Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

P-N wrote: “[...] regardless whether the change in internal balance between electrostatic potential and molecular KE contributes 10% or 0.1% of the real temperature drop [...]”

OK, I found a source that may be the origin of you figure.

“Joule performed his experiment with air at room temperature which was expanded from a pressure of about 22 bar. Air, under these conditions, is almost an ideal gas, but not quite. As a result the real temperature change will not be exactly zero. With our present knowledge of the thermodynamic properties of air [9] we can calculate that the temperature of the air should drop by about 3 degrees Celsius when the volume is doubled under adiabatic conditions.” Wikipedia

Volume doubles at about 5km above sea level. So, the ratio is about 3/50. There is a 3°C drop from electrostatic potential energy increase, and the remaining 47°C drop is the part of molecular EK reduction that you can’t account for when you assume conservation of total internal energy.


Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Rob Ellison praises “[Petr Chylek]“

BREAKING NEWS FROM ROB ELLISON

Petr Chylek and colleagues embrace James Hansen’s
consensus climate-change worldview!

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
as a dominant factor
of oceanic influence on climate

by Peter Chylek and colleagues (2014)

“During the past century the Earth has experienced considerable warming due to anthropogenic as well as natural causes.”

“Considering a compromise between accuracy and complexity, the minimal regression model that accounts for 93% of the observed annual mean global temperature variance contains only two explanatory variables: anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) and the AMO.”

Conclusion  Our analysis suggests that about two thirds of the late twentieth century warming has been due to anthropogenic influences and about one third due to the AMO.

It’s good to see more-and-more rational skeptics are convinced by the ever-strengthening scientific evidence … that climate-change is real, anthropogenic, serious, and accelerating.

Thank you for this fine up-to-date thorough Chylek reference, Rob Ellison!

In a world where the sea-level is rising, the oceans are heating, and the polar ice is melting — all without pause or evident limit — it’s no wonder that more-and-more serious yet formerly skeptical scientists — like Dr. Petr Chylek and Adm David Titley for example — are embracing James Hansen’s climate-science consensus!

\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 Open thread by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

It has been my point all along that the reduced heat measured at a point is mostly a result of the reduced molecular density. The parcel expands and diffuses through the surrounding lower density space. The effect ripples out in wider circles – and energy is always conserved. Work – and where does that energy go – is a humdrum metaphor for the molecules and the energy they carry diffusing outward from higher to lower pressure.

This – as I keep saying – is not the dry adiabatic lapse rate but is the dance of the sugar plum fairy.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by phatboy

$
0
0

Yes, around the same amount of energy is absorbed by the melting ice over six months of the year as that released by the re-freezing of the ice over the next six months.

Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

Robert Ellison wrote: “It has been my point all along that the reduced heat measured at a point is mostly a result of the reduced molecular density. The parcel expands and diffuses through the surrounding lower density space.”

There is no heat measured at a point. Heat is measured in a volume. You must mean what is the temperature (or volumetric KE energy density) measured at a point. This is (approximately) proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules in the vicinity of that point. So, what is needed is an account of the reduction of the kinetic energy of the molecules. Only a small fraction of the reduction in kinetic energy is accounted for by their being spread out in a wider volume, and hence being given up to the electrostatic potential.

“The effect ripples out in wider circles – and energy is always conserved. Work – and where does that energy go – is a humdrum metaphor for the molecules and the energy they carry diffusing outward from higher to lower pressure.”

But where does that energy go, indeed? There has been an increase in electrostatic potential energy that compensates only for a small fraction of the *total* reduction in KE for all the molecules in the expanded volume. So there is a net reduction in internal energy. It’s not just more spread out. It’s reduced a whole lot more than the increase in electrostatic potential energy can account for. So, where did the missing energy go?

