Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Layman struggles with Science
Another interesting use for a fish tank and dry ice. Cool

How to build your own particle detector
Quote:Make a cloud chamber and watch fundamental particles zip through your living room!

Short video of the whole process at end.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Ah, here we are again. Been poorly. Had a triple by-pass in September last year. All seems to be well now.
Memory wasn't too good after 4 hours plus on the operating table but reading slowly through some 16 pages of
posts seems to be helping.  Wink

With luck should be around long enough now to celebrate the cold when it comes. Been keeping an eye on sunspots
and indicators are that a severe cold period for Planet Earth is on the cards. We shall see.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
(10-22-2016, 07:19 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Ah, here we are again. Been poorly. Had a triple by-pass in September last year. All seems to be well now.
Memory wasn't too good after 4 hours plus on the operating table but reading slowly through some 16 pages of
posts seems to be helping.  Wink

With luck should be around long enough now to celebrate the cold when it comes. Been keeping an eye on sunspots
and indicators are that a severe cold period for Planet Earth is on the cards. We shall see.

Welcome back.

Glad to hear you are "on the mend".

Perhaps you are right:  "cooler" heads will prevail.

Smile
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
Woah!

Glad to see you getting better. Hopefully you can enjoy your retirement more fully.

You mention about a cooling future,which I agree but not that severe,since there is probably one more significant warming phase left in the ocean after that. It takes a long time for accumulated solar energy of past 150 years to dissipate into the atmosphere.

Many El-Nino's is a mark of a cooling world,that slowly cools the ocean waters down. HERE is a thread about it, LINK

I have been reading several books I purchased,showing that the Holocene interglacial,is in now in late Fall part of the cycle. Next glacial advance is coming. Glacial winter is close now,where cooling becomes the new norm.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
 
Quote:Hopefully you can enjoy your retirement more fully.

Well, I'm catching up, slowly, with house maintenance and painting.  Rolleyes

Agree the real cold of an ice age is a few decades away yet, but I'm very interested in the coming cooler weather which will, in fact already is, effect the crop growing window. All the CO2 is helping the crops but the quiet sun is letting global temperatures drop despite all the official claims to the the contrary.

Just one example...

Early Europe Winter? …And Greenland Sees “Record” 12 Billion Tonnes Ice Growth In A Single Day!

[url=http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/22/early-europe-winter-and-greenland-sees-record-12-billion-tonnes-ice-growth-in-a-single-day/][/url]
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Blast! Have to learn how to post links again.  Blush
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
(10-23-2016, 11:20 PM)Richard111 Wrote: Blast! Have to learn how to post links again.  Blush

You used an already linked title,used the link button, to create a double link.

Rolleyes
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
Hmm... didn't see the second link in the preview. Never mind, having another go.

2016 ANNUAL GWPF LECTURE

Excellent talk there by Matt Ridley. Sadly he believes in 'greenhouse gases'.

How anyone can believe a radiative gas, freely mixed in the atmosphere, can trap heat beats me.

A non-radiative gas can trap heat. Gravity keeps the atmosphere in contact with the surface. The sun warms the surface, conduction warms the bottom layer of the gas and convection carries the heat up. The warmed molecules pass this heat (via kinetic collisions) to cooler molecules above (adiabatic lapse rate) and so on up the atmospheric column. But the question is “Where did the heat go?". Nitrogen, oxygen and argon, which constitute more than 99% of the atmosphere cannot radiate. Yet the atmosphere up at the tropopause is always nice and cold. Why? Radiation from CO2, H2O and O3  plus other obscure gas molecules.

Since gas molecules radiate through 360 degrees cubed the argument is half that energy gets back to the surface. True. But since the energy came from the surface in the first place how can it warm the surface some more?

It doesn't. Best it can do is delay cooling and then only at night. (clouds have a big effect here)

Ah, well, people get bored if one rabbits on too much. Looking forward to the coming cool period assuming global war doesn't get me first.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
More we are doomed rubbish on the UK Daily Mail website.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...ought.html
Antarctic glaciers are in hot water: Rate of ‘intense unbalanced melting’ is accelerating faster than thought

I have posted this before but can‘t remember where.  Cool



Quote:I once attempted a layman calculation on how much landbourne ice must melt to raise global sea level by 1 metre. I came to the conclusion that 400,000 cubic kilometres of ice would do the job nicely. The interesting part was how much energy is required to achieve this. The isothermal melting of ice requires some 334 kilojoules per kilogram at 273.16 K. That figure applies only to the change of state from solid to liquid between the temperatures of -0.01C to +0.01C (or from 273.14K to 273.16K). But most of the ice on Antarctica is way below this temperature (like -50C) and for every degree below freezing each kilogram of ice will require a further  average of some 2 kilojoules per degree more. To cut a long story short I reached the grand total of 121,454,545,500,000,000,000 kilojoules of energy.

