Thomas, you say burning coal to power motor vehicles is quite silly, better to burn gasoline or LPG, Australia imports 85% of its oil. massive amounts of Aussie dollars sent overseas, is it not better to take advantage of Australia’s vast reserves of coal, employing good hard working citizens and taking advantage of the infrastructure already in place? Maybe your talking about cost to the consumer, on that playing field despite the current low oil prices, coal is still cheaper per 100kms. The next time your filling up at the gas station think about the Saudi Prince who uses his “pocket” money to buy European football teams, then think about the overpaid footballer rolling around the pitch faking an injury, your funding that. I would rather my money go to towards funding Australian workers and their families.
It seem to me that if you’re not recovering the cost of your oil imports with the income from your coal exports, and making a profit, you need to get a new finance minister. I don’t have actual figures, maybe someone out there reading this does. I’m just commenting on a basic principle as I understand it. I’m most likely missing something, but then again, maybe not.
Just-A-guy, From what I can see Australia’s coal exports are higher than net oil imports in dollar value ATM, will that continue? Lets hope so, the imortant question, is there enough coal supplies to support another local customer? the coal industry are very confident the reserves are vast. The coal industry in Oz directly and indirectly employs 200 000 people, every dollar that goes to them instead of overseas has got to be positive.
What you’re missing is the understanding that the world economy works on comparative advantage.
Australia has a significant comparative advantage in coal. It can produce it at very competitive prices and in vast quantities. We do not have a comparative advantage in oil. Hopefully, we will soon have a comparative advantage in LNG, courtesy of Western Australia’s North-West Shelf.
Comparative advantage comes before the bottom line. In the end, the only thing that matters when it comes to accounting is the bottom line. Willard says they’re in the black. So, even after your comparative advantage calculation, if you’re making a profit, then . . .
Just-A-Guy and Sceptical Sam (this post had the reply button visible)
With regards to the Oil market;
Correct me if I’ve mis-read the situation but, the Saudi’s are keeping the Oil price low while keeping their heads above water, what ever their intentions are its putting pressure on Iran, Russia and other countries financially, what will happen over the next few months and years with regard to Oil prices is unpredictable, the way I see it dont expect $50-$60 a barrel Oil for ever, overseas Oil producers are not a charity for Aussie drivers.
It’s not about charity. And markets are always open to volatility.
The Saudis, from what I’ve read are keeping prices low, to force the shale industry to collapse.
Saudi Arabia, the most influential member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, blocked moves by some smaller producers to curb output. The Saudis argued low prices would ultimately hurt U.S. shale oil production, which analysts say is responsible much of the oversupply now.
Data reviewed by Reuters on Monday suggested the new low-price environment for oil might have started affecting U.S. shale production, with a 15 percent drop in permits issued for new shale wells in October.
“The market is still looking for a new equilibrium below $70 (a barrel), which is a little surprising given that with the current prices, much of the shale oil production in the U.S., or part of it, will be unprofitable,”
One Saudi said they can keep this up for five years if that’s what it takes. It’s a game of who blinks first.
Like I said earlier, a smart government will know how to deal with trade balances as long as the markets are left to the producers and consummers. Not the case when a global carbon market takes over.
Same with electric vehicles. As long as it’s left up to the producers and consumers to decide, all is well. As soon as govt steps in to regulate, . . .
You cannot make steel without coal, so we export the steel making labour to China and Japan, due to the much higher labour costs demanded by Unions here, the coal needed to make that steel, along with the iron ore, is then exported.
It’s all about Opportunity Cost. Both countries benefit from the trade to an extent that wouldn’t occur if we tried to do it all here and they tried to do it all there.
Just-A-Guy and Sceptical Sam (this post had the reply button visible)
With regards to the Oil market;
Where was I reading today that the oil storage facilities are just about filled to maximum? When that happens over-supply will drive prices even lower given the winding back of China’s growth target to 7%, Europe’s weak (and contracting?) economy and the USA’s self-reliance on shale.
Expect $20-30 oil before you see any increase, unless the Saudis decide to cut production.
Buying opportunities seem to be just around the corner.
Don’t you just love watching the peak-oilers have conniptions?
For sure, if I was living or working in lightning ridge I be driving the appropriate vehicle for that task, but here’s a question Thomas, is there a favourite little town/roadhouse you stop at on the way for a coffee/snack?
The only “electric” car that could make the journey in any reasonable time is a hybrid, which runs on what?
Come on, that very efficient space shuttle main engine using fuel LH2, and oxidant LO2 can go anywhere, as long as others are paying for the journey! 🙂
Willard if you want to burn coal in your car, & given our huge reserves, that is not such a bad idea, but burning it in power stations to fuel your car makes no sense at all.
The intelligent thing to do is to convert it to liquid fuel, then pour that into your car.
Overloading the existing power grid to fuel all the cars running around our cities would be totally ridiculous. The cars would not do the job for those of us living on the fringes of the cities, & would be useless out of them.
Hasbeen, “overloading the power grid” how many vehicles are you talking about? Back that statement up with some facts. BTW how much energy does it take to convert the coal in to liquid fuel?
The economy of any semi-developed society is fueled by trucks, and semi-trailers. Not to mention all of those construction vehicles we use for . . . well . . . everything we build.
Now, when they come up with an efficient, cost-effective way to get those ‘monsters’ to run on electricity, then I’ll begin to consider thinking about contemplating a way to maybe start looking into how to possibly phase those in at some time in the future. Slowly.
Horses for courses Just–A-Guy, it’s not about replacing every single combustion engine, just those that would benefit the Oz economy in even the smallest amount.
See, that’s where they’ve got you all blind-sided. That smallest amount that you are refering to would make absolutely zero defference in the global CO2 budget. China alone will continue to increase it’s output of CO2 for another ten years by more than Australia would reduce it’s output even if it replaced every automobile in the country by horse and buggies.*
Jo did an excellent article on the carbon tax fiasco in Oz recently. I suggest you find it and look at the figures.
Abe
*mileage may vary with options. Check with your dealer for details.
Just-A-Guy, I never made any reference about Co2, I’m talking about using a locally based fuel, people get up in arms about importing food from overseas when its a few cents cheaper than local produce, I see Coal as a far cheaper and stable product and Oil as the overseas product with price volatility, huge amounts of Oil still needs to be imported but even a small reduction is helpful.
There’s been no net increase in global average temperature for nearly two decades while Atmospheric CO2 has increased some 30%.
The Null hypothesis is looking stronger by the day. It’s probably time to accept that the CO2/Global Warming hypothesis has been falsified.
And, I like the idea of the milkman delivering his product in an electric vehicle. It beats the clip-clop of horses and the stop-start roar of an engine at 5:00 in the morning.
Willard: Were are the cars made? Either electric or gasoline model. If imported, which is cheaper to import? And over the lifetime, which is cheaper to run and on which fuel?
I agree use the coal in Australia to generate electricity but sometimes there has to be trade-offs regarding costs to families, after all if an electric car costs more to purchase, run and maintain than a gas model, then I have to side with a gas model.
Good question Peter, each vehicle has its good points and each has a few drawbacks, the consumer decides on the reason they purchase a particular car and the cost benefits involved, the ICE vehicle clearly has lower purchase price ATM, it can be refuelled in less than five minutes and can have a potential range of over 1000 kms, if thats what a driver needs there’s no debate. If a customer is happy with a range limited to 450kms and overnight charging an electric vehicle may be considered, the other downside is the high initial purchase cost of say a Model S, its a mid luxury car and when only 30 000 a year are being built it’s harder to be cost competitive. the batteries of an EV are big cost when they need to be replaced but then on the upside there is far less parts that need to replaced/repaired compared to an ICE. so what are the upsides of an EV such as Model S? It has an extremly high standard of safety, there is more storage space available due to the drivetrain and batteries being under the floor, it handles well due to its low centre of gravity and it’s acceleration is blistering, fuel cost wise the EV will come out way in front as coal fired electricity is pretty cost competitive, eventually a road tax would have to added to an EVs running cost’s but even then it’s still works.
Why is it, do you suppose, that you come across sounding like a press release? Do you write this stuff for a living, or are you just copying from somebody else’s work?
Not really surprised that Dariusz has failed to back up his opinions on electric cars, Dariusz is always quick to criticize others but lacks any substance in his comments. I did learn that Just-A-Guy and Sceptical Sam are hung up on CO2, kept bringing it in to the conversation about EVs when I never mentioned it, I couldn’t give a Rats about CO2, just went outside, everything looks fine to me, nothing I could do about it anyway. And then there’s Hasbeen, claims coal fired electric cars are going to overload the grid, but has failed to back up his claims, Hasbeen? More like Eneverwaz.
Just imagine a well constructed nuclear power grid, including all non frivolous transportation. The power is delivered via infrastructure rather than volumes carrying mass (fuel) uphill? The frivolous transportation is best provided by beasts of burden, or perhaps the newly invented bicycle!
Regardless of AGW, we would be driving electric cars if a good enough battery came along. Cheap, light, could hold 1000km of charge and filled up in 5 minutes? The combustion engine would be a history piece in five years just because it opens a lot more design opportunities. They could see the potential in the 19th century.
Energy density is another name for specific energy where the energy is the useful energy rather than total energy. ie the energy that you get out of a battery per unit mass for comparison with petrol, 45MJ/kg or 13kWh/kg.
The best commercial batteries are producing 0.2kWh/kg and do not lose weight as they go flat. The MiEV has a 20kWh pack but weighs 200kg more than the petrol equivalent. New batteries would give 50kWh for the same weight but 200kg of fuel is 520kWh (20%efficiency).
The money that went into electric cars could have been spent more wisely on battery research, lightweight materials or more efficient engine designs.
One of the taxi companies in Wellington, re-equipped their entire fleet with Prius’s, over a matter of days. It seemed that the taxi company did a bulk deal with Toyota (on behalf of their drivers who actually own their own vehicles), to get a very hefty discount. I am told that Toyota seriously came to the party, because there was a very low uptake of electric cars in the Capital, and replacing all the cabs would put more on the street and cueing at the airport, implying a general acceptance.
Of course, being cabs, they are now reaching the end of their practical working life, and are up for replacement. Unfortunately, the drivers cannot afford to replace them, without the double sweetener deal, and may well be moving back to LPG vehicles.
I always talk to cabbies – you get to learn a lot.
Rereke- I re-read my posts, agreed, I do sound like a press release, no, I dont do this for a living but like a lot of Aussies, I’m “car crazy” . I own a petrol and also a 24 year old diesel, love it to bits, i can see there’s some pretty dissapointing EV’s up to now but I also see a lot of positives in the coming months and years.
3 or 4 years back I was driving on the highway in our town one weekend when a vintage car approaching sent out a cloud of smoke or steam or both and pulled over to the side of the road. People got out as I drove past and looked back in the mirror.
I decided to turn around to see if they needed help with an after hours mechanic. As I turned around the car sent up a great cloud, much bigger than the first one, and I thought: “She’s buggered now!’ Lo and behold, everybody got back in and drove off.
A few days later I was talking to my brother in law, the mechanic I had had in mind. He told me that on the weekend he did a weld on a Stanley Steamer. There had been a steam car event in town for the weekend. He said that as it drove off it made not a sound.
How many times have you heard or read a claim similar to the following: “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas; and it is the “heat-trapping” property of CO2 gas that causes the Earth’s Surface Temperature (EST) to be higher in the presence of atmospheric CO2 gas than in the absence of atmospheric CO2 gas?” The lack of scientific rigor in the above claim bothers me. At a minimum, I believe definitions of the phrases (1) Heat-Trapping Gas and (2) Earth’s Surface Temperature (EST) are required. Absent these definitions, discussions of the soundness of the above claim will likely degenerate into disputes over the meanings of terms and phrases. In addition to definitions of EST and Heat-Trapping Gas, I believe scientific discussions of the above claim will be more fruitful if all parties agree on the definitions of “Heat” and “Heat Trapping.”
Unless the hostess of this blog stops me, I plan to submit a series of “Unthreaded Weekend Comments” that questions the soundness of the above claim. At the outset I want to make it clear that I’m NOT arguing that atmospheric CO2 gas won’t result in an increased EST. I am arguing, however, that establishing the existence of an increased EST based solely on the presence of atmospheric CO2 gas requires justification over and above the statements that (a) CO2 gas is a heat-trapping gas and (b) CO2 gas exists in the Earth’s atmosphere. Because in total my comment will be long, I will parse my comments over several “Unthreaded Weekends.”
For this, the first, Unthreaded Weekend comment, I provide a single definition of Earth Surface Temperature (EST), a single definition of Heat, a single definition of Heat Trapping, a single definition of a Heat-Trapping Device, a single definition of Thermal Energy, four candidate technical definitions of a Heat-Trapping Gas, and my opinion of the common man’s definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas. Before composing comments for subsequent Unthreaded Weekends, I await reader responses regarding my definitions—to include definitions that the reader believes are more appropriate.
For one or more of the four technical Heat-Trapping Gas definitions, in subsequent Unthreaded Weekends I will discuss issues that raise questions relevant to the soundness of the opening claim. Some will label my definitions a “strawman” with little if any coupling to the real world or to what people mean when they say an atmospheric heat-trapping gas raises the EST. The strawman characterization may very well be apt. However, by providing definitions of words and phrases, I am at least attempting to create a framework in which scientific discussions of the soundness/completeness of the opening claim can take place. It is because I recognize that (1) my attempt to create a viable discussion framework may come up short, and (2) even if my framework is adequate, my definitions may be unrelated to the real world and/or conflict with the readers’ definitions, that I welcome reader comments and alternate definitions.
Earth Surface Temperature (EST):
I define “Earth Surface Temperature (EST)” to be the average (area-weighted average and time-weighted average) Earth surface temperature. The area-weighted average includes the entire Earth surface area (both water in any of its states and land), and the time-weighted average is evaluated over time intervals long compared to the longest period of any cyclical phenomenon (day/night, winter/spring/summer/fall, etc.) that can modulate to a non-negligible degree the temperature at any point on the Earth’s surface.
Heat Trapping (Trapping Heat) and Heat-Trapping Devices:
If you have a device that is advertised to be a “mouse trap,” it’s reasonable to assume the device has the ability to trap a mouse—i.e., once a mouse enters the device, the mouse will forever thereafter remain within the device. Similarly, if you have a device that someone claims is a lint trap, it is reasonable to assume the device traps lint—i.e., most if not all of the lint that enters the device will forever thereafter remain within the device. Finally, if you have “something” that is said to trap heat, it’s reasonable to assume the “something” traps heat in the sense that at least a non-zero portion of the heat entering the “something” remains forever thereafter within the “something.” In my opinion, these interpretations of “trapping,” including the interpretation of Heat Trapping, are just common sense. My Heat Trapping interpretation, however, raises another question. Specifically, what exactly is this thing called “heat” that is being trapped?
Heat:
According to http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat, “Heat is the transfer of energy from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object.” Since energy can be transferred between objects for reasons other than a temperature difference (e.g., the kinetic energy of mass moving between objects, electrical energy through a wire, etc.), I believe the definition of “heat” should include the proviso that the flow of energy between a higher temperature object and a lower temperature object is due solely to the temperature difference between the objects. Thus, in this comment I define heat as follows: Heat is the flow (transfer) of energy between objects where the energy flow exists solely because the objects are at different temperatures. Energy flow in the form of heat is always from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object.”
Thermal Energy:
Although “heat” has units of energy, “heat” differs from energy in that “heat” implies energy in motion. In this comment, I use the phrase “thermal energy” to represent the energy associated with “heat.” Specifically, Thermal Energy is defined to be the internal energy of an object that is either (a) transferred out of the higher temperature object via heat, (b) transferred into the lower temperature object via heat, or (c) remains forever in the volume of space in which the heat exists. Thus, Thermal Energy differs from Heat in that heat represents energy in motion between objects at different temperatures; whereas, thermal energy represents a change in the internal energy level of (i) objects or (ii) the volume of space in which heat exists.
Using the above definition of “heat” and the common sense interpretation of what it means to “trap” something, it logically follows that the phrase “Trapping Heat (or Heat Trapping)” applies to the flow (transfer) of energy between objects at different temperatures. Specifically, if “something” is trapping heat, then at least a portion of the heat (energy flow) into the “something” never leaves the “something.”
Based on the foregoing discussion, my definition of “Trapping Heat” is as follows: “A volume (whether a vacuum or containing matter) of space between objects at different temperatures is Trapping Heat if the heat into that volume is greater than the heat out of that volume. Note that using this definition of Trapping Heat, if a volume is Trapping Heat and heat is the only means of energy transfer (i) through the volume and (ii) from/to two objects at different temperatures, (a) the internal energy of the higher temperature object is decreasing, (b) the internal energy of the lower temperature object either (i) remains unchanged (if the volume traps all input heat), or (ii) is increasing (if the volume traps less than all input heat), and (c) the internal energy of the volume increases. Thus, my definition of “Trapping Heat” does in fact imply that a “Heat-Trapping Device” will retain (i.e., trap) a non-zero amount of energy within the device; but my definition implies more than that. Specifically, my definition implies that a “Heat-Trapping Device” retains (i.e., traps) a portion of the energy flow (heat) that exists within the device.
Heat-Trapping Gas:
Although I’m sure there are many definitions of a Heat-Trapping Gas, I now supply (a) four candidate technical definitions and (b) my opinion of the “common-man’s” definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas. Just as an aside, none of the four technical definitions given below is consistent with my definition of a “Heat Trapping Device.” This observation demonstrates just how muddled a description of a Heat-Trapping Gas and its effect of the temperatures of objects in the proximity to a Heat-Trapping Gas can become. Be that as it may, my four candidate technical definitions of a Heat-Trapping Gas are:
(1) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can absorb but not radiate electromagnetic energy in one or more sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band.
(2) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can radiate but not absorb electromagnetic energy in one of more sub-bands of the IR band.
(3) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can both absorb and radiate electromagnetic energy (not necessarily equal amounts of energy) in one or more sub-bands (not necessarily identical sub-bands) of the IR band.
(4) A gas such that everything else being equal, the EST when the gas is present in the Earth’s atmosphere is higher than the EST when the gas is absent from the Earth’s atmosphere.
Note that the first three technical definitions of a Heat-Trapping Gas are expressed in terms of the ability, or lack thereof, of a gas to interact with electromagnetic radiation in sub-bands of the IR band. These definitions make no mention of the temperatures of the gas or of objects in proximity to the gas. As such, these definitions directly involve temperature only to the degree that the temperature must be such that the matter that makes up the gas exists in a gaseous state. On the other hand, the last technical definition (definition 4) explicitly mentions temperature—specifically the EST in the presence/absence of the gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.
My common-man definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas is: “I haven’t given much thought to the meaning of a “Heat-Trapping Gas;” but if CO2 is a Heat-Trapping Gas, it makes sense to me that CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere will “trap heat”, and because the Earth’s surface is inside the region of trapped heat, CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere will increase the EST.”
To close this comment, I note that the process of establishing the soundness of the opening claim depends on which technical definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas is used. In particular, if one of the first three technical definitions is used, establishing the soundness of the opening claim requires that two conditions be shown to be true: (1) CO2 gas satisfies the definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas, and (2) by experiment or logic, the Heat-Trapping property of a gas is sufficient to ensure that a Heat-Trapping Gas in the Earth’s atmosphere will always lead to an increased EST. In the case of the third technical definition, this implies that the soundness of the opening claim can be established if (1) it is shown that CO2 gas both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in one or more sub-bands of the IR band; and once established, (2) it can be argued either by experiment or by logic that the Heat-Trapping nature of atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to guarantee an increased EST.
If the fourth technical definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas is used, then a Heat-Trapping Gas in the Earth’s atmosphere by definition increases the EST. However, the soundness issue then becomes one of establishing that CO2 is a Heat-Trapping Gas. The statement that a Heat-Trapping Gas will increase the EST is by definition true. Using the fourth technical definition, the soundness of the opening claim can only be established by proving that CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere guarantees an increased EST.
