JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

unWeekend Unshreaded

Anything left to shread…?

(Sorry, the weekend unthreaded went AWOL).

 

If C.S.I.R.O. employed now twice their quota,
It wouldn’t change the climate one iota.

Mark Steyn on tour must have a lot to say,
Deserving of support in every way.

Now global warmists want us to believe,
That warming caused by man makes cats conceive.

It seems that phytoplankton in the sea,
Can regulate Earth’s temperature for free.

Those schoolteachers who dare break climate ranks,
Know more than warmists and deserve our thanks.

A Minister at home may face disgrace,
Then claim to save the planet,to save face.

With warmist short-term forecasts all askew,
They run for cover with the long-term view.

The plant food CO2 is brought to book,
As warmists let real toxins off the hook.

That heatwaves long ago were much the same,
Must mean that man today is not to blame.

An independent climate-change review,
Is good for science and long overdue.

– Ruairi

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (45 votes cast)
unWeekend Unshreaded, 9.0 out of 10 based on 45 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hcqgx77

190 comments to unWeekend Unshreaded

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    unWeekend Unshreaded

    I could believe last weekend’s title was a typo. But this has to be intentional. I wonder how much fun we can have with it.

    I don’t have time right now to think it over. But you can be sure I will. ;-)

    60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      #1 again. I’m either getting lucky or Jo’s keeping the same schedule I do.

      50

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      I dread a shredded thread said Fred. They have week ends.

      80

      • #
        Ted O'Brien

        Weak ends? This morning I discovered the automatic spell corrector in one program and turned it off. Now for the rest.

        40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      So, about unWeekend Unshreaded:

      unWeekend is clear enough. It has to refer to the other 5 days of the week, Monday through Friday, the days on which you who’re unlucky enough to not be retired must show up at the office. Happily that’s not me anymore. But perhaps we should not be posting comments until Monday then?

      The Unshreaded part is less clear. Unless, maybe Jo shreds all the weekend comments in some secret digital shredder she has hidden away. And her comment, “Anything left to shread…?” bears that out.

      So I would guess that the intent is to post comments only Monday through Friday and don’t worry if you reveal your deepest, darkest secrets, your bank account numbers, etc., because she intends to shred everything before next weekend. Does that sound about right? ;-)

      And I’ll never quite get used to the English spelling of things. I suppose some of you in Oz and the UK have the same problem with U.S. spelling. I never know for some things whether it’s a typo or correct spelling, although Jo does a very good job of sticking to U.S. spelling and grammar — not using what to me is the plural pronoun when the object is really singular and vice versa — and I’m not sure why, except U.S. spelling is probably the more common in many parts of the world.

      Maybe Jo will enlighten us about all this in due time.

      20

    • #
      AndyG55

      Sorry Roy, I want to bring this up the top EVERYONE can see it

      This is a 2GB poll of conservative voters.

      Every Aussie out there needs to see this poll from 2GB and Andrew Bolt..

      http://s19.postimg.org/iofywde7n/Abbott_hands_down.png

      40

  • #

    Tasmania’s Elelctricity Problem

    On the 15th. Feb. Tas. had 2505 GWh of electricty in its storages. There has been a delay in repairing the BassLink cable and a date for completion is vague.

    Reviewing past Hydro Tasmanian announcements since 2013 is quite revealing. Lake levels have not changed much these past 12 months, and BOM rainfall records for the past 3 years indicate average rainfall in the West coast catchments.

    3 Sept. 2013: Mr. S. Davy, former financial chief, appointed CEO.
    10 Oct. 2013: Increased revenue from renewable energy exports helped H.T. record its largest profit in history.
    17 June 2014: H.T. manages its water resources in a manner that ensures no risk to security of supply.
    16 Oct. 2014: H.T. returns a $242 million profit due to generating more renewable energy.
    15 Aug. 2015: H.T. making changes to Tamar Valley Power Station operations in view of its de-commissioning and sale of its combined gas turbine.
    3 Dec. 2015: Clarification of CEO’s statements about about use of 40% imported electricity over the summer months.
    16 Dec. 2015: Restarting of TVPS envisaged in view of low inflows into storages over the past few months.
    22 Dec. 2015: Energy security will not be impacted by damage to BassLink.
    30 MW of diesel generators ordered and another 40MW to be considered.
    15 March 2016: Commercial agreement reached with Bell Bay Aluminum over supply.
    H.T. will now install 100MW of diesel generators and another 100MW by April.
    Minister Groom states there will be no compromise for power users.

    There appear to be a number of issues arising:

    1. the story about low inflow into storages is at odds with BOM rainfall data for the past 3 years. Strathgordon received its 2500mm. annual rainfall.
    2. Lake levels were much the same as they were 12 months previously and down from 40% in approx. 2013.
    3. H.T. has increased its purchase of diesel generators from 30 MW to 200MW. As well another 75MW will be brought online at the TVPS. Also, discussions with Bell Bay Al. suggests that H.T. is not all that confident.
    4. How can H.T. run down its reserves and have to rely on Yallourn coal fired and diesel generation electricty and keep its premium 100 year green image?

    If this sort of management occurred in private industry I would think that heads would be rolling by now.

    240

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Interesting what goes on behind the green facade.

      We need more dams and spiners, that’s the real renewable energy.

      60

    • #

      Erratum: 15 Feb 2016, not 15 Mar.

      30

    • #
      AndyG55

      Is it true that Lake Pedder (or is it one of the other lakes) cannot be used for hydro because of environmental issues ?

      122

      • #
        AndyG55

        Now how can a question deserve a red thumb… or maybe I got too close to the truth, hey! ;-)

        102

      • #

        The original Lake Pedder was increased in size by a dam on the Serpentine R. to the west and a dam at Scott’s Peak to the east; the water is diverted by a canal to Lake Gordon and keeps the same level within a metre or so. All the water from the west coast rivers goes to the sea. Brumby’s Ck. near Cressy is a fishing Mecca and uses the water coming from the Poatina Power Station which also supplies an irrigation scheme: if the turbines are running there is plenty of water. Great Lake supplies Poatina and is 17m. below the dam spillway at the southern end of the lake. The inflow into this lake is little, a few creeks, and the catchment limited. Water is pumped up from the Arthur Lakes to the Great lake where it is falls about 3000 ft. down to Poatina.

        30

        • #

          Okay then, don’t any of you go thinking that Tony’s gone all greenie, but I’d like to show you all something about Lake Pedder.

          Back in the mid 70′s I got a bit of a rep as being somewhat of an intellectual, and here that bar was set pretty low, in the company I kept, and was probably meant only as a put down. I was after all, a lowly electrical tradesman in the Royal Australian Air Force, and the ElecFitts were considered a little odd anyway by the other five aircraft trades, and I was at a Flying Squadron at the time, 76 and 77 Squadrons, so they were a pretty boisterous lot.

          They thought I was a bit odd. I read esoteric Fiction from John O’Hara and a couple of other of those now virtually unheard of authors, when Harold Robbins was preferred reading if it was fiction. I also read The Australian, a broadsheet then, while everyone else just scanned through (usually someone else’s) Daily Tele, and even at that just the sporting result at the back of that Tabloid, while I religiously would read virtually every word in that Australian. What it did give me was an excellent grounding in what was happening anywhere, and I would smile whenever someone asked what was happening with situation X or Y or Z, and the reply was always ….. “ask Lang, he’d know.” And I invariably did.

          Added to, and on top of that, I was a very keen watcher of the ABC, all the news and Current Affairs programs as well as nearly everything else, because in those days, the ABC really was good, but the reputation with the others was that it was not really worth watching ….. for anything. I cannot recall ever seeing any of those others watching anything on the ABC.

          Keep in mind here that the ABC showed all of Monty Python, had Auntie Jack, and so much other really good entertainment.

          Okay then, here comes the bit where you may think I’ve gone all greenie.

          One of those Current Affairs programs was a weekly show, A Big Country, and there was just so much good stuff on that.

          One program that stood out distinctly to me was about a Tasmanian environmentalist, Olegas Truchanis, (pronounced as tra harness) and the program was titled Spirit of Olegas.

          I only remember the whole thing because of the unusual name of the man.

          Over the years I have wondered why the ABC never repeated this program, considering how green that ABC entity is now, but I have heard a rumour as to why this may be so.

          Olegas was a bushwalker, adventurer and photographer, and he was the last to comprehensively photograph Lake Pedder, before it was flooded.

          I’ve located a copy of that program, on YouTube and I’ll link to it, because it is well worth your time watching, as a general interest thing.

          No need for me to explain all about it, as those of you who do take the time to watch will get the idea.

          A Big Country – Spirit Of Olegas (and this episode is from 1976, 40 years ago now)

          Tony.

          PostScript – As to the possible reason the program may not have been repeated (and keep in mind that this is just a rumour) has a bit to do with cost cutting from those times, especially around 76/77. The cost of the large video tapes used to tape the programs skyrocketed around this time, and the ABC made the decision at Executive level, and decided to tape over a lot of their older tapes to save money, hence a lot of those programs from those two years especially were lost forever, taped over. This included a lot of the later Auntie Jack programs, the spinoff, Flash Nick From Jindivik (the last TV appearance by John Meillon) and a couple of others in those Aunty Jack spinoffs, a lot of Current Affairs programs and also a lot of those Countdowns from those two years especially.

          50

          • #

            Incidentally, reading The Australian in the 70′s gave me insight into a lot of things about the U.S. and one of those was the Primary situation which a lot of Australians had very little knowledge about. How I came to some knowledge about it was that The Australian covered it pretty comprehensively in 1976, when Jimmy Carter came from (virtually) nowhere to win the Democrat Nomination. So that’s where I learned about that U.S. electoral system.

            It made me laugh many years later when some Australian States campaigned for four year terms, and the advertising blurb was always ….. “You know, like they have in America.”

            There’s only one person in the U.S. who gets a dedicated four year term, and that’s the President. (expanded extra below)

            ALL of the House of Reps go to election every TWO years.

            Also, (like here in Oz) U.S. Senators get six years, so that means one third of The Senate comes up for election every two years, so one third, one third, one third, every two years, hence a six year term. Half of the State Governors also get elected every two years, hence State Governors also get 4 years.

            But the elections are held every two years.

            Tony.

            70

          • #

            Olegas T. used to work in the hydrology section of the HEC. I met him one weekend when he was walking in from the SW and offered him a cold beer from our survey camp fridge at Blake’s opening on the Huon R., just north of Mt. Picton. He tragically lost his life canoeing on the Franklin R.

            40

          • #

            I’m very familiar with the photography of Olegas and others of the era and what they pursued (I was an avid Auntie Jack fan as well, amongst other odd shows of the time). I also appreciate what they were trying to preserve, I’ve visited Tasmania at least a dozen times and love it. We almost moved to live there and, in a way, thankfully didn’t.

            Tasmania has become a welfare basket case that simply can’t survive as a nature reserve, existing on handouts from the mainland.

            If the Greens and whatever want to achieve Nirvana, then move every person from the island and lock the gate. I’m sure that there will be vastly greater opportunities for basket weavers, potters, wood turners, tie dye enthusiasts etc on the mainland.

            Byron Bay, Nimbin and other locales would surely embrace the refugees, understanding the importance of returning Tasmania to its pristine state of non-western occupation. This would be a symbolic gesture to the rest of the world.

            50

          • #
            Glen Michel

            ..and that English actor with the facial boot polish playing Bony on the ABC.

            20

          • #
            toorightmate

            I trekked to Lake Pedder in 1961 and again in 1978.
            It was incredible to see the degree of damage that the “green tree lovers” had done to the area in that time.
            I notice that they still leave one hell of a mess wherever and whenever they hold a rally.
            I guess someone else is responsible for cleanup?

            71

            • #

              In 1961 it was a considerable hike either via Maydena or Geeveston and not many people had ever visited Lake Pedder, just genuine hikers or weekend pilots who landed on the beach over the summer months. However, some years there was no beach as the lake level didn’t drop. It was a pretty place and extremely photogenic with the beach and the backdrop of the Frankland Range for those few months. It really only became accessible to the general public after the building of the roads by the HEC for the Gordon scheme in the mid 1960′s. It has become a trout fishing destination now and the native trout( Galaxid) was successfully established in some of the alpine tarns.

              10

    • #
      AndyG55

      GREEN GREED !!!

      73

    • #
      tom0mason

      Interesting little news note about Tasmania

      http://iceagenow.info/summer-snow-in-tasmania/

      Is it that unusual for snow at that altitude this time of year?

      71

      • #

        No, snow can occur even in the middle of Summer at higher elevations; it doesn’t happen often but many bushwalkers have been caught out and perished due to lack of suitable clothing and a sudden blast of antarctic air associated with a cold front; it can literally go from a balmy day to a blizzard in an hour or two.

        110

      • #
        AndyG55

        My dear Mum said they got snow in Tassie on 12th Jan 1986 where they lived

        I think the weirdest snow I’ve ever seen was going to work from Bungendore to Queanbeyan on November 22nd 1996 (+/- a year). (That’s near Canberra, for the non-Aussies)

        Got to the top of the ridge out of Bungendore and the whole place was under a couple of inches of white fluffy snow.. very strange !!!

        60

    • #
      toorightmate

      Send more GST.

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Tasmania has electricity … ???

      Who would have known …?

      10

  • #

    I wonder how many Earth Hour days would be required to make up for Melbourne’s White Night and Sydney’s Vivid festivals? Did all those people who supported Earth Hour boycott the light festivals? I wonder which ones received the greatest support? I wonder which one was the most fun, sitting in the dark smelling candles or wandering about at night enjoying the light?

    140

  • #
    AndyG55

    “The Coalition and Labor are deadlocked in the latest Newspoll as support for the government tumbles in the face of policy confusion and the political honeymoon ends for Malcolm Turnbull, with his personal ratings falling to a four-month low …

    Based on preference flows from the last election, the Coal¬ition and Labor are tied in two-party terms at 50 per cent each.

    It is a significant plunge for the government from the 53 per cent-47 per cent lead it had steadily maintained since last November. “

    Labor to win the next election :-(

    ALA and Lib/Nats in control of the Senate :-)

    Tony Abbott back as Liberal leader :-)

    And Turnbull assigned to the rubbish tip where he belongs! :-) :-) :-)

    260

  • #
  • #
    Doubtingdave

    Jo, after reading your last article I’m not certain that you really get it ? Alarmist scientists say global warming due to greenhouse gasses will fry the world , so called Luke warmers and skeptics don’t accept that , but instead argue over percentages of what the the affects might possibly be , short of catastrophe , what’s the point ? There is an other debate going on , that is that its all a political and social construct with the intentions of forming a one world government via a agenda 21 , but these issues are seldum if ever discussed on the main sceptical blogs , its as if you are worried that the mainstream science mob won’t take you seriously and or , you are worried that regular reader’s and bloggers might get upset if their political or religious views are being questioned

    82

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Doubtingdave

      I first found out about the CAGW ™ scam while learning about and looking into ‘The Agenda’. In fact, my favorites in IE have Global Warming ® as a sub-folder within the ‘Agenda 21′ folder. For me, at least, warming has always been perceived as a tool to get the world’s masses to embrace the UN as our ‘saviors’.