The next problem was how to deliver this energy to the ice. Can't use the sea, the ice is on land! I picked a time scale of 20 years, (twice the then alarmist time of 10 years) and derived a figure of 20,000 WATTS PER SQUARE METRE! The sun would have  to go Nova to do that. If the time scale was extended to 10,000 years then it is possible. Alarmists never come back with any math, just waffle on how the sea is going to burrow under the ice. Suggesting that this means water must run UPHILL gets no response.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Hi Richard111,
Yup, "they" have been at it with old polar bears too (again) recently... LOL.

You may be interested in my latest PROM paper that will be posted soon at PSI. It is the follow on paper to,
http://principia-scientific.org/publicat...tology.pdf
The Modelling History of Climatology.
The above paper is basically a timeline, explaining the who and the when, and therefore the "motivation". Yes, Maurice Strong was right at the heart of it all.
In the early 1970s Strong's, the UN's, environMENTAList agenda needed a new poster child, climate modelling gave it to him and the UN...

The above naturally led on in a certain direction, which I followed. I have found what was originally put into the climate models as "Radiation theory" that became "Radiative transfer theory", that became Greenhouse effect "theory".
It was never a theory... "It" has never been changed (or even mentioned) in the published literature...

In short, the new PROM paper explains what it is they said in the published literature they originally put into the climate models as "radiation theory".
It is shown in my paper, with the aid of an excel workbook that faithfully follows the calculation method as described by them, "it" is unphysical rubbish.
Which, at best, leaves them with a rather awkward question -
IF that is not what they are calculating now (which has never been changed in the published literature), what are they calculating?

Angel
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
Gosh Derek! Lot of work there. Way out of my pay scale.

I'm still trying to find out how "carbon forcing" works. So many 'scientists' claim it does happen. Best I can do is claim that CO2 in DRY air can delay cooling by some 9%. With WET air, with say 100% cloud cover, cooling is delayed to such an extent that sub surface heat now warms the air such that temperatures, at night, almost reach previous day's temperature. But of course, when the sun rises, behind the clouds, no further warming occurs.

Have noted this effect here in Wales many times. Cloud is VERY effective. Right now, looking out the window as I type, I can see weak shadows cast by the sun because of the high layer of haze overhead. Temperatures won't go up much today. Very little to no wind. High pressure area here. Certainly won't get as warm as the BBC says it will.   Rolleyes
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Re CO2 supposed "warming" affect, that ain't - errr, this may be of interest..

http://principia-scientific.org/universi...as-theory/

Excerpt -
"The Department of Physics, National University of Ireland thus offers independent analysts a standardized laboratory experiment using thermal physics to look at how convection and radiation on a cooling body seem to apply in the man-made global warming debate.

If this empirical evidence can be believed then gases in earth’s atmosphere are reducing the earth’s temperature more than the radiative loss of energy to the vacuum of space. If true, then one of the most cited claims of mainstream science, that our planet is “33 degrees warmer” due to carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gas effect, is wrong.

Without doubt the Irish lab test proves cooling by convection is measurably greater than cooling by radiation. And when facts prove your theory wrong, time to change the theory."


Link to experiment.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._radiation
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
btw "carbon forcing" only works in the computer climate models that are based upon radiation theory (the original name for GH "theory").
According to Lewis Fry Richardson in his 1922 book radiation theory is one of the rare exceptions to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!!!!!
And, apparently, so it is to this day, but only in the computer climate models (CCMs)...

http://principia-scientific.org/publicat...UNIPCC.pdf
Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models -
Is it a sound basis?

