I think you need to think about the question a little more because your answer was wrong. We are looking for a steady-state surface temperature condition before and after you add the insulator assuming the solar input stays constant. Perhaps someone else can help you. Insulation is measured in temperature difference per energy loss.
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Vaughan Pratt
<i>The better estimates are ca 140 years.</i>
While it's hardly worth quibbling over the difference between 85 and 140 years when compared with 20,000 years, I'd still be interested in the assumptions on which the 140-year figure depends. Where'd you get 140 years?
<i>By implication you can have no opinion whether, for example, California AB32 is likely to be worth the cost. </i>
So let me understand this. Are you saying that merely because I have no idea how bad it would be if my dearly beloved car ran into a haystack at 270 mph, I would have no motivation whatsoever to reduce the collision speed to 135 mph?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
Thank you for confirming your original bad faith question was silly, illogical and misleading. Your revised version is just as imprecise, and even more unrealistic. Or am I being a bit harsh?
No matter. As I said, if you can provide the magical insulator you require, no doubt your hypothetical, whimsical, and nonsensical assumptions might provide the hypothetical answer you want people to accept.
Unfortunately, no such insulator exists, which is precisely why its actions cannot be demonstrated and why warming an object whose only heat source is external by wrapping it in an nsulator is about as impossible as lifting yourself by your bootstraps. But dream on. Just ignore the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and will probably do so for some time yet, barring unforeseen circumstances.
Or better still invent an insulator which warms objects. I’m sure with your theoretical knowledge it will be an easy matter to use CO2 to insulate a glass boiler in such a way as to trap the Sun’s unconcentrated rays, boil water, and use the resultant steam to drive a steam powered generator. No need for fossil fuels at all!
If you can only get a 33C temperature differential, no problem. Use a multi stage process, achieving a 33C increase each time! Hey presto! – any temperature you like – nothing but sunlight, CO2, and a bit of Warmist theory. How hard can it be?
Seriously, you are sprouting Warmist nonsense. I just prefer that you waste your money, and leave us Unbelievers to spend our money on things that might be more useful. Let me know when Antarctica has been restored to its previously ice free condition due to your magical Global Warming. I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
Please pardon my typos. I occasionally find typing and laughing contemporaneously causes hiccups in one or the other.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Davies
Its not THE Michael Mann I feel sure. Someone trying to stir up the sceptical hornets nest methinks. Silence is the best tactic.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
According to the American Physical Society, based on Pierrehumbert’s work –
“In English units this corresponds to R ~ 0.76 ft2 hr oF/BTU. The atmosphere is not a terribly good insulator, equivalent to only about one-seventh of an inch of polystyrene!”
Bung one seventh of an inch of polystyrene onto the ground, in sunlight. According to leading Warmists, you have now added one atmosphere’s worth of insulation. The temperature of the ground under the insulation should surely rocket upwards by 33C or so, shouldn’t it? If you believe that, then you are equally likely to believe the Earth is warming!
Ah, but Warmists say, we aren’t talking about the real world, but rather Warm World, where magic rules, and temperatures rise and rise and rise, until the surface melts, and everything is restored to how it was.
Give me a break!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
climatereason,
If 31 models produced different outcomes, then at least 30 were wrong.
Why include the 97% which gave demonstrably false outcomes?
Surely you’re not going to tell me that the climatologists didn’t know which models were wrong! How can this be? You’ve shattered my faith!
Woe, woe, thrice woe – whatever shall I do now?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by mosomoso
New Scientist has to be the New Onion.
If that’s not the case and its recent articles are meant to be taken seriously, then all we can do is welcome our new adolescent overlords – in the faint hope that the juveniles of science journalism don’t overthrow the adolescents.
Because the adults are long gone.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
@joshie
Whether I do or don’t fit into your own mental model of an ideal ‘sceptic’ may be of huge interest to you, but is of very limited relevance to the rest of us.
And the cynic might wonder if your endless discussion of this rather peripheral point is a distraction technique to avoid discussion of the real problems with climatology, climatologists and their cheerleaders/hangers on.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by brent
@jim2
Fernando has good insight into the most logical strategy.
I’m a old downstreamer, a supply and refining guy who spent most of my career heavily involved in downstream optimization modeling
The formula for converting Specific Gravity (60/60) to Deg API is
SG(60/60)= 141.5/(131.5 +Deg API)
SG Deg API
Propane .5077 147.2
N-C4 .5844 110.6
I-C4 .5631 119.8
N-C5 .6310 92.8
I-C5 .6247 95.0
N-C6 .664 81.6
I-C6 .6247 83.6
N-C7 .6882 74.1
N-C8 .7068 68.7
I-C8 .6962 71.7
Above numbers are from an old version of the API Data book
From a refining perspective, condensate as a refining feedstock would generally be referred to as a Pentane Plus stream (and should be well stabilized containing only a small amount of Butane)
While it is often referred in laymans terms that light crude are worth more than heavy ones, this is only true within a certain range of Degree API.. An old rule of thumb for me used to be that the value of light crude would increase with Deg API only to about say 42 -44 Deg API. Further increases in Deg API would lessen the value of the feed to a refiner.
The reason for this is that straight run virgin naphtha has relatively low octane, and the lighter components have higher RVP.