      The way I see it, take that tool away from them and they have no other way to enlist the help of the unsuspecting masses.

      Abe

      111

      • #
        Doubtingdave

        Thanks justaguy , I just don’t really see the point in posts where sceptics and Luke warmers disagree , its like your arguing how many angel’s can dance on the head of a pin , meanwhile , there is a huge area about political control and how global warming is used as a fake religion to take us all into voluntary slavery that is never discussed , I know people here are divided on that issue , but that is exactly why we should , but never mind I can still get my Dailey fix on climate science when I visit here , as there is always another story about manic cats or unhappy dogs to keep me going ( sarc )

        70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        For me, at least, warming has always been perceived as a tool to get the world’s masses to embrace the UN as our ‘saviors’.

        Spot on, Abe. And far too few realize what a danger the UN really amounts to.

        90

        • #

          ? “there is a huge area about political control and how global warming is used as a fake religion to take us all into voluntary slavery that is never discussed”

          Dave, which blog are you talking about? The meme of giving up sovereign power to bureaucrats for the sake of a religion is so repeated here I must be boring people.

          141

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            You certainly aren’t boring me, Jo. You frighten me when I realiz how little the world cares about the threat of giving up sovereign power. But never boring.

            20

        • #
          RB

          Watched a pretty ordinary movie a few nights ago. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

          Its interesting, though, as the plot is about a government security agency given a lot of power in these dark times only for it to turn out that a power hungry group linked to the Nazis still exists and has secretly taken over. They are finally exposed and thwarted as they are about to eliminate 20 million people identified as a danger.

          I like to think that they were referring to Greens or the UN.

          60

          • #
            AndyG55

            Hey, that’s a great movie…

            So long as you switch your brain off first !!

            30

            • #
              macha

              Go and see deadpool. Top flick, very funny. Learnt what breaking the 4th wall means from my teen son too.

              20

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Suspension of your disbelief is a requirement of watching almost any movie or TV series. You can be fed some of the most outrageous things in terms of politics, science, physics in particular… The list of sins is nearly endless.

              On the other hand, something like Star Trek is just plain fun to watch, even though Roddenberry’s endings are always lame and look like the end of a children’s story, “And they lived happily ever after.” That’s not very high on the scale of real world endings to a tough problem.

              I guess it’s the price we pay for wanting ever more outrageous things, always pushing the limits in our entertainment.

              10

  • #
    Ruairi

    If C.S.I.R.O. employed now twice their quota,
    It wouldn’t change the climate one iota.

    Mark Steyn on tour must have a lot to say,
    Deserving of support in every way.

    Now global warmists want us to believe,
    That warming caused by man makes cats conceive.

    It seems that phytoplankton in the sea,
    Can regulate Earth’s temperature for free.

    Those schoolteachers who dare break climate ranks,
    Know more than warmists and deserve our thanks.

    A Minister at home may face disgrace,
    Then claim to save the planet,to save face.

    With warmist short-term forecasts all askew,
    They run for cover with the long-term view.

    The plant food CO2 is brought to book,
    As warmists let real toxins off the hook.

    That heatwaves long ago were much the same,
    Must mean that man today is not to blame.

    An independent climate-change review,
    Is good for science and long overdue.

    280

    • #
      tom0mason

      Excellent!

      60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      An independent climate-change review,
      Is good for science and long overdue.

      A very good idea and long overdue indeed. But how do we make sure it’s an independent review?

      That’s no a trivial question in today’s world. Remember the whitewash of climategate 1? It should have been a wakeup call for science but it didn’t appear to make any difference in anyone’s thinking. The skeptics already recognized the problem before everything went south for the CRU and no one else even blinked.

      91

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    For Discussion – The ‘Refrigeration Only’ Argument: A Deconstruction

    In a recent article, Peak Exaggeration? Solar, wind may save life in the Universe for 4 billion years, there was a comment presenting three theoretical considerations why CO2 must be causing warming in the Earth’s lower atmosphere, specifically, within the near surface boundary layer. One of those considerations is as follows:

    A quote from the original comment:

    • Since no refrigeration process can be 100% efficient there also cannot be any process driven by that same downwelling IR energy supply in the boundary layer that can expel the absorbed energy quickly enough to exactly compensate. Once the downwelling IR has been created it must create warming, nothing can stop that, the same as with all other materials that have ever been studied.

    When challenged on this point . . .

    This was the response:

    Refrigeration must be a man-made artifice because heat will normally move from hot to cold and moving it the other way requires the consumption of additional energy in a manner that would not normally happen without designed machines, pressure vessels, and so forth. That’s my point, I was saying any mechanism you can think of to prevent downwelling IR from warming the surface would be a refrigeration process. It would have to move the radiation in the reverse direction it is coming from, before the IR can warm the surface layer, and without consuming any additional energy. Any such excuse would therefore be, as you so succinctly put it, “bull s*it”.

    In a nutshell, the commenter* wants us to believe that the only way that the additional warming caused by back-radiation can be removed from the boundary layer is by the process of refrigeration and because refrigeration is never 100% effective, some of that additional heat will always remain in the boundary layer.

    For the sake of argument, let’s accept that an increase in CO2 concentration will cause warming over and above the warming that would naturally occur if there was less CO2 in the atmosphere.

    There are a number of errors in the Refrigeration Only argument. Let’s look at the first one.

    The Carbon Based Umbrella

    The point was made that any process you can think of to prevent the warming ” would have to move the radiation in the reverse direction it is coming from, before the IR can warm the surface layer, and without consuming any additional energy.”

    Like one person wrote, I too call bull sh!t.

    In April of last year, Jo reviewed a press release from the UNSW in her article called: Welcome to the CO2 disaster — 4 billion tons more plants, more greenery. The press release discusses a paper that states that ‘good luck’ has provided the Earth with enhanced plant growth. (I also recall a link to satellite images of “A Greener Earth”, but can’t seem to locate it.)

    Plants grow within the boundary layer of the atmosphere near the surface of our planet.
    4 billion tons is a lot of plant growth, and all that additional plant growth must be causing more shade.
    That additional shade not only prevents UV from reaching the actual surface of the Earth, thereby preventing the warming there before it ever takes place, but it does so without any additional input of energy into the boundary layer.

    The prerequisite that no additional energy be consumed is not met. The amount of UV entering the boundary layer does not change, but more of it is consumed.
    The prerequisite that IR be moved ‘back to where it came from’ is not met but UV is much more effective at heating than IR, so preventing UV from reaching the surface is more efficient than ‘move[ing] the [IR] radiation in the reverse direction it is coming from.’
    The claim that there ‘cannot be any process driven by that same downwelling IR energy supply in the boundary layer . . .’ is true but irrelevant because the supply of UV that’s already there is harnessed by plants to provide the necessary cooling.
    The claim that the only way to prevent warming of the near surface boundary layer is by refrigeration fails. There is no need to move IR back where it came from as it is in man-made refrigeration. Everywhere that there is additional plant growth, there is also additional shade. Additional shade means less warming of the Earth’s surface and, by extension, less outgoing IR to be back-radiated later.

    We have known about the natural process of CO2 fertilization for a very long time. We should be taking advantage of the current increase in CO2 levels to provide more shade in and around our populated areas and, most importantly, more food for our growing population the world over instead of using arable land to grow artificial fuel for automobiles and wood chips to burn for generating electricity.

    If I have the time, I’ll post a detailed explanation showing how the refrigeration analogy itself is technically flawed. In the mean time, as already mentioned, the claim that cooling of the Earth can only be accomplished by a process similar to man-made refrigeration is clearly false.

    Abe
    * I’ve intentionally left out the name of the person who posted the original comment because it would be nice if personalities were left out of it and we only looked at the merits of both sides of the argument itself. I also didn’t post any links to the original comments for the same reason.
    I can’t stop anyone from going back and looking for these comments to see who wrote them and anyone who already read those comments will know who made them. The world’s not perfect but we can at least try to improve it.

    61

    • #
      Peter C

      Carbon based umbrella and increased solar absorbtion by growing vegetation (and phytoplankton) are two ways in which increased CO2 can lead to global cooling.

      As for refrigeration cycles Steven Wilde has proposed a natural large scale refrigeration cycle on a global scale;
      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/

      Willis Eschenbach has a theory of smaller scale refigeration operating through tropical thunderstorms;
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

      So while I would agree with everyone else that heat normally flows from hot to cold, that does not necessarily rule out refrigeration cycles based on change of state of the working fluid (water vapour), even in the absence of a man made mechanical compressor.

      30

      • #
        Peter C

        Absorbtion Refrigerator:

        An absorption refrigerator changes the gas back into a liquid using a method that needs only heat, and has no moving parts other than the refrigerant itself.

        The absorption cooling cycle can be described in three phases:

        Evaporation: A liquid refrigerant evaporates in a low partial pressure environment, thus extracting heat from its surroundings (e.g. the refrigerator’s compartment). Because of the low partial pressure, the temperature needed for evaporation is also low.
        Absorption: The now gaseous refrigerant is absorbed by another liquid (e.g. a salt solution).
        Regeneration: The refrigerant-saturated liquid is heated, causing the refrigerant to evaporate out. The hot gaseous refrigerant passes through a heat exchanger, transferring its heat outside the system (such as to surrounding ambient-temperature air), and condenses. The condensed (liquid) refrigerant supplies the evaporation phase.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_refrigerator

        10

      • #
        Peter C

        In fairness to the commenter, I should point out that he was saying that any refrigeration cycle is not 100% efficient. Hence the refrigeration cycle requires extra heat and therefore the Earth must heat up a little bit to power the cooling (refrigeration). That, in his view, supports the Greenhouse Theory.

        One reason that the Greenhouse Theory has dropped off the interesting topics list is that it seems almost irrelevant now. If the feedbacks are negative, as they seem to be, then the impact of Greenhouse on Global Warming fades to insignificance. That seems to be the conclusion that David Evans has come to as a result of his new model of Climate Change.

        For me, Greenhouse Theory is still an active topic and I am not yet convinced that it is correct. At least it seems to have dropped off the list of proven facts.

        10

        • #
          AndyG55

          The nonsense of a “refrigeration cycle” was his major mistake.

          No point in going any further.

          31

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            AndyG55,

            I was typing my response as you submitted yours.

            The fact that Peter made the remark that he did shows how dangerous these types of errors are. They sound so true. They appear so logical. They confuse people.

            This is why I’m so adamant about pursuing it.

            Stick around. More to come.

            Abe

            01

          • #
            AndyG55

            Its a temperature “regulator” effect, controlled purely by the temperature/pressure gradient.

            CO2 has absolutely ZERO effect on this.

            30

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Peter C

          You wrote:

          In fairness to the commenter, I should point out that he was saying that any refrigeration cycle is not 100% efficient. Hence the refrigeration cycle requires extra heat and therefore the Earth must heat up a little bit to power the cooling (refrigeration). That, in his view, supports the Greenhouse Theory.

          I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The comment I posted above shows how cooling does not require a refrigeration cycle. At east not in the way refrigeration is commonly understood and not in the way that it was claimed.

          This was the response:

          Refrigeration must be a man-made artifice because heat will normally move from hot to cold and moving it the other way requires the consumption of additional energy in a manner that would not normally happen without designed machines, pressure vessels, and so forth. That’s my point, . . .

          So you see, the claim is that a refrigeration cycle of the same nature as the one created by humans is required.

          Contrary to that claim, Nature can and in fact does produce cooling without that specific type of refrigeration. And if no refrigeration is required, no extra energy is needed either. And so, in all fairness to you and the casual reader, that claim is now dead in the water. The Carbon Based Umbrella with it’s two pronged approach of
          a) cooling by increasing the amount of UV absorption used in photosynthesis, and,
          b) by increasing shade therby lowering the amount of IR being emitted by the Earth’s surface,
          killed that claim dead.

          But that’s not the end of the mistakes in that claim.

          I wrote:

          If I have the time, I’ll post a detailed explanation showing how the refrigeration analogy itself is technically flawed. In the mean time, as already mentioned, the claim that cooling of the Earth can only be accomplished by a process similar to man-made refrigeration is clearly false.

          That post is almost complete. All in good time.

          Abe

          01

          • #
            Peter C

            Abe,

            I have in fact acknowledged your two mechanisms of cooling.
            1. Photosynthesis
            2. Increased shade from vegetation..

            I think that the refrigeration cycle also exists and I gave 2 references.

            I am looking forward to your post.

            10

    • #
      RB

      If you are referring to the lapse rate, its based on the GPE+Thermal energy are even throughout the atmosphere rather than it being isothermal. So if the mid/upper troposphere warms then so does the surface. This happens because GPE is turned to thermal energy as packets of air drop and compress. The opposite is true for packets of air rising, like in a refrigerator. Cold air can warm hotter air because the GPE+thermal energy is greater.

      This is true if the rate of loss of energy to outerspace can not increase without the surface warming up. AGW falls apart because it not only has not been shown to be the case, it most likely isn’t.

      40

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        RB,

        You wrote:

        If you are referring to the lapse rate, its based on the GPE+Thermal energy are even throughout the atmosphere rather than it being isothermal. So if the mid/upper troposphere warms then so does the surface. This happens because GPE is turned to thermal energy as packets of air drop and compress.

        Your comment is directly below mine. Is it directed at me?

        If it is, then my response to you is as follows:

        If GPE is turned to thermal energy as you claim,
        and,
        If that conversion is sufficieant to create the observed lapse rate in temperatures,
        then,
        please provide the formula that shows how this claimed conversion will produce the observed lapse rate in temperatures.

        Abe

        00

        • #
          RB

          I’ve mentioned it before, Abe. Its in text books. The calculations are simply difference in GPE with height converted to temperature using specific heat capacity and pressure/density (for dry).

          I did the check many moons ago to calculate the PV work done as an air packet expands or contracts. Only a quick back of envelope but enough to satisfy myself that you get the same result which ever way you choose to calculate it.

          https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/ideal_gases_under_constant.htm

          First thing that I found with a search. I’m assuming that it wasn’t written by Schmidt.