"carbon forcing" in the CCMs "works" by the supposed CO2 warming affect increasing the modelled positive feedback from water vapour.
CO2 does not warm, AND, the water cycle is a negative feedback, or rather a cooling, not warming effect (if one prefers not to use the term feedback).
Thus, in the real world there is no such thing as "carbon forcing", hence an actual scientist will not be able to explain the term to anyone...

nb - Water vapour (the water cycle) was modelled as a negative feedback until the late 1960s / early 1970s, when Charney changed it to a positive feedback to get funding (fame and kudos) from Strong / UN.... Charney basically states such in the first 5 to 6 pages of his 1979 Report.... The motivation for the change of the feedback sign from negative to positive was funding, NOT science...

nnb - some are now avoiding using the term feedback, because it may well be just a made up bull dung term modellers find useful to confuse people with.
I am still pondering that one over at present, but there could be a good point being made.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
Derek writes,


Quote:nb - Water vapour (the water cycle) was modelled as a negative feedback until the late 1960s / early 1970s, when Charney changed it to a positive feedback to get funding (fame and kudos) from Strong / UN.... Charney basically states such in the first 5 to 6 pages of his 1979 Report.... The motivation for the change of the feedback sign from negative to positive was funding, NOT science...

That change is a sign of political corruption,since it is well know for many decades beforehand,that water Vapor absorbs a lot of heat from the surface that gets transported upward into clouds. Evaporation can only occur if it is allowed to remove heat,which is a COOLING process.

Positive feedback from Water Vapor is pure baloney,not when it is removing heat from the surface,which it does every day.

To this date from 1979,there has been ZERO evidence of the postulated warming feedback,Surely by now people have to be asking themselves where is that run away warming trend,so often babbled about? The planet has had weather events for a BILLION years now,but NEVER a run away warming trend,not even when CO2 levels were over 4000 ppm for millions of years. Heck the first big ice age happened during a high CO2 level,maybe the coldest one of them all.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
Derek writes,


Quote:nnb - some are now avoiding using the term feedback, because it may well be just a made up bull dung term modellers find useful to confuse people with.

I am still pondering that one over at present, but there could be a good point being made.

How can it be called a feedback when Water Vapor is REMOVING heat from the surface,taking it thousands of feet upward?

Even OUTGOING IR is also a cooling effect,because heat is being transported away from the surface.

Whatever CO2 does,it is not causing any warming because as the earth warms up,the heat outflow is far greater than the postulated CO2 warming effect.

Here is what John Kehr said,


Quote:A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space.  That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference.  It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984.  If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.
The science of this is very clear.  The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.  The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Yet the IPCC report says the very opposite,that CO2 would slow or stop the outflow of additional energy to space. No positive feedback is possible since the outflow is always much greater than the postulated CO2 warm forcing effect.

The entire AGW conjecture died a long time ago.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
(11-01-2016, 08:34 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: How can it be called a feedback when Water Vapor is REMOVING heat from the surface,taking it thousands of feet upward?

Yet at night water vapour condenses on the surface reducing cooling. Given condensation is an exothermic process.
ie, reduces cooling when cooling is occurring. A negative feedback.

As I say, still pondering the "feedback" issue...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
(11-01-2016, 08:58 AM)Derek Wrote:
(11-01-2016, 08:34 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: How can it be called a feedback when Water Vapor is REMOVING heat from the surface,taking it thousands of feet upward?

Yet at night water vapour condenses on the surface reducing cooling. Given condensation is an exothermic process.
ie, reduces cooling when cooling is occurring. A negative feedback.

As I say, still pondering the "feedback" issue...

It is not a feedback when it is negative....... there is a LOSS in the process,thus no actual feedback going on.

A change in the rate of a cooling process is not a feedback issue,it is a rate change of energy transfer issue.

Feedback, is overused and abused word in climate discussions.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
""Feedback, is overused and abused word in climate discussions.""

Indeed. Spent most of my working life doing electronics and if you get the feedback wrong things don‘t work.

Must think about this some more. In the mean time see how my local temperatures changed and the dew point readings. Note that while these changes are occurring there was not much wind.

http://www.milfordweather.org.uk

This abrupt temperature change will only be visible for one week. Will write some thoughts shortly.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Been checking the validity of the temperature, humidity and dew point readings with calculator here
and the climate graph readings seem to agree. 

Next thing is to understand exactly what is happening. I note as temperature falls, dew point falls and humidity rises.

My interpretation is that H2O molecules in the local area are INCREASING as temperature drops.

Looking at the emissivity graphs of CO2 and H2O we see H2O vastly out radiates CO2 yet the temperature drops!!

I reckon this is a good argument to run up a greenies whatsit.   Wink
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Derek, see your paper is getting exposure. Well done. What led you to travel down that road?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)