Okay. That’s enough for my comment in this Unthreaded Weekend. Before continuing, I’d like to hear from readers—especially those readers who have alternate definitions of terms and phrases.
I define “Earth Surface Temperature (EST)” to be the average (area-weighted average and time-weighted average) Earth surface temperature. The area-weighted average includes the entire Earth surface area (both water in any of its states and land), and the time-weighted average is evaluated over time intervals long compared to the longest period of any cyclical phenomenon (day/night, winter/spring/summer/fall, etc.) that can modulate to a non-negligible degree the temperature at any point on the Earth’s surface.
I find this definition confusing. To me it says that we are talking about the surface temperature of land – dirt, grass, trees etc. and the surface temperature of the ocean and other water bodies, ie. the temperature of the water at the surface.
In fact “surface temperature” refers to the temperature of the atmosphere at the height at which it is normally measured (1.2m).
Thomas the Tank Engine. Your definition of Earth Surface Temperature is probably the commonly accepted definition. To me, a surface is the interface between objects having different properties. In my definition, one interface is the atmosphere and the other interface is whatever exists immediately below the air (either “land”, with all its various components, or water). I can live with a definition that defines temperature to be the temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude of 1.2 meters. However, I can’t discern an identifiable “surface” 1.2 meters above the surface of the Earth. So to me, instead of saying “Earth surface temperature”, it would have been more appropriate to say “the atmospheric temperature close, which means in most cases 1.2 meters, to the surface of the Earth.”
Come to Lightning Ridge on a hot summer’s day and you can pass me my tools without wearing gloves and estimate the surface temperature with each one that you pick up under the hot sun…..
Heat Trapping (Trapping Heat) and Heat-Trapping Devices:
If you have a device that is advertised to be a “mouse trap,” it’s reasonable to assume the device has the ability to trap a mouse—i.e., once a mouse enters the device, the mouse will forever thereafter remain within the device. Similarly, if you have a device that someone claims is a lint trap, it is reasonable to assume the device traps lint—i.e., most if not all of the lint that enters the device will forever thereafter remain within the device. Finally, if you have “something” that is said to trap heat, it’s reasonable to assume the “something” traps heat in the sense that at least a non-zero portion of the heat entering the “something” remains forever thereafter within the “something.” In my opinion, these interpretations of “trapping,” including the interpretation of Heat Trapping, are just common sense. My Heat Trapping interpretation, however, raises another question. Specifically, what exactly is this thing called “heat” that is being trapped?
This implies that CO2 traps heat within itself, whereas the correct understanding is that it traps heat within the biophere.
Thomas the Tank Engine. Isn’t atmospheric CO2 part of the biosphere? If so, then isn’t at least some of the “CO2 trapped heat” trapped within the CO2 itself? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that the statement “atmospheric CO2 traps heat” implies that whatever heat is being trapped is fully contained within the volume of space completely surrounded by atmospheric CO2, but not within the volume of space occupied by atmosphere CO2?
I am just saying that the heat is not “trapped” within the CO2 itself.
Where are you going with all of this? Rather than being pedantic it is far better to ascertain exactly what is meant by a term rather than exploring the ridiculous.
It is purported that CO2 “traps heat” within the biosphere.
I can immediately find problems with this, for example England et al 2014 which purports that “unprecedented” (measured without data) trade winds drive heat into the ocean, thus causing “the pause” and vindicating Trenberth. This would require reverse cycling the sun/ocean/atmpospheric coupling, which is totally ridiculous….
CO2 cannot drive heat into the ocean in any way whatsoever. At best it could warm the ocean skin and increase evaporation, thus cooling the ocean further. Increased wind also would increase evaporation, again cooling the ocean further.
Thomas the Tank Engine. I may be “exploring the ridiculous,” but experience has taught me that one person’s “ridiculous” is another person’s “belief.” Like you, I find problems with the statement that CO2 “traps heat” in the biosphere. Past discussions of this claim with acquaintances have almost invariably led to disagreements regarding the meaning of words and phrases. So where I’m going with this is (1) to establish a set of definitions that have general agreement (universal agreement is out of the question), and (2) examine the implications of those definitions relative to the claim atmospheric “Heat-Trapping Gases” (and in particular, CO2) must increase the EST.
For what it’s worth, I kind of like replacing the phrase “Greenhouse Gas” with the phrase “Heat-Trapping Gas” in Wikipedia’s definition of a Greenhouse Gas. Specifically, I’m partial to the definition: “A Heat-Trapping Gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range.” Much of my original comment was an attempt (apparently feeble) to show that this (the immediately above) definition is somewhat arbitrary in that the definition contains the word heat but characterizes not a relationship between a gas and heat, but rather characterizes a relationship between a gas and electromagnetic radiation. People are free to define words and phrases any way they want; but if a definition uses everyday words and terms in a manner outside their common usage, then the likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding is immense. Then again, maybe that was the definer’s goal all along.
Heat is a specific range of frequencies within the electromagnetic spectrum, just below the band of frequencies that our senses perceive as light.
Material that resonates at those frequencies, will absorb quanta of the electromagnetic energy, until it comes into contact with other material that resonates at the same, or harmonic, or close resonate frequencies, at which point some of the energy is given up.
The water molecule has a resonant frequency that is close to that of carbon dioxide, and given the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, putting all the blame of heat retention onto carbon dioxide is being somewhat “creative”.
Infra-red radiation is only electromagnetic radiation, never heat. Converting this power flux into some form of power storage depends on the receiver. Electrical, chemical, mechanical, etc. “One way to convert” is into sensible heat, as measured by mass and temperature.
Will. OK just what is your definition of a heat-trapping gas? Without a definition of both a heat-trapping gas and Earth-surface temperature, making the claim that because CO2 is a heat-trapping gas, atmospheric CO2 will increase the Earth surface temperature is equivalent to asking the question: Because your mother is a sewing machine and your father is a five dollar bill, how many flapjacks does it take to cover the roof of a doghouse? And Answering: Fourteen, because footballs don’t have fenders.
Reed,
The whole concept of “heat-trapping-gas” is political and has no meaning!
Your conceptual “heat” also has no meaning, If heat is the verb “to transfer”, just what is being transferred? Power, or energy, cannot be. Since 1800, “heat” has always been considered, both “power”
the transfer, and also one of only two forms of energy, sensible, and latent. EMR is never “heat”, Both forms of “heat” require mass. EMR has no mass, only flux, power per unit area. EMR has no momentum, but does have inertia, which requires no mass.
“Because your mother is a sewing machine and your father is a five dollar bill, how many flapjacks does it take to cover the roof of a doghouse? And Answering: Fourteen, because footballs don’t have fenders.”
Indeed, you seem to understand my use of the word “silly”. I hope we can have a productive discussion.
Thomas The Tank Engine,
Please join, This sillyness, is the shear magnitude of the numbers! The largest nuclear test ever was 2.02 x 10^17 Joules, which damn near broke the planet. Consider the value of insolation, for the planet, in Joule-hours. (accumulated horsepower hours, over the whole Earth projected surface.)
Will. Maybe our interaction got off on the wrong foot. I seriously would like to have a productive interaction. If my original comment conveyed the impression that I believe the statement: “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas; and it is the “heat-trapping” property of CO2 gas that causes the Earth’s Surface Temperature (EST) to be higher in the presence of atmospheric CO2 gas than in the absence of atmospheric CO2 gas” is sound, then I apologize. In my reading on the internet, I’ve encountered such a statement or its equivalent many times. Furthermore, I believe it is the “short version” of the argument used by AGW proponents to convince lay persons that AGW is real and caused by atmospheric CO2.
I think the statement is full of holes–some of which have been alluded to by commenters to my original comment. In subsequent Unthreaded Weekend comments I plan to identify some of those holes. I just thought it would be a good idea to define terms and hope a general agreement could be reached. That hope is the primary purpose of my original comment.
As to my concept of “heat” being the transfer of energy, that comes, in part, from three sources. First, according to page 363 of the Third Edition Part 1 University Physics by F. W. Sears and M. W. Zemansky, 1963, “Heat is the energy transfer between to systems that is connected exclusively with the temperature difference between the systems. [original emphasis].
Second, according to page 67 of Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, by F. Reif, 1965: As a result of the purely thermal interaction, energy is transferred from one system to the other. In a statistical description where one focuses attention on an ensemble of similar systems (A + A’) in interaction (see Fig. 2.6.1), the energy of every A system (or every A’ system) does not change by precisely the same amount. One can, however, describe the situation conveniently in terms of the change in mean energy of each of the systems. The mean energy transferred from one system to the other as a result of purely thermal interaction is call ‘heat‘. More precisely, the change delta_E of the mean energy of system A is called the ‘heat Q absorbed’ by this system; i.e., Q=delta_E. This heat can, of course, be negative as well as positive; the quantity (-Q) is called the ‘heat given off’ by the system…. [emphasis mine].
I include the third reference because it seems that as time went on, F. W. Sears changed his wording. Specifically, on pages 74 and 75, Third Edition Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Thermodynamics, by F. W. Sears and G. L. Salinger: “That is, the total work Wad done by a system in any adiabatic process between two states A and B having the same kinetic and potential energyies is equal to the decrease (UA – UB) in the internal energy of the system. Thus a gas expanding against a piston, in an adiabatic process, can do work even though there is no change in its kinetic or potential energy; the work is done at the expense of the internal energy of the gas.” And later, “We define the heat flow A into the system in any process as the difference between the work W and the adiabatic work Wad.”
On balance, I interpret the above to mean “heat” is the transfer of internal energy from one system to another system.
Finally, how do I include the “smiley face” that you put at the end of some of your sentences?
“Will. Maybe our interaction got off on the wrong foot. I seriously would like to have a productive interaction. If my original comment conveyed the impression that I believe the statement: “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas; and it is the “heat-trapping” property of CO2 gas that causes the Earth’s Surface Temperature (EST) to be higher in the presence of atmospheric CO2 gas than in the absence of atmospheric CO2 gas” is sound, then I apologize. In my reading on the internet, I’ve encountered such a statement or its equivalent many times. Furthermore, I believe it is the “short version” of the argument used by AGW proponents to convince lay persons that AGW is real and caused by atmospheric CO2.”
Ok please understand that the whole CO2 nonsense is FRAUD!
“I think the statement is full of holes–some of which have been alluded to by commenters to my original comment. In subsequent Unthreaded Weekend comments I plan to identify some of those holes. I just thought it would be a good idea to define terms and hope a general agreement could be reached. That hope is the primary purpose of my original comment.”
For “any” definition of anything you need much nodding up and down from peasants, never shaking the head sideways. The politicians, bankers, and media need not be considered. In all the armed forces everywhere , nothing compares to pitchfork,torch bearing peasants that must be spontaneous, and eat your face off! Smiley is space, colon, (close parun) space. Best to copy all variants from elsewhere/when 🙂 -will-
Will. You wrote: “EMR has no momentum, but does have inertia, which requires no mass.” You didn’t specify what EMR stands for, but I assume it stands for Electromagnetic Radiation. If so, EMR does have momentum–see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon. The momentum of a photon (i.e., the momentum of electromagnetic radiation) is hbar * kvector, where hbar is a scalar equal to the reduced Planck’s constant (Planck’s constant divided by 2 times pi) and kvector is a vector whose direction is the direction of propagation of the electromagnetic radiation and whose magnitude is equal to 2 times pi divided by lambda, where lambda is the wavelength of the photon (electromagnetic radiation).
A photon has no mass. It is nothing but a burst of energy, emitted during to a chemical reaction. It is convenient, in quantum physics, to treat theoretical particles as if they had an imaginary mass because it simplifies the calculations. It is a trick.
It is a bit like using i or j in complex numbers, to denote the angular phase change, when calculating periodic functions.
PPlease, “Will. You wrote: “EMR has no momentum, but does have inertia, which requires no mass.” You didn’t specify what EMR stands for, but I assume it stands for Electromagnetic Radiation. If so, EMR does have momentum–see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.”
What total nonsense, EMR flux has absolutely no mass, thus cannot ever participate in the illusion of mass x velocity, momentum. The energy of EMR flux does indeed have the concept of “I are energy moving and wish to continue moving in just this direction,”inertia”, with no dimensions, even mass. Absorb me, you get my inertia that way, reflect me you get 2x my inertia,that way. All of this has been carefully measured and documented. 🙂 -will-
Check your units, that is energy not momentum. Energy transfered within a specific time interval, is called action or photoelectric effect. This effect is the only indication that exists of the so called “photon”. The amount of action required is dependent on the work function of the absorber for such an event. The work function for a metal to convert to sensible heat is zero. Radiative inertia is very small but independent of radiative power.
Will. You wrote: “Check your units, that [hbar*kvector] is energy not momentum.”
Okay, I’ll do that. In what follows, all units are in the Meter/Kilogram/Second (MKS) system. The units of hbar are Joules times seconds [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant]. The units of Joules are force times distance. The units of force are mass times acceleration. The units of acceleration are meters/second^2. Thus, the units of Joules are (Kilograms*meters/second^2)*meters = Kilograms*meters^2/seconds^2. Thus, the units of hbar are Kilograms*meters^2/seconds. The units of kvector are meters^(-1) or 1/meters. Thus the units of hbar*kvector are Kilograms*meters/seconds. The units of momentum are mass times velocity, which are Kilograms*meters/seconds. Thus, the units of hbar*kvector and momentum ARE THE SAME.
The units of energy are force times distance. Thus, the units of energy are (Kilograms*meters/second^2)*meters = Kilograms*meters^2/second^2. So the units of hbar*kvector ARE NOT the units of energy.
Hummm, “The units of kvector are meters^(-1)”. Why are you using a de Broglie wavelength, rather than an EMR wavelength? Such is true when a fake momentum exactly equals energy/c, (speed of light), so that energy and action seem to be a linear function of that fake momentum. If EMR had such momentum EMR could transfer such momentum. EMR cannot, as it has no mass! EMR transfers twice its weak inertia to a reflective surface but retains all of its energy (hv), and speed. Only the direction of the flux vector changes. That inertia transfer is sometimes mislabeled radiation pressure.
The units of a “de Broglie wavelength” and an “EMR wavelength” are the same. Both are units of “length,” which in the MKS system is “meters.” Thus, as I see it your question “Why are you using a de Broglie wavelength, rather than an EMR wavelength?” has no relevance to the issue of “units.”
“I” didn’t pick a de Broglie wavelength, the reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.”] did.
In the reference, the term kvector is written in bold font to indicate a vector as opposed to a scalar. The magnitude of kvector corresponds to the “wave number,” not the “wavelength”. The “wave number” is the number of wavelengths per unit length. In the MKS system, the “wave number” corresponds to the number of wavelengths in one meter. In the CGS system, the “wave number” corresponds to the number of wavelengths in one centimeter. Thus, in either system, the magnitude of the “wave number” is the reciprocal of the wavelength.
Finally, I believe when a molecule absorbs a photon, both momentum and energy must be conserved. In an inelastic collision (the molecule absorbs the photon and all energy of the photon is converted to energy of the molecule), the velocity of the molecule must change in such a way as to conserve both momentum and energy. This means that the momentum of the photon can change the velocity of the center of mass of the molecule. Immediately after the collision, the transfer of photon energy to molecular energy is not to change the speed of the center of mass of the molecule, but rather to add internal kinetic energy via molecular vibration. As I understand it, in a situation where individual molecules can transfer via collisions some of this vibrational energy to the kinetic energy of the center of mass of other CO2 molecules, the velocity of the center of mass of those molecules will change. I believe the reason the change in the molecule’s velocity from absorbing the photon’s momentum is ignored relative to the change in the molecule’s velocity from absorbing the photon’s energy has to do with the relative magnitudes of the corresponding molecular velocity changes.
For example, from the reference the ratio of a photon’s energy to a photon’s momentum is c, the velocity of light. A carbon dioxide molecule has a mass of approximately 7.3×10^(-26) kilograms. The wavelength of an IR photon is somewhere between 7×10^(-6) meters and 10^(-3) meters. Thus, (a) the momentum of an IR photon is somewhere between 6.63×10^(-31) and 9.5×10^(-28) Kilogram meters seconds^(-1), and the energy of an IR photon is somewhere between 1.98×10^(-22) and 2.8×10^(-19) joules.
If we start with a CO2 molecule at rest (zero center-of-mass velocity and zero momentum) and change its momentum by 6.63×10^(-31) Kilogram meters seconds^(-1)–the lowest IR photon momentum, the center-of-velocity mass of the CO2 molecule will be 9.1×10^(-6) meters per second. If we start with a CO2 molecule at rest (zero center-of-mass velocity and zero momentum) and change its center-of-mass kinetic energy by 1.98×10^(-22) joules–the lowest IR photon energy, the center-of-velocity mass of the CO2 molecule will be 73.7 meters per second.
If we start with a CO2 molecule at rest (zero center-of-mass velocity and zero momentum) and change its momentum by 9.5×10^(-28) Kilogram meters seconds^(-1)–the highest IR photon momentum, the center-of-velocity mass of the CO2 molecule will be 0.013 meters per second. If we start with a CO2 molecule at rest (zero center-of-mass velocity and zero momentum) and change its center-of-mass kinetic energy by 2.8×10^(-19) joules–the highest IR photon energy, the center-of-velocity mass of the CO2 molecule will be 2,770 meters per second. Thus, for any IR photon, the change in the velocity of an at-rest CO2 molecule from the conservation of energy is several orders of magnitude greater than the change in the velocity of an at-rest CO2 molecule from the conservation of momentum. I believe it is for this reason that the momentum of a photon is mostly ignored when analyzing the collision of an IR photon with a CO2 molecule.
The units of a “de Broglie wavelength” and an “EMR wavelength” are the same. Both are units of “length,” which in the MKS system is “meters.” Thus, as I see it your question “Why are you using a de Broglie wavelength, rather than an EMR wavelength?” has no relevance to the issue of “units.” “I” didn’t pick a de Broglie wavelength, the reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.”] did.
So much for symbolic algebra! This is the mathematicians futzing with the rest of us!
What total Bull shit, The concept of particle mass, velocity, momentum, and energy has no equivalent to some Power/area transfer as expressed by EMR! Those that try to stuff thermal electromagnetic power transfer into some mechanical model, must always fail.
The term kvector is written in bold font to indicate a vector as opposed to a scalar. The magnitude of kvector corresponds to the “wave number,”.
Only in stupid statistical mechanics. In electrodynamics it is always the movement of power within some length/time interval, A cycle, measured! I.e. The velocity of light. When will you ever learn. 🙂
“The units of a “de Broglie wavelength” and an “EMR wavelength” are the same. Both are units of “length,” which in the MKS system is “meters.” Thus, as I see it your question “Why are you using a de Broglie wavelength, rather than an EMR wavelength?” has no relevance to the issue of “units.”
““I” didn’t pick a de Broglie wavelength, the reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.”] did.”
“Finally, I believe when a molecule absorbs a photon, both momentum and energy must be conserved. In an inelastic collision (the molecule absorbs the photon and all energy of the photon is converted to energy of the molecule), the velocity of the molecule must change in such a way as to conserve both momentum and energy.”
What an interesting conjecture. 🙂 By your own numbers, the claimed “momentum” transfer cannot be measured within the random motion of gas molecules, at achievable temperatures.
Please allow a supportive wild assed conjecture. The “momentum” of insolation compresses the atmosphere so that lower altitudes have both higher density and higher temperature, separate from any claimed “gravitational” attraction upon the mass of this atmosphere! Please continue to believe the measurable, without discarding the immeasurable. The phrase “I do not know”, always indicates wisdom 🙂
H/t to Reed Corey!!