          11

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            RB,

            None of the equations on that page show a conversion of GPE into kinetic energy. None of the text on that page discusses how GPE is converted into kinetic energy i.e. thermodynamic temperature.

            What they do show are changes in temperature due to changes in atmospheric pressure with height.

            Who are you trying to fool, yourself?

            Internal Energy of an Ideal Gas

            Abe

            00

            • #
              RB

              Is the problem that you need an equation for conversion into specifically kinetic energy rather than T?

              My back of envelope was to use an average P for the difference in altitude and multiply by the ΔV calculated using PV=nRT, with both P and T taken from the dry adiabatic lapse rate (just a back of envelope). The PV work done should be the same as the change in GPE. You can also change the PV work into a temperature change using the specific heat capacity and mass of air in your packet.

              A rough method merely to assure yourself that PV work is the mechanism.

              01

              • #
                Just-A-Guy

                RB,

                Amazing!

                It never ceases to amaze me how much jiberish you, (and a rather tiny but select few of the others here), can fit into such a small comment of about 100 words!

                Just amazing!

                Abe
                PS. Have you considered a career with the ABC, BBC, etc.?

                00

    • #
      The Backslider

      As I have said before, a cooler atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface. Sorry, but that CO2 up there is cold.

      Many alarmist actually believe that the atmosphere warms the oceans. Sorry, but the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere.

      20

  • #
    Doubtingdave

    I’ve just heard that Jed Bush has dropped out of the Republican race ,

    60

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Good Riddance!

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Jeb Bush might have made a good president but his name was against him so I doubt he could have been elected. And his reception by Republicans tends to confirm this. Whether his brother was a good or bad president, Bush has simply been worn out. Even Ronald Reagan, probably our best president in my lifetime, was a worn out name by the time his second term ended. So it goes with human nature — out with the old and on to the new. That’s why advertizing for every new product or improvement on an old product emphasises that word, “new.” It gets attention immediately.

        50

    • #
      PeterS

      Good. One bad dynasty down, one more to go.

      70

    • #
      philthegeek

      Fascinating. i was thinking he would hang in until Rubio as stalking horse had knocked out the two loopy grossly unelectable fringies, Cruz and Trump. Then the Republican machine would switch its support to Jeb. Seems that both parties there have “machinery provisions” they can use to control who’s candidate when it comes to the final decision.

      Wrong! Jeb now out of it. Republicans will be in despair as Hilary running against Trumps Hair or Cruz is a no brainer.

      Cruz could get damaged big time over the Supreme Court replacement thing if Obama uses it tactically which is likely given the instant silly reaction to that of the Repubs in the Senate.

      Maybe the thing to watch now is the campaign money flow?? Who will the Repub financiers back and to what extent? They may not keep throwing money in and there was i think, a LOT of money behind Jeb.

      12

      • #
        handjive

        It’s a game person to make a prediction in the US election.

        I made an early claim that Billary wouldn’t be there at the end because of the email scandal.

        I’m sweating on the law being equal. Very niave of me.

        50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Interesting thing, how various politics watchers view what’s going on. From amateurs like me to the talking heads who’ve been around for years, this election season has them all stumped apparently.

      I lean toward John Kasich at the moment and for good reasons. But he’s not even on the radar of the experts, real or self-styled.

      I was right about one thing though. This runup to November has been the most interesting I’ve ever seen.

      10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And tragically, it looks like being the media that will determine who the Republican candidate is. Take a good look at who’s getting the most attention and tell me the Republican voters will not nominate Donald Trump. I dare you. And by the way, I hope I’m wrong.

        It’s the same thing that got Arnold Schwarzenegger elected governor of California. From the first time his name was thrown out as a possibility he was the only candidate you heard about. There was a much better candidate but I’ll bet you’ve never even heard the name Tom McClintock.

        For Trump, being outrageous is paying off handsomely. Yet no one knows what his real vision for the country is except to make it great again. What does that mean? I can’t begin to tell you. It could mean anything.

        50

        • #
          Sceptic56109

          Roy, you have to remember that all the talking points used by Rubio and Cruz came from Donald Trump.

          If Rubio or Cruz gets in, nothing will change. The reason Republicans are so upset with GOP establishment is because they are being steamrolled even though they have a majority in both houses. When have Rubio or Cruz ever complained about the budget, or the Iran deal

          (The US senate was supposed to approve the Iran deal to bring it to life. However, your beautiful senators, reversed it into a question about defeating a completed deal and subject to Veto.)

          or EPA running roughshod over non-pollution? The establishment GOP has fully funded Obama till October, and not even kept any powder to keep Gitmo under US control. Rubio and Cruz are an embarrassment to the Conservative movement.

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            When have Rubio or Cruz ever complained about the budget, or the Iran deal

            I have heard Ted Cruz complain about the budget and the debt, yes, straight from his mouth into the microphone.

            It may be true that Donald Trump is driving some of the talking points but that’s only because he’s got the audacity to make outrageous statements, pander to voter anger and attack the other Republican candidates, anyone close enough in the polls to be a credible threat to Trump’s coveted victory. So if attacked by Trump, you fight back on more or less Trump’s terms because you have to address what he said in attacking you.

            It’s a damned shameful mess.

            00

  • #
    Doubtingdave

    Phil , is it not more simple than that ? Cruz gets his funding from the ” establishment ” in fact his main sponsor is Goldman Sachs !!! Which seems odd considering they are so heavily invested into the global warming scam !! Are they hoping Cruz can defeat Trump and then keep him under control like a dog on a leash ” food for thought ”

    30

  • #
    Doubtingdave

    Phil , is it not more simple than that ? Cruz gets his funding from the ” establishment ” in fact his main sponsor is Goldman Sachs !!! Which seems odd considering they are so heavily invested into the global warming scam !! Are they hoping Cruz can defeat Trump and then keep him under control like a dog on a leash ” food for thought ”

    10

  • #
    Doubtingdave

    Sorry about the double post , I’m wrestling with my daughters tablet , anyway , Cruz was Canadian born , in fact I think his mother was a Cuban , according to the constitution only natural born yanks can stand for President , its rumoured that the Democrats are waiting with at least two law suits to challenge Cruz’s eligible status ,as regards running for president

    40

    • #
      philthegeek

      [ Cruz was Canadian born , in fact I think his mother was a Cuban , according to the constitution only natural born yanks can stand for President , its rumoured that the Democrats are waiting with at least two law suits to challenge Cruz’s eligible status ,as regards running for president ]

      I read some stuff on that a while ago. Honestly, i think it has more substance that the Hillary emails thing. :)

      However, i think that IF the Cruz / Natural Born thing really had legs, Trump would have been all over it like a rash by now.

      I think that if there is a wild card to get played in this race near term it will be from Obama over the Supreme court selection. He has a constitutional obligation to make an appointment and the Repubs want to block it. Depending on his nominee, he can make them look like spoiled brats having a spit, out to preserve the conservative dominance in the Supreme court rather than “defenders” of the constitution.

      But hey, what do i know. American politics is just plain weird from the outside looking in after all. :)

      10

  • #
    pat

    don’t mean to spoil everyone’s day, but:

    22 Feb: Sky News: AAP: Climate change deal risked by CSIRO cuts
    Job cuts at the CSIRO will leave Australia ill-prepared to deal with climate change or meet its commitments under the Paris agreement, the Climate Council says…
    The council has looked into the local and international impact the change will have.
    Its report, Flying Blind: Navigating Climate Change without the CSIRO, released on Monday, found the cuts would damage the country’s ability to plan for or respond to climate change.
    It warns that government and businesses rely on climate change science to make billion-dollar decisions which could be put in jeopardy.
    ‘For example, the design of Brisbane Airport’s new runway, built on a low-lying coastal fringe, was informed by the latest sea-level science from the CSIRO,’ it says…
    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/federal/2016/02/22/climate-change-deal-risked-by-csiro-cuts.html

    22 Feb: Climate Council: Will Steffen: Flying Blind: Navigating Climate Change Without CSIRO
    DOWNLOAD THE REPORT (PDF 22 pages)
    2. If the cuts proceed, Australia will have already reneged on a key promise in the Paris climate agreement.
    Australia, along with the rest of the world’s nations, agreed to strengthen climate science as a fundamentally important component of meeting the climate change challenge…
    https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/csiro-report

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      CSIRO “cuts would damage the country’s ability to plan for or respond to climate change.” Ridiculous.

      So that is what 350 people were doing, planning for climate change? Where are these hundred million dollar plans? What was the result? Where is a problem solved and what problem they were solving? How can a jumbo load of scientists achieve absolutely nothing in years without any actual criticism that they have blatantly wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars doing nothing at all? What did the taxpayer get from this massive failed project? Help with an airport design?

      As for CSIRO predictions of sea level at the new airport? How many scientists did that take? Did they predict the recent slowing but steady rate of increase? Why are so many new aiports being built around the world even in the ocean itself, three in Japan, Hong Kong airport and even smaller airports as at Nice, France? In Dubai, whole cities are being built in the ocean on reclaimed land. Many airports are just above sea level as in Sydney, because the land is cheap and often useless. Even then they are perhaps eight meters out of the water and breakwaters can protect from storms.

      Then “the new infrastructure at Brisbane airport will be built to withstand the sea level rising by 50 centimetres. (0.5meters) That is more than 16 times more than how much the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the sea level has risen in the past decade.” So how did the CSIRO actually help when the IPCC supplied the expected rise? Or did the Chicken Little scientists at the CSIRO predict 10 meters?

      How did the CSIRO get away with such an incredibly useless project. Why were they even involved? Their brief is to solve problems, not create them.

      93

      • #
        toorightmate

        Our innovative PM may give funds to someone to study planes that can land and take off in 1 metre of water.
        That would surely be lower cost than raising a runway.

        How’s that for innovation?

        71

      • #

        And China is building airports at sea level in the S. China sea too, obviously they don’t believe in climate change.

        60

      • #
        Glen Michel

        Sackings will only mean more ‘roaches behind the monitors.Climate science without added hormones.

        11

    • #
      diogenese2

      “Australia, along with the rest of the world’s nations, agreed to strengthen climate science as a fundamentally important component of meeting the climate change challenge…”

      It is arguable that, in sacking 350 climate scientists that is exactly what CSIRO has done.

      In 2002 when central defender Titus Bramble was transferred from Ipswich Town to Newcastle United it was remarked “the move strengthen both defences”.

      30

  • #
    pat

    21 Feb: Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial: Supreme Court’s Clean Power Plan ruling shows what’s at stake
    Earlier this month, the court ruled 5-4 to halt President Obama’s controversial Clean Power Plan. Part of the administration’s enormous strategy to curb global warming, the plan would have forced coal-fired and natural gas power plants to cut carbon dioxide emissions by roughly one-third by 2030.
    Many states opposing the plan — states whose economic activity is largely driven by the fossil fuel industry — rightly argued that it was unfair for power plants to be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with a regulation that may very well wind up being overturned…
    By the narrowest of margins, the court rightly tapped the brakes on the do-something-now process. The court’s order blocks President Obama’s rules from taking effect until after a legal battle in appeals court and further Supreme Court appeals have played out.
    With the plan, the president had ordered a complete restructuring of the American energy sector through regulatory fiat. The plan would give the Environmental Protection Agency the kind of authority that not even the president is provided, allowing it to coerce states into adopting policies that would never pass Congress — the abandonment of coal-fired power, cap-and-trade schemes, more aggressive transitions to more costly green power — to meet the arbitrary goal of reducing the country’s carbon emissions 32 percent by 2030, from 2005 levels. This would dramatically increase power costs, stifle economic growth, reduce standards of living and decrease the reliability of the power grid.
    And all of it would go down without a single day’s debate in Congress…
    The decision was correct, and with the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia just four days later, it shows that Supreme Court nominations turn into political bloodbaths for very good reason: there’s a lot at stake. The direction of the nation hangs in the balance with this appointment.
    http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-supreme-courts-clean-power-plan-ruling-shows-whats-stake

    60

  • #
    RB

    On Saturday, the local weather presenter on the news told us that Adelaide would be a scorcher. 34°C. For those who don’t know, Adelaide has 1 out of 5 days above 35.

    I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she was having a laugh because of stupid directions to exaggerate the frequency of heatwaves. I wish that she would do the French thing and just come out and say its bollocks.

    62

    • #

      For those who don’t know, Adelaide has approximately 1 in 5 days in about 60 days in summer above 35 and 8 months of the year when it does not ever get over 35. I’d also make the observation that 34 degrees or above is hot whether or not it is common. Hot is hot and is not related to frequency. Plenty of people, including those not in the employ of the green blob, would use the word “scorcher” to describe such a temperature.

      23

      • #
        StefanL

        Here in Adelaide, 40C is a scorcher. 35C is just a bit warmer than average :-)

        92

      • #
        Peter C

        Everyone knows that it is hot in Adelaide in summer. The point is that there is an apparent deliberate effort to exaggerate the temperatures to support the Climate Change position, when in fact nothing is happening.

        71

        • #

          It was just a weather presenter making a subjective description. You are now making a specific claim so you need to back that up with evidence of 2 things.

          1. data that Adelaidian weather presenters have changed their language
          2. That this change is deliberate and orchestrated.

          your comment really does reek of paranoia

          00

      • #
        RB

        Forgot to put for this time of year (1/4 of the time). Its not hot. You get use to it pretty quickly because it is dry.

        00

      • #
        The Backslider

        Gee Aye….34 degrees a “scorcher”? In Lightning Ridge we would call that a nice balmy day. Anything over 50 we would call a scorcher :-)

        00

  • #
    tom0mason

    One informal way of judging if the weather has got warmer or colder is to look at clothing sale. It would be real useful if a few decades worth of numbers are available.
    So are summer clothing or is winter clothing sales on the rise?

    21

  • #
    toorightmate

    No Weekend Unthreaded!!
    Who do you think you are?

    The ABC.

    30

  • #
    Bulldust

    So is there a partial backflip at CSIRO? The SMH says 30 climate jobs have been “spared the axe”:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-planning-to-pare-back-share-climate-job-cuts-20160222-gn08w4.html

    Andy Pitman is beside himself …

    Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW, said while it was “obviously good” for those scientists spared the axe, the scale of the intended cuts remained of serious concern and morale had been sent plunging.

    “My bet is [Dr Marshall] will haemorrhage his best and brightest and be left with the mediocre which would be a legacy that will stay with him indefinitely,” Professor Pitman said.

    One wonders how bad a researcher has to be for a climate scientist to think them “mediocre.”

