Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
the facts about global warming
#81
I returned to the page linked in the above post to catch up on new postings and among the many interesting links I came across this gem:

Lecture notes in Physical Meteorology

This is a 150 page PDF file of University lecture notes for an MSc !!!! Cool

Chapter 5 discusses radiation in the atmosphere in some detail.

I recommend this to everybody who is interested in learning how the atmosphere works. It is well written and so far I have been able to read it without getting lost in obscure unexplained science.

I hope I can read it all the way through. Rolleyes
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#82
Thanks Richard111 -

Quick scanning looks like a useful pdf.
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
#83
Richard111,
Those lecture notes are very useful. I have just skimmed through some parts and found this:

CHAPTER 5: ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION page 121
Quote:The transition from linear mass path dependence to slower dependence at high u is referred to as line (or band) saturation. At the current concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere (380 ppm), the 15 µm band is saturated (see exercise below), and the atmospheric greenhouse effect depends only logarithmically on the concentration.

How many times have the Warmists claimed otherwise?
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#84
A lucky find! My problem is I do not know the names of most of the mathematical symbols used in the examples. Blush

None of those symbols can be shown in text so I must look for a graphics based explanation. DW has just suggested I should look in our copy of Pears Cyclopaedia. (I think she wants to go on line. Wink )
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#85
A comment in WUWT pointed me to this site:

The Hockey Schtick

and specifically to this page which is very messy to read: (it has 26 pages!)

Rescue from the Climate Saviours
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#86
I have recently been at Jason's forum posting a few times.It appears that he is no longer interested in coming here.I have asked him why he has not been here.

I think he got quickly tired of our popping his warm air balloons.

The man is into college science training but still manage not to realize how screwed up the IPCC organization is.I have been trying hard to point out the serious problems that the one sided biased cherrypicking,Meta Analysis factory that the IPCC has been.

But it is not getting through.I wonder why he fails to see the evidence showing that a large portion of the IPCC 2007 report are NOT based on "peer reviewed" published papers.Too much of it built on questionable sources and even from the ...... he he.... snicker..... environmentalists who have a vested interest in fanning the warming propaganda.

Jive a listed member of his forum is apparently going to defend the IPCC to the death.He is furiously backpeddaling as I feed him undeniable evidence of how screwed up the 2007 report it is.He is now trying hard rationalizing away the many errors of that august science organization has been found to commit.

The very fact that he is backpeddaling so hard indicates that deep in his tortured brain,he knows that the sources of evidence I posted there is undeniable.

I think some people are just too stupidly obstinate to the point of being a fool.He refuses to chose rationality because he lacks the ability to know what is real and what is virtual.
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
#87
Bill MacLean is both right and wrong. He's partly right in that the "overwhelming mechanism for this is the evaporation of water and its condensation at altitude", since the earth's surface is 2/3 ocean, and there's a lesser though still large evaporation of rainwater, moisture from soil and evapotranspiration from plants on land. However, he's wrong in saying that "This energy is transported aloft in the form of fast moving water molecules mixed among the air molecules". The water molecules lose their excess kinetic energy almost immediately by collision with other air molecules. The net effect is warming above the surface, enhanced by the direct conduction of heat from the surface to the air above. The overall mechanism is the subsequent convection to altitude, with cooler drier air replacing the moister warmer air. The cooler drier air encourages further evaporation and conduction.

The transfer of kinetic energy by collision gives the lie to the "greenhouse back-radiation" myth. The "energy budget" diagrams show the warmed GHGs radiating strongly downwards (Why downwards only? But that's another matter....), but they can't possibly maintain the increased energy level after absorption because they lose the excess by collision, generally to non-GHGs, as these predominate, and which radiate only very weakly.

As for Pat Tyson, even a brief skim through his apparently scientific arguments reveals some strange and illogical statements
He says
Quote:A vapor molecule of total kinetic energy U that came from the sublimation
of an icicle hanging on Uncle Ivan’s dacha in Verkhoyansk when the temperature
was 233°K has exactly the same energy content (as far as we can tell) as a vapor
molecule of the identical total kinetic energy U that came from Aunt Tillie’s
teakettle at 373° K in Tunbridge Wells.
Which simplified says that two molecules which have the same kinetic energy have the same kinetic energy (as far as I can tell). It's nonsense of course, a vapour molecule emitted from boiling water has a much greater kinetic energy than one emitted from ice. Temperature is an indirect measure of kinetic energy of molecules.