The concept of CAGW is equivalent to asking the question:
Because your mother is a sewing machine and your father is a five dollar bill, how many flapjacks does it take to cover the roof of a doghouse? And Answering: Fourteen, because footballs don’t have fenders.
Come on Brad Keyes, only you (Fire Breathing Dragon), can rephrase this to something truly spectacular!!
Will. You wrote: “All of your proposed definitions are silly!” That’s interesting in light of the fact that Wikipedia (a beloved source of global warming information for many AGW advocates) defines a greenhouse gas as follows: “A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range” Wikipedia’s definition of a greenhouse gas looks an awfully like my third candidate technical definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas. Since the overwhelming majority of AGW proponents claim CO2 is a greenhouse gas, my third technical definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas may not be complete, but it sure isn’t “silly.”
BTW. I composed the above response during my nap. Responding to your comment didn’t require being either awake or alert.
I suggest you look at Nikolov & Zeller 2011 “Unified Theory of Climate”.
This argues that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed.
OK,
So Wiki is very political, and very much on top of the dumbing down of serfs!
I use “silly” to indicate possibly entertaining, but never understandable!
Beware of my use of the term “brat” 🙂
“I composed the above response during my nap.”
I also composed response during my nap, upon awakening, all is different!!
There is no such thing as a “green house gas”. There is no such thing as a Heat-Trapping Gas either! Every gas in this atmosphere spontaneously adjusts its own temperature until it can dissapate all heat energy accumulated or generated outward to space. There is no need for the planetary surface to radiate EMR as the atmosphere does that more efficiently than the surface can.
The very large atmospheric energy storage is in the form of latent heat of evaporation in water vapor. The column atmospheric H20 stays at about 2 cm or 2 grams for every cm^2 of planetary area. Each gram of WV has 2300 Joules of latent heat. Please check my total of 2.4 x 10^22 Joules of energy stored in the atmosphere, ever since this planet has had oceans.
At the same time 4.1 x 10^16 Joules/second are going from the surface as new latent heat and also the same leaving as water condenses somewhere and this energy is continuously radiated to space. The largest nuclear test, Russia’s Tsar bombe, had a yield of only 2.2 x 10^17 Joules. Water vapor does that every five seconds. Please remember the Earth automagically adjusts the total WV to whatever/whenever it wants, and never checks with any Climate Scientist as none, not one, has a clue as to how the Earth does that. 🙂
I agree with everything you’re saying, but you have to get your terminology right. Water has a high heat capacity. That isn’t “latent” heat. Latent heat involves a phase transition and/or chemical reaction. Neither are the case.
My understanding of “heat” or thermal transfer is that it can happen in three ways: radiation, conduction and convection. You seem to be talking only about radiation. As CO2 is a gas (fluid) in the atmosphere and able to mix and move freely in the atmosphere (except when absorbed into the earth, sea, plant and animals), conduction and convection will be happening. How then does CO2 “trap” heat unless it traps heat in the molecules themselves, in which case, presumably it would raise the temperature of the molecules so they are at a higher temperature (energy level) than their surroundings and would therefore emit heat (by conduction, convection and radiation) to their surroundings.
kmac. You’re correct–so far all I’ve talked about is radiation. And from your comment I think that we basically agree. Specifically, what about heat (energy transfer) via conduction and convection? In addition, what about evaporation? One of my pet peeves is the overwhelming emphasis AGW proponents put on radiative energy transfer relative to conductive and convective energy transfer. In fact, in later threads I plan to give examples that demonstrate just how important these two energy transfer mechanisms can be.
BTW, there are two reasons why I think AGW proponents emphasize radiative energy transfer. First, considering the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere as a system, they argue (and I agree) that the overwhelming transfer of energy away from the system to space is radiation. There may be other energy loss mechanisms (e.g., loss of mass to space), but on balance I believe radiation is the dominant means of transferring energy out of the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere system. Second, there are cases where if energy transfer between objects is limited to radiation, an inert object (i.e., an object devoid of its own energy source) surrounding but not touching an active object (i.e., an object with an internal source of energy) will always result in an increased temperature of the active object. One example of this is Willis Eschenbach’s Steel Greenhouse [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/]. In later threads I will argue that the presence of a surrounding inert object will always increase the temperature of the active object provided radiation is the only means of energy transfer between the active object and the surrounding inert object. But I will also argue that if conduction between objects is also allowed, the presence of the surrounding inert object can (doesn’t have to, but can) result in a lower active object temperature. I didn’t include those arguments in this thread because my comment was already too long and I wanted to hear from Joanne’s readers regarding my definitions of terms.
Reed 1:52am: There are some issues to consider when your definitions are compared to text book definitions.
Your definition of heat short form: “the flow (transfer) of energy between objects”. This implies heat is in one object and afterwards that same heat is in the other object so to “flow (transfer)”. You then go on to write of internal energy in an object but do not discuss how heat is in any other form that can possibly exist in a single object (so that heat can later transfer from that object). Really, today a single object possesses 100% internal energy and 0% “heat”.
Thermal energy: this is really an acronym shortened form of therm[-odynamic intern-]al energy (Zemansky, M.W., 1970 Vol. 8 “The Physics Teacher”). Better, less confusing to use thermodynamic internal energy. Then you can more clearly see there are only two ways to change the internal energy of a system that doesn’t exchange mass: 1) allow the system to interact with its surroundings at a different temperature, 2) exert a force on the system over a distance. Hence dU/dt = Q+W (1st law as applied to atmosphere).
——
“1) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can absorb but not radiate electromagnetic energy in one or more sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band.
(2) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can radiate but not absorb electromagnetic energy in one of more sub-bands of the IR band.”
“Thermal Energy is defined to be the internal energy of an object that is either (a) transferred out of the higher temperature object via heat, (b) transferred into the lower temperature object via heat, or (c) remains forever in the volume of space in which the heat exists.”
Parse this using your definition of heat and the non-acronym for thermal energy:
Therm-odynamic intern-al energy is defined to be the internal energy of an object that is either (a) transferred out of the higher temperature object via the flow (transfer) of energy between objects, (b) transferred into the lower temperature object via the flow (transfer) of energy between objects, or (c) remains forever in the volume of space in which the the flow (transfer) of energy between objects exists.
This makes it easier to see your (c) makes no sense. Also makes it easier to understand your (a) and (b) are just the 1st law in the form dU/dt = Q+W with W=0.
LtCusper. Thank you for your response. You make some good points. [As an aside, the points you raise just confirm my overall experience that most (including this one) discussions of heat and temperature involve words and phrases that have different meanings to different people.]
You wrote: “Really, today a single object possesses 100% internal energy and 0% ‘heat’.” I agree. Specifically, “heat” is not a property of matter (objects), but rather represents a transfer of internal energy from one object to another, where the transfer is due solely to a temperature difference between the objects. In this sense, I agree (at least I think we agree) that when attributing energy associated with “heat” to an object, the phrase “thermodynamic internal energy” is much better than the word “heat.”
With respect to your items identified by 1) and 2) above, I also agree. But isn’t it true that the molecular structures of many gases are such that the “radiation versus frequency” curve doesn’t follow Planck’s cavity radiation curve? That is, energy may be radiated at all frequencies, but more energy is radiated in certain frequency intervals than would be predicted by Planck’s cavity radiation law.
[And as an aside, Planck’s cavity radiation law applies to a small planar opening in a cavity whose internal walls are at a uniform temperature. The opening of the cavity is expressed as a differential planar area, not as a differential volume. As such, I don’t know how to apply Planck’s cavity radiation law to a volume of gas. At one time, I emailed a few people asking for a law equivalent to Planck’s cavity radiation law that applied to a volume of gases. I got few responses; but the responses I did get indicated they weren’t aware of such a law. Is there any chance you are aware of such a law?]
Regarding your last point–my item (c) makes no sense. If internal thermal energy is moving from a high-temperature object (A) to a low-temperature object (B) through object C {as in conduction between the element of a stove (object A) and the water (object B) in a pot on the stove}, then some of the internal thermal energy leaving the element stays within the metal (object C) of the pot. In this sense, some of the internal thermal energy leaving the stove ends up in the medium between the stove and the water. Regarding this I make two comments. First, you might say: “Wait a minute. Shouldn’t your discussion of internal energy transfer from the element to the metal of the pot be based solely on the temperatures of the element and the metal?” The answer is: yes it should. However, when people analyze conduction (the heat current) between two objects, they normally consider the temperatures of the two objects and the thermal conduction properties of the joining material. They may talk about a temperature gradient through the joining material, but the joining material’s actual temperature profile is rarely discussed. I’m not sure exactly how to incorporate your concern into a discussion of heat and temperature, but I believe your concern is valid.
Second, steady-state conditions (i.e., when all temperatures have ceased changing), then I agree the internal thermal energy of the joining medium is unchanging; and as such it makes no sense to say (as I did) energy is flowing into (i.e., accumulating) within atmospheric CO2 gas. However, if when the joining medium is first placed between the objects at different temperatures and the temperature of the joining medium is lower than the temperature of either object, then at least for a finite transient time some of the internal thermal energy leaving the higher temperature object will end up in the joining medium. Thus, for a short time at least, the internal thermal energy of the joining medium is increasing. The observation that this condition must have finite duration is one of the problems I have with the concept of atmospheric CO2 trapping heat. At most, atmospheric CO2 can store (in the AGW advocate parlance, trap) internal thermal energy for a finite time interval. At the end of that time interval, no additional thermal energy is being stored and hence no additional thermal energy is being trapped by atmospheric CO2 gas. Bottom line, it seems to me that at best it might be argued that atmospheric CO2 gas “traps” (Oh how I hate that word) heat for a finite time interval, but after a while all “heat trapping” stops. And if this is true, the CO2 can at most be a “heat-trapping” gas for a finite time interval.
Reed 2:39pm: ”… words and phrases that have different meanings to different people.”
Agree. An effective writer needs to understand the audience. If engaged in effective writing for the general population (genpop) then words that have meaning are heat, greenhouse, trapping as long as the words are used consistent with the basic science. If engaged in writing for informed, critical subject matter experts (SME) then substitute enthalpy for heat, atmosphere optical depth for both greenhouse & trapping.
“..radiation versus frequency” curve doesn’t follow Planck’s cavity radiation curve?”
No, all matter that has ever been tested does follow the shape of the ideal emissivity = 1.0 Planck curve (eqn. 274, p. 198 above) at a lower intensity due to all real matter having emissivity less than 1.0. All matter includes all gases.
Your object A,B,C example works for genpop, is the zeroth law for SME. If not sure how to work in heat and temperature for genpop & SME, then define/use enthalpy & zeroth law along with dU/dt=Q+W 1st law for thermodynamic internal energy.
Your last verbose paragraph seems consistent with dU/dt = Q+W with W=0. Also you seem to be writing about 1st law in form with W=0: variance in Qp = energy in – energy out = m*Cp*dT which is the finite amount of energy required to infinitesimally change the temperature of any material of unit mass (subscript p being for constant pressure process). Also true for Qv, Cv constant volume process.
LtCusper. You wrote: “No, all matter that has ever been tested does follow the shape of the ideal emissivity = 1.0 Planck curve (eqn. 274, p. 198 above) at a lower intensity due to all real matter having emissivity less than 1.0. All matter includes all gases.” I was not aware of that. I made the assumptions that (1) because gases like CO2 have spectral absorption bands, and (2) because AGW proponents make a big deal of “backradiation”, which I take to mean electromagnetic radiation (a) emitted by atmospheric gases in the direction of the Earth’s surface and (b) having emitted power spectral densities heavily weighted in the atmospheric gases’ absorption bands, that the emission spectrums of greenhouse gases closely matched their absorption spectrums. Apparently, part (b) of my second assumption was wrong. Thank you for the information.
If you’re correct (and I’ll try to verify what you wrote), then whatever credibility the “backradiation” argument had (and in my mind, it was very little), has been diminished.
Reed 11:30am: Your part b) is not wrong, part b) is correct according to Dr. Max Planck’s paper linked above p. 48 which shows an atmosphere radiates toward space and toward a planet surface.
LtCusper 1:54am, 10 March. I got to thinking about your statement: “No, all matter that has ever been tested does follow the shape of the ideal emissivity = 1.0 Planck curve (eqn. 274, p. 198 above) at a lower intensity due to all real matter having emissivity less than 1.0. All matter includes all gases.”
Something puzzles me. In particular, I thought astronomers determined the distance to far-removed stars by measuring the red-shift (classical and relativistic Doppler shift) of the spectral “signature” of the hydrogen atom. That is, the hydrogen atom possesses an electron shell structure (quantized energy states) where photons are emitted when an electron transitions from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. Since these energy states are quantized, both an emission (higher to lower energy state transition) and an absorption (lower to higher energy state transition) line-spectrum ensue. In an inertial rest frame stationary stationary with respect to the hydrogen atom, the pattern of the spectral lines is known and, as far as I am aware, unique. By looking for the pattern in light from a star or stars and measuring the frequency shift (and as far as I know, the “frequency stretching” of the pattern because a different Doppler shift is applied to each spectral line) one can estimate the speed at which the star is moving away from us–i.e., the radial speed if the Earth is at the origin of a coordinate system.
If the above is true, then hydrogen, which I believe in a star is in a gaseous state, exhibits a line spectrum, which as far as I know, is not part of Planck’s cavity radiation law. Doesn’t this contradict the idea that “all matter” follows the Planck curve? I believe the quantum absorption states of CO2 gas are related to the quantum vibrational patterns of the CO2 molecule not the electron energy states; but isn’t it reasonable to assume that transitions between vibrational energy states will both absorb and emit photons at discrete frequencies? If so, then won’t CO2 gas exhibit a line-spectral behavior? Coupled with the fact that CO2 gaseous molecules will have a spread of velocities (and hence a spread of radial speeds relative to an observer), won’t the end result be a “smeared” (i.e., non-zero width) emission line spectrum?
It may be that the total energy associated with these transitions is swamped by whatever causes the shape of Planck’s curve. If so, for all practical purposes they can be ignored. But if for CO2 gas at atmospheric temperatures and pressures the total energy associated with these transitions is non-negligible, then doesn’t such a phenomenon bring into question the concept that the spectral emission pattern of all matter follows the Planck curve?
Reed 2:49am: “Doesn’t this contradict the idea that “all matter” follows the Planck curve?”
No. Thanks for quoting my clip exactly Reed. That spectrum of hydrogen from the distant star (as one on earth) will follow the Planck shape in any frequency interval but not overlay the ideal Planck curve since the real hydrogen curve will be less intensity (lower) at every frequency for the temperature of the distant star’s effective radiating surface (emissivity always less than 1.0). Each distant star spectrum frequency will be shifted an amount from hydrogen spectrum we measure here on earth in part due the expansion of the universe and kinetic radial velocity. Actually, in practice, you will see the real curve at some frequencies rise slightly above ideal Planck curve since temperature is not uniform at the source.
“..isn’t it reasonable to assume that transitions between vibrational energy states will both absorb and emit photons at discrete frequencies?”
Yes. In the Planck paper resonators and oscillators are discussed to a certain extent (see for example p. 174). Planck was among the first if not the first to start dealing with quantum effects around 1900 in a limited way, others (Einstein, Pauli, Bohr..) clarified and added a whole field to the thinking Planck developed on the subject. The H2, CO2 ideal Planck curve doesn’t show these effects as only the real spectrum curve shows them at certain frequency intervals associated with the various possible spectral lines.
“If so, then won’t CO2 gas exhibit a line-spectral behavior?…won’t the end result be a “smeared” (i.e., non-zero width) emission line spectrum?”
Sure, each spectral line shape exhibited in the real CO2 curve is narrow but never identically zero intensity or zero width. Because the CO2 molecules are in motion, they get illuminated by radiation of frequency slightly shifted from that of the source, and thus emit a radiation that is also slightly shifted from that of the source. This doppler broadening is sometimes called pressure broadening which is misleading because the broadening has nothing fundamental to do with pressure.
“..then doesn’t such a phenomenon bring into question the concept that the spectral emission pattern of all matter follows the Planck curve?”
Just be careful with wording, the Planck curve is only ideal for a black body at a temperature, emissivity = 1.0, the real body follows the Planck curve at a lower intensity due the lower emissivity of a real object (since all real objects reflect some light) along with spectral line shape and its doppler broadening.
LtCusper 3:58 am, 11 March. I’ll give what you wrote some thought. In any event, from my perspective our dialog on this thread has been beneficial; and for that, I thank you.
Will 5:43am: “Please show even one physical matter tested”
That’s easy enough. For testing description and results, see Dr. Max Planck list bottom p. 199 cite 1 in the link above 8:14am. Or ref. a modern test in a good text on radiation, I can refer if needed.
All the tests on any material (includes any gas) I’ve ever done personally & all tests I’ve ever read about follow shape of e=1.0 ideal Planck eqn. 274, p. 198 linked above. Perhaps you have evidence for the 1st material ever found that does not follow the ideal Planck shape? And stopped testing after that one…
“All the tests on any material (includes any gas) I’ve ever done personally & all tests I’ve ever read about follow shape of e=1.0 ideal Planck eqn. 274, p. 198 linked above.”
Please describe any test that you personally have ever done, including instruments used, that show any thermal radiative flux in any wavelength interval that is not completely limited by the opposing radiance of your measuring instrument in that wavelength interval!
“Perhaps you have evidence for the 1st material ever found that does not follow the ideal Planck shape? And stopped testing after that one…”
Some theoretical black body mass, independent of surface properties, always must exhibit, the exact specular radiance properties, as illustrated by Max. Such has nothing to do with the measured radiative flux from any matter. Perhaps you can demonstrate black body gas emanating from your anal orifice. Are we having fun yet? 😡
Will 8:06am – Thanks for asking about the instrumentation, I’ve already given a cite to describe the basic test procedures. The instrument used for some spectral measurements was a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm. Although I can’t promise that all conclusions are drawn from my own investigations, I can promise that some tests are original – enough to satisfy curiosity. I am also partial to the inexpensive Ryobi IR002. Scientists solve problems. So get to work. Max is watching.
“Will 8:06am – Thanks for asking about the instrumentation, I’ve already given a cite to describe the basic test procedures. The instrument used for some spectral measurements was a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm. Although I can’t promise that all conclusions are drawn from my own investigations, I can promise that some tests are original – enough to satisfy curiosity. I am also partial to the inexpensive Ryobi IR002. Scientists solve problems. So get to work. Max is watching.”
OK you are measuring spectral radiance of “stuff” at temperatures high enough for photometric rather than radiometric analysis and is appropriate. At these temperatures and wavelengths most radiative matter exhibits a frequency continuum rather than resonance. This is true for only metallic gasses, The inert gasses have no measurable radiance or need for emissivity. Helium has no brightness temperature.
Will 2:28pm: “The inert gasses have no measurable radiance..”
Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s specific intensity eqn. above 8:14am. True, at some freq. and temperature the helium emission will be too small to measure with today’s Model PR-650 but tomorrow’s? Who knows. If you look up helium-neon laser operations you will find measurable radiance from inert gas namely a 1 mW unit viewed along the axis can be much brighter than a 300W projection lamp. Don’t try this at home.
“Helium has no brightness temperature.”
Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s specific intensity eqn. above 8:14am. Consider its integral over any range of frequencies i.e. d(frequency). This integral approaches 0 as T goes to 0 and infinity as T goes to infinity and its derivative with respect to T is always positive. Thus whatever the instrumentation reads, we can always find one and only one brightness temperature that matches it. For any diffraction negligible material including helium.
Will 2:28pm: “The inert gasses have no measurable radiance..”
“Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s specific intensity eqn. above 8:14am.”
That “eqn” is developed specifically for a Planck defined theoretical black-body and in no way applies to any physical mass or surface ever constructed or discovered on or near this Earth. Has no one ever bothered to teach you how to interpret a technical document written at a specific time period?