    72

    • #
      AndyG55

      ““My bet is [Dr Marshall] will haemorrhage his best and brightest and be left with the mediocre which would be a legacy that will stay with him indefinitely,” Professor Pitman said.”

      Mediocre ????? Is Pitman thinking of a CSIRO job now?

      32

  • #
    pat

    21 Feb: Judith Curry: Walking the climate talk
    The carbon footprint of Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio – both strong activists/advocates for fossil fuel reductions – apparently have colossally large personal carbon footprints. Their hypocrisy is not lost on the public…
    In the climate science community, it’s a badge of ‘importance’ to fly 100,000 or even 200,000 miles or more per year; IPCC principals and those involved in the World Climate Research Programme (steering committees, conferences) easily rack up well over 100,000 miles. Really high annual miles is unique among the climate field, since the UNFCCC has globalized this issue and there is a mandate for participation of global scientists and holding meetings in relatively inaccessible 3rd world countries. Many climate scientists ‘virtuously’ purchase indulgences in the form of carbon offsets to counter the effects of their flying (hah!)…ETC
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/21/walking-the-climate-talk/

    41

    • #
      Mari C

      Would make more sense, if they are well and truly concerned, to use conferencing and computer tech to hold their “face-face” talks. Live streaming of a group in Dallas and another in Paris would be viewed, and commented on via live-stream, in Argentina. Much smaller footprint, less expense in hotels, meals, drinks, etc. Part of my disgust with the entire AGW and IPCC group is the blatant waste of resources while they tell the rest of us to get used to less of everything. Grandstanding to a camera might not be as much fun, but should be equally effective.

      10

  • #
  • #

    To shread more Likly will not post on tallblokes

    suricat says: February 22, 2016 at 2:36 am.

    “Yes, ‘charge’. The ‘static electrical potential’ of a molecule determines the ‘compressibility factor’ for the entity IMHO.”

    Kinda sorta! kT/t is the electrical statistical ‘noise power’ associated with electric charge potential of any known substance. A linear function of temperature according to Luddy Boltzmann, and now measurable over now 4.5 orders of magnitude. Likely more linear than any other known measurement of temperature. The ktb(w) noise of a resistor is exactly this as limited by the frequency response of some environment variable say capacitance. But capacitance exhibits the same noise variance known as kTC (charge variance) or kT/C (voltage variance) noise that is independent of voltage potential or actual difference in charge across the dielectric. This noise exists even as the potential and charge go through zero and reverse in polarity. Mostly undetectable except at temperatures below 40 Kelvin. No one can yet demonstrate if this is dimensional variance in the dielectric or just wiggles in the surrounding electric field ‘cloud’ very very active at higher temperatures.
    The repulsive nature of like charge is demonstrated by ‘pith’ balls or the ancient electroscope. At STP atmospheric intermolecular distances average 30 Angstroms and exhibit repulsive force eight orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attractive force between the same molecules. It is this noise power as measured by temperature that provides all measurable gas pressure.
    At some Pressure-Temperature-Density this intermolecular repulsive force equals the compressive force of Earth’s gravity on each molecule. No further spontaneous atmospheric expansion into outer regions of lesser repulsive force will occur . Here is where your inertia comes into play. Any molecule with velocity relative to any equilibrium point between such repulsive/compressive forces can use its own vector momentum to sail on through. No need for, STOP, papers please, or even stopping to take a pith!

    “All I understand is that for any ‘massive object’ ‘1/2 mass x velocity^2 = the inertia value encompassed/encountered within a given “reference frame”‘. Your ‘formulae’ may well transpose correctly, but without the ‘inertial reference frame’, I can’t follow it.”

    Ray,
    That is Kepler’s KE that must be conserved with gravitational force x distance PE, according to some clueless folk.
    Inertia OTOH, “resistance to change in momentum”, requires no velocity relative to anything. Inertia may well be the only definition of mass! Folk like to poke at mass; inertia always pokes back! . This poking at is called ‘applying force’!

    ‘There’s something ‘odd’ here. ‘Velocity’ is the ‘speed in a given direction’ that an object moves WRT the ‘observer’. ‘Where’ is the ‘observer’ in this demonstration? Knowing this would give us our ‘reference frame’ that can distinguish ‘potential from kinetic’ energy in the ever changing focus of our modern world of science. Again, apologies for missing this embedded post. Best regards, Ray.”

    To gather any understanding of this atmosphere multiple reference frames or POV’s are required. Your focus of Earth’s gravity is new to me but quite valid. Roger Clague’s each molecule POV clearly explains buoyancy, “Dese guys are crowding me, I’m getten the hell outa here if I can!”.
    I use “from each pole”, to explain young Eötvös dancing with fetching Coriolis. I use a POV from L1, L2 to explain effects of insolation, a stationary directional source of power that expands the local absorbing atmosphere. A POV from the Moon returns me to my comfortable “beats the shit outta me!”.
    The POV of flat Earth astrologers on their moving, rotating, reference frame, and calling their fantasy Meteorology or Climatology science I refuse to accept. All is Neptune going into the house of Leo!
    All the best! -will-

    019

  • #
    pat

    ***why not add “political activist”?

    21 Feb: Time: Robert Redford: We Cannot Let SCOTUS Block Clean Power
    (***Robert Redford is an actor, director and environmental activist)
    To me, one looming decision stands out: the fate of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The CPP seeks to make our energy system less wasteful and make our country stronger and more independent in the long run, but numerous industries and parties objected, hence lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Court, before Scalia’s death, made an unexpected and highly controversial decision to intervene prematurely and put a temporary block on the plan. Eventually it could wind its way back to the Court for a ruling, but in the meantime, there are no new CPP rules in effect.
    That decision is on the wrong side of history. It was a clear departure from how our courts normally handle government oversight. And I cringe at how we will have to answer to history…
    The Court has been on the wrong side of History before, but never on a topic that directly affects the current lives of 7 billion people, and untold billions in the future. Extreme weather, desertification, ocean acidification and climate-related military conflicts are increasingly global mega-trends that disrupt entire countries in utterly unpredictable ways…
    The biggest myth about the climate “debate” is that there is one. Serious-minded people are no longer debating: the US military, the reinsurance industry and COOs of Fortune 500 companies accept a changing climate as an inevitability that has to be accounted for in future battles and future business. The Pope frames the climate discussion as a deep moral imperative to care for the poor, the hungry, the disenfranchised. Even many investor-owned utilities are transitioning from coal to cleaner energy to protect shareholder interests…
    If we face this crisis with intention and bravery we can make money and make a better world for our children and their children…
    http://time.com/4231875/robert-redford-climate-change/

    20

    • #

      Yep! That’s who I would trust to tell the SCOTUS what decision to make about electrical power generation.

      An actor!

      Tony.

      70

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Ronald Reagan was also an actor and in his way, an activist, being outspoken in his belief that government was the problem. One man did the world a lot of good. The other, so far at least, has simply swallowed a particular cause, hook line and sinker, then proceeded to try to block every good use of our energy resources he can get in the way of.

      When Redford gets in front of the camera to act he does a better job than Reagan ever did. But as an expert on anything (you name it) he has the odor of a long dead fish hanging over him like a black cloud.

      Reagan made the transition from acting to politics successfully, not without some difficulty but he did make it. Redford isn’t going to ever be a useful politician, activist or anything else while he spouts nonsense every time he’s allowed to speak.

      I don’t know what Reagan would decide about the great energy debate were he alive today. But I’m confident he wouldn’t talk like Robert Redford. His interest would be to use everything available that could be economically viable. He did make the mistake of getting congress to authorize tax incentives for solar water heating. So go figure. But I’ll take Reagan back any day and ignore Redford.

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I guess I should acknowledge that Redford is a credible expert on acting. The man can do something useful.

        00

  • #
    AndyG55

    2GB POLL this is what CONSERVATIVE voters really think

    http://s19.postimg.org/iofywde7n/Abbott_hands_down.png

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      email it to you local LIBERAL member !!!

      20

    • #
      toorightmate

      Boy Oh Boy,
      That was close!

      30

    • #
      TdeF

      So if Malcolm insists he is going to follow Abbott’s policies, why did the parliamentary Liberal party remove our Prime Minister? Was that to please Malcolm’s ABC because they were the only ones cheering.

      What exactly is Malcolm’s own view on Global Warming/Climate Change and a foreign carbon tax (ETS) run by his old mates at Goldmann Sachs? Our cash for their worthless bits of paper.

      It seems everyone is keen on an ETS except the entire population of Australia. Even Gillard promised on her honour not to have a carbon tax. Malcolm is saying absolutely nothing and Joyce is now denying it which means it is certain, the crowning glory of Malcolm’s very unwelcome reign. Bring back Abbott now because he will surely be back when the Libs/Nats lose the next election and Malcolm’s real party gets in.
      Then he will have to remove the carbon tax again.

      40

  • #
    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Ian,

      Interesting to say the least. And so much for the Democrat’s cry of a war on women. When will the truth finally escape from the political prison it’s currently in? Or maybe I should ask myself why I think enough people will be interested enough to let the truth prevail? I don’t even know which question is the right one. But a fascinating analysis, whichever question is the right one.

      00

  • #
    CC Reader

    http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit

    These are two extracts from a very interesting article

    “In other words, science is flawed. And scientists are people too. While it is true that most scientists — at least the ones I know and work with — are hell-bent on getting things right, they are not therefore immune from human foibles. If they want to keep their jobs, at least, they must contend with a perverse “publish or perish” incentive structure that tends to reward flashy findings and high-volume “productivity” over painstaking, reliable research. On top of that, they have reputations to defend, egos to protect, and grants to pursue. They get tired. They get overwhelmed. They don’t always check their references, or even read what they cite. They have cognitive and emotional limitations, not to mention biases, like everyone else.”

    “As the programmer Alberto Brandolini is reputed to have said: “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” This is the unbearable asymmetry of bullshit I mentioned in my title, and it poses a serious problem for research integrity. Developing a strategy for overcoming it, I suggest, should be a top priority for publication ethics”

    [I would ordinarily snip some words. But I think this is sufficiently interesting to leave it exactly as you wrote it. Please do be aware that we will not ordinarily allow such crass language and that exceptions are on a case by case basis.] AZ

    20

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Headline in today’s ninemsn page

    “East coast set to sizzle through blistering heatwave, Mercury to hit low 40s as summer refuses to end”

    er, it’s still officially summer!!

    Who writes this stuff?

    10

  • #
    StefanL

    “Who writes this stuff?”
    Obviously someone who missed some lessons in primary school :-)

    10

  • #

    This site has an amazing investigative article which exposes the mainstream media’s completely unsubstantiated claim that Cyclone Winston was the ‘strongest ever’ in the southern hemisphere:

    http://themarcusreview.com/2016/02/23/can-every-cyclone-be-the-worst-ever/

    20

  • #

    The problem of electrical power in the still Developing World is one which has no easy fix.

    You get waffle from virtually everywhere, thought bubbles really, on making them renewable, but that’s not really a solution at all, as those renewables of choice just don’t supply power which is reliable and constant.

    All you get is talk talk talk.

    Look at those two Countries which were barely a decade or so ago were in a similar position, China and India. (and in reality, India is probably still there, but at least they have started)

    None of the waffle from outside provided a solution for those two Countries. They did it themselves, especially China.

    Going on what they have done, virtually everyone now says that China is almost on par with electrical power when compared to other Countries, but are they really?

    Look at this.

    While I’m using Australia as the reference here, keep in mind that the availability of electricity here is similar to nearly every already Developed Country, the U.S. Europe and the other dozen or so Countries classified as Developed.

    Australia has the same three sectors of consumption as they all do, so then let’s do a breakdown of electrical power availability per capita.

    In Australia it comes down to (around, but fairly close to) 2083KWH per person per year.

    In China that breakdown is only 521KWH per person per year.

    When looked at in isolation like this then a case can be made that we in the Developed World consume four times as much per person as they do in China. That’s not because we are more profligate than they are, but that an average like skews the figures, giving perhaps a false impression that ….. ALL the Chinese have availability of power, which is patently false. Those in China who do have power would be consuming it in much the same manner as we do, probably less, but not by a factor of four.

    Availability of power in China could be as little as perhaps a light bulb or two and maybe a few hours or so a day, so DON’T get that false impression that nearly everybody has access to power, and then take that for granted, because outside of the (larger) Cities, the grid would still be in construction, so there would still be a very very large number of people either with no power or very little power at all.

    So, what China has done first is to Industrialise, and to get the electrical power to Industry first, which is what has happened. The benefit of that is that the residential sector is coming along with that also, to a lesser degree and at a slower rate.

    The same is happening in India, only they are just starting out.

    So, with respect to other Countries still Developing, say, like in Africa, the Countries need to start out ….. and do this on their own, not wait for outside influences to TELL THEM that they should be going down the renewable path, which won’t even begin to solve the problem. It’s harder in Africa because you have many Countries.

    There is no easy fix. It’s going to be a long and slow process, only exacerbated by entities like the UN telling them what’s good for them.

    Did China listen to the UN? Did India? No, they went and did it on their own.

    Some of you may say I am over simplifying this, but as you can see just from scratching the surface as I have done, there will be no easy solution.

    Tony.

    Working for the maths for the two comparisons.

    Australia Total Power Consumption 200TWH. Residential Sector (25% of the total) 50TWH. Population 24 Million, hence 2083KWH per person per year

    China Total Power Consumption 5600TWH. Residential Sector (13% of the total) 730TWH. Population 1,400 Million, hence 521KWH per person per year. (Reference for data extrapolated from these figures from November 2015)

    Do not ever think that availability (and consumption) of electrical power in the Residential Sector in China is the same as it is here in Australia.

    20

  • #
    Ross Stacey

    I have just watched a BBC program called Fake or Fortune. It is based around an unfinished painting purportedly by Monet. The team produced convincing evidence both by records and scientific study to support the veracity of the sale in the 30s that it was by Monet. However, the most prestigious Art house in Paris refused to accept it. The reason- they had studied it 70 years ago and they were right then and there is no reason to change their opinion.
    Reminds me so much of the IPCC view on Climate Change. (We are right and will not accept any argument)

    10

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    For Discussion – The ‘Refrigeration Cycle’: The Basics

    In order to evaluate the refrigeration analogy to see how well it fits the observed facts about our atmosphere, we’ll need to look at what a refrigerator is and how it works. This comment may seem a bit long compared to most other comments here but it’s necessary to ‘put all the cards on the table’. :)

    Mechanical Refrigeration – What It Is

    Using the common refrigerator as an example, there is a closed box where we keep our perishables. Let’s call this the enclosure. Heat enters the enclosure from the space surrounding it. That space could be a room in the home, an isle in a supermarket, or even outdoors near the entrance to a gasoline station etc.. In all cases, we’ll call that space the environment, and the temperature of the environment we’ll refer to as the ambient temperature. There is also a cold reservoir, a warm reservoir, and a compressor. Finally, there’s a fan that circulates cool air into the enclosure and a thermostat that measures the temperature within the enclosure.

