Max Anacker pointed out, @ CE Goldilock’s Thread,
23/12/12, 1000pm is the absolute maximum warming
we would reach from human CO2 emissions. Not enough
carbon from all the remaining fossil fuels to get us even to
3 degrees c warming let alone any doomsday 5 degrees.
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Logarithm++of+CO2+ClimateEtc+Max+Anacker
Rob Ellison : “Let’s go back to the gravitational potential energy at an infinite distance from Earth – that was even funnier.”
“The general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of gravity and is equal to the work done against gravity to bring a mass to a given point in space. Because of the inverse square nature of the gravity force, the force approaches zero for large distances, and it makes sense to choose the zero of gravitational potential energy at an infinite distance away. The gravitational potential energy near a planet is then negative, since gravity does positive work as the mass approaches. This negative potential is indicative of a “bound state”; once a mass is near a large body, it is trapped until something can provide enough energy to allow it to escape.”
Rob Ellison: “Cupcakes are conserved – the 1st law of cupcakes. The second law – suggests that you can’t have your cupcake and eat it. The third law says that cupcakes are not a magic pudding.”
The cupcake analogy was brought up by you seemingly as a way to avoid drawing the inescapable conclusion that if the average kinetic energy of the molecules diminishes, then so does the total kinetic energy of the molecules.
But how can you not possibly realize this so very simple kindergarten grade mathematical result? Don’t you agree that if the total energy of n molecules TE = (e_1 + e_2 + … + e_n), where e_i is the energy of the ith molecule, then the average just is the TE/n? Don’t you agree with that definition of the term “average”? Does it not follow that if n does *not* vary (since the expansion is adiabatic and there isn’t therefor any heat flow or net matter exchange through the boundary) then if TE/n diminishes, then so must TE?
Let me just note that the last sentence of this hyperphysics blurb is a bit imprecise. We may rather say that given this customary definition of potential energy, the sum total the kinetic and potential energy being negative is indicative of a bound state. Therefore, when KE > PE, escape velocity is exceeded and the trajectory is hyperbolic rather than elliptic.
Matthew R Marler | October 15, 2014 at 2:07 pm | sums up the problem faced by those claiming we must act now rather well:
“Steve Mosher: Note: “it’s warmed before is not a quantified explanation”;
It is evidence that the only quantified explanation that we have depends on our ignorance of how the earlier warming was produced. All of the estimates of the size of the CO2 effect (the quantitation part) depend on assumptions about what the current warming would be like in the absence of CO2.
“Its natural variability” is not a quantified explanation.
Nevertheless, “It’s natural variability” might be true.”
Dismissing natural variability even though it is well demonstrated by now that the consensus view on so-called “global warming” has failed seems to invert the scientific process of (in rough form):
Observe > hypothesis> test/predict > measure result > Compare to observation > reconcile to reality. Instead we have hidden data, ignored history, dismissed observation, blame the observations, etc.
Rob Ellison,
When one looks at the axis scales of the graphs you posted, it looks a lot more like the graphs were designed to manipulate a response than to inform thoughtful opinion.
Steve, discussing how a nail might look is not = settled science.
In fact consider the implication of your comment: Do you think there is a nail possible to the consensus apocalyptic view?
‘Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. ‘The most common use of gravitational potential energy is for an object near the surface of the Earth where the gravitational acceleration can be assumed to be constant at about 9.8 m/s2. Since the zero of gravitational potential energy can be chosen at any point (like the choice of the zero of a coordinate system), the potential energy at a height h above that point is equal to the work which would be required to lift the object to that height with no net change in kinetic energy. Since the force required to lift it is equal to its weight, it follows that the gravitational potential energy is equal to its weight times the height to which it is lifted.’ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
Not all that relevant for convection because it is buoyant potential rather than gravitational in moving air masses.
The other idea is fantastic if you want to calculate escape velocity – http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html#ui
You’ll find the mgz form much more useful generally for Earthly concerns like hyrodynamics.
Phuck cupcakes – I will try a last time.
‘The energy of the parcel is always the same, no matter what the air is doing. If this energy is stretched out over a wide area, it cannot create heat by being concentrated in a single spot. The farther away from each the molecules moves, the lower the temperature of the parcel will become.’
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5220405_warm-air-rise-cool-expands_.html .
This is literally true – energy is conserved in a greater volume assuming there are no radiative losses or gains – which we did to start with. The total is x Joules – and the average is x Joule/V – in a bigger volume the total is x Joule and the average is x Joules/(V + dV).
P-N just gets the wrong idea – and sticks to it relentlessly while disparaging as ignorant what he doesn’t understand. Where have we seen that before?
kim,
The fan is busy confessing his modus. Let him wave away.
The fact Arctic ice is not in a death spiral is not something a climate kook can admit. Reflect on Waldham’s recent melt down over his claptrap being called claptrap. No wonder fan is stuck on stupid.
Being a very occasional lurker, it is interesting to actually read fan’s diatribes- nearly everyone posting here has made some movements and progress. fan, on the other hand, could just cut and paste most what he is saying from months ago and no one would notice.
Stirling efforts
by the rest of
you on this
thread, comments
even in Vietnamese,
but from Kim, this
wins the silver plated
trophy award. ‘ If
wishes were windmills
turbines would turn.’