First, The audience. Planck was trying to explain the concept of Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation, as spontaneously generated as some function of temperature of mass, to mechanics that depended on mass for understanding. At the time there were no words to describe the difference between a potential for thermal radiative flux and some measurable flux itself. All thermodynamic understanding depended on some differential temperature or pressure of different masses.
Second, The subject. Electromagnetic radiative flux depends not at all on mass, and radiometric temperature has nothing to do with thermometric temperature except, where careless physicists try to shoehorn EMR into a mechanical shoebox! It does not fit ever!
Both post modern,and post normal science education has exploited this “does not fit” to promote gobs of new tiny particles that must have apparent mass and temperature. This is complete departure from anything physical and only requires a consensus of probabilities for any physical existence. This is like having your automobile “fixed” by a statistical mechanic! On the way home precisely, half the wheels fall off!
“True, at some freq. and temperature the helium emission will be too small to measure with today’s Model PR-650 but tomorrow’s? Who knows. If you look up helium-neon laser operations you will find measurable radiance from inert gas”
What nonsense a HeNe laser has a low pressure mixture of MgHeNe. That Mg provides all ionization potential for any power emission! The HeNe in the semi-metal, along with the dimensionality and diffraction effects of the cavity resonator, provide the center frequency, frequency interval, and divergent solid angle of such radiative exitance. The specific radiant intensity depends little on the temperature of anything, but mostly on the value of electrical current powering such exitance. Your HeNe laser is a physical, measurable complex conjugate of Planck’s theoretical black-body.
“Namely a 1 mW unit viewed along the axis can be much brighter than a 300W projection lamp. Don’t try this at home.”
The accepted industry label is “Do not look into laser beam with remaining eye!”
(“Helium has no brightness temperature.”)
“Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s specific intensity eqn. above 8:14am. Consider its integral over any range of frequencies i.e. d(frequency). This integral approaches 0 as T goes to 0 and infinity as T goes to infinity and its derivative with respect to T is always positive.”
But consider the orthogonal integration over any range of temperatures. This is the only possible interpretation of the S-B equation. Works well also for the derivative of flux with respect to T (for of course for black-bodies) as delta T increases in either direction.
Yes indeed,” over any fixed wavelength thermal radiance increases as some non-integer power greater than one of that absolute temperature. That algebraic radiance can approach infinity as temperature approaches infinity. However the actual flux does not approach infinity as it is quantized by frequency. So much for the usefulness of symbolic algebra!
“Thus whatever the instrumentation reads, we can always find one and only one brightness temperature that matches it. For any diffraction negligible material including helium.”
Indeed. But generally by folk that actually understand the terms brightness and brightness temperature.. Your microwave oven exhibits similar characteristics that give a fat finger to the deliberate misinterpretation of Max P. and Jimmy M.
Will 12:21pm: “Has no one ever bothered to teach you how to interpret a technical document written at a specific time period?”
No, the time period is immaterial for principles. That’s why the specific intensity eqn. 274 is a well-tested principle of science to this day, principles don’t change – that’s why they call them principles.
“Planck was trying to explain the concept of Maxwell’s…”
Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s own words, see the Preface to First Edition, sentence 2 where he writes the original intention was to account for his own investigations, then added some foundation theory (“Maxwell’s radiation pressure”).
“That Mg provides all ionization potential for any power emission!”
No. There is no Mg employed for lasing HeNe gas laser – I wrote about the original gas laser HeNe wherein the neon is responsible for most of the emission (like a neon sign), helium is not necessary either but hugely lowers the stimulation needed.
“…a potential for thermal radiative flux…..the actual flux…”
Huh? You write there is only a potential flux then write actual flux. Please try to keep your story straight. There is really only actual – though ideal – flux in the specific intensity eqn. 274 first found empirically then from theory. And, yes, discuss helium brightness temperature when actually understand it.
(Will 12:21pm: “Has no one ever bothered to teach you how to interpret a technical document written at a specific time period?”)
“No, the time period is immaterial for principles. That’s why the specific intensity eqn. 274 is a well-tested principle of science to this day, principles don’t change – that’s why they call them principles.”
What principles? All was controversy over EMR and especially thermal EMR. Several folk died in duels over this complete non-principles. The era of SCIENCE!
(“Planck was trying to explain the concept of Maxwell’s…”)
“Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s own words, see the Preface to First Edition, sentence 2 where he writes the original intention was to account for his own investigations, then added some foundation theory (“Maxwell’s radiation pressure”).”
Please try to actually read and understand your referenced document. “foundation theory”? All of the concepts of radiative pressure or momentum were attacked from everywhere, as momentum implies mass. EMR power requires no mass~
(“That Mg provides all ionization potential for any power emission!”)
“No. There is no Mg employed for lasing HeNe gas laser – I wrote about the original gas laser HeNe wherein the neon is responsible for most of the emission (like a neon sign), helium is not necessary either but hugely lowers the stimulation needed.”
So you wrote about nonsense. Even the little ne-2 glow tube required a bit of mercury to operate. ask any Chemist! It is clear that you have never been around any activity that resulted in any gas laser to finally operate.
(“…a potential for thermal radiative flux…..the actual flux…”)
“Huh? You write there is only a potential flux then write actual flux. Please try to keep your story straight. There is really only actual – though ideal – flux in the specific intensity eqn. 274 first found empirically then from theory. ”
Never ever such measurement! All EMR flux measurements have only provided evidence of flux proportional to the difference in opposing radiance. Never some theoretical flux in some direction of no opposing radiance. Take your photons and shove it!
“And, yes, discuss helium brightness temperature when actually understand it.”
Please give the dimensional units for “brightness” then radiative temperature, and explain how they may be related?
Will 4:42pm: “What principles? All was controversy over EMR..”
There is no well founded controversy at all over the principle of Dr. Max Planck eqn. 274, it has been supported by every test I have ever done and all the experimenters I’ve ever read correctly using the principle. The controversy is in your unprincipled writing. Show some independent proof supporting your position that there is a controversy.
“All of the concepts of radiative pressure or momentum were attacked from everywhere”
Preposterous Will. A beam of radiation, photon & wave, possesses energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum but not mass. Though it would be more correct to say that the upper limit of the photon mass keeps decreasing, its present value being less than about 10^−24 times the mass of the electron. If it bothers you that a particle without (much) mass can carry much momentum this is because you are stuck on the notion that momentum is mass times velocity. Sometimes this is true (approximately), sometimes not. Momentum is a property complete in itself and not always the product of mass and velocity.
Preposterous Will, I’ve personally performed such measurement routinely, Dr. Max Planck is reporting on his own such lab measurements and offers: See among others H. Rubens und F. Kurlbaum, Sitz. Ber. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin vom 25. Okt., 1900, p. 929. Ann. d. Phys. 4, p. 649, 1901. F. Paschen, Ann.d. Phys. 4, p. 277, 1901.
“ask any Chemist!…Please give the dimensional units for “brightness” then radiative temperature, and explain how they may be related?”
Consult any chemist & a modern text book on these subjects & report on your own. It is not too hard Will. Thanks for the humorous discussion.
“No, all matter that has ever been tested does follow the shape of the ideal emissivity = 1.0 Planck curve (eqn. 274, p. 198 above) at a lower intensity due to all real matter having emissivity less than 1.0. All matter includes all gases.”
Please show even one physical matter tested, That has ever emitted radiative flux anywhere close to your claim that radiative flux equals specular radiance x PI steradians x emissivity at that frequency! Such radiative flux is always limited by any opposing radiance as per Maxwell’s equations. You insist on the use of Planck’s integral completely out of context, and in error. In addition such a radiance function can only be realized in a metal or semi-metal with zero work function, never any gas! 😥
Your reference:
Not according to Dr. Max Planck, a gas always absorbs and radiates EM energy at all frequencies as the gas will radiate at a non-zero intensity at all temperatures and all frequencies, see eqn. 274, p. 198 here: http://mirrors.syringanetworks.net/gutenberg/4/0/0/3/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Is quite good. However your interpretation of that document is but juvenile nonsense!
You incorrectly assume a non metallic gas approaches a black-body rather than a resonant cavity.
This just after eqn (276)
“This is the specific intensity of a monochromatic plane polarized ray of the wave length λ which is emitted from a black body at the temperature T into a vacuum in a direction perpendicular to the surface.”
You fools refuse to translate “specific intensity” into the current engineering “specular radiance”, a potential for radiative flux. You specifically ignore “into a vacuum in a direction perpendicular to the surface.” which demands a direction with no opposing “radiance” at any frequency.
“Scientists solve problems. So get to work. Max is watching.”
What BS, Scientists create problems for all Earthlings. Engineers solve problems!
The old guys were careful in their writing, not so much any more! 🙂
(“Heat is the flow (transfer) of energy between objects where the energy flow exists solely because the objects are at different temperatures. Energy flow in the form of heat is always from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object.”)
“Heat” is never the “transfer” itself, but only what is transferred between interconnected mass, with latent heat, transfer this is never energy, It must be the transfer of mass itself with that contained latent heat. In atmosphere, that is dependent on mass flow (wind), never on some difference in temperature, from one location, to another. This seems so complex only with symbolic algebra. but so simple if spontaneous is allowed or demanded! Thermal EMR spontaneous power transfer is also simple, but not proportional to delta T but proportional to the delta (difference) in two different temperatures, each raised to the fourth power!!
The EMR flux is always proportional to the “average” temperature raised to the third power times the linear difference in temperature, and always (only) in the direction imposed by that linear delta temperature. Such can never be considered “heat” as it has no mass and no temperature. EMR is completely relativistic, and any mass, is completely denied. 🙂
An example of spontaneous is the Rooster crowing, before dawn, to get the hens lined up this morning! -will-
It is gravity which “traps heat” not back radiation. There is solid empirical evidence now in a vortex cooling tube that centrifugal force produces a temperature gradient, as does the force of gravity. The evidence is here along with the explanation based on the laws of physics.
This is what climatologists need to understand ….
Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot’s earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the “fall” or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference. [source]
That is why in a planet’s troposphere there is homogeneous molecular (PE+KE) when entropy is a maximum and so there are no unbalanced energy potentials. And that is why there is a temperature gradient formed by gravity and not by back radiation from water vapor, carbon dioxide etc.
I have a bit of a problem with your definition of Heat!
Heat is the flow (transfer) of energy between objects where the energy flow exists solely because the objects are at different temperatures. Energy flow in the form of heat is always from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object.”
I don’t have a reference. However my understanding is that Heat is Thermal Energy. An object that aquires heat will become hotter and if it looses heat it will get cooler. Units are Joules or Calories.
If Heat is an energy flow then it cannot be trapped, because then it would not be heat.
I hate to resort to the D word but using it literally as a verb, is this the Green’s only British MP denying Climate Change ?
” The Brighton Pavilion MP told the crowd: “We are saying no to climate change and no to fossil firms. ”
Plenty of the usual climate clowns were out in force.
“Comedian Russell Brand and fashion designer Vivienne Westwood were among the celebrities who led a climate change protest outside the Houses of Parliament today.”
“They were led by a man with green leaves attached to his head, who was riding a bicycle with large wings bearing the slogan: “Look after your mum.”
At one stage about 100 marchers blocked traffic outside Charing Cross station after siting down in the middle of the road with their bicycles.”
“Speaking at the event via video link, Ms Westwood described the demonstration as “super important”.
She said: “As you march my models will be walking down the catwalk.
“It’s very important you are there. I believe this demo is super important for the whole world.””
” The Brighton Pavilion MP told the crowd: “We are saying no to climate change and no to fossil firms. ”
——————–
I bet the climate won’t listen.
I’ve tried before and it didn’t work.
I had to move to Florida to get the climate I wanted.
Have a look at the graph showing how all timescales of the Central England Temperature show climate change and the recent period is by no means unusual:
“They were led by a man with green leaves attached to his head, who was riding a bicycle with large wings bearing the slogan: “Look after your mum.”
So he will take his elderly mother shopping (or to a hospital) on the back of his bike.
That’s hilarious. VW reckoned it was important that people were at the march and yet it was even more important that her models were on the catwalk. Trivialities both.
Maybe what she really meant was that it was important for ppl to be there because her models were on the catwalk. ( and VW is simply jumping on the bandwagon? ) 😮
That’s a bit harsh Annie. Dear old Dame Viv. is more than a triviality, in her field, but admittedly her authority on Climate is mere indulgence. Appeals to celebrity and appeals to popularity are what it’s all about though. (Is appeal to celebrity just another form of appeal to populism or is it something else in its own right I wonder )
“Comedian Russell Brand ” apparently bereft of a personality and compelled to adopt the melange of acting personas he’s played-out on the screen, acts out the hackneyed role of a left wing brain-dead revolutionary to the tee. The truly funny thing is that some folk take him seriously.
Tony Abbott wants to be careful he’s got up to date, state of the art encryption on his Laptop, Mobile and other Comms. devices.
There are Global forces that would stop at nothing to get rid of him before The Paris COP in November and the latest IPCC shenanigans might be giving them fresh ideas.
If Tony is using an iPhone, iPad or other iOS/Apple Mobile device he should download and start using the Google Chrome browser immediately, instead of using Apple’s resident Safari browser. At least until Apple fixes their latest security weakness exposing all users to deliberately weakened US Govt. Export codes.
SSL security is broken. That comforting Padlock symbol displayed on your Web Browser when dealing on-line with your bank, payroll details or tax accounts, is only as secure as the latest problem to be published to the burgeoning on-line criminal community and none of it is secure from state apparatus. Not just your own Government, but is just about as accessible to any Government.
Security is an illusion, for your peace of mind. On-line banking is akin to leaving all your valuables locked in your car, but don’t lose any sleep over it.
Having found a way to prove that recent climate change is indistiguishable from normal natural variation I’m now working on a follow up article and would welcome some feedback. In summary the article says:
“It has frequently been stated that 2oth century warming was “unprecedented” or “cannot be explained”. This article sets out to test this assertion on CET the longest available temperature series. I find the CET data rejects the hypothesis of ‘climate change’ (>58%) & current ‘global warming’ (>72%) and that overall global temperature has not changed significantly more than would be expected.”
February carbon dioxide levels average 400ppm for first time
“The US government’s greenhouse gas monitoring site at Mauna Loa in Hawaii has confirmed that its average recorded carbon dioxide levels for February topped 400 parts per million (ppm) – the first time that this has been seen in a northern winter month.
Carbon dioxide is one of the primary greenhouse gases.
Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to climate change. The amount of warming produced by a given rise in greenhouse gas concentrations depends on feedback processes in the climate system, such as the water vapour response.”
~ ~ ~ MARCH 06, 2015 (travelpulse)
Hawaii Pelted With Heavy Snow on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa … received more than a foot of snow from the storm.
. . .
How does carbon(sic) do that?
Carbon dioxide is one of the primary greenhouse gases.
No, it is not. It only comprises 0.04% of all atmospheric gases. That means there is one molecule of CO2 to every 2,500 molecules of water vapor.
Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to climate change.
Naked assertion. (a statement without corroborating evidence) This claim is based on computer simulations whose parameters are questionable at best, or just plain wrong at worst.
The amount of warming produced by a given rise in greenhouse gas concentrations depends on feedback processes in the climate system, such as the water vapour response.
False. If this were true, then tropospheric temperatures would have continued to increase as concentrations of CO2 increased. This has not happenned, so this hypothesis has been falsified by observation.
Final Note:
The moment they began to claim that the hiatus in temperature rise was caused by something other than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the whole theory collapsed. This is clear from their continued claims that CO2 is the primary driver of atmospheric temperatures on this planet, and can be proven false by simple logic that any high-school student can grasp.
If CO2 is the primary driver, then other influences cannot stop it.
If some influence can stop CO2, then that influence is stronger than CO2.
It follows that any influence strong enough to stop CO2 from heating the atmosphere must be, by definition, the primary driver.
As Edward R. Murrow would say:
Good night, and good luck.
Edward R Murrow is one of my favorite personalities. I quote him above to show my agreement with his closing remarks on March 19, 1954 and not to in compare myself to him. Here’s an excerpt from the full show that aired that night, as they appear on the Berkeley Edu webpage. They go along with this youtube clip.
I’ve emphasized portions of this excerpt because I feel they are just as pertinent now, in our time, as as they were in the period in history in which they originally aired.
No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another.
.
.
.
We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.
This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
I intentionally divided the excerpt into two parts. The first part is dedicated to Willie Soon. I believe it’s clear why. The second part is dedicated to all skeptics. I believe it’s also clear why.
The moment they began to claim that the hiatus in temperature rise was caused by something other than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the whole theory collapsed.”
“Michael Mann’s pause explanation drives a coach & horses through AR5 attribution analysis described in chapter 10.
Mann is quite right that the PDO/AMO may likely be the cause of the hiatus, but by accepting this possibility he unfortunately drives a coach and horses through the AR5 attribution analysis described in chapter 10.
This is because the probability analysis used there depends on natural variability being precisely zero since 1951.
Invoking the AMO/PDO to explain the pause in global warming essenially means that Internal Variability can no longer be assumed to be zero.”
. . .
You would think that was ‘game over’.
Also, note in my travelpulse link, the answer to my question of rising co2 causing snow, quote:
“When asked about how often snow storms occur on the Hawaiian Islands, assistant professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Hawaii, Ken Rubin, told Weather.com:
“It snows here every year, but only at the very summits of our three tallest volcanoes (Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea and Haleakala).”
~ ~ ~ Snowfall in Hawaii
by Saul Price, Pacific Supervisory Office, U.S Weather Bureau, Honolulu, 1962:
Our records show the following measured maximum depths and lowest elevations reached for the period 1915 – 1958, inclusive.
example: Mauna Loa – 1 foot – 10,000 feet 9 feb 1922
. . .
Egad.
Do I really need to link the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide graph?
‘In Boston, where they have had 8 feet of snow since January 24th, it was the 2nd coldest February and month ever. It was the snowiest winter (DJF) on record and will be the snowiest season perhaps by Monday. There is some evidence this may be the snowiest year since the Pilgrims were here in 1717.’
The LIA was real and we are fairly certain a weak sun was responsible, . . .
Which brings us to another flaw in the AGW hypothesis.
The Two IPCC Claims
Their first claim is that CO2 acts as a positive feedback of heat into the atmosphere and therefore the temperature of the atmosphere should rise as CO2 rises. Their second claim all along has been that the sun has only a minor influence on the atmospheric temperature.
There is no logic to these two statements because they contradict each other.
If CO2 is feeding heat back into the atmosphere, where did that heat come from if not the sun? CO2 can only feed back what it has received and no more. If it can only feed back what it receives, then the more it receives, the more it feeds back. And so, the less it receives, the less it can feed back.
Therefore, the sun must be the primary driver and not CO2.*
Thermodynamics doesn’t care about the IPCC models and conjectures. It is what it is.
Abe
*I’m not claiming I believe this to be the case one way or the other. My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion at this point. What I am saying is that the two claims made by the IPCC contradict each other.
The warmists often say something to the effect of ‘unless it’s peer reviewed, it’s not worth anything – and you’re not a climate scientist, what could you possibly know about it?’
When I see or hear this sort of thing, I generally conclude that the person holding forth either hasn’t got much of a science background, or is using the accusation as a tactical ploy to shore up their argument or point of view.
Why?
Anyone who works in science, technology, or engineering is always going to have to learn new concepts, techniques, and solve problems.
I know, because like countless others I’ve been there, done that.
Here’s my thumbnail sketch career.
Now retired, I trained as a nurse many years ago. Three years, studying a variety of subjects – for example, physiology, pharmacology, anatomy, various disease processes and so on.
Afterwards, I worked in an Accident and Emergency department for a year, before undertaking a degree in Human Biology. Some of the material overlapped the nursing course, other subjects such as biomechanics were new to me. I became more and more interested in biochemistry, and made a career move to hospital laboratory work. This was totally unlike anything I’d ever done before, using assay systems rejoicing in such names as immunoelectrophoresis, heamagglutination, flow cytometry, and many more besides. When I later worked for my Ph.D., I had to learn about DNA sequencing and microbiological techniques relevant to my field of study.