    The two reservoirs, the compressor and the fan, together are called here the refrigeration unit. The two reservoirs are connected to each other with the compressor between them and a gas, called the coolant, flows continuously through all three. The thermostat turns the refrigeration unit on and off as needed, and the refrigeration unit requires a source of energy, electricity, to run it.

    Mechanical Refrigeration – How It Works

    The refrigeration cycle begins by compressing the gaseous coolant into a liquid causing it to heat up above the ambient temperature of the environment. The liquefied gas flows through a semi-coiled pipe, (that’s the warm reservoir), that’s exposed to the environment and so heat flows naturally from the warm reservoir to the cooler environment. After this natural cooling, the coolant, still in a liquid state, is released into a low pressure coil structure, (that’s the cold reservoir), where part of it expands into a gas causing it to cool. The gas draws latent heat from the still liquid portion of the coolant by a process called auto-refrigeration, and by the time the coolant is completely vaporized, it’s well below the ambient temperature and also below the temperature inside the enclosure. The fan blows air from the enclosure over the cold reservoir, heat now moves naturally from that warmer air into the coolant within the coils, and it’s this now cooler air that’s blown back into the enclosure. The warmer air still within the enclosure mixes with the new, but cooler air within the enclosure bringing down the overall temperature inside. The coolant, having absorbed the required amount of heat from the warmer air flowing around it, now flows back into the compressor where it begins the cycle once again.

    Observations – The Physics

    The explanation written above took a lot longer than expected because after writing it out the first time, I decided to rewrite it detailing the heat flows in each of the stages of the process where they occur. So a statement like, ‘the fan blows warm air over the cold reservoir thereby cooling it‘ got changed to, ‘The fan blows air from the enclosure over the cold reservoir, heat now moves naturally from that warmer air into the coolant within the coils’, etc.. :)
    I went to the trouble of doing this to emphasize a critical point; the refrigeration cycle never ‘moves heat from a colder region or substance into a warmer region or substance’. This is a common misunderstanding and needs to be corrected. :)
    The key to the refrigeration cycle is the manipulation of the physical state of the coolant from a gas into a liquid and back into a gas again. This process is done not by heating or cooling but by changing the pressure of the coolant. The coolant is mechanically compressed increasing it’s density (same volume of gas within a smaller volume of space and so at a higher pressure) and this process increases it’s thermodynamic temperature adiabatically. IOW, no heat energy enters or leaves the coolant because of the compression but the compression increases the thermodynamic temperature of the coolant anyway. :)
    There is additional energy required to compress the coolant mechanically, but . . .
    . . . that energy comes from outside the system in the form of electricity, and . . .
    . . . that energy enters the system mechanically as work and so no heat is exchanged in the process. :)
    After the coolant, still in a liquid state, looses the required amount of heat to the cooler environment, it’s released from the higher pressure warm reservoir into the lower pressure cold reservoir through a valve in the form of a pinhole. The rapid expansion of the liquid into a gas causes a drop in thermodynamic temperature adiabatically. IOW, no heat energy enters or leaves the coolant because of the decompression but the decompression decreases the thermodynamic temperature of the coolant anyway. :)

    Next stop, deconstruction of the ‘Refrigeration Analogy’ by comparing the above processes to the processes known to occur within the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Abe

    SPOILER ALERT: Although mechanical refrigeration similar to what was described in this comment is not required for cooling to take place, as shown in yesterday’s comment, For Discussion – The ‘Refrigeration Only’ Argument: A Deconstruction above, it does exist within the Earth’s atmosphere. :o
    Just not the way that was described in the ‘Refrigeration Analogy’. :)

    111

    • #

      Just-A-Guy February 24, 2016 at 12:05 am · Reply

      For Discussion – The ‘Refrigeration Cycle’: The Basics

      “In order to evaluate the refrigeration analogy to see how well it fits the observed facts about our atmosphere, we’ll need to look at what a refrigerator is and how it works. This comment may seem a bit long compared to most other comments here but it’s necessary to ‘put all the cards on the table’. :)

      Good God! This threading un-threading, and re-threading is bizarre! Can Joanne please provide such a table upon which to put the cards? Is such table a local quasi inertial reference with underling attractive force (gravity), such that besides all cards, containers of precious beer may be relinquished unto, without fear of barmaid running off with such while not empty, and without other, offering to pay for next round? Let’s get serious!! I will try again! :-)

      “One of those considerations is as follows:
      A quote from the original comment:”

      Please allow me to quote with different emphasis, pleeze!

      Since no refrigeration process can be 100% efficient there also cannot be any process driven by that same down-welling IR energy supply in the boundary layer that can expel the absorbed energy quickly enough to exactly compensate. Once the down-welling IR has been created it must create warming, nothing can stop that, the same as with all other materials that have ever been studied.

      This leads to some accepting that down-welling IR has been created! Nothing is further from the physical truth. This is not mere misinterpretation. This is knowledgeable, deliberate, intentional, fraud, for profit!! Never conspiracy, none is needed.
      Starts with fine business opportunity! Some AlGoresta Hanson gas buddies notice that exists contractual Coal and Rail delivery upon (reasonable) demand to electrical power generation facilities at fixed price for 80 years. The vast bean counters on the three sides, have dotted every (t) and crossed every (i).
      Hows ya gonna get into dat without knowing how much gas yous got!
      Easy! First destroy both the Coal industry and the Railroad method of delivery.
      This is much like preparing an Armenian Omelet. First go steal some eggs!
      Eureka! Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming via CO2! And you, me, and all fell for this! Please admit it!

      The originator of the refrigeration bull shit when challenged can only respond with:

      Count the fallacies: Doublespeak (twice), Argumentum ad Verecundiam (twice), Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence (twice), Straw Man. It’s nice only for the humour value of seeing good old Word Salad Janoschka explicitly denying observed facts – facts which anyone can find if they look

      The originator cannot provide any evidence whatsoever of the down-welling atmospheric anything.
      The originator refuses to admit the vast difference between electromagnetic “radiance a potential for flux”, and the actual physical generation of such flux by that of higher radiance at each frequency and in each direction as diminished by all opposing radiance. The concept of dual opposing electromagnetic flux at any frequency or in any direction is only a concept for fraud, never of science!
      All the best! -will-

      221

  • #
    el gordo

    Free Enterprise

    ‘In September last year, Japan lost a $5 billion opportunity to build a 140 km high speed train corridor connecting Jakarta with Bandung in Indonesia. Despite the Japanese investing several years conducting feasibility studies and related work on the project, the final contract was awarded to the Chinese.

    ‘China offered to finance and build the project with no financial contribution from the Indonesian government and therefore, no financial guarantee was required from the government. This was apparently the main reason why Japan lost the contract.

    ‘Taking no chances, Japan was keen to win the Ahmedabad – Mumbai high speed train project and thus offered very attractive terms that included funding the project up to 81% of the project cost, with a very low interest component of 0.3%, payment period extending to 40 years, and with no payment to be made for the first 10 years. These terms were far more attractive than what the Chinese have offered and were the main factor, besides its unblemished record on safety that swung the contract in Japan’s favour.’

    10

  • #

    Way way leftover

    suricat says: February 25, 2016 at 3:32 am

    Thank you Ray, Always nice to be straitened out about what I think I know! More belief #2 :-)

    Roger Clague says: February 25, 2016 at 10:37 am
    ……
    Thank you Roger, Nice to hear from one with sufficient experience to declare “steady on the rudder, forget the heel of the keel, I can get us through this mess, again!!!” :-) Much more belief #2!

    suricat says: February 26, 2016 at 1:23 am
    Roger Clague says: February 25, 2016 at 10:37 am

    (“When I say the point of view (POV) of each molecule is critical, I mean: 1. The motion of each molecule in a gas is random, independent, statistical, inertial and isotropic.”)

    “I concur, but you’ve left out ‘penetration’ by ‘diffusion’ (yet another statistical assumption). Each molecule that alters its position within a gas mix does so by ‘diffusion’.”

    Ray, Why such pedantic-acy? Is that a word?, you get the idea. We have recorded measurements of:
    1. Same sea level atmospheric pressure, 101.3kPa ±34Pa, independent of temperature at almost all surface locations day and night! Why?

    2. Almost linear decrease in atmospheric temperature with increasing altitude at any location independent of local surface temperature! Why?

    3. While surface pressure remains constant and lapse rate remains constant, the altitude of 15 kPa atmospheric pressure varies 2:1 from equator to poles, and 1:3 from before dawn to mid afternoon at summertime latitudes. Why?

    You claim a single POV is sufficient. Why? I treat each POV as a non-orthogonal partial differential equation. I can handle 5 with beer! By 6 partials, I must go to Glenfiddich. Gets kinda spendy!!
    My point I wish to express again, is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to how this atmosphere may work. Any claim of such must be an attempt at deliberate scam!
    All the best! -will-

    121

    • #

      Still leftover!!:-)
      wayne says: February 26, 2016 at 7:10 pm

      “Will, you have no clue! I agree.:”
      ————————————————————————————–
      WJ(“1. Same sea level atmospheric pressure, 101.3kPa ±34Pa, independent of temperature at almost all surface locations day and night! Why?”)

      “Due to the fact that pressure does not depend on temperature, at all. P = m·g and that has been proven true long ago.”

      Really now! Gas pressure is independent of the force of gravity, but is a linear function of gas temperature at constant volume as given by the gas laws. Why can you not realize that temperature controls the volume of this atmosphere instead of pressure and does so in a manner that combines gravitational compression with temperature expansion in a very non linear fashion. The fashion involves correctly applying projective geometry to functions of different dimensionality, i.e. pressure volume with a constant radial compressive gravitational force. That geometry will show that atmosphere itself can never exhibit the characteristic strain of measuring weight. Surface pressure is indeed proportional (a function of) the force of gravity times the total amount of atmosphere. The proportionality constant has not been determined. The total amount of this atmosphere in terms of moles or mass is unknown, as is reason for that amount to appear a constant over the years.
      Weight as a strain on a spring lifting mass from rest in a gravitational field would have a symbolic form of W ∝ m·g, meaning in physical terms that Weight(Newtons) is proportional to mass(kg) times force of gravity(N/kg). You make a mockery of not only science but of mathematics as well, with your alphabet soup. Pressure has dimensions of force over area,giving the result in Pa (Pascals) This never, ever, means force divided by area.
      A one kg steel ball on the centre of a one meter card table does not produce a pressure of 9.8 Pa anywhere! Such may produce a force of 2.35N on each of the four legs.
      Fluid pressure P may produce a force (F) when applied over area (A) such that in symbolic form, F ∝ P·A, meaning in physical terms that force(Newtons) is proportional to Pressure(Pa) times Area(m²) Fluid pressure is independent of area applied. You would have pressure going to ∞ as area decreases to zero.
      The rest of your post deals only with the calculations used to calibrate all barometric altimeters so that aircraft do not fly into each other. the result has little to do with actual pressure, temperature, or height above sea level. The standard atmosphere never physically exists. Atmospheric convection in all its forms, a continuous process, sees to that. Aero-static properties can be forced only under laboratory conditions.
      In your code snippet for atmospheric mass you will note that if you change your accumulation interval from cm to some other distance the results of atmospheric mass change! Please fix that so you can see how your present code only provides your predetermined result!
      All the best! -will-

      022

    • #

      even more leftover
      Suricat says: February 26, 2016 at 1:23 am

      “This ‘is’ consistent RC. The ‘value/weight’ of a mass/massive ‘object’ is disclosed by the continued application of a ‘given’ force to the object. This (given) ‘force application’ discloses the ‘weight/mass’ of the ‘object under investigation’ by way of the rate of acceleration of the object.”
      I disagree; The acceleration of mass by Earth’s gravity is independent of the value of that mass (within limits) A mass balance can indicate ratios of amounts of mass but is independent of the force of Earth’s gravity (within limits). Only a stress indicator (spring compression/elongation), with zero acceleration, can indicate Weight ∝ the product of local mass and Earth’s gravitational force.
      This atmosphere can exhibit no measurable weight, as the relationship between atmosphere and Earth’s gravity is never local!

      “This also ‘transposes’ as local ‘gravity constraints’ on the subject under consideration (which is compromised by ‘pressure’ [electrostatic equilibrium]). Earth’s gravity obfuscates a ‘clean’ observation IMHO by generating ‘an atmosphere’ in the first place. Best regards, Ray.”

      Indeed! The all of Navier-Stokes partial differential equations, packaged neatly within 20km of the Earth,s surface for easy observation. A test to see if humans have intelligence, or must remain as stupid as they appear! The Earth’s actual atmospheric surface pressure has a measurable component (partial) ∝ to ω², the square of the Earth’s angular velocity. Tallbloke wants me to provide both calculations and the results. I have not yet discovered but a small part of the required partials, to evaluate their significance. I prefer to appear as stupid as I am!

      oldbrew says: February 18, 2016 at 9:36 pm

      “Wikipedia says the thermal wind is really a wind shear – but admits its ‘article has multiple issues’ and ‘needs attention from an expert in Meteorology.’ (September 2012)”

      Thermal Wind is an abstraction of the illusionary “Geostrophic Wind” Both are fantasy phrases invented by academic “teachers” of meteorology so as to give the impression that the failed astrologers have understanding of how this atmosphere may work!
      Stewart; you opened this can of worms, perhaps it needed to be opened! Do not expect those worms to fit back into the can. :-)
      All the best! -will-

      024

    • #

      Thank you Joanne for the space. I hope I do not deter from the message of you and David. More funds sent your way as permits! Do you sell anything but chocolate!

      My kitten looks at image of koala bear and drools, wants to play with, right now, she has much food via her careful training of me!

      suricat (RD) says: February 28, 2016 at 12:18 am
      Will Janoschka says: February 26, 2016 at 6:15 am
      (Roger Clague actually says: February 25, 2016 at 10:37 am)

      suricat says: February 25, 2016 at 3:32 am
      RD:((‘A singular POV is required to make any sense of Earth’s atmosphere.
      IMHO this should be Earth’s ‘centric gravity point’ (Barycentre) and a better way to describe/explain ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’.’))