Rob Ellison wrote : (quoting eHow) ‘The energy of the parcel is always the same, no matter what the air is doing. If this energy is stretched out over a wide area, it cannot create heat by being concentrated in a single spot. The farther away from each the molecules moves, the lower the temperature of the parcel will become.’
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5220405_warm-air-rise-cool-expands_.html .
This is literally true – energy is conserved in a greater volume assuming there are no radiative losses or gains – which we did to start with. The total is x Joules – and the average is x Joule/V – in a bigger volume the total is x Joule and the average is x Joules/(V + dV).”
First, you are assuming that under adiabatic expansion of the rising parcel of air there is zero external work is done and we therefore hare complete preservation of internal energy. I think that incredible but let me grant you this claim for the sake of argument.
Second, you *hadn’t* initially argued that the average energy density density per volume unit is reduced. You had rather argued that the average *kinetic* energy *of the molecules* is reduced. You have to argue this since you acknowledge that the temperature is dropping. (Remember, you had written: “The expansion is the result of elastic decompression of the air inside the chamber and the reduction in temperature is the result of a reduced average kinetic energy. The same kinetic energy in a bigger volume.”)
But since you are denying that there is any internal energy loss from any external work done, and are again assimilating the case to a process of free expansion, (or Joule-Thompson expansion), then, although there trivially is a reduction in volumetric internal energy density, there isn’t (much of) a drop in average kinetic energy of the molecules. The drop in energy density rather is (mainly) a result of the reduction of the number of molecules per unit volume. It is indeed a well known feature of Joule expansion that it does *not* yield any temperature change. It does yield a small energy change in the case of the Joule-Thomson expansion, but this effect on temperature for the expansion of air is tiny, as some kinetic energy is converted in electrostatic potential energy. But this still contradicts flatly your claim that we have the “same *kinetic* energy in a bigger volume” for the simple reason that I stated (if the average KE per molecules drops, then so does the total KE).
So, in summary, in order to remove the inconsistency in your initial claim, we have to modify it thus: “The expansion is the result of [Joule-Thompson] decompression of the air inside the chamber and the reduction in temperature is the result of a reduced average kinetic energy. [We have however] the same [internal, i.e. kinetic + electrostatic potential] energy in a bigger volume.”
But then the temperature drop for air would be a very small fraction of the drop dictated by the dry adiabatic lapse rate calculated in the normal fashion and, I surmise, would deviate wildly from observed temperature profiles over dry land in mid-afternoon. And the idea that expanding air parcel perform no work on the surrounding is strangely unphysical and unjustified.
Let me also note that you use of the term “elastic decompression” to refer to either Joule or Joule-Thompson expansion is rather odd, since normal expansion that performs work on the surrounding is an isentropic reversible process, while on the contrary, free or Joule-Thompson expansion are irreversible processes (which of course shows how unphysical the assumption is in the case of vertically rising atmospheric parcels, which, we would normally assume, would warm back to the same initial temperature if pushed back to the initial level and recompress to the same pressure before they had had time to mix with surrounding air, conduct heat, or radiate energy away).
OT, but a Fossil Fuel etc. The price of oil is up today. Nice price on gasoline, too.
OIL (WTI) 83.85
BRENT 86.86
NAT GAS 3.777
RBOB GAS 2.2298
Gravitational potential energy is totally and utterly relevant when determining the direction of convection, up or down, as explained in two full chapters of my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All..”
But seeing that you can’t answer my questions about how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its day, or how the energy gets down to the base of the Uranus troposphere or how the core of the Moon stays so hot I rest my case, that case being supported by abundant empirical evidence.
R. Gates, “Capt. Dallas, I’ve always respected your perspective, and you’ve been more than civil to me over the years I’ve posted here. If a more plausible explanation that matches the physical model of GH forcing was out there, I would gladly consider it.”
That is what I said, you can’t get beyond GH forcing :) There have been quite a few folks trying to tease out ENSO since it is an “internal” variable. The 5 to 7 year fluctuations are most likely ENSO related, though ENSO would be better replaced with tropical ocean SST imo.
There has been a 100 year rise without a hint of acceleration in the tropical oceans. The ~1910 minimum was most likely due to volcanic/solar forcing
.http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/periodiersstv3b_0-360E_-30-30N_nm1:12sdfae-h.png
~60 years is the only notable frequency.
The near Arctic SST has a lag
Closer to 1920 for the minimum.
More noise but about the same ~60 year main frequency. GH forcing wouldn’t create a 60 year cycle, but it could amplify it. So when Dr. C mentions “about half” with a fairly large margin of error, it would appear her “expert” opinion on Arctic Sea Ice is worth consideration.
So we have a possible CO2 rise at a time coincidental with a possible temperature rise which seems to have stopped. We have a possible sea level rise with possible Antarctic land ice loss by an unexplainable mechanism as the Antarctic gets colder with more sea ice.
We have a definite decrease in Arctic sea ice which is showing a minirecovery and a made up Arctic temperature rise by estimating temperatures where there are no gauges let alone sun.
We have heat hiding in the depths with no way proven for it to get down there and no way of measuring it if it has and no way for it ever to heat the atmosphere as it is too cold anyway.
We have an unknown climate sensitivity which has some how kept life on earth going for 2 billion years through extremes but is now going to roll over and die because of a little Co2 burp by an organism that has only been around 100,000 years.
Luckily I have an engagement party to go to this weekend so will be able to avoid the drivel by the alarmists for the next 2 days.