There won’t be too many nurses who know how to carry out DNA sequencing, and there won’t be many laboratory scientists who know what a displaced Colles fracture is.
But they can find out.
In other words, anything can be learned, and in science it’s necessary to ask new questions and adapt many times during a career.
The suggestion that nobody but the elite ‘chosen ones’ can possibly ask sensible questions or comment about the alleged man-made global warming is totally without foundation.
We can learn a lot from the planet Venus. The Sun’s direct radiation to the Venus surface supplies only about 20W/m^2, not the much greater and incorrect Science of Doom figure. The 20W/m^2 was estimated from measurements by Russian probes dropped to the surface.
Yes, for the temperature of a location on the surface to actually rise from 732K to 737K there would need to be over 16,000W/m^2 if radiation were what was raising the temperature. But it’s not. And radiation from a colder troposphere cannot raise the surface temperature one iota.
What does supply the necessary thermal energy to the Venus surface is downward convective heat transfer which is acting in accord with the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics whereby entropy is increasing and there is a propensity towards thermodynamic equilibrium.
The Sun’s radiation reaching Venus can only raise the temperature of regions that are at temperatures less than about 400K in the upper troposphere and above. From there the energy is transferred downwards, but not by radiation as that would violate the Second Law.
People like James Hansen had absolutely no concept of the new 21st century developments in our understanding of entropy. Nor have most readers here I suspect, so you could all start here from which I quote …
“The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, along with the first law of thermodynamics comprise the most fundamental laws of physics. Entropy (the subject of the second law) and energy (the subject of the first law) and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life (biology, evolutionary theory, ecology), cognition (psychology). According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a ‘law of disorder’. The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the “law of maximum entropy production” or “MEP” and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws. This site provides basic texts, articles, links, and references that take the reader from the classical views of thermodynamics in simple terms, to today’s new and richer understanding.”
This has been bugging me for a while. This is the plot of HadSST for NH and SH. The monthly data are compressed so they show the three month average starting from Dec of 1989 (seasonal average).
As the anomalies are for the difference from the long term average for that month, no seasonal variability is seen for the SH data and the NH data until 2003, when the two deviate from each other.
Another problem is the satellite data. I don’t know why the correlation would come out so good before 2002. The same can be seen in UAH.
Since RSS and UAH are fairly close to each other (no obvious problem in RSS), any problems would be in data coming from NASA.
You should never attribute to a conspiracy what could be due to plain old incompetence but the step up in maximum temperatures around 2000 here in Aus after an instrument change suggests that it was known that the world would cool rather than just pause after 2000.
Has someone at the BOM been deleting data? Back on 23 Feb 2015, we were discussing Cyclone Marcia: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/category-five-storms-arent-what-they-used-to-be/
At the time the Bureau of Meteorlogy (BOM) was claiming that Cyclone Marcia was a category 5 cyclone when it crossed the coast, north of Yeppoon (as far as I know they still claim it was a category 5).
The cyclone passed close to BOM ground stations at: Middle Percy Is, Williamson, Samuel Hill, Yeppoon and Rockhampton.
At the time I looked at the BOM data under “Latest Observations”. The data can be accessed from the BOM site for all the ground stations in Australia, as well as off shore islands and bases in Antarctica. Data is published every half hour, or more frequently if there has been a sudden change (eg wind speed during a cyclone) and is available for the previous 72 hours. After that the daily extremes are transferred to “Daily Weather Observations”,
I noted (or thought I noted) that data which had previously been available a few hours earlier for Middle Percy Island and Samuel Hill had been disappeared!
This was subsequently confirmed by Jennifer Marohasy, who had printed out the Latest Observations for Middle Percy Island. The printout showed that the data had been recorded up to at least 5:19am on 20 Feb, by which time the peak of cyclone had passed by. The highest wind gust was 208km/h recorded at 04:19. That is the highest gust speed recorded. On that observation Cyclone Marcia was a category 3 cyclone. AY that time it had not crossed the coast. It seems to have weakened rapidly after that.
The currently available Daily Weather Observations for Middle Percy indicate that the data stopped sometime after 3pm on 19 Feb. The max gust speed on 20 Feb does not appear. The data stream was restored on Monday 23 Feb sometime before 9am.
In the case of Samuel Hill data seems to have been lost from sometime on 20 Feb after 3pm and not restored until 8 Mar at 04:30pm.
I find that I had also printed out a record for Samuel Hill which shows that data was available up until at least midnight on 22 Feb 2015. At that time conditions were recorded as calm.
Yeppoon is also missing data from 20-23 Feb.
Wind speed data from these 3 stations seem to be critical to the assessment of the strength of Cyclone Marcia.
The sites at Williamson and Rockhampton do not show any interruption to the data, even though we know (From Tony for Aus) that Rockhampton was without electrical power for days following the cyclone.
Site, Maximum gust
Williamson, 106kph
Rockhampton, 113
So we have a situation where data was available on the public record, but now it is gone. Why would the BOM do that?
The BOM does make this general note on observations:
Notes to accompany Daily Weather Observations
…..
Data availability
These observations have been taken from the Bureau of Meteorology’s “real time” system. Most of the data are generated and handled automatically. Some quality checking has been performed, but it is still possible for erroneous values to appear.
From time to time, observations will not be available, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes when the daily maximum and minimum temperatures, rainfall or evaporation are missing
Short answer appears to be “yes”.
However, many of us collected the hourly readings from the key stations as the event unfolded, and at least one person did full screen captures, so it is all retrievable.
I check on JCU Cyclone Testing Station from time to time: https://www.jcu.edu.au/cts/
There is an interim report. I was a staff member at JCU Engineering, and I keep in touch. I ended up being the Building Officer (Statutory) for a nearby local council, and cooperated with CTS staff in checks of building approvals for compliance with design wind speeds.
By now, I can understand how some of you would be heartily sick and tired of my coming here and speaking out against rooftop solar power, but it makes me furious when I read what some people say about it. They always tell us of the absolute best of everything, how the panels produce so much power, sometimes more than they are rated at, that they are lasting longer than what is claimed, they still produce prodigious amounts of power after years of use, how they have batteries which will last well beyond the recommended timeframe and cost so little, and are getting cheaper, none of it true, how their returns are so big, how they make more power than they consume in their homes, and unwittingly gloat that their returns pay for their other non solar consumption, without realising that it is the rest of us paying for their luxury.
When I point out these things, THEY are the ones who then get angry and tell ME that I’m telling lies.
OK, then, let’s look at it from another angle.
In reality, I suppose it is a crowd funded power plant. There are now around 1.5 million of these rooftop systems installed across Australia. The average installation is now up around 2.5KW, and when all added up this gives quite a large total power installation, coming in at around 3.8GW, or 3800MW, which when looked at in this respect is in fact quite large, and is almost the same as for 2 large scale coal fired power plants. It’s always this seemingly large Nameplate figure which is quoted.
But, as I have always said it’s not the Nameplate, but the actual power delivered for consumption, and when those figures are looked at, it’s almost pitiful how little power is generated and how even more pitiful the amount of power returned to grids, and it’s not a localised grid for say even half a State, as with a major power plant, but this pitifully small amount is spread across the whole of Australia. That power delivered is at a Capacity Factor of 13% at best, and here I’m being conservative and bumping that up a bit, because while some places in the North might manage as high as 15%, the units in the South, Victoria and South Australia might only average 11% and in Tasmania, some as low as 9%. So, when calculating power delivery, then this CF needs to be taken into account. That’s not my using a guess for that CF, but in fact the actual Standard for power calculation, taken across the full 12 Months, not just in the best case clear days of Mid Summer, but for the whole 12 Month period.
So, 3,800MW at 13%, the power delivery now comes in at only an equivalent of 494MW, and I’ll round that up to 500MW. Consider now that between one half and two thirds of that power is being consumed by the residence where those panels are fitted depending on the size of the unit. I’ve actually been told that people having these systems have been advised to try and move the bulk of their power usage in the home to after hours, so they can maximise return from their rooftop installation. So now, only one part of that power is being fed back to the grids, spread across all Australia. So now we have the equivalent of only 165MW to 250MW at most is being fed to the grid. It’ll be more in Mid Summer, but an awful lot less in Winter. Because it is widespread across the whole of Australia, this power at individual grids amounts to all but nothing really, and would not be relied upon by any grid controller who wants to keep his job. Even that part of the power consumed by the homes themselves amounts to very little.
All of that is just dead boring, the actual data for power generation. Who really cares about that eh?
So, let’s look at the money.
1.5 Million installations. Crowd sourced funding. The average cost for an installed 2.5KW unit is around $6000. The range is from around $5K to almost $7K. Now some of you may question this cost when you see these units advertised for as low as $3.5K, but go to those costings and note that most of them do not include the installation cost, and that quoted price is just for the system itself.
So, 1.5 Million systems at $6K, so straight up, there’s $9 Billion.
$9 BILLION ….. for what is basically only a 500MW power plant. Any other power plant and there would be screams of derision, screams of outright incredulity at the enormous cost.
That’s the crowd sourced funding part of it. Look at the Government subsidy paid for those systems. The average system for all this is 2.5KW and the Government funded subsidy for that is $1,900, so, with 1.5 million installations, there’s $2.85 Billion, and that’s basically for the useless power fed back to the grids, or for the equivalent of only a 165MW to 250MW power plant.
What about that FIT. While now reduced in nearly all States, those existing units are still receiving their exorbitant FIT, ranging from 32 cents per KWH up to 44 cents per KWH, and their contracts stipulate that they will get this until 2024, another ten years. There’s no firm data on what is actually the total fed back to the grid, so we can only guess (even if roughly calculated) but it would not be unreasonable to say that the FIT amount, (varying in different States, so again no way to calculate an average) but it could be up to $1 Billion and probably North of that even. There’s no altruism in this on the part of the power retailers, as they just pass that full amount down to every other consumer by increasing the overall cost of the electricity provided from the grid.
WE, all the electricity consumers pay for that, for those people to make what is basically an economic decision only, as there’s nothing at all in this about saving us from CO2 emissions of coal fired power, which it doesn’t do anyway, as this tiny amount of power does not lower the output of one coal fired plant. And virtually all of that cost is passed down to residential consumers only as consumers in the Commerce and Industry sectors pay locked in contractual prices for their electricity consumption.
Give the people who have rooftop panels installed the same price as retailers pay for the electricity they buy at wholesale from existing traditional power plants, and see how many systems get sold then. Not very many would be my guess.
Rooftop solar power is all but useless in overall power generation, delivers tiny and basically unused electricity back to grids, and costs an enormous amount of money, all of it paid for by those of us who cannot afford to take advantage of what can only be described as an economic decision for those who can afford it.
If they want rooftop solar, let them do it correctly. Go off the grid. The cost for that is enormous, and ongoing, with battery replacement the largest ongoing cost for that, and trust me, batteries are NOT getting cheaper.
It does nothing for the overall electricity consumption as it is only a very small part of RESIDENTIAL consumption only, and that sector is only 28% of overall consumption. The total yearly power generated by rooftop solar and actually used by those 1.5 million installations comes in around 3TWH which is around 1.3% of total Australian power generation. It’s a niche amount at absolute best, will not increase by very much more than that, and it’s only for those who can afford it, and have the rest of us pay for it.
THAT’S what makes me angry.
Incidentally, I said way back at the top of this Comment that the Nameplate is almost equal to two large scale coal fired power plants, Well, that approximate total of 3TWH returned to the grids from rooftop solar is delivered by just one plant, Bayswater in around 60 days, from 1.5 million tiny power plants which actually destabilise the grids they are feeding, and you wonder why States are having to gold plate their power grids.
Keep up the pressure. Ms Palaszczuk wants to see a lot more of this junk.
Maybe send something off to a few State reps? A few years ago I emailed a report on domestic rainwater tanks to a few reps and a couple of mandarins. The report contained results from a process model that “ran” a harvesting system based on adjustable tank size, roof area, and usage rates against daily rainfall figures along with logic tests for tank empty/tank full. Eventually the Queensland Development Code was changed from compulsory with opt out to not compulsory with opt in.
Tony I kept going back to the previous Weekend Unthreaded as I considered it one of the best genuine robust debates on rooftop solar I’ve seen yet, it’s unfortunate the sheeple won’t ever read it.
For me the clincher is always your final comparisons as in your final paragraph above, without any of the emotional or wishful thinking those figures never lie do they?
Disclaimer/ unless those figures are input for an IPCC CGM.
What always gets me is how they think that rooftop solar is making a difference in the wider area of power consumption.
Rooftop solar provides for an all but insignificant section of just Residential power consumption, and the total consumption across all of that sector is only 28% in total of ALL power consumption from the three sectors, Residential, Commerce and Industrial.
Because it is grid connected, it’s total delivery (both for the homes themselves and the useless amount fed back to the grid) that total generation is only for daylight hours, and if you look at a typical power generation curve, (and one is shown at this link, and I have purposely used the best one I can find for a bright clear mid summer day) you’ll see that it really has no effect at all until mid morning and then drops off in the mid afternoon. All you get is small amounts of power for a few hours around midday, and that’s for only the smallest fraction of 28% in total for consumption.
The rest of the 72% gets its REAL power from sources which can actually supply REAL power and do it for the full 24 hours of EVERY day.
Rooftop solar has ….. NO EFFECT whatsoever in wider consumption, and only tiny effect in that Residential sector.
Tony,
you forgot to mention the variability of solar power, shown quite clearly in your linked website. At any point output can suddenly drop, March 7, 2015 has numerous 2000kW+ spikes, recovering shortly after. The sudden drop and subsequent recovery needs to be managed in some way. It must present real problems for the grid.
those dips you see (and some of them are substantial) are clouds passing across the face of the Sun.
This UQ system is one of the largest non commercial solar installations in Australia, most probably funded from the Government funding to Universities, and most probably also in receipt of a Government grant as well.
Even so, this huge (by ordinary rooftop standards) installation still only manages just on 14% Capacity Factor.
I’ll answer my own question. The Redflow M90 system is rated at 90kW/240kWh. According to an SMH article from 2012 it costs around $1000/kWh, so the UQ system cost around a quarter of a million dollars for the battery system alone. This excludes the 340kW solar panel array.
According to the case study it provides a load shift capability, discharging completely over a 2.5 hour period in the afternoon, covering the afternoon peak. Presumably evening, night and early morning demand must be met by the grid.
Redflow states the battery handles discharge depth to 100%. I couldn’t find any indication of expected battery life.
Interesting stuff but I’d really like to see a more detailed cost breakdown. Doubt there would be much change out of a half a million dollars in CAPEX, have no idea what the OPEX would be.
In any case, one cannot – illegal due to safety considerations
Living the green dream is for MSM puff pieces, albeit that these are eagerly swallowed by those who refuse analytical objectivity (as I’ve noted, a majority, a bare majority perhaps)
The issue that makes me laugh out loud is when those who have installed and boast about solar panels and batteries are asked what rated appliances they actually run off batteries after dark and for what period. Never have I seen an honest reply to that question – disturbs their smugness
TonyfromOz.
“When I point out these things, THEY are the ones who then get angry and tell ME that I’m telling lies.”
~ ~ ~
A dear friend recently installed solar panels, watching the meter everyday, disappointed he didn’t get in when the tariff was higher.
I sent him these emails, which point out pitfalls in the quackery:
ABC: Solar power inquiry conducted by Senate to shine spotlight on complaints with retailers
Regarding the costs of renewable power. The ACT government has made a big commitment to using renewable power. Recent contract rates for renewable power:
For comparison, spot rates for Coal are generally in the range $30-40/MWh. So renewable power costs 3-6 times that from coal fired power stations. And you wonder why the power bills keep going up.
* – feed in tariff, not adjusted for transmission losses to ACT
Big Dave:
Thanks.
Now if only Rick Will from last week would read this. He believes wind is only $23 a MWh, but he doesn’t know what EBITDA means.
I notice all 3 wind farms are yet to be built, and have to supply for 20 years. That time will strain the maintenance budget as they try to make the turbines work that long at a good capacity.
You are comparing apples and oranges because the coal power is continuous and the solar power is sporadic. If you want to compare power sources then you must adjust for all value parameters of the energy source. This means that you must assume storage for the solar power of the minimum to make it coal equivalent in reliability which is 24 hours, and then you need to use the minimum sustainable output over that period as the capacity.
You are playing the warmists game if you take the maximum capacity of a solar sytem and multiply it by 0.13. It assumes the best possible utilisation which never happens. For example in Victoria you might get a capacity factor of 0.11 annualised, but over winter you would be lucky to get 0.04. Your system has to be designed to cope with the worst possible conditions – not the best, hence the politicians whinging about gold plating… What’s the alternative, communities getting kicked off the grid whenever there’s a dull day. Is that acceptable? You bet its not!
Whenever the local pollie starts whining about gold plated electricity assets – just remind him of the biggest gold plating of all – rooftop solar.
Hi Bobl,
agree with what you’ve said. Would like to add that there are not a lot of options when it comes to energy storage at the grid level. Purdue University has published an excellent paper on a range of technologies.
Bottom line is that pumped hydro is the only realistic solution to large scale energy storage at the present time. Compressed air and exotic batteries are examined but are not really viable right now. Rud Istvan had some interesting things to say regarding grid storage legislation coming up in California.
In Venezuela, fuel coasts less than 1cent per liter.
Great in the city, but in small towns like Santa Elena where there is only one petrol station, cars are parked in a line the night before it opens for over a kilometer, just to get gasolina.
As one of our taxi drivers said, your not paying for the coast of fuel when you take a cab, your paying for his time to fill up.
Oil, like a lot of things in Venezuela, is nationalised, so the service stations are government controlled. And at less than 1cent per liter, it wouldn’t be the best of business ventures anyhow.
The entire economy is up the clapper, with long cues for even the most basic products like toilet paper and a currency that is seen on the world market as worthless. They can’t import anything with their currency, so the government trades fuel with countries like China for goods. I guess that is one saving grace, being one of the worlds top oil producers.
But a worthless currency is bonus for anyone bringing in US dollars to trade on the black market. The Venezuelan government gives an official rate of about US$1 – 6Bs (Bolivias), but on the street, you can trade greenbacks at anywhere from 150 -220Bs per $1, depending on what area of the country you are in. This brings the coast of everything down considerably, hotels that should coast $200 or so per night down to about $6 or $7 per night. The same is with food, transport and anything else you need to pay for,it becomes an incredibly inexpensive country to travel through. But if you are Venezuelan, you have 40 – 60% inflation rate, a scarcity of supply and one of the highest crime rates in all of South America.
End of rant
There’s still a $5,000 reward on offer if you can prove me wrong in my paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures and produce a study of temperature and precipitation data (similar to that in the paper) but which proves water vapour warms as the IPCC claims by at least 15 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere.
Water vapor lowers the gradient by inter-molecular radiation and so the thermal plot rotates downwards at the surface end. Hence water vapour cools the surface but actually makes the temperature warmer at the top of Mt Everest, which is only 4 degrees out of the tropics and more than half way up the troposphere. See the page Slaying the Slayers in our group’s website.
However this is the same Harrison Ford that that appeared in the CAGW propaganda drivel “Years of living dangerously” where he sincerely warns and pleads with humans to stop our evil CO2 polluting ways or we’re all doomed, really?
Harrison Ford owns a fleet of aircraft, vintage cars and motorcycles, an 800 acre ranch in Jackson a waterfront property on Bowen Island BC, a net worth of $210 million and once again we have a Hollywood hypocrite talking the talk but never walking the walk.
From someone who’s so passionate about saving the planet from dangerous emissions we get the quote from 2010 “I’m so passionate about flying, I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger.”