It was lost *outside* of the volume through work. That’s my answer. You have no answer so you can’t account for energy conservation at all.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Little Audrey

$
0
0

Mosher : doing nothing is also acting. and doing nothing because you aren’t sure makes the mistake of thinking you need knowledge to act. You dont.

True. You only need knowledge to act RATIONALLY.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

‘Our analysis suggests that the ratio of the Arctic to global temperature change varies on [a] multi-decadal time scale. The commonly held assumption of a factor of 2-3 for the Arctic amplification has been valid only for the current warming period 1970-2008. The Arctic region did warm considerably faster during the 1910-1940 warming compared to the current 1970-2008 warming rate (Table 1). During the cooling from 1940-1970 the Arctic amplification was extremely high, between 9 and 13. The Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation multi-decadal variability is suggested as a major cause of Arctic temperature variation.’

https://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

Good to see FOMBS so warmly embracing vigorous decadal to cenntennial variability and what that might imply for the Arctic, the US, Alaska and parts of Europe.

Here’s a new one that attributes Pacific Northwest US 20th century warming to natural variability.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/40/14360.abstract


Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Here’s someone else charting the decline of AMOC – http://www.ocean-sci.net/10/29/2014/os-10-29-2014.pdf

OMG – could the stadium wave be right and we are looking at substantial temperature declines across much of the NH as the AO turns negative and AMOC declines?

Correct me if I am wrong – but I don’t believe Hansen has picked up on this. You’d better let him know FOMBS.

Comment on Open thread by David Springer

$
0
0

The rising parcel of air loses kinetic energy and gains gravitational potential energy. Total energy remains constant but temperature declines because temperature doesn’t measure potential energy. Total energy is also reduced as the expanding gas accomplishes work by pushing other gases out of the way as it expands. Total energy is reduced by that mechanism.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

‘The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady
since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming
of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates. Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.’

http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Tung_and_Zhou_2013_PNAS.pdf

Tung and Zhou of course famously put it at 40% of the 50 year trend – leaving some 0.4 degrees C at 0.07-0.08 degrees C/decade as the anthropogenic warming.

This puts sensitivity at less than 1 degree C from recent observations. Can’t get better than that. Nothing to be unduly alarmed about it seems.

Happy to see you are finally on board SS Sceptic FOMBS – after your last ride hit an iceberg.

Comment on Open thread by  D C

$
0
0
  Yes <b>Pierre</b>, it is indeed exactly as you say: <i>"what is needed is an account of the reduction of the kinetic energy of the molecules."</i> That as <b>Rob Ellison</b> does not realise is the only way a gas cools - its mean KE per molecule (not bulk KE of course) must be lowered. That happens for the same reason that a stone slows down when you throw it vertically into the air. I won't try to explain it in terms of school-boy Newtonian physics or gravitational potential energy because that would confuse our dear Rob. So I'll take him back to his childhood stone throwing days.  

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Rob Ellison, pretty much *ALL* of the articles — the ones that you’ve been frenetically citing —accept Hansen’s long-term energy-balance climate-change worldview. … nowadays it’s mighty hard to find *ANY* climate-scientist who thinks differently … `cuz the scientific evidence, long-term economic consequence, and generational moral implications are too serious to be ignored.

Conclusion  The time has come for climate-change skeptics to grow up.

*THAT* sobering reality</b< is evident to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?

\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 Open thread by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

DC wrote: “Yes Pierre, it is indeed exactly as you say: “what is needed is an account of the reduction of the kinetic energy of the molecules.”

That as Rob Ellison does not realise is the only way a gas cools – its mean KE per molecule (not bulk KE of course) must be lowered.

That happens for the same reason that a stone slows down when you throw it vertically into the air.”

Is that also for you explanation of the equal amount of adiabatic cooling as a result of the very same ratio of volume increase during the second stage of the Carnot cycle? Gravity? Really? Even if the piston is moved out horizontally?

Comment on Open thread by  D C

$
0
0

 

Rob Ellison now seems to acknowledge that diffusion takes place in gases, although at first he thought it was in solids. He wrote ” diffusing outward from higher to lower pressure.”