Later:
Quote:When cloud droplets condense from water vapor, there is no
unusual increase in the radiative emissions of either the condensate or the
surrounding air. Each continues to radiate in keeping with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
In the first place,there was no condensate to begin with, so to talk about a change in the radiative emissions of that condensate is nonsense. Secondly,what's an "unusual increase"?

And again:
Quote:Similarly, when ice melts, the total kinetic energy plus the bonding energy of the resulting water is less than the total kinetic energy plus the bonding energy of the ice that preceded it. This missing energy is termed the latent heat of fusion (enthalpy of fusion). When freezing occurs, the total kinetic energy plus the bonding energy of the ice is greater than the total kinetic energy plus the bonding energy of the water that produced it. This added energy is termed the enthalpy of freezing.

Words fail me.... Well not entirely. He's saying that latent heat is "missing energy", and that energy has to be added to freeze water?

He says "To the best of my knowledge (admittedly, quite limited)...". I agree with him on this point at least.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#88
An interesting article by Alan Siddons:

Why Conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

I tried the "mirror test", seems valid, what does anyone else think?

The business of the vapour molecules in Pat Tyson's essay; a while since I read that, but I think the point was about "latent" energy, not "kinetic" which is temperature dependant. Equal volumes of water vapour condensing at -40C will release the same amount of energy when condencing at 0C.

Mind you I agree some of his writing is hard to follow but I put that down to my own lack of understanding.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#89

From post #6
(02-22-2010, 08:25 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: And we are being asked to make major lifestyle changes with very weak arguments to back that up.

What major lifestyle changes are we being asked to make ?

To know and not to do is not to know. - Old Chinese Proverb
Reply
#90
Are you serious SunriseJohnny?

I mean are you so unaware you have not noticed "electric cars" being foisted upon us.
The technology just isn't here yet (and will not apparently be here for some time yet),
either for batteries, or a suitably cheap and plentiful hydrogen gas supply for hydrogen cells to drive electric motors.
So, we are to adopt an unnecessary change with an electric generation problem to boot when we already have a perfectly good solution.
That solution, as oil is abiotic in origin, is actually "greening", it is called the internal combustion engine using petrol and diesel.
Electric cars are (at best) creating a problem, where no problem actually exists.

Surely you have had rammed down your throat the "glorious words" of "green" and "sustainable".
Surely the words should be "more efficient", and "better".
It is also a biological fact that emitting CO2 is "greening the world" (as proven by satelite images) because
it makes plants grow better as CO2 is usually the limiting factor to plant growth.

Have you not noticed us being forced to "recycle" ad infinitum, without first asking
"Is it cheaper than making new".
When the answer is Yes, then recycle, when the answer is No, then do not recycle,
because you are costing yourself (and us all) money and efficiency.

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
#91
(01-01-2011, 07:07 AM)Derek Wrote: Surely you have had rammed down your throat the "glorious words" of "green" and "sustainable".
Surely the words should be "more efficient", and "better".

But if "more efficient" and "better"(*) are neither sustainable or green, then why would I not want to be for electric cars and other new emerging technologies ?

(*) The word, "better" is a vague term. All technology has positive and negative aspects.


To know and not to do is not to know. - Old Chinese Proverb
Reply
#92
"But if "more efficient" and "better"(*) are neither sustainable or green"

The word or term "green" for reduced CO2 emissions is actually WRONG in regards to CO2 emissions, which is an all to often ignored, or not realised biological fact.

AND,
oil is actually "sustainable" (because it is abiotic in origin) by present "green" definitions / usage of the term.

"better" maybe a vague term sometimes, but in the context used here and referred to, it meant advantages outway disadvantages overall.

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
#93
(01-01-2011, 06:16 AM)SunriseJohnny Wrote: From post #6
(02-22-2010, 08:25 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: And we are being asked to make major lifestyle changes with very weak arguments to back that up.

What major lifestyle changes are we being asked to make ?