I believe those old “Hand Solo” jokes were ironically correct in a preemptive personality predictive way.
I bet this doesn’t get a run on the ABC or in any other Australian media but it is probably / possibly a more than significant sign of the times and indicates a coming end to the utter hypocrisy, madness and imbecility of the climate science academic and green elite together with all their ignorant bigoted running dogs in the media.
Not to mention the unthinking, unquestioning ignorance of the useful fools who can’t even think for themselves and so get conned into so called climate change demonstrations.
Seems the Swiss have had enough of the climate change c**p and as is quite usual for the Swiss, have refused to part with their precious Swiss Franks on any grounds that can’t be demonstrated as being directly related to their personal well being and benefit.
Take a look at that percentage ! Looks like THE END IS NEAR in western Europe, the center of the entire global warming ideology and religious faith.
Our politicals should be made fully aware of this Swiss outcome on the voting for their proposed carbon tax.
From the GWPF “Green Fiasco: 92% Of Swiss Voters Reject Carbon Tax In Referendum –
[quoted]
Swiss voters Sunday overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that would have scrapped the Alpine country’s value-added-tax system and replaced it with a carbon tax, a move that would have made gasoline, heating oil and other forms of power more expensive for consumers.
Roughly 92% of voters opposed the initiative, known as “Energy Rather than VAT,” while 8% supported the measure, according to preliminary results from 13 of the country’s 26 cantons.
The initiative would have encouraged Swiss households to use renewable energy sources, including solar and wind, which would have been exempt from taxes. The initiative, which was introduced by the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland, was designed to help lower carbon emissions and reduce global warming.
The Swiss cabinet had recommended voters reject the proposal because it would likely have caused a falloff in revenue for the federal government. The current VAT tax, which ranges from 2.5% to 8%, generated income of 22.6 billion Swiss francs ($22.92 billion) for the federal government in 2013, according to government data.
The initiative was backed by the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland and supported by the Green Party of Switzerland, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace Switzerland.
[ / ]
I guess the Greens, WWF and Greenpeace are learning that you can’t get easy access to other peoples money anymore, well the Swiss at least LOL.
Let’s hope others take the same tact and treat these parasites like economical pariah’s, in the future I’d like to take the tambourine of a Greenpeace beggar and wrap it over their head without being publically vilified in the MSM.
2) Although I find much to like in the Swiss concept of citizen-initiated referenda, you need to look at the record of what happened when the Swiss Govt got a referendum result it didn’t like (although in this CO2 tax case, the Govt advised a NO vote and overwhelmingly got it)
I didn’t mention the “EU” but referred to “Europe”.
So without going in and doing much research, I would gather that the Swiss won’t be signing on for any international agreements to “Stop” [ ?? ] Global Warming / Climate Change at the 2015 Paris COP [ “Conference Of Parties”; number 21 ].
Nor I gather will the Poles be signing on or only doing so to look good if they know the whole Paris thing will be null and void before it is over.
And possibly not Australia if Tony Abbott and a good section of the LNP have a say.
Canada probably not either as they backed out of Kyoto a few years ago.
Obama will likely sign but like the Kyoto agreement, it will be refused ratification by Congress and / or the Senate and therefore will be null and void from the American perspective which might suit Obama perfectly as the image will look good but the dirty work is being done by somebody else that he can and most definitely will blame in a bid to scupper the Republicans at the next election.
The Republicans will merely point out that they saved America from a destructive progressive set of policies that Obama acquiesced to and which did nothing but further enriched the small time kleptocrats of the third world to nobodies advantage and handed over even more power to the power accumulating kleptocrats of the UN to America’s great disadvantage.
The American Congress and Senate are getting very touchy about the UN’s attempted power accumulation and attempted intrusions into American life at every level.
As an example not related to anything climate; ;Senate GOP Kills Controversial UN Disability Treaty
India won’t sign if India has to comply with anything at all that will limit its options for future development.
A number of minor players might refuse to sign unless there is a watertight agreement to hand over of very large lumps of [ western ] developed world cash [ $100 billion US’ annually is the demand ] with no limits on the way that cash is to be spent or kleptorised [ if such a word construct exists! ]
China will sign if the get out of jail card is freely available for the Chinese to use entirely at their own discretion and if and when they want to use it at any level they might choose.
And if the snow comes down again in late November in the USA and Europe or even just one of those, the big time UN COP 2015 that was going to “fix” the global climate and “STOP global warming” will be from the climate activists/ greens / watermelon perspective, nothing more than another another truly disastrous rehash of Copenhagen 2009 and probably the end of the line for the global,warming / climate change cult ideology.
[ To use the term again! The utter imbecility of trying to STOP “climate change” is almost beyond any rational understanding and demonstrates a profound ignorance and total divorce from the realities of climate and weather that can only come from a totally irrational mind set that is totally fixated to the point of a complete mental paranoi on the highly destructive to human well being, the climate cult’s deadly humanity destroying ideology.
I didn’t mention the “EU” but referred to “Europe”
Self-evident
My point is that Switzerland is not controlled by Brussels bureaucrats; the Swiss will need to be bribed in some other way. It may be objectively interesting to watch how. Despite the referendum result (ie. VAT vs CO2 tax), trust not the Swiss Govt
I have strong doubts that a Paris “failure” will be the Last of the Mohicans – this has been said for each failed annual attempt but each year again another attempt is mounted with all the pompous panoply of the Roman Emperors
I think on balance the war against this insanity is lost to the overwhelming PR onslaught of the MSM (a few battles may still be won), but what may yet prove me wrong is probably best summarised as hard resistance to loss of sovereignty and national treasure. Very difficult to persuade a populace to just give these away
Judith Curry’s / Climate Etc’s latest offering ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom
[ Original article ; Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom]
which I confess I have only rapidly scanned through in the last few minutes, is a fairly recent and trending pattern of a growing analysis on what is the continuing driver of the global warming / climate change ideological cult and the science that purportedly supports this cult like faith.
This analytical trend is only something that has surfaced in academic literature within the last few months and I think heralds a rethink and a possibly about face within the not so different future as the psychology of the funders, the science and political bureaucracies, the herd instincts of much of science, the complete failure of the research, the failure of the activists to convince the increasing bulk of the general public , the failure of political supporting apparatus tom,influence the public in the direction it wants the climate change meme to go and the increasingly distaste for much of the environmentalists NGOs and their increasingly mafia like disposition and tactics and strategy.
All of which has started to unravel as the Climate Science boom runs out of steam through a combination of incompetence and increasingly acknowledged corruption and highly questionable manipulation of the basic recorded data in the actual science exemplified by the total failure of ALL the catastrophic predictions arising from any so called any immeasureable, human created global warming.
We have and are constantly exposed to the sheer grating stridency of the climate activists which is enough to slowly turn most people off,
the constancy of beating around the head that the ordinary citizen has taken for his / her supposed sinning against the so called climate for not adhering to the dictates of the climate science activists and innumerable hanger ons and the dishonesty and immorality of the climate science troughers.
The sheer scale of the utter waste of accumulated societal wealth on totally impotent items such as de-salination plants, wind turbines that don’t work for more than a few hours at the most each day. solar panels where neighbours see and hear of relatively well off persons in their community collecting large amounts of money from solar panel subsidies while their own power costs climb inexorably skywards for which they see absolutely no benefit to then personally what so ever despite the higher power costs and many other common factors.
All of which slowly add up to drive an increasing community awareness that they might just be getting thoroughly conned into something that has no benefit for them, that costs each of them a rather increasing amount compared to their income and is possibly just a bloody great big con by some highly placed ivory towered academics and politicals who wouldn’t know what a Climate was even if it hit them full on in the face.
[ It is very interesting to read the history of the rise of the Siclian Mafia and then compare the parallels in the [ unfinished ] rise in the power and in the increasingly malevolent influence and tactics of Greenpeace, the WWF and other environmental NGO’. ]
All of the above plus much, much more is now starting to seriously erode the whole political, green climate activist. climate alarmist science basis of the entire CAGW meme.
The articles whose links I quoted above delve into this slow disintegration of the belief in the global warming ideology typified by previous episodes of a similar supposedly science based booms that over time just collapsed and failed, They failed as both the supporting science was proven to be discredited or was just plain corrupted and deadly wrong and the costs to the public of that science was proven to be a complete waste of resources and of no benefit to anybody except to the insiders who made a mockery of scientific disinterest and impartiality by leeching every dollar they could from the public purse.
And in the end was ultimately proven to be highly deleterious to the overall benefit of society.
To quote a couple of paras from Climate Etc’s post [ and article; link above ]
Abstract.
Scientific disciplines, like economies, can and do experience booms and busts.
We document a boom in climate science, sustained by massive levels of funding by government entities, whose scientific direction is set by an extra-scientific organization, the IPCC, which has emerged as a “big player” in the scientific arena, championing the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
We note the difficulties in obtaining definitive empirical clarity due to the complex nature of climate, the feedback between the effects of the IPCC’s advocacy and the government’s willingness to fund the science, the ideological and political agendas at play, the dangers to the integrity of scientific procedure in the context of ideological bias, and the poor performance of the “crony capitalist” enterprises that have grown on the back of politicized science.
&
So, funding by itself, even if directed to favor one hypothesis over another, is not the problem; the problem arises when the provision of funding allows for or even encourages the continuation of research and publication activities which undermine the operation of the feedback inherent in the standard procedures of science – feedback which performs the scientific analog of profit and loss in assessing the scientific value of publications and in furthering the scientific reputations of their authors.
&
From the original paper [ link above ]
Introduction;
Recent science booms (and ensuing busts) in the US include the boom in space science and some related disciplines in the aftermath of the 1957 Sputnik launch and the boom in computer science prompted by the Japanese “Fifth Generation” project in 1984. These were relatively short-lived phenomena, and the busts came when political interest (and funding) waned, due to the purported crisis no longer being seen as a pressing concern.
More comparable to the situation in climate science would be the long-lasting scientific booms in eugenics and in nutrition science.
[2] The eugenics boom, although very adequately funded, came to an end with the exposure of the eugenics-inspired atrocities of the Nazis, and the nutrition science boom has slowly (and quietly) given way to the gradual accumulation of empirical evidence difficult to fit within the government-favored hypothesis.
In both of these cases, the object of scientific study was, like the climate (and the economy), a complex system which is not susceptible to the precision of empirical testing possible on simpler physical systems.
Our exposition of the causes and consequences of the climate science boom proceeds as follows:
[ more ]
QUESTION: how long does it take for BOM to declare which Category Marcia was, whether at Shoalwater or anywhere else in Queensland?
what is being emphasised by MSM is how Marcia strengthened –
-from a Category One to a Category Four system in just 10 hours- (Sky News, 3 March)
nothing beats the politics, though. hence the inference these farmers were hit by a Cat5 cyclone, & the PM is heartless, unlike our Premier:
5 March: ABC: Tropical Cyclone Marcia: Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk urges PM to lend farmers more support
Friday marks three weeks since Tropical Cyclone Marcia slammed into the coast as a category five system.
Among those still cleaning up in the wake of the storm are farmers…
They are currently eligible for Category B disaster help …
but Ms Palaszczuk said Canberra had delayed signing off on the next level of assistance measures.
She said she had a conversation with Mr Abbott about allowing Category C disaster relief payments, which were usually considered once the impacts of the disaster on affected communities had been assessed.
Category C assistance is requested from the states and requires agreement from the Prime Minister.
***But a spokeswoman for the Federal Government said Mr Abbott had responded to a letter from Ms Palaszczuk, saying Queensland authorities had been asked to provide more information about the extent of the damage.
“I am calling on the Prime Minister – show compassion, show leadership, step up to the plate and start delivering for central Queensland,” Ms Palaszczuk said.
“I have met with families today in tears – their livelihoods have gone… http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/annastacia-palaszczuk-calls-on-tony-abbott-for-more-support/6284508
meanwhile, in recent days, the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin’s Amy Haydock has run stories about residents in Emu Park & Lammermoor, both south of Yeppoon, being hit by a Cat 5 cyclone, & the alarmism has already begun about Qld possibly facing Cyclone Nathan “as low looms large” by the end of the week.
BOM – your time is up. what Category was TC Marcia?
i fully understand some people don’t want to argue over what Category Marcia was, but here’s a Cat 5 that i lived through – though hundreds of people sadly didn’t.
yes, many of the homes, including my own, were not sturdy, but my corrugated zinc roof was secured beforehand & stayed in place (no damage to the house either).
however, hundreds of roofs were flying through the air & posing a danger to anyone foolish enough to remain outside, as houses fell all around.
for me, and the poor, but resilient, people of Montego Bay & Jamaica, it was nonetheless an exhilirating experience & people picked up the pieces, helped one another out, put the houses back in order, & got on with their lives. it was simply Mother Nature doing her thing.
Wikipedia: Hurricane Gilbert
Hurricane Gilbert was an extremely powerful tropical cyclone that formed during the 1988 Atlantic hurricane season and brought widespread destruction to the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. It was the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic basin, until Hurricane Wilma surpassed it during 2005. Gilbert was also one of the largest tropical cyclones ever observed in the Atlantic basin. At one point, its tropical storm-force winds measured 588 mi (946 km) in diameter…
On September 10, Gilbert attained hurricane intensity, and rapidly intensified into a Category 3 hurricane on September 11. After striking Jamaica the following day, rapid intensification occurred once again, and the storm became a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale late on September 13…
Gilbert wreaked havoc in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico for nearly nine days. In total, it killed 433 people and caused about $7.1 billion (1988 USD) in damages over the course of its path. As a result of the extensive damage caused by Gilbert, the World Meteorological Organization retired the name in the spring of 1989; it was replaced with Gordon…
Hurricane Gilbert produced a 19 ft (5.8 m) storm surge and brought up to 823 millimetres (32.4 in) of rain in the mountainous areas of Jamaica, causing inland flash flooding. 49 people died. Prime Minister Edward Seaga stated that the hardest hit areas near where Gilbert made landfall looked “like Hiroshima after the atom bomb.” The storm left $4 billion (1988 USD) in damage from destroyed crops, buildings, houses, roads, and small aircraft…
More than 100,000 houses were destroyed or damaged and the country’s banana crop was largely destroyed. Hundreds of miles of roads and highways were also heavily damaged…
The poultry industry was also wiped out; the damage from agricultural loss reached $500 million (1988 USD). Hurricane Gilbert was the most destructive storm in the history of Jamaica and the most severe storm since Hurricane Charlie in 1951. Till this day Jamaica is still rebuilding some parts…
Aftermath, Retirement & Records
The overall property damage was estimated at $7.1 billion (1988 USD)…
A final count of Hurricane Gilbert’s victims is not possible because many people remained missing in Mexico, but the total confirmed death toll was 433 people. Gilbert was the worst hurricane in the history of Jamaica and the most destructive tropical cyclone on record to strike Mexico…
The destruction in Jamaica was so heavy that Lovindeer, one of the country’s leading dance hall DJs, released a single called Wild Gilbert a few days after the storm. It was the fastest selling reggae record in the history of Jamaican music… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gilbert
“Wild Gilbert” – Lovindeer
A devastating hurricane named “Gilbert” ravaged Jamaica on September 12, 1988. And as most Jamaicans do in the face of hardships and tragedy they sing about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8flDlixo4KA
Today’s email to most Australian federal politicians …
Australia should be sick of UN garbage about carbon dioxide’s alleged warming
Dear PM Abbott and other politicians
Can you imagine a vortex cooling tube suddenly just not working? The tube has no working parts. Yet, when air is sent spiraling down the tube the centrifugal force splits it into colder and hotter streams. So too does the force of gravity split a planet’s troposphere as it produces a temperature gradient. That is why the surface temperature is hotter than the average a few kilometres up in the atmosphere. Back radiation from water vapour and carbon dioxide is NOT the reason. You can read more at http://climate-change-theory.com or in my book below. There are also links to my two peer-reviewed papers in that website now endorsed by our group of persons suitably qualified in physics.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A.(econ), Dip.Bus.Admin
As far as I am aware there is only one brand of pure electric car that has a range of over 400 kilometres on a single charge of batteries, the US made Tesla sedan and sports. They cost at least double what a luxury car with conventional internal combustion engine costs and if the US Government did not subsidise production costs the retail price would be a lot more. In my opinion they are like wind turbines, too expensive and not an efficient use of my money. With the latest technology even small petrol engines are offering 3-6 litres per 100 Kilometres of highway conditions driving and the cost to buy is averaging below A$30K and some closer to A$20K. Common rail intercooler turbo diesels are similar, I have a 7-seat AWD SUV with a 2.2 Litre Diesel that consistently averages (computer results) 6-7 Litres per 100 Kilometres highway and country town driving and towing a caravan 9-10 Litres per 100 Kilometres. The vehicle cost me with fleet owners discount and buying a December build in April of the next year $30K.
I cannot see electric cars being practical even for city motoring conditions for most people. And hybrids are too expensive, for example a Mitsubishi hybrid SUV costs about $45K and the petrol fuel consumption is no better than my SUV provides.
The turning point would of course be if batteries are more efficient, lighter, faster to charge and less expensive. And with battery replacement stations where the battery tray is removed and replaced without the driver waiting for re-charge. And microwave charging points located in public carpark spaces. But the cost of new infrastructure would be prohibitive until there is a real fossil fuel/oil crisis.
John Hewson apparently never got over being denied the opportunity to be prime minister in 1993 when his Fightback economic plan was rejected at the federal election won by Labor led by PM Keating. Ever since he has behaved like a spoiler towards the Liberal Party and most who dared to become leader. He is of course another personal wealth creator who wants an ETS, a mate of Malcolm Turnbull and associates. Hewson was not born wealthy, his father as I recall it was a tradesman, and despite a humble start in life he has made a success of his working life.
How he and people like him can conveniently ignore the truth about natural climate change, Earth cycles, and promote self indulgent schemes that increase the cost of living for all people, and for businesses that contribute to national prosperity, suggests not a nice person. There are other descriptions that I leave to your imagination.
I can’t wait for the curtain to drop exposing the rotten act behind climate change gravy train agenda.
In the Google Thread, someone was talking about the proposed ETS legislation in the U.S. the one which ultimately failed to get through and was dropped.
I’m not sure, but I think the commenter was looking for the legislation, and Google was, umm, hiding it, or had dropped it.
Originally, I did have access to it via one of the sponsors of the bill, and it was at his home site. That was John Kerry, as the bill was referred to as the Kerry Lieberman Bill, and artfully called The American Power Act. Kerry dropped the Bill from his site after it failed and I lost track of it as it was no real biggie for me, as I had already spent so much time trawling through it, because, at the time, I was asked to do some Posts at my home site on it.
I did those Posts (in May of 2010) and when it was dropped, I had no real need to see it again. I mean, at 987 pages, it was hard yakka to trawl through it. It dealt with an ETS, CCS, Renewable power etc, and on and on and on.
Anyway, having lost it myself, and then seeing it again as a Comment here at Joanne’s site, my interest was piqued, so I spent some time and went looking for it, and actually ended up finding it. (aint the Internet grand eh!)
For anyone (right Tony, as if) who wants to see it, it’s at this link, and be careful it’s a 987 page pdf document.
Would it surprise any of you to know how close Kevin Rudd’s ETS was to this legislation, and, umm, cut and paste comes immediately to mind.
The first of my own Posts in that series is at the following link, and at the bottom of that Post are the further links to others parts in that series. I was mainly interested in the ETS part of it, CCS, and Renewable Power aspects.
We all seem to be the serf fools every day of every month. When oH when are the torches oiled enough, and the pitchforks sharpened enough, to actually wade through this SH*T? Sorry Jo 🙂
Incidentally, the search engine wording I used was ‘Kerry Lieberman American Power Act’.
It was the second from top link and in the first line after taking that link there it was linked to with the wording ‘comprehensive bill’.