      RC:(‘When I say the point of view (POV) of each molecule is critical, I mean:
      1. The motion of each molecule in a gas is random, independent, statistical, inertial and isotropic.
      2. Intermolecular gravity and charge forces are 10^8 x Earth’s gravity force.
      3. Earth’s gravity field causes the vertical pressure gradient.
      You appear to be inconsistent.
      You say previously that inertial mass (independent of Earth’s gravity) is important.
      Above you say Earth’s gravity field is the correct POV.’)

      suricat claims roger(RC) says: February 26, 2016 at 1:23 am

      RC:(“When I say the point of view (POV) of each molecule is critical, I mean: 1. The motion of each molecule in a gas is random, independent, statistical, inertial and isotropic.”)

      RD:“I concur, but you’ve left out ‘penetration’ by ‘diffusion’ (yet another statistical assumption). Each molecule that alters its position within a gas mix does so by ‘diffusion’.”

      Yes!! A point of view (POV) of each individual molecule, not some “inertial” or otherwise reference frame. From Ray’s imaginary reference frame (they all are imaginary), that molecule moves! From the POV of the molecule; everything but that molecule is moving! :-)

      Will asks:( “Ray, Why such pedantic-acy? Is that a word?”)

      “The word you’re looking for is ‘pedantry’ Will. I’m pedantic about this point because Roger Clague used the term ‘POV’ (Point Of View), which isn’t anything to do with a ‘reference frame’ other than an ‘opinion’ for/against it. :(

      Sir Clague made no mention of reference frame. Why do you think a POV ever needs an imaginary reference frame. A POV must be an extremely myopic concentration on what is observed at any scale. To even consider your ‘reference frame’, is to destroy such concentration!

      “Hmm. Let’s take the ‘reference frame’ to be that of a ‘given’ molecule as an example. Our molecule gets ‘kicked’ into another environment by diffusive migration. What happens to the ‘reference frame’? Its in another ‘universe’! Nothing relates to what the environment was before the molecule was ‘diffused’ elsewhere. This is nothing less than ‘chaos’ IMHO.”

      Ray you are the guy with some preferred reference frame like the Earth’s COM, Barycenter, focus of gravitational attraction, or intersection of a Earth’s radial attractive force to external mass! Such actual locus exhibits no gravitational force, as that locus can have no mass, such is a point,, no volume for mass. Your preferred reference is 6,000 km from Clague’s atmospheric molecule. Clague’s atmospheric molecule’ POV is focused on the closest other atmospheric molecule at a distance of 30 Angstroms, bent on deforming my repulsive electron surround!.
      The Earth COM is appropriate for the remote forces maintaining Earth’s orbit. Your same locus can be relevant to the disjoint POV from all Earth-Sun Lagrange points, which clearly demonstrate both the Earth’s orbit and rotation: and the POV from somewhere on Earth’s surface, that only demonstrate the epicyclic behavior of all else! Copernicus and Galileo noticed, without the aid of EM reports from craft exiting the whole damned Solar system.’

      WJ:(“You claim a single POV is sufficient. Why?”)

      I don’t! I say a single ‘reference frame’ is essential! From there you can take whichever ‘point of observation’ within the ‘reference frame’ that you wish to take and the ‘outcome’ can be synchronized with other observations at other points of observation within the ‘reference frame’.

      You were writing only of POVs not of reference frame, with your claim of ‘single’!

      RD:”A ‘Whole Earth’ gravity field, inclusive of ‘other body off-sets’, is the only ‘reference frame’ that can possibly reveal the true nature of ‘some’ of Earth’s atmospheric activity.”

      I agree! I would suggest at the Earth’s centre. A One length, two Euler angle inertial reference. The length must logarithmic with origin of one, not zero, aligned with the time axis. The future is a power accumulation of time intervals. The past is always the complex conjugate of the future, measured in negative cycles per time interval For mushrooms on Earth’s surface, it would nice if the axis of Earth’s rotation were aligned with the time axis. This would clarify much of rotation, but clearly demonstrate the dance of fetching Coriolis!

      Ray, the actual required mathematics in achieving such is almost as complex as the atmosphere itself. OTOH the current throughput of wee silicon technology can certainly do the required octonion matrix manipulation in microseconds. What is needed is for some few mushrooms to figure the correct manipulation. After that;; no mushroom child need learn anything except the proper ‘flick on the touch screen’ that results in the proper numerical result, that correct answer, however, still would have no meaning

      WJ: (“My point I wish to express again, is that no one or group has the slightest clue as to how this atmosphere may work. Any claim of such must be an attempt at deliberate scam!”)

      RD:”That’s a ‘conspiracy theory’ in the making Will, but we have the numbers on our side. ;) Best regards, Ray.”)

      No conspiracy whatsoever Ray. Only individual ‘business opportunity’ to scam the mushrooms!
      Just what numbers do you have on your side Ray? The grossly incorrect value of total atmospheric mass? Such as promoted as correct, by meteorologists of any ilk, Blaise Pascal, Roger Tattersall, Wane Jackson, and I guess yourself?
      Were all of you soundly asleep in classes of analytic and projective geometry? Atmospheric pressure (force normal to any planar surface) at any altitude and in any direction, must be the integral over a whole hemisphere of the normal (cosine theta) force of such pressure, in every direction. Such geometry requires that the local pressure be PI times the local force/area provided by the columnar atmospheric mass times the only radial compressive gravitational force upon that mass.
      Sorry guys! The rest of the details can show that I am wrong, but also close to an answer!
      Who was it? Rumpleskilkin or such, that went to sleep until the rest of the mushrooms could figure it out!
      All the best! -will-

      025

    • #

      Will Janoschka says: February 29, 2016 at 9:09 am
      “Sorry guys! The rest of the details can show that I am wrong, but also close to an answer!
      Who was it? Rumpleskilkin or such, that went to sleep until the rest of the mushrooms could figure it out! All the best! -will-

      TB: [Reply] I’m taking no lessons in spherical geometry from the man who calculates Earth to have a 1km radius. Sorry.

      Did I mention spherical geometry? Can you give some reference to where or when I may have stated/written my calculation of Earth’s radius of 1km?
      Since you brought it up, a planet with the mass of earth and an atmosphere with the mass of Earth’s atmosphere but a surface radius of only 1 km would have a surface pressure 1.3 x 10^15 that of the current 100kPa. A pressure and temperature sufficiently high enough to have the locus of that 1km radius be a superfluid and the radiance of such theoretical mess greater than that of the Sun. Has all thinking been abandoned?
      The Earth’s surface pressure is clearly ∝ to g x columnar atmospheric mass!! It is not however ≡ nor =, but is clearly ≠ to g x columnar atmospheric mass. The actual value for surface atmospheric pressure is close to π x g x columnar atmospheric mass, to three decimal places. The motion of atmospheric mass (convection) prevents any finer calculation.
      All the best! -will-

      024

    • #

      still more unshreads from: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114312

      tallbloke says: March 3, 2016 at 12:52 am

      “Wayne. We’ll have to do a post on your equations soon. Have a think about fleshing it all out with some plots of planetary atmospheres.”

      TB: Wayne’s code snippet above of altitude, pressure is not only full of error, it does not ever consider the effect of lapse rate on such calculation. By inspection it is obvious that his use of one centimeter height interval gives an atmospheric mass accumulation that is 100 times the mass of the first meter of atmosphere by the time height is one meter above the surface. other mistakes abound.
      Roger Clague’s notation of lapse gives the correct result, but for reasons that prevent understanding. The combination of ideal gas law and kinetic theory of gas is useful for answers close to measurements. It is mainly the given assumption in the kinetic theory of little or no interaction between molecules that makes the current interpretation of kinetic theory still give close answers but with no understanding.
      With gas in a constant volume consideration, there is no change in gas density, with the addition of heat power, either molecular or mass density. At constant pressure, gas density is inversely ∝ to the application of heat power, but in both cases gas temperature is directly ∝ to the application of heat power. OOps!!!
      I think, the solution to thus is to stop considering that gas temperature is not merely some mv²/2 but instead:
      absolute gas temperature ∝ ∂(mass)/∂t • ∂v/∂t… This is precisely as Sir Newton penned his 2nd Law of motion.. Energy (temperature) is ∝ to the first derivative (change) in momentum with respect to time. this E = mv²/2 is but post modern BS!
      Whoah! you say, how can there be any (∂m/∂t)? Mass does not change with respect to time.
      At every location in this atmosphere the mass within, or ∝ to, some meters³ (density) or normal to some meters² (pressure) is changing continuously at any temperature that can produce any wee bit of vapour pressure. The mass of a molecule does not change with time but any way that you relate mass to distance in any number of dimensions. The result is called ‘thermal noise’. The thermal does not generate the noise, the noise power generates the temperature!
      BTW that power (W) is ∝ J per secomd. This is the effective integrated insolation maintaining all temperatures, and temperature gradients on or about this planet
      All the best! -will-

      021

    • #

      More Tallbloke (un)shreadexd!!! :-)

      Ben Wouters says:
      March 3, 2016 at 2:36 pm

      Roger Clague says: March 2, 2016 at 12:12 pm
      (“http://www.britannica.com/science/gas-state-of-matter
      Excellent on what Kinetic theory of gas can calculate out of chaos.”
      “In that article:” Is this image
      https://i0.wp.com/media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/49/320x315x54449-004-1E68052A.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gh-h3T2n54.jpg
      “Assuming the environment to be ~ a vacuum, the piston moving without friction and no air escaping along the piston, the weight to contain the pressure below the piston for a 1 m^2 area piston would be ~ 10.000 kgf for normal atmospheric surface pressure.”

      The environment is not a rigid cylinder, a piston + weight on top, compressing the gas in the cylinder. This is the meteorological concept of atmosphere. Such is suitable for acceptance by no more than students of than third grade level!

      The environment is a whole surrounding atmosphere prevented from escaping to space via the interaction of Earth’s gravity and the mass of that compressible fluid surround. This interaction is never termed weight. It can only be expressed as the triplet of atmospheric gradients of pressure density, and temperature; each decreasing with increasing distance from the incompressible surface!
      This interaction, is best understood from the concepts of “ideal gas law”, kinetic theory of gas, and the “equipartition theorem”, as per Roger Clague!
      Each of these three concepts is incomplete, and suffer mostly from incorrect starting assumptions. At the same time, each is very useful for this physical; each results in physical answers “close enough for government work”!! :-)

      Note for Tallbloke:
      Since the attractive force of Earth’s gravity to atmospheric mass is nearly constant, an only inwardly force at any location, including height, within the whole atmosphere; the Earth’s gravity can be considered “nearly isotropic” for any consideration of the meaning of the word “isotropic.

      “How do you expect the atmosphere to be held on the surface with only weightless air between the surface and the deep vacuum of space?”

      The continuous local EMR “power flux of insolation” Maintains the latent heat of evaporation of this whole atmosphere, mostly N2 and O2, and keeps these components from solidifying upon the Earth’s surface.
      This is in spite of the also continuous power flux exitance to space via EMR from some atmospheric components; mostly airborne gaseous and colloidal H2O!

      Ben, your question of “how” is valid!! The third grade meteorological religious dogma of “weight” is ludicrous, (humorous were not so serious)!
      Please contribute to this discussion of “How dey do dat”
      All the best! -will-

      022

    • #

      tallbloke says: March 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm

      “Ben, thanks for taking over for a while. Roger C’c repetitive returning to the same fallacies even after being forced to admit them has made me step away before I ban him for this continual groundhog day nonsense..”

      Roger Tattersall truly has gone round the bend promoting the BALDERDASH of the WMO!
      It is the meteorologist bastardization of the Navier-Stokes ∂P/∂z = -ρ•g. Calling that the ‘hydrostatic equation”, that lead to the insane claim that “atmospheric pressure is the force that is required to support the columnar weight of the atmosphere above that pressure”! Nothing could be further from the truth! Ben refuses to notice that it is gauge pressure not absolute pressure that is required to support his added mass, constrained to a column!

      017

    • #

      Ben Wouters says: March 7, 2016 at 2:54 pm
      (Roger Clague says: March 7, 2016 at 10:18 am
      “The atmosphere is
      1. not held
      2. not on the surface”)

      “Where do we find a vacuum on the surface in the absence of atmosphere?”

      If not for continuous insolation maintaining the latent heat of evaporation of O2 and N2, such space vacuum must be present a few meters above where liquid O2 and N2 collect in the depressions of now solid H2O oceans at surface temperature of 75 Kelvin,.
      The force of Earth’s gravity in conjunction with local insolation derived temperature, maintain an unknown amount/volume of surround atmospheric gaseous molecules and the ever present thermal lapse rate. Not one or all Earthlings has any clue as to how the Earth actually accomplishes such a marvelous situation! Some Earthlings measure, then get DRONK!
      Meteorology is but the profitable astrology, palm reading, card reading, phrenology, witchcraft, witchdoctor, endeavor that serfs pay unto, for some relief from constant fear of the unknown. There is no science within barge pole distance of that BALDERDASH!
      All the best! -will-

      016

  • #

    MORE UNSHREADED Goodies from above:
    suricat says: March 4, 2016 at 3:05 am
    Roger Clague says: March 2, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    (“The environment is isotropic in a gas. Chaos but randomly ordered chaos.”}

    “Only ‘isotropic’ in a ‘perfect gas’ RC. A ‘gas mix’ usually contains many anomalies when observing Earth’s atmosphere.”

    No Ray. In most gas mixtures, and certainly in the lower troposphere, the mixture (local pint) remains isotropic via the theorem of large numbers. My now empty pint mug (counting), such has 16,000 parts (particles), of local atmosphere each of (1 billion x 1 billion) molecules of some (nearly) uniform aggregate of molecular mixture.
    When I examine each of the 16,000 parts, I can distinguish no identifiable anisotropy!

    (“However the Earth’s atmospheric gravity environment changes by 0.3% from bottom to tropopause.”)

    “No, that’s the differential to ‘gravity forcing’ for that altitude change. The ‘force of gravity’ is altered ‘more’ by the ‘change in latitude’ for ‘Earth’s centrifuge’ (Coriolis effect) than this altitude measurement (~3 ins/sec^2 in counterpoise to gravity at equatorial observation).”

    Bull Shit!! Roger C’s decrease in “g” is strictly from the projective geometric 1/radius)² = 1/2 delta radius.

    (“Diffusion is slow only 30cm/hr. This is enough given time to set the pressure gradient.”)

    “This is an ‘approximation’ for an ‘average molecule’ in an ‘average gas’ (perfect gas). The ‘energetic’ and ‘inertia value’ determine the ‘depth of penetration’ for each and every molecule.”