Something along the lines that we work hard to greatly reduce our "carbon footprint".They come in many forms,but advocated for the wrong reasons.That is the sad part.For the wrong reasons.

It is built on the bogus concerns.That we are creating a run away warming trend in the near future.

Environmentalists who have swallowed the insane idea that CO2 is a..... dangerous "polluting" molecule.Therefore we must,according to them.Reduce our CO2 emissions.

The absurdity of it all is that,even at the present time.The amount mankind emits is about 2.5% of the total yearly emissions.Nature emits the other 97.5%.

While it is a valid concern to use our resources wisely.It is not for the purpose of advancing political propaganda or acquire illegitimate power over others.

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
#94
I'm sure everyone here knows that the days of "Easy Oil" have left the building.
Domestic oil reserves that were once easily retrieved on America's homeland are depleted or rapidly nearing depletion. America now has to go farther and farther out to dangerous areas of the oceans with more expensive drilling equipment, or go into hostile countries (the real reason we invaded Iraq), or impede into areas that are set aside as wildlife preserves ( which risks destroying delicate eco-structures).

That's a huge reason why we have to go gangbusters developing technologies for improving alternative energy sources. We are behind the curve as it is.

Provided they don't ship all of [/b]the manufacturing jobs that would be involved in engineering, building, and setting up America's infrastructure for a new era in energy, this would be a boon for America's economy and sustained presence as a global leader.

I am not a AGW believer by any means, but I am all for the development of alternative energy sources for many reasons. China is actually ahead of America in this regard. We once had the "Space Race." Now, it's an "Energy Race."

I am all for electric cars. Bring it on. If it equates to good jobs for Americans, I'm all for it.

We had a 100% electric car where I work (Control Module Industries ) a few months ago. It's called the "Think City", gets 160km on a full charge, the body is 100% plastic, and the fit and finish on this small car was very impressive. A few employees drove it around and everyone said that it was a very peppy vehicle. Good pick up, and perfectly noiseless.

Will we totally remove ourselves from petroleum ? Probably not for a very long time (*). After all, all plastic-based products are petroleum-based. Petroleum is in drugs we take. It's in the clothes we wear. If it wasn't for petroleum, none of us would have computers that allows us to have an exchange of conversation like this.

(*) I did read something recently about a company that developed a process that converts plastic back into oil.

Thanks for all your responses. I appreciate it.
To know and not to do is not to know. - Old Chinese Proverb
Reply
#95
"I did read something recently about a company that developed a process that converts plastic back into oil."

Check out http://www.changingworldtech.com

I came across Changing World Tech a few years ago when they were developing the first real scale size facility. This company has developed and implemented a technology that converts any organic matter( from municipal waste to plastics) into usable oil. The process was developed a few decades ago but it never went anywhere until CWT found and resurrected it and made it viable. They built a real plant but costs to process turkey waste that generated 500 bbls of diesel oil per day but costs were much higher than the original projections and they couldn't make it profitable. CWT went bankrupt in 2009 and is in the process of re-organizing. Bill Gates and others of his ilk had invested big $$$. Hopefully they can emerge from bankruptcy in reasonable health because the technology has been proven, the need is there, and there are virtually unlimited applications..
Reply
#96
Easy oil seems to imply that oil will run out or be on the verge of running out before its replacement is secured. If you look at man's history with energy that has not been the case. Man's first energy was fire. Did we stop using fire because we ran out of wood? To generate heat we found coal was better. That ushered in the steam engine age and the railroad. When the combustion engine came along using gasoline was it because we were worried about coal reserves? Did we switch to gasoline because we ran out of coal? Hardly we are the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. Were nuclear plants developed because we were afraid of running out of oil? No. Every time man has switched energy because a better one was discovered, and that satisfied the free market pressures. By that I mean ended up after research and development costs being better, and reasonably cheap by comparison.
Reply
#97
Quote:I'm sure everyone here knows that the days of "Easy Oil" have left the building.Domestic oil reserves that were once easily retrieved on America's homeland are depleted or rapidly nearing depletion.

Huh?

I am not sure if you realize that at the present time.America has very large reserves of oil and "shale".Some of it of course is not at the present time economically feasible to extract it.