Without knowing the title of the actual bill you’d probably be hard pressed to find it, and the Kerry Lieberman was just an added something no one here in Oz would even think of.
Folks in Queensland, keep an eye to the weather. Looks like you have a storm coming that has the potential to be stronger than the last one. And it also looks like possibly two, one smaller one forming near the coast and a larger one getting its act together farther out to sea.
I have a question about a claim concerning climate models. The claim is this: climate models cannot track recent global warming without factoring in CO2 forcing.
(I know the claim is preposterous: the models can’t track past or present temperature changes very well no matter what factors they include.)
My question is: where did this claim originate? I see it fairly often. For instance, journalist Steve Connor lobbed it at Freeman Dyson a few years back: “Computer models have shown that the increase in global temperatures can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (5).” Dyson rejected the claim, of course, with a single word: No.
I suspect its origins lie all the way back in the 1990s. Any ideas? Thanks.
I think it is a kind of affirming the consequent. Those making the claim seem to simply ignore the possibility that the models are doing what they say they’re doing because (1) the models drastically underestimate natural forces, and (2) drastically overestimate the effect of increasing CO2. That we don’t actually understand how natural forces affect climate seems not to occur to them.
It would be interesting to know when the first form of this circular reasoning appeared. It may be even earlier than the 90s.
Total shock on my part. 😮
I was under the impression that the discovery of this circular reasoning was the push that brought you out of the greens in the first place. I was also under the impression that most of the regulars here were also aware of this contradiction.
Unofficially, it was decided on May 8th, 1989 with the signing of this document
establishing the IPCC.
By authority of resolution 9, global climate change, tenth world meterological congress together with it’s request to the executive council and of resolution GC/20 of the fourteenth session of the UNEP governing council . . . bla bla bla . . The objectives of the IPCC are:
(i) to make asessments of available scientific information on climate change;
bla bla bla . . .
Officially, it was made public and entered into Force on 21 March 1994 in this document by the UNFCCC.
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS *
For the purposes of this Convention:
.
.
.
2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is
attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that
alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which
is in addition to natural climate variability observed
over comparable time periods.
The IPCC was created to assess climate change. Not to determine whether or not it exists.
Therefore,
all the models are designed to assess climate change, not to determine whether or not it exists.
So, of course when confronted/cornered with the circular reasoning they respond, as Bernd Felsche points out, with an argument from ignorance. i.e. It has to be CO2, what else could it be?
“Computer models have shown that the increase in global temperatures can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (5).” Dyson rejected the claim, of course, with a single word: No.
Of course. It’s argument from ignorance. When you see the phrase “can only be explained by …” it usually means that not enough thought has gone into the problem to discover other plausible factors: That there is too little understanding of the physicalities.
The terminology “CO2 forcing” grates at every corner of my Engineering subconscious. There is no “force” being applied by CO2. It’s a gross misnomer. A change in the constraints and inputs to a system is a perturbance or perturbation. Of course that doesn’t sound as significant as “forcing”. But then that “forcing” has nothing to do with force; merely a corruption of the core meaning; deliberate or through ignorance. /rant
Apparently the models have huge spurious variation in the amount of solar radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere much larger than the amount of change caused by CO2
It now looks like TC Pam WILL become a Cat 5 storm. Whether it will remain so to landfall is to be seen. I would suggest following Ryan Maue (WeatherBell Analytics) on Twitter
The whole GH conjecture is based on the false assumption that back radiation supplies over 320W/m^2 of thermal energy to Earth’s surface. This was supposed to explain “missing energy” that was obviously needed. But in fact that energy comes from “heat creep” as explained here http://climate-change-theory.com
The flux from Earth’s surface, where the temperature is 288K, is about 390W/m^2 of radiation plus about 102W/m^2 of non-radiative heat transfers – nearly 500W/m^2 in total. You have no explanation as to what supplies most of the input required to match that output.
In reality, the Sun’s direct radiation supplies about 168W/m^2 and the heat creep process supplies over 320W/m^2 some of which originally came from the surface, but most from where solar radiation was absorbed in the atmosphere.
Temperatures for planets and satellite moons are “anchored” by the fact that radiative balance with the Sun’s insolation must occur and be represented by a temperature usually found in the planet’s troposphere. If there is no atmosphere then it will be at the solid surface, as for the Moon. In the case of Uranus, it is in the methane layer in the stratosphere. That is where we find temperatures around the effective radiating temperature of (58±3)°K. [source]
The temperature profile builds up to warmer temperatures at lower altitudes and in the troposphere it follows closely the expected |g/Cp| temperature gradient. When we use the known data to calculate that gradient and then apply simple geometry to determine the temperature 350Km further down at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus we get about 329K. Estimates here say it is 320K and that makes sense because the gradient is always reduced a little by inter-molecular radiation.
Now, the point is that there must be a mechanism operating that allows the temperature profile to build up downwards, because otherwise it would be highly improbable that we would find the right temperature at the base of the troposphere. Furthermore, if all temperatures from the core outwards were supposedly due to the core still cooling off, then what would happen to the gradient calculations in the distant future when the base of the troposphere might be only, say 250K?
The mechanism (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) represents a major breakthrough in 21st century climate science, because it also functions on Venus, Earth etc and completely does away with any need to assume back radiation supplies the extra energy, which it simply cannot do anyway. You may read about it here.
Therein lies the death knell of the radiative greenhouse conjecture.
EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS
This experiment (written up only last year) is a real breakthrough because it proves that a force field like centrifugal force or gravity does in fact create a temperature gradient at the molecular level, cooling at the top where potential energy is greatest.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy maximization, and that is achieved when the sum of mean molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous at all altitudes. This explains the temperature gradient, not back radiation and the assumption of isothermal temperatures by greenhouse advocates is wrong. This is now proven empirically in this centrifuge machine and also in the vortex cooling machine which works on the same principle.
EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS
This experiment (written up only last year) is a real breakthrough because it proves that a force field like centrifugal force or gravity does in fact create a temperature gradient at the molecular level, cooling at the top where potential energy is greatest.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy maximization, and that is achieved when the sum of mean molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous at all altitudes. This explains the temperature gradient, not back radiation and the assumption of isothermal temperatures by greenhouse advocates is wrong. This is now proven empirically in this centrifuge machine and also in the vortex cooling machine which works on the same principle.
Weekend unthreaded, a good chance for Dariusz to back up his opinions on electric vehicles with some facts.
83
What do we need to know other than that they need gobs of coal, nuclear or hydro power to run, in most cases coal?
112
So Thomas, whats wrong with coal?
40
Burning coal to power motor vehicles is quite silly…. try gasoline or LPG.
161
Thomas, you say burning coal to power motor vehicles is quite silly, better to burn gasoline or LPG, Australia imports 85% of its oil. massive amounts of Aussie dollars sent overseas, is it not better to take advantage of Australia’s vast reserves of coal, employing good hard working citizens and taking advantage of the infrastructure already in place? Maybe your talking about cost to the consumer, on that playing field despite the current low oil prices, coal is still cheaper per 100kms. The next time your filling up at the gas station think about the Saudi Prince who uses his “pocket” money to buy European football teams, then think about the overpaid footballer rolling around the pitch faking an injury, your funding that. I would rather my money go to towards funding Australian workers and their families.
62
Willard,
It seem to me that if you’re not recovering the cost of your oil imports with the income from your coal exports, and making a profit, you need to get a new finance minister. I don’t have actual figures, maybe someone out there reading this does. I’m just commenting on a basic principle as I understand it. I’m most likely missing something, but then again, maybe not.
Abe
41
Just-A-guy, From what I can see Australia’s coal exports are higher than net oil imports in dollar value ATM, will that continue? Lets hope so, the imortant question, is there enough coal supplies to support another local customer? the coal industry are very confident the reserves are vast. The coal industry in Oz directly and indirectly employs 200 000 people, every dollar that goes to them instead of overseas has got to be positive.
40
Just-A-Guy,
Yep.
What you’re missing is the understanding that the world economy works on comparative advantage.
Australia has a significant comparative advantage in coal. It can produce it at very competitive prices and in vast quantities. We do not have a comparative advantage in oil. Hopefully, we will soon have a comparative advantage in LNG, courtesy of Western Australia’s North-West Shelf.
41
Willard,
No need to hope. Just keep Abbott et al. in power and Turnbull from Gold-In-Sacks out and it’ll all be honky dory.
Also, if your exporting more than you’re importing and employing 200k ppl, then why rock the boat. Full steam ahead I say.
Abe
41
Sceptical Sam,
Comparative advantage comes before the bottom line. In the end, the only thing that matters when it comes to accounting is the bottom line. Willard says they’re in the black. So, even after your comparative advantage calculation, if you’re making a profit, then . . .
Abe
21
Just-A-Guy and Sceptical Sam (this post had the reply button visible)
With regards to the Oil market;
Correct me if I’ve mis-read the situation but, the Saudi’s are keeping the Oil price low while keeping their heads above water, what ever their intentions are its putting pressure on Iran, Russia and other countries financially, what will happen over the next few months and years with regard to Oil prices is unpredictable, the way I see it dont expect $50-$60 a barrel Oil for ever, overseas Oil producers are not a charity for Aussie drivers.
20
Willard,
It’s not about charity. And markets are always open to volatility.
The Saudis, from what I’ve read are keeping prices low, to force the shale industry to collapse.
One Saudi said they can keep this up for five years if that’s what it takes. It’s a game of who blinks first.
Like I said earlier, a smart government will know how to deal with trade balances as long as the markets are left to the producers and consummers. Not the case when a global carbon market takes over.
Same with electric vehicles. As long as it’s left up to the producers and consumers to decide, all is well. As soon as govt steps in to regulate, . . .
Abe
51
You cannot make steel without coal, so we export the steel making labour to China and Japan, due to the much higher labour costs demanded by Unions here, the coal needed to make that steel, along with the iron ore, is then exported.
50
@Tom Harley
Tom,
That’s Comparative Advantage at work.
It’s all about Opportunity Cost. Both countries benefit from the trade to an extent that wouldn’t occur if we tried to do it all here and they tried to do it all there.
Counter-intuitive? Yep. But it works.
10
@ Willard
March 9, 2015 at 1:36 pm
Just-A-Guy and Sceptical Sam (this post had the reply button visible)
With regards to the Oil market;
Where was I reading today that the oil storage facilities are just about filled to maximum? When that happens over-supply will drive prices even lower given the winding back of China’s growth target to 7%, Europe’s weak (and contracting?) economy and the USA’s self-reliance on shale.
Expect $20-30 oil before you see any increase, unless the Saudis decide to cut production.
Buying opportunities seem to be just around the corner.
Don’t you just love watching the peak-oilers have conniptions?
11
So Willard, is my electric car going to get me from Sydney to Lightning Ridge?
I don’t think so……
61
For sure, if I was living or working in lightning ridge I be driving the appropriate vehicle for that task, but here’s a question Thomas, is there a favourite little town/roadhouse you stop at on the way for a coffee/snack?
04
Don’t talk nonsense about having a “snack” as though that would give enough time for a recharge.
The only “electric” car that could make the journey in any reasonable time is a hybrid, which runs on what?
41
The only “electric” car that could make the journey in any reasonable time is a hybrid, which runs on what?
Come on, that very efficient space shuttle main engine using fuel LH2, and oxidant LO2 can go anywhere, as long as others are paying for the journey! 🙂
20
TTTE @ #1.1.1.1.2
You can’t charge a battery quickly, but you can swap a battery in a few seconds.
10
Willard if you want to burn coal in your car, & given our huge reserves, that is not such a bad idea, but burning it in power stations to fuel your car makes no sense at all.
The intelligent thing to do is to convert it to liquid fuel, then pour that into your car.
Overloading the existing power grid to fuel all the cars running around our cities would be totally ridiculous. The cars would not do the job for those of us living on the fringes of the cities, & would be useless out of them.
61
Hasbeen, “overloading the power grid” how many vehicles are you talking about? Back that statement up with some facts. BTW how much energy does it take to convert the coal in to liquid fuel?
04
Willard,
The economy of any semi-developed society is fueled by trucks, and semi-trailers. Not to mention all of those construction vehicles we use for . . . well . . . everything we build.
Now, when they come up with an efficient, cost-effective way to get those ‘monsters’ to run on electricity, then I’ll begin to consider thinking about contemplating a way to maybe start looking into how to possibly phase those in at some time in the future. Slowly.
😉
Abe
40
Horses for courses Just–A-Guy, it’s not about replacing every single combustion engine, just those that would benefit the Oz economy in even the smallest amount.
04
Willard,
See, that’s where they’ve got you all blind-sided. That smallest amount that you are refering to would make absolutely zero defference in the global CO2 budget. China alone will continue to increase it’s output of CO2 for another ten years by more than Australia would reduce it’s output even if it replaced every automobile in the country by horse and buggies.*
Jo did an excellent article on the carbon tax fiasco in Oz recently. I suggest you find it and look at the figures.
Abe
*mileage may vary with options. Check with your dealer for details.
41
defference should be difference.
10
Just-A-Guy, I never made any reference about Co2, I’m talking about using a locally based fuel, people get up in arms about importing food from overseas when its a few cents cheaper than local produce, I see Coal as a far cheaper and stable product and Oil as the overseas product with price volatility, huge amounts of Oil still needs to be imported but even a small reduction is helpful.
01
What’s CO2 got to do with it?
There’s been no net increase in global average temperature for nearly two decades while Atmospheric CO2 has increased some 30%.
The Null hypothesis is looking stronger by the day. It’s probably time to accept that the CO2/Global Warming hypothesis has been falsified.
And, I like the idea of the milkman delivering his product in an electric vehicle. It beats the clip-clop of horses and the stop-start roar of an engine at 5:00 in the morning.
41
Willard: Were are the cars made? Either electric or gasoline model. If imported, which is cheaper to import? And over the lifetime, which is cheaper to run and on which fuel?
I agree use the coal in Australia to generate electricity but sometimes there has to be trade-offs regarding costs to families, after all if an electric car costs more to purchase, run and maintain than a gas model, then I have to side with a gas model.
10
And Willard, perhaps you’re right. We should burn coal to run our cars.
http://www.robertsarmory.com/gas.htm
10
Good question Peter, each vehicle has its good points and each has a few drawbacks, the consumer decides on the reason they purchase a particular car and the cost benefits involved, the ICE vehicle clearly has lower purchase price ATM, it can be refuelled in less than five minutes and can have a potential range of over 1000 kms, if thats what a driver needs there’s no debate. If a customer is happy with a range limited to 450kms and overnight charging an electric vehicle may be considered, the other downside is the high initial purchase cost of say a Model S, its a mid luxury car and when only 30 000 a year are being built it’s harder to be cost competitive. the batteries of an EV are big cost when they need to be replaced but then on the upside there is far less parts that need to replaced/repaired compared to an ICE. so what are the upsides of an EV such as Model S? It has an extremly high standard of safety, there is more storage space available due to the drivetrain and batteries being under the floor, it handles well due to its low centre of gravity and it’s acceleration is blistering, fuel cost wise the EV will come out way in front as coal fired electricity is pretty cost competitive, eventually a road tax would have to added to an EVs running cost’s but even then it’s still works.
02
Willard,
Why is it, do you suppose, that you come across sounding like a press release? Do you write this stuff for a living, or are you just copying from somebody else’s work?
00
Rereke Whakaaro,
For the same reason that Rick Will comes across this way.
No sarc on my part either.
Abe
01
Not really surprised that Dariusz has failed to back up his opinions on electric cars, Dariusz is always quick to criticize others but lacks any substance in his comments. I did learn that Just-A-Guy and Sceptical Sam are hung up on CO2, kept bringing it in to the conversation about EVs when I never mentioned it, I couldn’t give a Rats about CO2, just went outside, everything looks fine to me, nothing I could do about it anyway. And then there’s Hasbeen, claims coal fired electric cars are going to overload the grid, but has failed to back up his claims, Hasbeen? More like Eneverwaz.
00
Just imagine a well constructed nuclear power grid, including all non frivolous transportation. The power is delivered via infrastructure rather than volumes carrying mass (fuel) uphill? The frivolous transportation is best provided by beasts of burden, or perhaps the newly invented bicycle!
00
Regardless of AGW, we would be driving electric cars if a good enough battery came along. Cheap, light, could hold 1000km of charge and filled up in 5 minutes? The combustion engine would be a history piece in five years just because it opens a lot more design opportunities. They could see the potential in the 19th century.
80
And they are still looking for the potential in the 21st. century.
Try looking up energy density i.e. the power per kilogram.
30
Energy density, power density, flux density. has nothing to do with any kilogram (mass), Only action within a fourspace volume!
24
Energy density is another name for specific energy where the energy is the useful energy rather than total energy. ie the energy that you get out of a battery per unit mass for comparison with petrol, 45MJ/kg or 13kWh/kg.
The best commercial batteries are producing 0.2kWh/kg and do not lose weight as they go flat. The MiEV has a 20kWh pack but weighs 200kg more than the petrol equivalent. New batteries would give 50kWh for the same weight but 200kg of fuel is 520kWh (20%efficiency).
The money that went into electric cars could have been spent more wisely on battery research, lightweight materials or more efficient engine designs.
50
They should have continued with this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon.
20
One of the taxi companies in Wellington, re-equipped their entire fleet with Prius’s, over a matter of days. It seemed that the taxi company did a bulk deal with Toyota (on behalf of their drivers who actually own their own vehicles), to get a very hefty discount. I am told that Toyota seriously came to the party, because there was a very low uptake of electric cars in the Capital, and replacing all the cabs would put more on the street and cueing at the airport, implying a general acceptance.
Of course, being cabs, they are now reaching the end of their practical working life, and are up for replacement. Unfortunately, the drivers cannot afford to replace them, without the double sweetener deal, and may well be moving back to LPG vehicles.
I always talk to cabbies – you get to learn a lot.
00
Rereke- I re-read my posts, agreed, I do sound like a press release, no, I dont do this for a living but like a lot of Aussies, I’m “car crazy” . I own a petrol and also a 24 year old diesel, love it to bits, i can see there’s some pretty dissapointing EV’s up to now but I also see a lot of positives in the coming months and years.
00
Bring back the Stanley steamer they run fine on coal and so do trains, just a bit messy. [sarc]
00
Oh come on … A little bit of smut never did anybody any harm … 😉
00
3 or 4 years back I was driving on the highway in our town one weekend when a vintage car approaching sent out a cloud of smoke or steam or both and pulled over to the side of the road. People got out as I drove past and looked back in the mirror.
I decided to turn around to see if they needed help with an after hours mechanic. As I turned around the car sent up a great cloud, much bigger than the first one, and I thought: “She’s buggered now!’ Lo and behold, everybody got back in and drove off.
A few days later I was talking to my brother in law, the mechanic I had had in mind. He told me that on the weekend he did a weld on a Stanley Steamer. There had been a steam car event in town for the weekend. He said that as it drove off it made not a sound.
00
How many times have you heard or read a claim similar to the following: “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas; and it is the “heat-trapping” property of CO2 gas that causes the Earth’s Surface Temperature (EST) to be higher in the presence of atmospheric CO2 gas than in the absence of atmospheric CO2 gas?” The lack of scientific rigor in the above claim bothers me. At a minimum, I believe definitions of the phrases (1) Heat-Trapping Gas and (2) Earth’s Surface Temperature (EST) are required. Absent these definitions, discussions of the soundness of the above claim will likely degenerate into disputes over the meanings of terms and phrases. In addition to definitions of EST and Heat-Trapping Gas, I believe scientific discussions of the above claim will be more fruitful if all parties agree on the definitions of “Heat” and “Heat Trapping.”
