the TOA. Above I disregarded the atmosphere, and ice due to their relatively low heat capacity. You are correct about heat diving into the North Atlantic or a Monster El Nino. Such changes do not instantaneously change anything, we’ll maybe albedo I guess. The system has the same amount of energy, it’s just shuffling it. Long term, a new sorting of energy is likely to change the system’s total heat.
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
I found a good article by E. T. Jaynes on the Gibbs Paradox which according to Jaynes never was a paradox based on Gibbs text on Heterogeneous Equilibrium which many at the time seemed to have over looked or at least not looked at closely enough.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/gibbs.paradox.pdf
I am pretty sure it won’t resolve this debate, but it could add a bit to the discussion.
↧
Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by PA
The problem is the environmental activists (mostly democrats) aren’t interested in pollution, they are interested in their agenda.
HFC-134a is not a pollutant. The Arctic would become a sauna before HFC-134a reaches a harmful level. It isn’t a pollutant plain and simple.
CO2 isn’t a pollutant, if you remove all CO2 everything dies.
Atmospheric methane according to the IPCC AR5 WG1 is over half from natural sources. There is always going to be methane in the atmosphere regardless of what we do. People emit methane. Methane isn’t a pollutant either.
↧
↧
Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Steven Mosher
for US figures you can start here
http://lae.mit.edu/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/US-air-pollution-paper.pdf
Pretty big CI
however its clear. Dumping PM25 in MY FRICKING AIR is not something YOU get to do with impunity.
Prove its safe and I have no issue. Until then the best science we have, however flawed or uncertain, says that its NOT without risk.
You wouldnt let me pee up stream in your creek, dont pollute my air and then tell me I have no say
↧
Comment on Open thread by xx | asoliduniverse
[…] 0.8 +/- 0.2 | December 5, 2014 at 11:05 am | […]
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pierre-Normand
Willb,
You are saying that constancy of speed distribution at all height together with a density gradient yields a paradox. That’s because, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that molecules at the peak of the speed distribution (where the probability density is largest) that reach a higher level H1 (where they will be slower) will be more numerous than those that have this very same initial speed at that level, and this contradicts the assumption that the speed distribution is the same. But you didn’t correctly account for the ratio of the number of molecules with those two speeds at the two levels (that is, the molecules that have speeds [v1, v1+dv], and [v2, v2+dv]) at levels H0 and H1. Here, I am using v1 for your maximum value ‘|V|_mv’ at H0, the level at the bottom of the box, and v2 is v1 – gt.
My point is that if you want to compare the number of molecules that have speed v1 and v2 at height H1, in order to see if the ratio is the same as the ratio between molecules that have those two speeds (within the same dv intervals) at height H0 at any given time, then you must check how many of them there are at that level at some given time. However, in order to backtrack molecular populations in time, or track them forward in the future, you must define your populations precisely in phase space. You must not just delimit the initial or final speed ranges (e.g. [v1, v1+dv]) but also the initial and final volumes where they are located at some definite time (e.g. [H0, H0+dz] and [H1, H1+dz]). That’s because, molecules that start up with an initial velocity range in some small volume can end up (as it is the case here) in a larger volume at a later time, and if this change in volume isn’t identical for two different initial speed ranges, then this will incorrectly skew the ratio between them. Coombes and Laue do this correctly because they define volumes in phase space that jointly define velocity and ranges and location ranges, and map them exactly with the equations of motion.
The explanation from shifting of exponential functions is simplest. When the Maxwell distributions of speeds (Gaussian) are the same, then so are the kinetic energy distributions. The latter are (negative) exponential functions of EK (Boltzmann energy distributions). The effect of gravity on rising molecules merely shifts the exponential function (probability distribution) along the KE axis. This causes a drop off of the molecules that don’t have enough KE to reach the new level, and accounts for the barometric density formula, but the new shifted exponential function that represents the new (normalized) distribution is invariant under this transformation.
↧
Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by steven
I don’t see much logic in borrowing money from China in order to pay China to clean up their air. Perhaps they can cut back on their military modernization program a bit and pay for it themselves.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Ragnaar
Looking at avalanches I came across this:
“Crucially, however, the paper emphasized that the complexity observed emerged in a robust manner that did not depend on finely tuned details of the system: variable parameters in the model could be changed widely without affecting the emergence of critical behaviour (hence, self-organized criticality). Thus, the key result of BTW’s paper was its discovery of a mechanism by which the emergence of complexity from simple local interactions could be spontaneous — and therefore plausible as a source of natural complexity— rather than something that was only possible in the lab (or lab computer) where it was possible to tune control parameters to precise values. The publication of this research sparked considerable interest from both theoreticians and experimentalists, and important papers on the subject are among the most cited papers in the scientific literature.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality So looking at GCMs, if the above applies to the climate, the climate would not need a control knob. The models may assume something is needed to control it all and it happens that that is something we can control. If the climate more falls under BTW’s ideas some people aren’t seeing the system clearly enough.
↧
Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Brandon Shollenberger
Willis Eschenbach:
His question was nothing like that. First, he didn’t ask whether I “disputed” something, he asked if I “denied” something. Next, he said nothing about it being “predominantly” through a particular means, he didn’t specify a means at all. In other words, that’s YOUR question, not Joseph’s question at all.
The difference between “deny” and “dispute” doesn’t matter for my formulation. As for the other difference, it is common for people to refer to global warming, predominantly caused by greenhouse gas emissions, as simply human-induced warming. It is trivially easy to find numerous examples of people using phrasing like Joseph’s as shorthand for what I said. That’s why I interpreted in that way.
You may not agree with that interpretation. It may not even be correct. It is a legitimate one though. I bet Joseph would accept it. Maybe he’ll even come by and say that’s what he had in mind.
Unlike you, I try not to reformulate the question according to how I might wish it would have been asked. I answer it as best I understand it.
I don’t know why you’d personalize this by suggesting I behave in some undesirable way. It’s pointless and rude. More importantly, it’s not true. Had I been asked the same question, I’d have answered the question in the literal way then say I suspect he had something else in mind and answer that. If I was wrong about in my interpretation, there’d be no harm. The worst that’d happen I’d give him additional information about my views.
Considering multiple ways a person might have intended you to interpret their comments is not a bad thing. Trying to be flexible and allow for multiple intended meanings is not a bad thing. These are not reasons to make snide remarks about a person.
And you know what? That’s all I’m going to say about this. Both your behavior and your position on this topic are such I don’t think there’s any sense pursuing this issue.
↧
Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by RiHo08
I’m in moderation again. I am sure I deserve to be. Just tell me your answer.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