The relative economics of balancing gasoline octane and RVP determine the value of light feedstock for a refiner.
all the best
brent
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Hawking has posited that a super energetic Higgs Boson could become meta-unstable and suck up the universe into a single bubble of space/time.
This could happen tomorrow and puts a whole new spin on cloud condensation nuclei and BEC.
Either that or only an amazin’ idjit could imagine that BEC had anything to do with cloud microphysics and that therefore one of a number of schema for determining the statistical distribution of nucleation rates was demonstrably incorrect – and then to behave so oddly about it.
Surfactants?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581933/
Mind you it doesn’t seem an isolated case. Flynn – for instance – is back adding a whole extra dimension to climate narrative with the veneer of distorted science. Jimmy Dee’s narrative is less odd by contrast if that can be imagined.
Is it my imagination or is climate weirding getting weirder all the time?
↧
Comment on Week in review by John DeFayette
JimD, I stopped being an uptight, know-it-all, top-down controlling, government is the solution, banner waving lefty a few years back, probably from senility. Would you please remind me why wasteful Chinese should be a global concern?
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by TJA
Shorter WHT: “Harrumph”
↧
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Tomas Milanovic
First congratulations Judith and Vitaly.
The book is too specialised on an issue that I am not following so that I will not be buying the book but I find the idea to extend the correspondence principle to matters in classical physics an interesting and certainly fruitfull idea.
.
A short note to what I see as a quite ridiculously irrelevant polemics which has unfortunately squatted practically all 300 posts (even I feel compelled to add a comment) – the B-E statistics.
.
Carrick got it right and his first post should have been enough to stop the delirium and go over to more important and interesting matters.
B-E statistics is the law that describes the energy distribution for bosons.
If one deals with bosons then B-E is the right formula for energy distribution.
Period.
All the rest was a confusion between classical physics and quantum physics.
For instance temperatures or Broglie wave lengths are irrelevant.
Both allow to check whether we’ll have typical QM effects (like B-E condensate or superpositions of quantum states) but this is is irrelevant because the chapter is talking about generalities concerning energy distribution and doesn’t look for some typical quantum effects.
.
Using B-E statistic on bosons is ALWAYS right.
However when the classical approximation is correct and one doesn’t need to explicitely do QM calculations, then B-E converges to M-B.
As in most cases we deal with (and I suppose the book does that too), we are indeed doing classical physics, then M-B is the right and simplest approximation.
If QM was necessary (f.ex low temperatures, low number of particles) then using M-B would be grotesquely wrong and one should use B-E.
There is really nothing more to say about this non-issue.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Pekka Pirilä
The starting point for most of my comments is the following excerpt from the book posted by WHUT (I’m uncertain on some subscripts)
==
8.2.3. Application of Bose—Einstein Statistics for Condensation and Deposition
The previous derivation of the nucleation rate was based on the Boltzmann distribution of the g-mers. However, as we have Seen in Chapter 3, the Boltzmann distribution is a particular case of the more general Bose—Einstein distribution:
With the Bose—Einstein statistics. the homogeneous nucleation rate of drops nucleation in supersaturated vapor (Eqn. 8.2.38) can be rewritten as
For 
the previous derivations should be repeated using the Bose—Einstein statistics for particles with integer spin as the water molecules instead of the Boltzmann statistics.
==
The first surprising detail is referring to the B-E distribution as more general rather than just another distribution valid in some cases and not in others. This observation is relevant only as a sign of the depth of thinking put in this chapter.
Another detail appears to imply an actual error. That’s the reference to the nature of water molecules as particles with integer spin and therefore bosons. They are, indeed, bosons, but that’s almost certainly relevant only under conditions really remote from those possible in the atmosphere. If that’s relevant for water molecules under any conditions, it’s unlikely that the B-E distribution applies even then, because it’s derived using assumptions that water molecules do not satisfy. The derivation is valid for ideal gas of very weakly interacting particles, not for particles with an interaction like that between water molecules.
What’s not as implausible is that some collective phenomena are involved. Then the B-E distribution might be relevant for the collective excitations in the same way it’s relevant for phonons in a solid. I cannot see, how even that could really be the case for condensation and deposition, but neither can I exclude totally such a possibility. If that turns out to be the case, it’s likely that extensive theory development is needed before even qualitative conclusions on the consequences can be presented.
The case of freezing of supercooled water is somewhat different. The phenomenon of freezing is closer to the phenomena of lattice vibrations and phonons than to condensation. Collective states of low excitation might have a role in that. Thus also the statistical properties of these excitations might be relevant. On first thought B-E statistics might be more likely applicable to the distribution of germs than to diffusive flux.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Dan Hughes
A search of the Kindle edition shows that the Bose-Einstein concept is discussed in the text in Sections 3.2.4, 4.5, 8.2.3 and 8.3.2. The hit in Section 8.3.2 is the last hit in the text of the book. Equations 8.3.13 and 8.3.14 for the nucleation rate, which seem to be the results of interest, are not ever cited. This indicates to me that the Bose-Einstein results are not used whenever validation and applications of the models and methods is the focus.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by curryja
Thank you Tomas
↧
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by curryja
Thanks Dan
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Pekka Pirilä
Using B-E statistics for bosons is correct only when it’s done correctly.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Pekka Pirilä
Perhaps I should have written:
Use of B-E statistics for bosons is correct only when it’s done correctly.
That’s what I meant.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
