Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Wrong. Due to the relative interfacial energies between ice and air, ice and water, and water and air, there is NO need to superheat ice in order to melt it.

Professor - are you using "melting" as a proxy for the word "ablation?" "Melting" is somewhat of a specific term. The process of sublimation is a form of glacial "ablation" that is distinct from "melting."

Saying ice is disappearing because it is "melting" may, in fact, be incorrect. I suspect this is why you refer to phase transitions.

As a physics professor, I also would reckon that you don't merely tell you students that they are wrong all the time. Rather, I would suspect that you either give them the answers or lead them down a path to discovery.

When I want legal advice I consult a lawyer, not argue with one on the internet and tell him he's wrong.

If anyone would like a lesson on thermodynamics, I recommend they enroll in a (calculus based) college physics or pchem class.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm not saying you were wrong.

What I was suggesting is that you were being pretty darn vague as to the reasons why another poster was wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

True. When liquid water is boiling adding heat does not increase its temperature - much like adding heat to an ice water slush will not increase its temperature. It'll merely change the phase until the ice is gone (or substantially gone) and then heat it.

Heat and temperature are different concepts. I get it. Change of phase/state.

Nice how easily you explained it. Note that you can add salt to -2 degree C water and it'l undergo a phase transition. PV=nRT is a fun equation, too, wherein adding heat can result in no change in temperature if volume is allowed to change.

There are somewhat unusual and contrived circumstances where adding heat to a system causes the temperature to drop. More common is the case where taking heat from a system can cause its temperature to rise. Supercooled sodium acetate solution or supercooled liquid camphene, for examples, can be induced to crystallize by further cooling, at which point the temperature shoots up many tens of degrees.

Anyhow, heat != temperature.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

I'm not saying you were wrong.

What I was suggesting is that you were being pretty darn vague as to the reasons why another poster was wrong.

"Heat != temperature" is not vague, it's precise, concise and fundamental to the discussion.

When said poster has made several hundred posts on the topic of warming and cooling a reasonable expectation is that said poster might have taken the trouble to learn the fundamentals

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Reasonable enough.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

You purposefully (I suspect) ignored or missed his point. … Is that what you are accusing some one of being here?

If so, who?

Perhaps it isn't me who missed the point, sir.

No, it looks as though it was you at this point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You purposefully (I suspect) ignored or missed his point. … Is that what you are accusing some one of being here?

If so, who?

Perhaps it isn't me who missed the point, sir.

No, it looks as though it was you at this point

It's easy to miss your points because they are usually expressed in such mangled and contorted English.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You purposefully (I suspect) ignored or missed his point. … Is that what you are accusing some one of being here?

If so, who?

Perhaps it isn't me who missed the point, sir.

No, it looks as though it was you at this point

It's easy to miss your points because they are usually expressed in such mangled and contorted English.

And you usually have no point to make! does that make us even?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You purposefully (I suspect) ignored or missed his point. … Is that what you are accusing some one of being here?

If so, who?

Perhaps it isn't me who missed the point, sir.

No, it looks as though it was you at this point

It's easy to miss your points because they are usually expressed in such mangled and contorted English.

And you usually have no point to make! does that make us even?

"Your search for kallend in posts made by rushmc returned 1655 results in 0.901s."

Why do you respond so often to posts that you reckon have no point? Too much time on your hands?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You purposefully (I suspect) ignored or missed his point. … Is that what you are accusing some one of being here?

If so, who?

Perhaps it isn't me who missed the point, sir.

No, it looks as though it was you at this point

It's easy to miss your points because they are usually expressed in such mangled and contorted English.

And you usually have no point to make! does that make us even?

"Your search for kallend in posts made by rushmc returned 1655 results in 0.901s."

Why do you respond so often to posts that you reckon have no point? Too much time on your hands?

Well really it is just for the entertainment value

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

For you reading pleasure

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

A few of the conclusions

(the paper was in)

Quote

March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skinnay 0]

Quote

For you reading pleasure

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

A few of the conclusions

(the paper was in)

Quote

March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=186598

[kallend 1,648]

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without
an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.
PACS numbers: 92.60.Vb,05.90.+m
I. INTRODUCTION
The results presented here are not new. However the form of presentation is designed to clearly and accurately
respond to recent claims1 that a physics-based analysis can “falsify” the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, the
standard presentation in climatology textbooks2 is accurate in all material respects. The following explores in more
detail certain points that seem to have been cause for confusion.
First presented are the definitions of basic terms and the relevant equations for the flow of energy. The situation for
a planet with no infrared-absorbing atmosphere is then examined, and a constraint on average temperature is proved.
Several specific models of planets with no infrared-absorbing atmospehere are then solved, including one presented
by Gerlich and Tscheuschner1, and it is verified that all satisfy this constraint.
A simple infrared-absorbing atmospheric layer is added to these models, and it is proved that the temperature
constraint is easily violated, as is shown by the observational data for Earth.

etc.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324v1

Nice try, though. It's a pity you don't understand the crap that you cut and paste.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without
an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.
PACS numbers: 92.60.Vb,05.90.+m
I. INTRODUCTION
The results presented here are not new. However the form of presentation is designed to clearly and accurately
respond to recent claims1 that a physics-based analysis can “falsify” the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, the
standard presentation in climatology textbooks2 is accurate in all material respects. The following explores in more
detail certain points that seem to have been cause for confusion.
First presented are the definitions of basic terms and the relevant equations for the flow of energy. The situation for
a planet with no infrared-absorbing atmosphere is then examined, and a constraint on average temperature is proved.
Several specific models of planets with no infrared-absorbing atmospehere are then solved, including one presented
by Gerlich and Tscheuschner1, and it is verified that all satisfy this constraint.
A simple infrared-absorbing atmospheric layer is added to these models, and it is proved that the temperature
constraint is easily violated, as is shown by the observational data for Earth.

etc.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324v1

Nice try, though. It's a pity you don't understand the crap that you cut and paste.

