Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148402 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

The Earth always evolves spontaneously towards equilibrium. A conditional equilibrium because things are always changing. Complicated by being a non-equilibrium system in which the extensive properties are the most interesting and which result in warming and cooling.

But entropy always increases – planetary warming or cooling notwithstanding – ultimately leading to the heat death of the universe.

In a glacial what you get is an increase in albedo. It simply more energy and emits less. At any time the system evolves regardless to a state of maximum entropy give or take non-equilibrium complications.

Better off thinking energy flow. You can even put it into math.

d(W&H)/dt = energy in (J/s) – energy out (J/s)

W&H is work and heat and d(W&H)/dt is the extensive property of warming or cooling. As I understand it.


Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0
<b>Matthew R Marler</b> Two whole chapters of my book explain precisely how we must apply the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the troposphere. For example, it is that law which explains how and why gravity forms a density gradient, and a temperature gradient as thermodynamic equilibrium is approached. I doubt that you understand this, and I doubt that you understand how the Second Law enables us to understand what I call the "heat creep" process of downward diffusion and advection which is restoring a disturbed state of thermo<b>dynamic</b> equilibrium - which is precisely what the Second Law of Thermo<b>dynamics</b> is all about. Who's next?

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by beththeserf

$
0
0

Climate model projections, hmmph!

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0

Photons do not possess thermal (kinetic) energy. Some of the electromagnetic energy in radiation may or may not be converted to thermal energy in a given target. All of it would be converted if the temperature of the target were absolute zero (0K) but not otherwise. This is explained in my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published on several websites in March 2012. Catch up on your reading about this 21st century understanding among physicists because I have no intention of writing it all out again here. Find it with Google..

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0
  <b>Rob Ellison</b>. There is no significant <i>"response of the planet to increases in CO2"</i> as clearly seen since 1998 and understood with valid physics. CO2 cools by a fairly constant amount of around 0.1 degree because of its radiative properties which lower the temperature gradient in the same way that water vapour does. We can prove that water vapour cools the surface because it lowers the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere and temperature data confirms this, as in my published study. There's no reason to assume that (since we can measure the cooling effect of water vapour and find it to be about 10 to 12 degrees) carbon dioxide would then warm by 50 degrees or thereabouts. What you are overlooking is the gravito-thermal effect first discussed by physicists way back in the 19th century. Are you throwing away 150 years of physics? <b>Continued <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-636928" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</b>.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by skiphil

$
0
0

FOMT formerly used the moniker “A Physicist” in the days when he spammed at WUWT, so he is noted for his pretensions to expertise in physics…..

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by nottawa rafter

$
0
0

Wagathon

If it cools there will be no change in the company line. The 468th iteration of why they blew it will be that it would have been cooler without CO2. I’m afraid we’re stuck with them. However, having Al Gore’s house covered with 1k of glacial material may dampen their enthusiasm a tad.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0
  No you can't <i>"derive any version of the 2LOT from any other version"</i> <b>Alexej</b> because a statement like "heat transfers are only from hot to cold" is merely a corollary which only applies with certain prerequisites, namely, in this case, that gravitational potential energy remains constant. <b>You (and others) have a long way to go yet with your understanding of the Second Law and the thermodynamic equilibrium state of maximum entropy with no unbalanced energy potentials.</b>  

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

It simply reflects more energy…

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by tonyb

$
0
0

Fan

You said;

‘Summary Borehole data independently and striking affirm the physical reality of the climate-change “blade” of Mann’s hockey-stick … now we can focus on the “handle”!’

I think we can agree that the Hockey stick was ultimately a dud as it failed to recognise the LIA and other climate variations. Climate was NOT virtually static for hundreds of years until Man supposedly altered it. Dr Mann rewrote ‘settled’ science when he rewrote the history books

The borehole reconstructions show an upwards trend over the last 400 years or so, in contrast to the Hockey stick which showed a downward trend.

My comment to you a number of times has been affirmed ‘ the Giss and Hadley temperature datasets are merely staging posts for increasing warmth and not the starting post. ‘

The starting post was hundreds of years ago, well before enhanced co2.The 1900 uptick is a false artefact of the proxies used, supplemented by the variability we can all observe in instrumental records.