Here are a couple of links: U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL RESERVES

and,

America’s Untapped Oil

Domestic over pumping on the land were generally the main cause of wells being depleted or run dry.But now some of the dormant wells are refilling back up.

This fairly recent phenomenon is thought to be caused by Oil being created the ABIOTIC way.Thus refilling the wells with "new" oil.

You can read more about it in the ENERGY subforum.

Quote: America now has to go farther and farther out to dangerous areas of the oceans with more expensive drilling equipment, or go into hostile countries (the real reason we invaded Iraq), or impede into areas that are set aside as wildlife preserves ( which risks destroying delicate eco-structures).

Far offshore were mandated by environmentalists.Who wanted to keep oil away from the ocean shores.Oil companies are FORCED to go far offshore to pump oil.The same oil they can often reach just offshore.

This is one of the reasons why they had that Gulf oil spill disaster.It is MUCH harder to succeed in deep ocean waters for drilling oil.

I am not even going to show factually why Invading Iraq would not have made a difference,because Saddam was already selling the oil.But since America hardly buy any of it from Iraq.I can not see the point anyway.

This LINK shows that Iraq is a bit player on oil imports.

Wildlife such as that 10 acre patch in Alaska? That barren,windswept region.

Rolleyes

Quote:That's a huge reason why we have to go gangbusters developing technologies for improving alternative energy sources. We are behind the curve as it is.

We already have the technology.It is the Federal Government.The Environmentalists and the Media who keeps adding roadblocks to allowing them to mature economically.

They instead push LOW MASS power infrastructure such as Wind Power and Solar Power.Thus robbing the needed investment of $$$ and manpower.

They C A N N O T meet the consumer demands for reliable electrical power.

They are already a proven miserable failure on several grounds.They can not provide adequate power 24/7.They are not remotely economical,always requiring hefty subsidies before they even build them.

The concept of a "clean" nuclear power production has been known since at least the 1950's.Thorium nuclear power should be pushed HARD by Environmentalist.Since it is so much cleaner than coal and does not create dangerously high level of waste.

But they idiotically fight anything Nuclear because of their massive ignorance.Because of such decades long idiocy.Coal power has grown enormously to fill in the gaping hole.

All because Nuclear plants are not being built.

Quote:I am not a AGW believer by any means, but I am all for the development of alternative energy sources for many reasons. China is actually ahead of America in this regard. We once had the "Space Race." Now, it's an "Energy Race."

There several "alternative" energy already AVAILABLE.

It is the idiots in Washington and the environmentalists who keeps fighting anything other than their two cherished niche,wind and solar power.And Ethanol too.That crappy gasoline substitute,endlessly subsidized.

I am a member of a Forum Where they discuss the ongoing research on fusion power.It is FOCUS FUSION.

There are a number other fusion groups out there doing what Focus Fusion is trying to do.But they struggle for $$$.While our brain dead EPA and Environmentalists wants to regulate "carbon" since (sarcasm alert) it is a known dangerous pollutant.While they waste billions propping up solar and wind power,that will never ever come close to meeting the consumer power demand.They wasted billions more on Ethanol over the last 4 decades.

Quote:I am all for electric cars. Bring it on. If it equates to good jobs for Americans, I'm all for it.

The problem is that it does not reduce the "carbon footprint" enough to justify it.Not only that it uses very toxic materials for the batteries.Not only that,it is expensive and not practical for extended traveling.

Quote:We had a 100% electric car where I work (Control Module Industries ) a few months ago. It's called the "Think City", gets 160km on a full charge, the body is 100% plastic, and the fit and finish on this small car was very impressive. A few employees drove it around and everyone said that it was a very peppy vehicle. Good pick up, and perfectly noiseless.

I am sure it is a nice little car.But not practical on large scale consumer use.It takes a while to recharge them.It requires a lot of additional new power production to charge them.

You need to understand that having millions of these cars requires thousands of NEW electric power producing plants to charge all these electric cars.Mostly Coal power because Nuclear are still being fought everywhere.Thus producing a lot more air and water pollution.And increasing CO2 emissions.Defeating the very purpose of having the electric cars in the first place.

Mini cars,fork lifts and similar equipment have been running on electric power for many years.They are useful in some industrial applications.But not practical for regular driving in the cities.