    Again BS Ray! The diffusion rate for STP gas, given no forcing, 65% by number N2, separated from 35% by number O2 would defuse initially at a measurably initial value of 30 cm/hr. When close to “well mixed” that diffusion rate asymptotically approaches ZERO! :)
    The vertical thermal diffusion rate of any atmospheric gas remains as ZERO because of the interaction of atmospheric mass and Earth’s gravity.

    “If an individual poured petroleum spirit on the floor of a garage twenty feet away from me, it wouldn’t take an hour before I could smell it!”

    Good God Ray!
    Four grams of ethylene (C2H4) released from 20 ft away would reach you in 187 Milli-seconds, with sufficient power/energy to blow the roof of of your dilapidated travel trailer, with only one spark!
    Can we not get back to discussing,”atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean?”
    All the best! -will-

    021

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    For Discussion – The ‘Refrigeration Analogy’: A Deconstruction

    Introduction

    A couple of weeks ago I posted a description of how the man-made refrigeration process works. At the end of that post . . .

    I wrote:

    Next stop, deconstruction of the ‘Refrigeration Analogy’ by comparing the above processes to the processes known to occur within the Earth’s atmosphere.

    The plan was to list the logical errors I found in the original claim and go on to present an analogy without those errors comparing man-made refrigeration to the Earth’s atmosphere. As I started writing, I kept finding more errors and in trying to explain each one, the length of the post got completely out of hand.

    I also realized that I’d left out an important part of how the common refrigerator works, the thermostat.

    I’ve decided that I’ll only discuss two of those logical errors in this comment and present a description of the thermostat.

    Here again is the original claim:

    The analogy:

    • Since no refrigeration process can be 100% efficient there also cannot be any process driven by that same downwelling IR energy supply in the boundary layer that can expel the absorbed energy quickly enough to exactly compensate. Once the downwelling IR has been created it must create warming, nothing can stop that, the same as with all other materials that have ever been studied.

    The explanation of the analogy:

    Refrigeration must be a man-made artifice because heat will normally move from hot to cold and moving it the other way requires the consumption of additional energy in a manner that would not normally happen without designed machines, pressure vessels, and so forth. That’s my point, I was saying any mechanism you can think of to prevent downwelling IR from warming the surface would be a refrigeration process. It would have to move the radiation in the reverse direction it is coming from, before the IR can warm the surface layer, and without consuming any additional energy. Any such excuse would therefore be, as you so succinctly put it, “bull s*it”.

    In the analogy as originally stated, ( the first quote. ), thermal energy accumulates within the boundary layer and has to then be removed by the process of refrigeration, and because man-made refrigeration is never 100% efficient, no process of refrigeration can ever be 100% efficient.

    Fails in the logic

    If: The man-made refrigeration process can never be 100% efficient.
    Then: Any refrigeration process, including any hypothetical natural one, can never be 100% efficient.

    ???

    1. Conflation ( fallacy of equivocation ) creates False Analogy – Major flaw

    The man-made refrigeration process is in fact, never 100% efficient. But only in the sense that:

    Heat pumps, refrigerators and air conditioners use work to move heat from a colder to a warmer place, so their function is the opposite of a heat engine. The work energy (Win) that is applied to them is converted into heat, and the sum of this energy and the heat energy that is moved from the cold reservoir (QC) is equal to the total heat energy added to the hot reservoir (QH).

    From the wikipedia article on Thermal Efficiency.

    If we look carefully at this description, the thermal inefficiency comes about as a direct consequence of the fact that there is additional thermal energy produced by the refrigeration unit when the coolant, more properly called the refrigerant, is compressed into a liquid, and this thermal energy must also be removed. Thing is, this additional thermal energy never enters the enclosure of the refrigerator. It stays entirely within the hot reservoir. So clearly it’s only the refrigeration unit, that’s less than 100% efficient.

    The analogy equates the entire refrigeration process with the refrigeration unit. This creates the false analogy whereby ‘no refrigeration process can be 100% efficient’. Restating the analogy without the fallacy of equivocation we get: ‘Because the refrigeration unit in a man-made refrigerator is never 100% efficient, any hypothetical refrigeration process in nature that we can think of must also be less than 100% efficient. :o

    This point may appear trivial all by itself but it’s importance will become clear when we look at how the thermostat works and what it does.

    2. Another False Analogy – Minor flaw

    The analogy as presented assumes that:
    a. The boundary layer can be likened to the enclosure of the refrigerator. (The place where thermal energy accumulates.)
    b. The same thermal energy which accumulates within the enclosure is the only source of energy that can be used to power the refrigeration unit.

    In a man-made refrigerator the enclosure and the refrigeration unit are separate entities. While both are part of the refrigeration process, each has it’s own separate source of energy. The thermal energy that accumulates within the enclosure comes from the environment and the energy used by the refrigeration unit, electricity, comes from a plug in the wall. :o

    Just like the false analogy at 1. above, here too, this point may appear trivial all by itself but it’s importance will also become clear when we look at how the thermostat works and what it does.

    Before going on to examine why these two logical errors in the refrigeration analogy are so important, we need to look at a description of the thermostat. Common refrigerators come equipped with a thermostat, and here is a simplified description.

    Intermission – The Thermostat

    The thermostat regulates how long the refrigeration unit will stay on depending on how much thermal energy we want to remove from the enclosure. When we plug the refrigerator into the electrical outlet for the first time, the temperature inside the enclosure will be the same as the ambient temperature of the surrounding environment and we decide what the temperature will be inside the enclosure when we set the thermostat.

    Once the thermostat is set, the refrigeration unit begins to remove thermal energy from the enclosure. The thermostat continuously reads the temperature inside the enclosure, and when the reading matches the desired temperature, the thermostat turns off the refrigeration unit and thermal energy from the environment begins to accumulate again within the enclosure.

    At some point, the temperature inside the enclosure will get high enough for the thermostat to turn the refrigeration unit back on again, the refrigeration unit begins to operate, and the unwanted thermal energy that caused the rise in temperature within the enclosure will again be removed.

    Back to the Deconstruction

    The refrigeration process has two separate but interwoven cycles:

    Air is circulated in and out of the enclosure. I’ll call this the cooling cycle because this is where the refrigerator actually produces the cooling that it was designed for.
    A refrigerant is circulated between the hot reservoir and the cold reservoir. I’ll call this the refrigeration cycle because it’s here that thermal energy is actually removed from the refrigerator and back into the environment.

    As a part of the refrigeration process, the cooling cycle produces only cooling by introducing air into the enclosure that’s colder than the air that’s already in there.
    As a part of the refrigeration process, the refrigeration cycle creates thermal energy by compressing the refrigerant, exposes that thermal energy to the environment which is cooler, reduces thermal energy by decompression, and exposes the now cooler refrigerant to a flow of warmer air taken from the enclosure.

    As we’ve seen, it’s the refrigeration unit that’s never 100% efficient because of the additional thermal energy that it produces which has to also be removed as part of the refrigeration cycle. But . . .
    . . . all of the thermal energy that we want to remove from the enclosure is removed completely. :o

    And this is in addition to the thermal energy that’s produced by the refrigeration cycle itself. :o

    So the claim that no refrigeration process that we can think of will be 100% efficient fails. :)

    The refrigeration unit may not be 100% efficient, but that part of the refrigerator runs on a separate source of energy and the efficiency of the refrigeration unit is only in reference to that additional source of energy. :)

    The refrigeration process, as a whole, is 100% efficient at removing unwanted thermal energy from the enclosure of the refrigerator. :)

    Now that that’s out of the way, I’ll write up the analogy without the logical errors. I’ll try to do that as quickly as possible.

    Abe

    022

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Off Topic Observation

      As of right now, March 11th, 2016 at ~11:15 pm, the above post has received 12 red thumbs.

      All of you political activists out there that clicked on the red thumb are nothing but cowards. ;)

      If you disagree with something, come out and say so. Post a comment and expose yourselves. :)

      Science and the rational discourse surrounding it aren’t decided by a vote. :o :)

      Abe

      012

  • #

    Thank you Joanne for the alternate venue and location to observe HTML Latin before posting!
    I doubt that Roger Tattersall will allow such blasphemy on his new politico/religious talkshop!

    suricat says: March 5, 2016 at 4:13 am
    Roger Clague says: March 2, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    (“Kinetic theory of Gas. The separate effect of Earth and other gas molecules can be combined by considering the effect of each on velocity of molecules, which is 1 reference frame.”)

    RD “Disagree. The ‘kinetic’ property consists of ‘other’ variant energetics for an atmosphere. Latitudinal definition is the ‘first’ objection that comes to mind.

    RC(“Inertial mass and Earth’s gravity affect the velocity of molecules in different way”)

    RD “As does the ‘advection’ component mentioned in my ‘first objection’ above.”

    RC“(1. Gas pressure is caused by inertial mass and velocity of molecules, which causes changing momentum at collisions”)

    Exactly! At the higher temperature and higher density at low altitudes, both the gas velocity and mean free path yield momentum change “the kinetic” which is represented as temperature.
    Surface pressure is the mechanism that separates all the atmospheric mass “overburden” from the incompressible surface and most all further influence on advection from the force of gravity. Thus while near sea level surface pressure remains at 101.3 kPA:
    Absolute near surface Temperature (T) ∝ d(mV)/dt ∝ V•N/mfp.

    Any interaction between atmosphere and surface is limited to tangential air viscosity and surface roughness. This provides to the lower atmospheric mass a tangential eastward velocity and momentum ∝ to 1000 MPH • cosine (latitude). All of the force of gravity has been transformed into surface pressure, and airborne momentum.

    RD “I don’t know where to start here. I’ll try this.”

    ‘Pressure’ is a ‘construct’ that arises from the ‘compression’ of the electrical ‘static repulsion’ that exists between molecules and is due to the ‘forced confinement’ of molecules that have been ‘energised’ into a ‘~gaseous state’. Thus, ‘pressure’ (WRT an atmosphere/gas [which also contains some liquids]) has the freedom of ‘compressibility’ as a variant to alter its volumetric measurement for ‘compressibility’.

    Exactly! The confinement due to gravity is most noticeable just above the tropopause.
    Here resides the transition of confinement from nearest neighbor, mean free path, of gas to Keplerian orbital mechanics with one focus of the orbital ellipse coinciding with your focus of Earth’s gravitational attractive force to molecules or clumps of molecules in the stratosphere and above, (no longer a gas). :-)

    RD “Moreover, there’s no mention of ‘advection’ by ‘Earth rotation’ that ‘varies’ the effective application of Earth’s ‘gravity field’. Enough.”

    The consideration of the lower atmosphere’s tangential momentum being composed of an outward radial (to Earth’s spin axis, component (force)) and an angular eastward component (force) can never be confused, associated, nor mathematically combined with the attractive (to mass) force of gravity. Earth’s gravity is so great and so nearly isotropic that ‘gravity’ can not ever be considered spinning! The angular momentum (spin) of Earth’s mass is also limited to the momentum of solid and liquid components, never the compressible atmosphere.
    Consideration of Earth’s orbital angular momentum must involve transfer of ownership of a whole boatload of Glenfiddich! Currently US $120/litre! :-)

    RC(“2. Atmosphere pressure gradient caused by Earth’s gravity acceleration gradient changing velocity with height.”)

    Molecular RMS speed is but a small part of the complex ever changing temperature, pressure, density structure of this atmosphere. No possible concept of calculating even the current state of the required Navier Stokes partial differential equations can be had. Such calculation must require the complete failure of such calculating machinery far, far prior to any result!

    RD “NO WAY! The ‘overburden’ of the atmosphere’s ‘apparent weight’ generates this phenomenon, but its modified by the level/type of insolation received. :) Ray.”

    I agree! Your use of the word ‘overburden’ is classic, I like it, much more than some imaginary coumnar ‘weight’. But such requires the concept of the integral of outer hemispherical 2PI steradian pressure force normal to a surface normal to the local vector of gravitational attraction. How many meteorological professors would ever consider such a concept?
    What makes the “weight” of the local atmosphere exactly ‘zero’ is the integration over all 4PI steradians of the whole sphere pressure force. This includes the radial upward force of atmospheric pressure ‘below’, at every altitude. This must result in precisely zero atmospheric accelerative force in any direction for every location in this atmosphere “weightlessness”!
    Anything else must result in “here/now” being “elsewhere/when”.
    Local insolation absorption results in the temporary increase in local volume of this atmosphere!
    All the best! -will-

    018

  • #

    Joanne Nova and David Evans,
    A true and potent example of the extent that 300 years of academic meteorology has polluted all attempts at understanding of this atmosphere.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114517
    The current curriculum of meteorology contains no science or mathematics whatsoever.
    The curriculum promotes acceptance of fantasy, and truly teaches some fantasy conjugate of the measurable physical, and/or the mathematical and engineering
    skill required to attempt understanding of this atmosphere!
    Cast:
    Roger Clague: experienced gas chemist, trying desperately to demonstrate to all, that the Ideal gas law, and the kinetic theory of gas, though both fatally flawed, can still provide much understanding, within the limits of applicability, to how this surround compressible fluid with inertia, may dynamically respond to applied force from any direction.

    Ben Wouters; European commercial airline pilot, with no math education beyond “making change for a buck” promotes all of the meteorological faerie tales. :

    [Reply] or TB; Political opportunist, willing to publicly express any concept that may increase his chance of winning next election.

    Roger Clague says: March 8, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Ben Wouters says:March 7, 2016 at 2:54 pm
    RC: “The average molecule is accelerating upwards as often as downwards.”
    BW: ACCELERATING upwards???What accelerates these molecules up against gravity?

    RC:The weight in the diagram is being supported by the force caused by the change of momentum of the molecules hitting the piston. Change of momentum needs acceleration and deceleration.

    Tattersall [Reply] “Upwardly moving air molecules are already decelerating due to gravity”.

    Where is your evidence that upwardly moving atmospheric molecules are being decelerated due to gravity? If the compressive force of gravity would cease for a millisecond, all atmospheric mass must spontaneously accelerate outward in the direction of lower pressure, density, and temperature. Rudy Clausius was no dummy!

    TB: are decelerating doesn’t prevent them having momentum, but that momentum is decreasing with altitude, which is how Earth’s gravity retains Earth’s atmosphere.

    With some induced violation of the gravitational aerostatic gradients. The Gravitational force must decelerate radial outward atmospheric momentum induced by Earth’s rotation, to stop such radial outward mass velocity at 16.2km altitude and zero latitude. How that works I know not. I can only get DRONK, curl up into a ball and weep!