Well Rob, any new thermal energy which is absorbed in a region and which disturbs a previous state of thermodynamic equilibrium will indeed lead to outward diffusion (more precisely convection, which includes by definition both diffusion and advection) but that outward diffusion occur for one and only one reason, namely that entropy increases, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics states it will. The direction is not determined by pressure differences. That’s wind you’re thinking of.

Do you observe a density gradient in our troposphere? Good. Then you know the Second Law of Thermodynamics is working despite the weather

Do you observe a temperature gradient in our troposphere? Good. Then you know the Second Law of Thermodynamics is working despite the weather..


Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Temperature is measured with a detector – I was thinking of my forearm but anything will do.

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/thermometer.html

In the real world what do you imagine diffusion means? You don’t have a theory – you have a mechanical analogy.

A stone thrown into the air will not stay there Dougie – a hydrodynamically stable air parcel will. There is a critical difference between buoyancy in a fluid such as the atmosphere and free fall of a dense object that – like much else – you miss entirely as a result of your monomania.

And of course the perceived heat depends not just on the kinetic energy of the molecule but the number of molecules hitting your face. And of course air in the upper atmosphere is cooler because of radiative physics to start with.

Your derivation is just plain wrong
and P-N can’t move past the mechanical metaphor is an analysis that is not even approximately right. The US standard atmosphere environmental lapse rate is some 6.5 degrees C/km – the dry adiabatic rate is 9.8.

This suggests that other processes are in play – and I suggest that if you can get accurate numbers from your ersatz dry lapse rate then you are fiddling the books.

Now – I have certainly been patient enough with both of your childish gibes and incompetent physics . This is over as far as I am concerned.

Comment on Open thread by  D C

$
0
0
Is that my explanation, Pierre? Not directly. But each result is derived from Kinetic Theory using the same assumptions. The Ideal Gas Law is derived from Kinetic Theory. The temperature gradient in non-radiating gases in a force field such as gravity or centrifugal force in, for exaample, a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube is also derived directly from Kinetic Theory as I have demonstrated in several comments above. After all, when that stone is thrown into the air we do see KE and gravitational PE interchanging, now don't we? And that's all we need to derive the temperature gradient. After al, didn't I explain to you both that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium must have no unbalanced energy potentials, and so the mean sum (PE + KE) is constant at all altitudes when the Second Law of Thermodynamics has its way, which it tends towards doing despite the weather. Now I'm busy this weekend because my eight-year-old son is playing in the open Junior (under 18) lawn bowls tournament here, having been runner up in our club's under 18 singles. You can see him in the fourth photo <a href="http://www.thehills.bowls.com.au/customdata/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_main&ItemID=64394&OrgID=17163" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

“This is over as far as I am concerned.”

That’s fine with me. It’s been a bit surreal.

Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

“Now I’m busy this weekend because my eight-year-old son is playing in the open Junior (under 18) lawn bowls tournament here, having been runner up in our club’s under 18 singles. You can see him in the fourth photo here.”

Nice. Spend more time with him and less time inventing new handles to post on blogs where you are banned owing to your unrecognized genius.

Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

Energy balances change abruptly. Climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain. it makes for an unpredictable system.

The theory of abrupt climate change is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. The planet moves past thresholds and the climate response is internally generated – with changes in cloud, ice, dust and biology – and proceeds at a pace determined by the system itself. Thus the balance below is pushed past a point at which stage a new equilibrium spontaneously emerges. The old theory of climate suggests that warming is inevitable. The new theory suggests that global warming is not guaranteed and that climate surprises are inevitable.

It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

We were very excited too when FOMBS joined the serried ranks rising and cheering in celebration of the stadium wave – the second most exciting climate discovery of the century thus far – after and supplementary to the dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Welcome to the stadium FOMBS.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images