Maybe
but is easy to figure out what kind of posts force you to type replies

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[winsor 187]

I like this guy's standpoint.

Invoking the religious aspect of the matter appeals to people's fundamental stupidity, and stupidity is our only limitless natural resource.

However, using such stupidity carries great risks, since it is hard to keep terrified sheep pointed in a particular direction, and much gets trampled in the process.

My objection to "Climate Science" is not so much a matter of Continuum Mechanics, Radiation Heat Transfer and whatnot, it is the religious fervor shown by both the unwashed masses (as led by Algore), and people whose credentials would have led me to expect better.

I am constantly amazed by otherwise intelligent people who, when they shift into "religious mode," are capable of spouting the most inane drivel. The cult of "Global Warming" is a case in point.


BSBD,

Winsor

[yourmomma 0]

you adhere to that position like you were born into it the first time.

[lawrocket 3]

Did you see the new report released about California's sea level rising up to a foot at Cape Mendocino by 2030?

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Global-sea-level-rise-could-hit-California-hard-3657131.php

Data has show NO sea level increase in California since 1980. Here's an example - Monterey from April, 1982-April, 2012 (30 year chosen on purpose and data unavailable for May, 2012): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=19820424&edate=20120425&wl_sensor_hist=W5&relative=&datum=6&unit=1&shift=g&stn=9413450+Monterey%2C+CA&type=Historic+Tide+Data&format=View+Plot

The study was based on IPCC predictions and completely IGNORES actual tide gauge data. Is science nowadays is about ignoring actual data? Predictions of climate reckoning despite what data shows seems to be along the lines of what you're talking about, winsor.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Did you see the new report ...

Did you see the new report from the US Geological Survey about actual sea level rise on the US east coast?
abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/sea-rise-faster-east-coast-rest-globe-16639189#.T-h4mhdsOf4

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Did you see the new report ...

Did you see the new report from the US Geological Survey about actual sea level rise on the US east coast?
abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/sea-rise-faster-east-coast-rest-globe-16639189#.T-h4mhdsOf4

Wait a second, kallend. Are you suggesting that data should have anything at all to do with this? Seriously, John. Having actual data to support a position is not very anthropogenic climate changey of you. Note that my post was SPECIFICALLY regarding "science" that IGNORED the relevant tide gauges.

But the article did raise this point on page 2, where it indicated controversy with using actual tide gauge data. (Think about it, John. what good is historical data? If people are fighting hard NOT to use history and the trends indicated therein, what sort of inferences does it cause? Using actual raw data is bad? For science? Seriously. WTF?)

With regard to the east coast, please note the peer-reviewed research over the last 20 years showing that climate change is indeed responsible for the encroachment of the sea upon land between North Carolina and Maine. Of course, this climate change is the result of the last Ice Age. But "sea rising" is not so nearly dominant a factor as is subsidence due to gravitational response to depleted glaciation over the last 12k years.

So it's not "sea level rising" so much as "ground level falling." See here:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-01-24/news/9601250239_1_sea-levels-east-coast-rising - this is from 1996, and indicates 1 inch of inundation every 8 years.

Now go to 2010: http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf

Then see your article indicating a sea level increase of 2 inches since 1990. Hmmm. An inch every 8 years to 2 inches in 22 years. And no mention of subsidence in the article. Why not, John? Any ideas? I mean, when talking about inundation of the East Coast one would think that scientists would take a look at all known factors (and some lawyer in Fresno knew about subsidence. He's not a REAL climate scientist, though. Subsidence is a factor that doesn't even deserve to be mentioned).

And John - could you also explain

I'll hand this one to you, John - global warming is indeed the primary factor causing increased inundation of the east coast. Anthropogenic effects, however, play a role, but a small one.

What are your thought, John? As a professor, what do you think about ignoring actual observational data when publishing results?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What are your thought, John? As a professor, what do you think about ignoring actual observational data when publishing results?

Since he's an AGW believer, he's obviously ok with it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

I won't go that far.

But his article certainly did have a massive "ignore alternative modes of causation" character.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

I won't go that far.

But his article certainly did have a massive "ignore alternative modes of causation" character.

Yeah, well, the US Geological Survey is clearly on the take from the solar and wind energy industries.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I demonstrated easily available peer-reviewed information that says, "We're sinking."

Thus, the question is, "Why is AGW being solely linked."

Do you think it's a legitimate thing to question why it is? I cannot help but think that it is because AGW is the hot dogma and gets a WHOLE lotta funding.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

I demonstrated easily available peer-reviewed information that says, "We're sinking."

Thus, the question is, "Why is AGW being solely linked."

Do you think it's a legitimate thing to question why it is? I cannot help but think that it is because AGW is the hot dogma and gets a WHOLE lotta funding.

And the deniers get a whole lot of funding from big energy.

Anyone remember tobacco?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And the deniers get a whole lot of funding from big energy.

70 billion in AGW research since 2008. Give us the 'big energy' numbers since 2008 so we can compare.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706