Quote:Will we totally remove ourselves from petroleum ? Probably not for a very long time (*). After all, all plastic-based products are petroleum-based. Petroleum is in drugs we take. It's in the clothes we wear. If it wasn't for petroleum, none of us would have computers that allows us to have an exchange of conversation like this.

Very true and also fertilizers,food chemicals,preservatives and so on.

Quote:I did read something recently about a company that developed a process that converts plastic back into oil.

Hydrocarbons can be converted into oil.

Coal can be used to make gasoline.It is coming because it will be economically feasible to do that.

Quote:Thanks for all your responses. I appreciate it.

Smile
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
#98
(01-03-2011, 09:16 PM)ajmplanner Wrote: "I did read something recently about a company that developed a process that converts plastic back into oil."

Check out http://www.changingworldtech.com

I came across Changing World Tech a few years ago when they were developing the first real scale size facility. This company has developed and implemented a technology that converts any organic matter( from municipal waste to plastics) into usable oil. The process was developed a few decades ago but it never went anywhere until CWT found and resurrected it and made it viable. They built a real plant but costs to process turkey waste that generated 500 bbls of diesel oil per day but costs were much higher than the original projections and they couldn't make it profitable. CWT went bankrupt in 2009 and is in the process of re-organizing. Bill Gates and others of his ilk had invested big $$$. Hopefully they can emerge from bankruptcy in reasonable health because the technology has been proven, the need is there, and there are virtually unlimited applications..

That is a nice website.

Maybe you can make a thread of it in the Energy subforum sometime?

Smile
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
#99
"easy oil" seems to be used in a context to imply "peak oil",
so no, here, we do not "know" this,
I'm sure everyone here knows that the days of "Easy Oil" have left the building.

In point of fact, "we" are pretty sure this is a complete misnomer.
If you look around the forum you will find plenty to support this understanding "we" have here,
and as of yet,
nothing to refute or rebut that understanding.

Maybe SunriseJohnny could provide something to rebut what "we" know, or rather to the best of our understanding at present here.
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
(01-04-2011, 04:13 AM)Derek Wrote: "easy oil" seems to be used in a context to imply "peak oil",
so no, here, we do not "know" this,
I'm sure everyone here knows that the days of "Easy Oil" have left the building.

In point of fact, "we" are pretty sure this is a complete misnomer.
If you look around the forum you will find plenty to support this understanding "we" have here,
and as of yet,
nothing to refute or rebut that understanding.

Maybe SunriseJohnny could provide something to rebut what "we" know, or rather to the best of our understanding at present here.

If oil is still easy to get at in continental North America, why are large oil companies spending huge sums of money drilling so far out to sea in dangerous waters which require more sophisticated and expensive drilling equipment the farther they go out ?

Why are they wanting to drill in off shore Alaska against stiff opposition from environmentalists when they can take the easier and cheaper route and drill in easy spots ?

Is there a business strategy that I'm not seeing here ?

To know and not to do is not to know. - Old Chinese Proverb
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  UN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study Sunsettommy 0 5,599 05-27-2013, 08:17 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Occam’s Razor, the Null Hypothesis, and Anthropogenic Global Warming Sunsettommy 0 3,673 04-13-2013, 06:43 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Man-made global warming theory is falsified by satellite water vapor observations Sunsettommy 0 4,380 03-23-2013, 08:30 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Sunsettommy 0 3,388 03-23-2013, 07:45 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Sunsettommy 1 4,045 10-10-2012, 12:29 PM
Last Post: Earthling
  Turkish Scientists Confirm UHI Effect Is Overstating Global Warming - 4 Degree UHI Im Sunsettommy 0 5,406 09-13-2012, 06:02 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  NOAA Conducts Large-Scale Experiment And Proves Global Warming Skeptics Correct Sunsettommy 0 3,117 09-09-2012, 06:52 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Thermodynamice Of Global Warming ajmplanner 5 7,220 06-11-2012, 12:32 PM
Last Post: Questioning_Climate
  Why the theory of man-made global warming is incorrect Sunsettommy 2 5,002 05-19-2012, 09:03 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Global Warming - A Coolist's View Sunsettommy 0 3,481 01-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)