Tony,
Looks like fracking is gearing up in GB, so you”ll enjoy those benefits for a while. But yes, Mr. Rose is spreading irrational fear of the “Green Blob” as it plays well on the high energy bills and anger about that. You and others are putty in Mr. Rose’s hands.
J. H. Jeans, The Dynamical Theory of Gases, Dover Publications, 4th Edition, 1954.
S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases: An Account of the Kinetic Theory of Viscosity, Thermal Conduction and Diffusion in Gases, Cambridge University Press, 3rd Edition, 1991.
C. Cercignani, The Mathematical theory of Dilute Gases, Springer, 1994.
L. Boltzmann, Lectures on Gas Theory, Dover Publications, Reprint Edition, 2011.
C. Truesdell and R. G. Muncaster, Fundamentals of Maxwell’s Kinetic Theory of a Simple Monatomic Gas: Treated as a Branch of Rational Mechanics, Academic Press, 1980.
R. Gates – Green Blob denier.
The Green Blob will get you!!! Run for your wallets!!!
The only true external forcing is the Sun (and probably GCR), ocean evaporation and Arctic freeze, thaw cycles do all of the regulation.
The most promising lens for PV applications is the Fresnel lens, which uses a complex sawtooth design to focus incoming light. When the teeth run in straight rows, the lenses act as line-focusing concentrators. When the teeth are arranged in concentric circles, light is focused at a central point. However, no lens can transmit 100% of the incident light. Typical lenses can transmit 90% to 95%, and in practice, many transmit less. Furthermore, concentrators cannot focus diffuse sunlight, which makes up about 30% of the solar radiation in some locations. High concentration ratios also introduce a heat problem. When solar radiation is concentrated, so is the amount of heat produced. Cell efficiencies decrease as temperatures increase, and higher temperatures also threaten the long-term stability of solar cells. Therefore, the solar cells must be kept cool in a concentrator system, requiring sophisticated heat transfer designs (EERE, 2011).
[...]
CPV systems are likely to be relatively low cost electricity generators because the expensive solar cells are replaced with less costly structural-steel holding mirrors or lenses. However, early CPV systems showed the importance of optical efficiencies as optical losses sometimes lowered the efficiency of CPV systems by 15 % to 20%. Today’s CPV systems incorporating highly efficient III-V silicon solar-cells have system efficiencies approaching 29%. The costs of installed CPV systems today are comparable to those of utility-scale flat-plate PV systems. However, further improvement of III-V solar cells, now about 42% efficient (Figure 5), is still possible since these efficiencies are far below the physical limits for converting sunlight into electricity.
You can look at the years with open Arctic Records and see the immediate cooling that prevents new records for several years. It takes a lot of years with more snowfall to put enough ice on land to produce significant ice advance. We will have several more sixty year cycles inside this modern Warm Cycle before the Arctic Closes, but it will close. Anyone who believe the Arctic did not open during every warm period in the past ten thousand years is ignoring the repeating cycles in the data. Every one of the warm periods ended because it snowed more while it was warm.
Well, no, not quite. Volcanoes, large asteroids, changes to GHG composition, biological changes, can all represent huge external forcings to the climate system and have repeatedly altered Earth’s climate in the past and will do so in the future.
The logic is that nobody in the entire climate clique called the mistakes out, which means there’s no serious science anywhere in it.
Rob Ellison: “The energy partitioning is still wrong.”
It was *your* proposal Rob, not mine. You said that when two containers have the same volume and same temperature, and the same total thermal energy (despite having different molar amounts of gas), in order to get the average energy density of “the compressed gas” one must simply divide the total internal energy by the number of molecules to get the average per molecule. You argued this in many different ways, both for KEavg and Uavg with no distinction. For instance:
(Rob Ellison) “Take these cylinders of oxygen again – they are in local thermodynamic equilibrium. This means that the total thermal energy is the same in all cases. But there are more molecules in the compressed gas – which means that the average kinetic energy per molecule is less.”
So, you’re saying that (1) the total energy — Utotal — is the *same* in both containers, despite the number of molecules being different, and that (2) one simply divide by the number of molecules N to get EKavg.
Do you still stand by those two claims?
kim has “Asked Spencer Weart when he is going to write ‘The Discovery of Global Cooling’.
CricketsCrikey!“
Kim’s “crickets” versus climate-warming “crikey”!
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September.
Crikey … say Quakers (among many)!
And it was approved by the universities AND it got $350,000 in grant money so presumably it was approved by the granting agency.
The path that government and academic “science” is following is such that it won’t be long before the default assumption among the intelligent will be to ignore anything that comes out of it. For the left, this will be a way to avoid embarrassment while on the right it’s just plain common sense.
Since sunspots increase UV which penetrates the ocean deeply, and CO2 back radiation has no UV and is basically a skin effect – the two forcings are so different in nature they are almost different in kind. Because the sun achieves deep penetration of the ocean (to over 200 m) the feedbacks to an increase in solar activity (more SW – particularly in the UV range) would be very different to an increase in LW back radiation from CO2.
kim
as usual you are right
IHMO
“climate change” is mostly a cultural values fight
driven by the guilt of modern western sophisticates about their spectacular material affluence
if life is this good, Gaia must be laying in wait teach us a lesson
even modern secular liberals know that sin does not go unpunished
oops… IMHO
Instead of TSI, can we get information on variations in the UV/VIS ratio over a solar cycle?
![\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}")