Borehole reconstructions tend to smear older temperatures so I am not sure how useful they are prior to around 1600. They certainly can’t help in reconstructing the true warmth of the MWP which is still badly represented in paleo-proxy reconstructions as tree rings are-as I think we have now agreed- not appropriate proxies due to micro climate issues and temporal and spatial issues.

The graphic that Carrick posted reaffirms the potential value of extended CET which closely follows the centuries long upwards temperature trend, but also shows the annual and decadal variability which is lost through the use of insensitive proxies.

In order to understand the future we need better reconstructions of the natural variability of the past so we can know if and when we reach uncharted climatic territory. We are certainly not there yet.

tonyb

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jonathan Abbott

$
0
0

P-N,
I pointed out that Lewis and Curry are following the IPCC’s method, and you changed the subject and started talking about the performance of the models, which I hadn’t mentioned.

I take it therefore that you admit that your criticism of Lewis and Curry is invalid?

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0
If any reader does genuinely understand the process described in statements of the Second Law* then they would realise that, for there to be no unbalanaced energy potentials, decreases in gravitational potential energy must be offset by increases in kinetic energy. Computationally, using <i>Cp</i> as specific heat and equating PE loss with KE gain, the latter being the energy to raise mass <i>M</i> by temperature difference <i>dT</i> when there is downward molecular movement through a height difference of <i>dH</i> then we get ... <i>M.g.dH = M.Cp.dT<i /> <i>dT/dH = g/Cp</i> which is the temperature gradient when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained in non-radiating gases. because of the temperature levelling effect of inter-molecular radiation, so-called GH gases reduce the magnitude of the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, as observed in all significant planetary tropospheres. Thus the thermal profile rotates and the temperature at the base of the troposphere (and in any surface there) is reduced. * <i>"Processes in which the entropy of an isolated system would decrease do not occur, or, in every process taking place in an isolated system, the entropy of the system either increases or remains constant "</i> That version of the 2nd law comes from the textbook <i>An Introduction to Thermodynamics, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, and Statistical Mechanics</i> (2nd edition), by Francis Weston Sears, Addison-Wesley, 1950, 1953, page 111 (Chapter 7, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics"). Note the reference to "every process" which eliminates the climatology invention of "net" effects now being espoused in Wikipedia.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0
  Regarding the Second Law please go back to <b><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-636939" rel="nofollow">this</a></b> comment.  

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Doug,

Give it a rest. Confine it to the open threads – that way we only have to ignore you once a week. As David Appell would have been well advised to it seems.

The discussion has veered off course here – but there is still no excuse to spam everything with your high volume nonsenses as dear as they obviously are to you.

FOMBS might be well advised to take the hint as well.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0
With regard to the Second Law please go back to <b><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-636939" rel="nofollow">this</a></b> comment.  

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0

Speak for yourself, Rob. There’s not a word of physics in your comments.. You cannot answer the questions I have asked on the Open Thread, nor respond to my criticisms there of the invalid physics you and others propagate.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0
Regarding the Second Law o fThermodynamics go back to <b><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-636939" rel="nofollow">this</a></b> comment.  

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jonathan Abbott

$
0
0

Oh, and P-N, don’t worry about mispelling my name. I just feel sorry for that Brinden Schollenfinker kid: he gets blamed for everything.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g   C o t t o n  

$
0
0
As usual, <b>Rob Ellison</b> you cannot respond to my criticism of the invalid physics you present here - see <b><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-636932" rel="nofollow">this comment</b></a>. If you or anyone writes invalid physics here or on any thread I will respond therein if I happen to read it. I am fed up with the travesties of physics which now pervade climate blogs and Wikipedia. You have no valid explanation as to what is happening in the tropospheres of Earth or any planet, because you don't understand why "heat creep" occurs and the necessity for such.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Doug – you are in violation of even the rudiments of blogiquette – and your recent spam to the max effort should all be deleted.
I assume the only reason it hasn’t joined your original comment is that Judy is busy with more interesting things.

Your persistent and repetitive song and dance is off topic and that is simply unacceptable to impose in such volume on others. Keep it to the open threads – where I will ignore it.

Viewing all 148402 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images