    BW: “The diagram shows 1m^3 of air at normal T and p, STP. Mass of 1m^3 of air at STP is 1kg.
    According to you pressure is caused by weight. At the bottom of the vessel pressure will be 11kgf.”
    In this example the pressure against the top of the container (1 m^2) is ~10.000 kgf. On the bottom it will be ~10.000 +1 kgf.
    The pressure inside the box at the top is 10Kgf. The pressure inside the box at the bottom is 11Kgf.
    RC: This will not happen as the pressure in a sealed box would be equal at top and bottom.So the model is wrong.

    BW: Where do we find a vacuum on the surface in the absence of atmosphere?

    RC: Absence of an atmosphere is a vacuum.

    Good God! For example, jack your auto up. Remove valve cores from each tire. Now tire pressure remains at atmospheric pressure exactly! Lower the jacks and watch the mass of your auto collapse all tires down to the rims. Please explain to me just what your surface atmospheric pressure is supporting?

    RC: “The model shown in the diagram, the Hydrostatic Equilibrium model is wrong.”
    BW: It just shows the weight required to CONTAIN normal surface pressure in a closed box with a movable piston.
    RC: The diagram shows air pressure caused by weight and motion of molecules.
    The Hydrostatic Equilibrium Theory says weight of air balances molecular motion of air.

    BW: “The diagram shows 1m^3 of air at normal T and p, STP. Mass of 1m^3 of air at STP is 1kg.
    According to you pressure is caused by weight. At the bottom of the vessel pressure will be 11kgf.”
    In this example the pressure against the top of the container (1 m^2) is ~10.000 kgf. On the bottom it will be ~10.000 +1 kgf.
    The pressure inside the box at the top is 10Kgf. The pressure inside the box at the bottom is 11Kgf.
    This will not happen as the pressure in a sealed box would be equal at top and bottom.
    So the model is wrong.

    BW: Where do we find a vacuum on the surface in the absence of atmosphere?
    Absence of an atmosphere is a vacuum.

    Weep until run out of tears? High point is that kitten still demands from me, food, much attention; ‘petting upon’ from me, not others. She has me trained well! She keeps me alive!
    All the best! -will-

    013

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Will Janoschka,

      You wrote:

      . . . the Ideal gas law, and the kinetic theory of gas, though both fatally flawed, . . .

      Unfounded assertion. Please provide proof that the ideal gas law is fatally flawed. Please provide proof the the kinetic theory of gases is fatally flawed.

      Abe

      120

      • #

        The ideal gas law is fatally flawed by its own admission of no ideal gas, and the error in assumptions of linear motion between elastic collisions, zero interval for each change in molecular momentum, zero attractive force between molecules, plus ignoring the distortion forces on the actual electron repulsive force between molecules. When these Van-der-Walls corrections can be termed insignificant, the ideal gas law is very useful in understanding the relationship between pressure, density, and temperature; at least for atomic gas.
        The kinetic theory of gas can remain useful as molecular rms speed can result in proper power/energy for each molecule, but only under conditions of constant volume or constant pressure where one of the terms of the ideal gas law is a constant. In the case of this atmosphere and all of its dynamic the real kinetic T ∝ d(mv)/dt must be used. For example reversing direction yields the same rms speed but momentum change is 2mv. I hope this helps.
        All the best! -will-

        010

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Will Janoschka,

      If I take a bathroom scale and put a 40 Kg weight on it the spring inside the scale will move the needle to the 40 Kg mark.
      If I take a bathroom scale and push down on it with my hand the spring inside the scale will move the needle to the 40 Kg mark.
      One is weight that expresses what you have so often called heaviness. The other is pressure exerted by the muscles in my arm and this does not express what you so often call heaviness.

      The spring doesn’t care if there is heaviness or pressure. The spring just moves to the 40 Kg mark regardless.

      This means that your arguments point out nothing but a difference without a distinction.

      IOW. It doesn’t matter if the atmosphere has weight and exhibits heaviness or if it exerts pressure and exhibits no heaviness. The compression of the gases in the atmosphere occurs regardless.

      IOW. Even if your right, it makes no difference to the factual, empirical outcome that the gases in the atmosphere are compressed precisely as per the Ideal Gas Law.

      Abe

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        The mechanism of a bathroom scale is to translate a force, of any kind, to a movement of the dial, via a spring.

        Heck you can hold the bathroom scale vertical and use a clamp and some bits of wood to move the dial to 40kg if you like!

        Its just a calibrated force transducer.

        10

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          AndyG55,

          The compression of the gases in the atmosphere will occur whether you describe that compression as due to the weight of the atmospheric gases or as due to the increase in pressure due to the atmospheric gases.

          It’s good to see that you agree with my statement.

          Abe

          00

      • #

        “One is weight that expresses what you have so often called heaviness. The other is pressure exerted by the muscles in my arm and this does not express what you so often call heaviness.”

        A linear spring compression/extention just like gas pressure are both fine examples of a strain gauge. and both measure force in Newtons. However pressure is not Newtons, it is force normalized by area never, divided by area. force must be a vector and pressure never is The alphabet soup of F ∝ P⋅A, means P = F/A is just nonsense!!!

        If such were correct pressure must approach ∞ as area tends to zero, it does not; it stays a constant. Pressure is a Laplace residue never a force over area.

        “The spring doesn’t care if there is heaviness or pressure. The spring just moves to the 40 Kg mark regardless.”

        Again heaviness is a vector force the the direction of the other mass focus, that becomes apparent only by that strain that opposes the stress of gravitational force. Pressure is never a vector; and cannot be equated to a vector.

        “This means that your arguments point out nothing but a difference without a distinction.”

        You seem to be promoting the meteorological nonsense that “because surface pressure is 101325 N/m² or 992985 kg(f)/m² a one m² column of atmosphere has a mass of 992983 kg.”
        This is fine for third graders. Who has measured rather than calculated such nonsense.
        I claim that column has mass 330995 kg and that pressure is triple that induced by gravitational force acting on that mass.
        Pressure force acts on 6 sq meters area of a 1 meter cube not just the horizontal 2m². Pressure acts just as much on the 2m² hemispheric dome about a circle with area 1 m&178;
        The mass of the atmosphere and the location of that mass are critical to any atmospheric mass motion involving coherent momentum. The mass of the of the atmosphere is also critical to determining the ratio of wv plus airborne H2O mass used in determining where in the atmosphere insolation is converted to latent of evaporation.

        “IOW. It doesn’t matter if the atmosphere has weight and exhibits heaviness or if it exerts pressure and exhibits no heaviness. The compression of the gases in the atmosphere occurs regardless.”

        Yes the same claim is made by those bringing you CAGW!!

        “IOW. Even if your right, it makes no difference to the factual, empirical outcome that the gases in the atmosphere are compressed precisely as per the Ideal Gas Law.”

        The Ideal gas law has absolutely no provision for gravitational force The Navier-Stokes formulation for fluid motion does, but seems no one, including me, knows how to apply such!
        Were the atmosphere not rotating with all that angular momentum; where the atmosphere not absorbing insolation power from a single direction while rotating; I might agree with you! What we have instead is interesting weather, with seemingly no one interested in how this actually works! All we have is astrological fantasy by the CAGW crowd!
        All the best! -will-

        010

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Will Janoschka,

      You wrote:

      Where is your evidence that upwardly moving atmospheric molecules are being decelerated due to gravity? If the compressive force of gravity would cease for a millisecond, all atmospheric mass must spontaneously accelerate outward . . .

      Internal contradiction. If, as you say, without gravity molecules would accelerate outward then clearly with gravity they will decelerate inward.

      Abe

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        If upward moving molecules were NOT decelerated, they would not slow down, and the atmosphere would disappear very quickly.

        They absolutely MUST decelerate to remain within the atmosphere.

        It is gravity that maintains the atmosphere and forms the atmospheric pressure gradient.

        38

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          AndyG55,

          Finally someone who employs common sense joins the fray.

          All objects that have a physical existence, are affected by the gravitational field of any other object of sufficient size, like the Earth, Moon, Sun, etc.

          The gravitational field does not care, i.e. cannot distinguish, if an object is molecular in size, the size of a basketball, or the size of a star.

          So for example, the Moon does not technically revolve around the Earth, but rather the Earth and the Moon both revolve around each other. They revolve around a point that exists (and can easily be be calculated) somewhere in between them.

          And so, a molecule in a gas, if it happens to be moving away from the surface of the planet, will by definition, decelerate.

          Abe

          010

      • #

        “Internal contradiction. If, as you say, without gravity molecules would accelerate outward then clearly with gravity they will decelerate inward. Abe”

        “decelerate inward”?? At the surface the repulsive electric field between molecules is 10^8 greater than the gravitational attractive force between molecules. Without Earth’s gravitational compression of the gas there can be nothing but outward expansion requiring acceleration. With Earth’s gravity all atmospheric molecules have no reason to exhibit spontaneous motion or acceleration in any direction.
        All the best! -will-

        010

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Will Janoschka,

      You wrote:

      How that works I know not. I can only get DRONK, curl up into a ball and weep!

      Now there’s a good idea.

      Given all the logical errors in just this one post, I suggest you do just that. ;)

      Abe

      110

      • #

        “Given all the logical errors in just this one post, I suggest you do just that.”

        I can at least recognize that I do not know!

        Where is your demonstration of error in error of that post? All you have is the spouting of CAGW astrologists!

        010

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Will Janoschka,

      Just-For-Completeness. :)

      You wrote:

      If the compressive force of gravity would cease for a millisecond, all atmospheric mass must spontaneously accelerate outward in the direction of lower pressure, density, and temperature.

      Non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
      If: The pressure gradient is caused, as you have said, by the compressive force of gravity.
      Then: If gravity were to cease for a millisecond.
      Then: That pressure gradient would also cease to exist.
      Therefore: There would be no acceleration in the direction of lower pressure because there would no longer be any lower pressure. :o

      Thanks for playing. ;)
      Abe

      00

      • #

        “Then: If gravity were to cease for a millisecond.
        Then: That pressure gradient would also cease to exist.
        Therefore: There would be no acceleration in the direction of lower pressure because there would no longer be any lower pressure.
        Thanks for playing. Abe”

        Please demonstrate the three atmospheric lapse decaying at greater than the speed of sound in that media!

        011

  • #

    snip from above illustrating the inherent babel of the INTERNET
    Danish use of decimal symbol where others would use comma symbol.

    BW: “The diagram shows 1m^3 of air at normal T and p, STP. Mass of 1m^3 of air at STP is 1kg. According to you pressure is caused by weight. At the bottom of the vessel pressure will be 11kgf.”
    In this example the pressure against the top of the container (1 m^2) is ~10.000 kgf. On the bottom it will be ~10.000 +1 kgf.
    The pressure inside the box at the top is 10Kgf. The pressure inside the box at the bottom is 11Kgf.’

    Wouters; uses the decimal point to depreciate the pressure 10^4 kgf (to the rest of us) by 1000 (multiply) prior to to the addition of one kg mass to the underling atmospheric density at one m³ volume. This for a possible increase in pressure to 10001kg force. Ben did not not introduce this easy error intentionally! This is the result of deliberate dumbing down of all lower maggots by the high, high academic priests of meteorology; The CAGW astrologist! Us low level maggots look upward and can observe only deliberate ASSHOLES!

    RC: This will not happen as the pressure in a sealed box would be equal at top and bottom.So the model is wrong.

    Very true, any rigid container decouples internal gas pressure from any force of gravity. The academic assholes refuse to accept that they know nothing of gravity!
    All the best! -will-

    09

  • #

    More nonsense from:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-114796

    tallbloke says: March 17, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    “And the amount of atmospheric mass above the tropopause compared to the amount of atmospheric mass above the surface varies by considerably more than 36%”

    You keep referring to the third grade concept that atmospheric pressure is equivalent to the gravitational mass of the atmosphere at greater radius! There is absolutely no evidence that such is ever correct, for either inertial or gravitational mass of an atmosphere. The atmosphere tends to have a centre of gravity co-located with the centre of gravity of the incompressible planet. The Earth’s gravitational compressive force tends to maintain a stable Yukawa potential for the atmosphere not a coulomb potential. Earth’s gravity only affects atmospheric mass location when the two centres of mass become other than co-located. Such adjustments are limited to the speed of sound in that part of the atmosphere, and generally appear as atmospheric mass motion itself.
    The actual mass of the atmosphere has never been measured, from either a gravitational or inertial point of view and may very well have a difference between the two. Only after both measurements have been done will any coherent theory of atmospheric mass motion become possible.

    Ben Wouters says: March 17, 2016 at 6:07 pm
    suricat says: March 17, 2016 at 2:39 am

    (“Day time ‘on shore breeze’ and night time ‘off shore breeze’ is well documented for surface observation. However, the ‘inertia’ generated by this ‘must’ evoke an ‘opposite wind direction’ elsewhere (at altitude).”)

    This clearly shows you are absolutely clueless about what Hydrostatic Equilibrium is all about.
    You even have cause and effect completely backwards.”
    see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-8/#comment-113834

    That is a comment from Roger Clague Agreeing that surface (sea level) pressure is independent of normal range of surface temperatures all, maintaining the heat of vaporization throughout the atmosphere. Roger in the same comment refuses to agree with your third grade meteorological catechism of atmospheric Hydrostatic Equilibrium. The obvious is that Suricat (Ray Dart) agrees more with Roger Clague than with you. What is your point?

    “Ben Wouters says: February 16, 2016 at 3:06 pm
    tallbloke says: February 16, 2016 at 1:03 pm
    (“Let me refer you again to how much difference temperature makes to pressure at surface and altitude:”)
    BW: “Temperature makes NO difference on the surface pressure at all.
    Assuming same gravity and column mass the surface pressure will be exactly the same, whether the surface temperature is -50C or + 50”

    That is comment by you #113788 of no significance! Please show any measurement of atmospheric column mass. Another meteorological fantasy. The atmosphere clearly has mass but no one has bothered to measure such. The astrologists are never wrong! Just ask them! This atmosphere is a mass symmetric self supported gas structure with gravitational forces maintaining co-located centres of mass between the compressible and incompressible.

    Ben Wouters says: March 17, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    suricat says: March 17, 2016 at 3:07 am
    much that is true!-WJ

    “No use having a discussion on the Coriolis effect as long as you don not understand what Hydrostatic Equilibrium is all about.”

    Hydrostatic Equilibrium is all about why ships float! Such a concept is never applicable to an atmosphere that exhibits no weight.
    All the best! -will-

    04

  • #
    Will Janoschka

    Does anyone have some idea of how deep this academic physical technobable deceit now goes? The conceptual, hypothetical, fantastical, religious, political, stuff of the philosophical is endless!
    The remaining number of physical rabbits upon this planetary surface has nothing to do with such academic deceitful philosophical, it only has to do with surface population density of rabbits/varmints.
    All the best! -will-

    00