Unless the hostess of this blog stops me, I plan to submit a series of “Unthreaded Weekend Comments” that questions the soundness of the above claim. At the outset I want to make it clear that I’m NOT arguing that atmospheric CO2 gas won’t result in an increased EST. I am arguing, however, that establishing the existence of an increased EST based solely on the presence of atmospheric CO2 gas requires justification over and above the statements that (a) CO2 gas is a heat-trapping gas and (b) CO2 gas exists in the Earth’s atmosphere. Because in total my comment will be long, I will parse my comments over several “Unthreaded Weekends.”
For this, the first, Unthreaded Weekend comment, I provide a single definition of Earth Surface Temperature (EST), a single definition of Heat, a single definition of Heat Trapping, a single definition of a Heat-Trapping Device, a single definition of Thermal Energy, four candidate technical definitions of a Heat-Trapping Gas, and my opinion of the common man’s definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas. Before composing comments for subsequent Unthreaded Weekends, I await reader responses regarding my definitions—to include definitions that the reader believes are more appropriate.
For one or more of the four technical Heat-Trapping Gas definitions, in subsequent Unthreaded Weekends I will discuss issues that raise questions relevant to the soundness of the opening claim. Some will label my definitions a “strawman” with little if any coupling to the real world or to what people mean when they say an atmospheric heat-trapping gas raises the EST. The strawman characterization may very well be apt. However, by providing definitions of words and phrases, I am at least attempting to create a framework in which scientific discussions of the soundness/completeness of the opening claim can take place. It is because I recognize that (1) my attempt to create a viable discussion framework may come up short, and (2) even if my framework is adequate, my definitions may be unrelated to the real world and/or conflict with the readers’ definitions, that I welcome reader comments and alternate definitions.
Earth Surface Temperature (EST):
I define “Earth Surface Temperature (EST)” to be the average (area-weighted average and time-weighted average) Earth surface temperature. The area-weighted average includes the entire Earth surface area (both water in any of its states and land), and the time-weighted average is evaluated over time intervals long compared to the longest period of any cyclical phenomenon (day/night, winter/spring/summer/fall, etc.) that can modulate to a non-negligible degree the temperature at any point on the Earth’s surface.
Heat Trapping (Trapping Heat) and Heat-Trapping Devices:
If you have a device that is advertised to be a “mouse trap,” it’s reasonable to assume the device has the ability to trap a mouse—i.e., once a mouse enters the device, the mouse will forever thereafter remain within the device. Similarly, if you have a device that someone claims is a lint trap, it is reasonable to assume the device traps lint—i.e., most if not all of the lint that enters the device will forever thereafter remain within the device. Finally, if you have “something” that is said to trap heat, it’s reasonable to assume the “something” traps heat in the sense that at least a non-zero portion of the heat entering the “something” remains forever thereafter within the “something.” In my opinion, these interpretations of “trapping,” including the interpretation of Heat Trapping, are just common sense. My Heat Trapping interpretation, however, raises another question. Specifically, what exactly is this thing called “heat” that is being trapped?
Heat:
According to http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat, “Heat is the transfer of energy from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object.” Since energy can be transferred between objects for reasons other than a temperature difference (e.g., the kinetic energy of mass moving between objects, electrical energy through a wire, etc.), I believe the definition of “heat” should include the proviso that the flow of energy between a higher temperature object and a lower temperature object is due solely to the temperature difference between the objects. Thus, in this comment I define heat as follows: Heat is the flow (transfer) of energy between objects where the energy flow exists solely because the objects are at different temperatures. Energy flow in the form of heat is always from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object.”
Thermal Energy:
Although “heat” has units of energy, “heat” differs from energy in that “heat” implies energy in motion. In this comment, I use the phrase “thermal energy” to represent the energy associated with “heat.” Specifically, Thermal Energy is defined to be the internal energy of an object that is either (a) transferred out of the higher temperature object via heat, (b) transferred into the lower temperature object via heat, or (c) remains forever in the volume of space in which the heat exists. Thus, Thermal Energy differs from Heat in that heat represents energy in motion between objects at different temperatures; whereas, thermal energy represents a change in the internal energy level of (i) objects or (ii) the volume of space in which heat exists.
Using the above definition of “heat” and the common sense interpretation of what it means to “trap” something, it logically follows that the phrase “Trapping Heat (or Heat Trapping)” applies to the flow (transfer) of energy between objects at different temperatures. Specifically, if “something” is trapping heat, then at least a portion of the heat (energy flow) into the “something” never leaves the “something.”
Based on the foregoing discussion, my definition of “Trapping Heat” is as follows: “A volume (whether a vacuum or containing matter) of space between objects at different temperatures is Trapping Heat if the heat into that volume is greater than the heat out of that volume. Note that using this definition of Trapping Heat, if a volume is Trapping Heat and heat is the only means of energy transfer (i) through the volume and (ii) from/to two objects at different temperatures, (a) the internal energy of the higher temperature object is decreasing, (b) the internal energy of the lower temperature object either (i) remains unchanged (if the volume traps all input heat), or (ii) is increasing (if the volume traps less than all input heat), and (c) the internal energy of the volume increases. Thus, my definition of “Trapping Heat” does in fact imply that a “Heat-Trapping Device” will retain (i.e., trap) a non-zero amount of energy within the device; but my definition implies more than that. Specifically, my definition implies that a “Heat-Trapping Device” retains (i.e., traps) a portion of the energy flow (heat) that exists within the device.
Heat-Trapping Gas:
Although I’m sure there are many definitions of a Heat-Trapping Gas, I now supply (a) four candidate technical definitions and (b) my opinion of the “common-man’s” definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas. Just as an aside, none of the four technical definitions given below is consistent with my definition of a “Heat Trapping Device.” This observation demonstrates just how muddled a description of a Heat-Trapping Gas and its effect of the temperatures of objects in the proximity to a Heat-Trapping Gas can become. Be that as it may, my four candidate technical definitions of a Heat-Trapping Gas are:
(1) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can absorb but not radiate electromagnetic energy in one or more sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band.
(2) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can radiate but not absorb electromagnetic energy in one of more sub-bands of the IR band.
(3) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can both absorb and radiate electromagnetic energy (not necessarily equal amounts of energy) in one or more sub-bands (not necessarily identical sub-bands) of the IR band.
(4) A gas such that everything else being equal, the EST when the gas is present in the Earth’s atmosphere is higher than the EST when the gas is absent from the Earth’s atmosphere.
Note that the first three technical definitions of a Heat-Trapping Gas are expressed in terms of the ability, or lack thereof, of a gas to interact with electromagnetic radiation in sub-bands of the IR band. These definitions make no mention of the temperatures of the gas or of objects in proximity to the gas. As such, these definitions directly involve temperature only to the degree that the temperature must be such that the matter that makes up the gas exists in a gaseous state. On the other hand, the last technical definition (definition 4) explicitly mentions temperature—specifically the EST in the presence/absence of the gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.
My common-man definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas is: “I haven’t given much thought to the meaning of a “Heat-Trapping Gas;” but if CO2 is a Heat-Trapping Gas, it makes sense to me that CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere will “trap heat”, and because the Earth’s surface is inside the region of trapped heat, CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere will increase the EST.”
To close this comment, I note that the process of establishing the soundness of the opening claim depends on which technical definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas is used. In particular, if one of the first three technical definitions is used, establishing the soundness of the opening claim requires that two conditions be shown to be true: (1) CO2 gas satisfies the definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas, and (2) by experiment or logic, the Heat-Trapping property of a gas is sufficient to ensure that a Heat-Trapping Gas in the Earth’s atmosphere will always lead to an increased EST. In the case of the third technical definition, this implies that the soundness of the opening claim can be established if (1) it is shown that CO2 gas both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in one or more sub-bands of the IR band; and once established, (2) it can be argued either by experiment or by logic that the Heat-Trapping nature of atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to guarantee an increased EST.
If the fourth technical definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas is used, then a Heat-Trapping Gas in the Earth’s atmosphere by definition increases the EST. However, the soundness issue then becomes one of establishing that CO2 is a Heat-Trapping Gas. The statement that a Heat-Trapping Gas will increase the EST is by definition true. Using the fourth technical definition, the soundness of the opening claim can only be established by proving that CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere guarantees an increased EST.
Okay. That’s enough for my comment in this Unthreaded Weekend. Before continuing, I’d like to hear from readers—especially those readers who have alternate definitions of terms and phrases.
202
I find this definition confusing. To me it says that we are talking about the surface temperature of land – dirt, grass, trees etc. and the surface temperature of the ocean and other water bodies, ie. the temperature of the water at the surface.
In fact “surface temperature” refers to the temperature of the atmosphere at the height at which it is normally measured (1.2m).
71
Thomas the Tank Engine. Your definition of Earth Surface Temperature is probably the commonly accepted definition. To me, a surface is the interface between objects having different properties. In my definition, one interface is the atmosphere and the other interface is whatever exists immediately below the air (either “land”, with all its various components, or water). I can live with a definition that defines temperature to be the temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude of 1.2 meters. However, I can’t discern an identifiable “surface” 1.2 meters above the surface of the Earth. So to me, instead of saying “Earth surface temperature”, it would have been more appropriate to say “the atmospheric temperature close, which means in most cases 1.2 meters, to the surface of the Earth.”
60
Come to Lightning Ridge on a hot summer’s day and you can pass me my tools without wearing gloves and estimate the surface temperature with each one that you pick up under the hot sun…..
71
This implies that CO2 traps heat within itself, whereas the correct understanding is that it traps heat within the biophere.
41
Thomas the Tank Engine. Isn’t atmospheric CO2 part of the biosphere? If so, then isn’t at least some of the “CO2 trapped heat” trapped within the CO2 itself? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that the statement “atmospheric CO2 traps heat” implies that whatever heat is being trapped is fully contained within the volume of space completely surrounded by atmospheric CO2, but not within the volume of space occupied by atmosphere CO2?
50
I am just saying that the heat is not “trapped” within the CO2 itself.
Where are you going with all of this? Rather than being pedantic it is far better to ascertain exactly what is meant by a term rather than exploring the ridiculous.
It is purported that CO2 “traps heat” within the biosphere.
I can immediately find problems with this, for example England et al 2014 which purports that “unprecedented” (measured without data) trade winds drive heat into the ocean, thus causing “the pause” and vindicating Trenberth. This would require reverse cycling the sun/ocean/atmpospheric coupling, which is totally ridiculous….
CO2 cannot drive heat into the ocean in any way whatsoever. At best it could warm the ocean skin and increase evaporation, thus cooling the ocean further. Increased wind also would increase evaporation, again cooling the ocean further.
60
Thomas the Tank Engine. I may be “exploring the ridiculous,” but experience has taught me that one person’s “ridiculous” is another person’s “belief.” Like you, I find problems with the statement that CO2 “traps heat” in the biosphere. Past discussions of this claim with acquaintances have almost invariably led to disagreements regarding the meaning of words and phrases. So where I’m going with this is (1) to establish a set of definitions that have general agreement (universal agreement is out of the question), and (2) examine the implications of those definitions relative to the claim atmospheric “Heat-Trapping Gases” (and in particular, CO2) must increase the EST.
For what it’s worth, I kind of like replacing the phrase “Greenhouse Gas” with the phrase “Heat-Trapping Gas” in Wikipedia’s definition of a Greenhouse Gas. Specifically, I’m partial to the definition: “A Heat-Trapping Gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range.” Much of my original comment was an attempt (apparently feeble) to show that this (the immediately above) definition is somewhat arbitrary in that the definition contains the word heat but characterizes not a relationship between a gas and heat, but rather characterizes a relationship between a gas and electromagnetic radiation. People are free to define words and phrases any way they want; but if a definition uses everyday words and terms in a manner outside their common usage, then the likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding is immense. Then again, maybe that was the definer’s goal all along.
30
Most of the earth’s surface is ocean. CO2 will cause evaporation which leads to cooling, not warming.
Why does anybody bother arguing this?
31
Heat is a specific range of frequencies within the electromagnetic spectrum, just below the band of frequencies that our senses perceive as light.
Material that resonates at those frequencies, will absorb quanta of the electromagnetic energy, until it comes into contact with other material that resonates at the same, or harmonic, or close resonate frequencies, at which point some of the energy is given up.
The water molecule has a resonant frequency that is close to that of carbon dioxide, and given the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, putting all the blame of heat retention onto carbon dioxide is being somewhat “creative”.
51
I think you mean infrared.
00
Infra-red radiation is only electromagnetic radiation, never heat. Converting this power flux into some form of power storage depends on the receiver. Electrical, chemical, mechanical, etc. “One way to convert” is into sensible heat, as measured by mass and temperature.
10
I was trying to keep it simple for Reed’s benefit.
00
Thank you! Simple is the negative inverse of understanding!
00
All of your proposed definitions are silly!
The only good response is “Yes dear, now go take a nap! 🙂
511
Will. OK just what is your definition of a heat-trapping gas? Without a definition of both a heat-trapping gas and Earth-surface temperature, making the claim that because CO2 is a heat-trapping gas, atmospheric CO2 will increase the Earth surface temperature is equivalent to asking the question: Because your mother is a sewing machine and your father is a five dollar bill, how many flapjacks does it take to cover the roof of a doghouse? And Answering: Fourteen, because footballs don’t have fenders.
51
Reed,
The whole concept of “heat-trapping-gas” is political and has no meaning!
Your conceptual “heat” also has no meaning, If heat is the verb “to transfer”, just what is being transferred? Power, or energy, cannot be. Since 1800, “heat” has always been considered, both “power”
the transfer, and also one of only two forms of energy, sensible, and latent. EMR is never “heat”, Both forms of “heat” require mass. EMR has no mass, only flux, power per unit area. EMR has no momentum, but does have inertia, which requires no mass.
“Because your mother is a sewing machine and your father is a five dollar bill, how many flapjacks does it take to cover the roof of a doghouse? And Answering: Fourteen, because footballs don’t have fenders.”
Indeed, you seem to understand my use of the word “silly”. I hope we can have a productive discussion.
Thomas The Tank Engine,
Please join, This sillyness, is the shear magnitude of the numbers! The largest nuclear test ever was 2.02 x 10^17 Joules, which damn near broke the planet. Consider the value of insolation, for the planet, in Joule-hours. (accumulated horsepower hours, over the whole Earth projected surface.)
Sorry, I have to take a nap. 🙂
29
Will. Maybe our interaction got off on the wrong foot. I seriously would like to have a productive interaction. If my original comment conveyed the impression that I believe the statement: “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas; and it is the “heat-trapping” property of CO2 gas that causes the Earth’s Surface Temperature (EST) to be higher in the presence of atmospheric CO2 gas than in the absence of atmospheric CO2 gas” is sound, then I apologize. In my reading on the internet, I’ve encountered such a statement or its equivalent many times. Furthermore, I believe it is the “short version” of the argument used by AGW proponents to convince lay persons that AGW is real and caused by atmospheric CO2.
I think the statement is full of holes–some of which have been alluded to by commenters to my original comment. In subsequent Unthreaded Weekend comments I plan to identify some of those holes. I just thought it would be a good idea to define terms and hope a general agreement could be reached. That hope is the primary purpose of my original comment.
As to my concept of “heat” being the transfer of energy, that comes, in part, from three sources. First, according to page 363 of the Third Edition Part 1 University Physics by F. W. Sears and M. W. Zemansky, 1963, “Heat is the energy transfer between to systems that is connected exclusively with the temperature difference between the systems. [original emphasis].
Second, according to page 67 of Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, by F. Reif, 1965: As a result of the purely thermal interaction, energy is transferred from one system to the other. In a statistical description where one focuses attention on an ensemble of similar systems (A + A’) in interaction (see Fig. 2.6.1), the energy of every A system (or every A’ system) does not change by precisely the same amount. One can, however, describe the situation conveniently in terms of the change in mean energy of each of the systems. The mean energy transferred from one system to the other as a result of purely thermal interaction is call ‘heat‘. More precisely, the change delta_E of the mean energy of system A is called the ‘heat Q absorbed’ by this system; i.e., Q=delta_E. This heat can, of course, be negative as well as positive; the quantity (-Q) is called the ‘heat given off’ by the system…. [emphasis mine].
I include the third reference because it seems that as time went on, F. W. Sears changed his wording. Specifically, on pages 74 and 75, Third Edition Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Thermodynamics, by F. W. Sears and G. L. Salinger: “That is, the total work Wad done by a system in any adiabatic process between two states A and B having the same kinetic and potential energyies is equal to the decrease (UA – UB) in the internal energy of the system. Thus a gas expanding against a piston, in an adiabatic process, can do work even though there is no change in its kinetic or potential energy; the work is done at the expense of the internal energy of the gas.” And later, “We define the heat flow A into the system in any process as the difference between the work W and the adiabatic work Wad.”
On balance, I interpret the above to mean “heat” is the transfer of internal energy from one system to another system.
Finally, how do I include the “smiley face” that you put at the end of some of your sentences?
20
Reed Coray
March 9, 2015 at 11:06 am ·
“Will. Maybe our interaction got off on the wrong foot. I seriously would like to have a productive interaction. If my original comment conveyed the impression that I believe the statement: “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas; and it is the “heat-trapping” property of CO2 gas that causes the Earth’s Surface Temperature (EST) to be higher in the presence of atmospheric CO2 gas than in the absence of atmospheric CO2 gas” is sound, then I apologize. In my reading on the internet, I’ve encountered such a statement or its equivalent many times. Furthermore, I believe it is the “short version” of the argument used by AGW proponents to convince lay persons that AGW is real and caused by atmospheric CO2.”
Ok please understand that the whole CO2 nonsense is FRAUD!
“I think the statement is full of holes–some of which have been alluded to by commenters to my original comment. In subsequent Unthreaded Weekend comments I plan to identify some of those holes. I just thought it would be a good idea to define terms and hope a general agreement could be reached. That hope is the primary purpose of my original comment.”
For “any” definition of anything you need much nodding up and down from peasants, never shaking the head sideways. The politicians, bankers, and media need not be considered. In all the armed forces everywhere , nothing compares to pitchfork,torch bearing peasants that must be spontaneous, and eat your face off! Smiley is space, colon, (close parun) space. Best to copy all variants from elsewhere/when 🙂 -will-
16
Will. You wrote: “EMR has no momentum, but does have inertia, which requires no mass.” You didn’t specify what EMR stands for, but I assume it stands for Electromagnetic Radiation. If so, EMR does have momentum–see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon. The momentum of a photon (i.e., the momentum of electromagnetic radiation) is hbar * kvector, where hbar is a scalar equal to the reduced Planck’s constant (Planck’s constant divided by 2 times pi) and kvector is a vector whose direction is the direction of propagation of the electromagnetic radiation and whose magnitude is equal to 2 times pi divided by lambda, where lambda is the wavelength of the photon (electromagnetic radiation).
10
EMR: Electro-Magnetic-Radiation – see my comment at 2.2.1.2.
00
A photon has no mass. It is nothing but a burst of energy, emitted during to a chemical reaction. It is convenient, in quantum physics, to treat theoretical particles as if they had an imaginary mass because it simplifies the calculations. It is a trick.
It is a bit like using i or j in complex numbers, to denote the angular phase change, when calculating periodic functions.
15
PPlease, “Will. You wrote: “EMR has no momentum, but does have inertia, which requires no mass.” You didn’t specify what EMR stands for, but I assume it stands for Electromagnetic Radiation. If so, EMR does have momentum–see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.”
What total nonsense, EMR flux has absolutely no mass, thus cannot ever participate in the illusion of mass x velocity, momentum. The energy of EMR flux does indeed have the concept of “I are energy moving and wish to continue moving in just this direction,”inertia”, with no dimensions, even mass. Absorb me, you get my inertia that way, reflect me you get 2x my inertia,that way. All of this has been carefully measured and documented. 🙂 -will-
16
Check your units, that is energy not momentum. Energy transfered within a specific time interval, is called action or photoelectric effect. This effect is the only indication that exists of the so called “photon”. The amount of action required is dependent on the work function of the absorber for such an event. The work function for a metal to convert to sensible heat is zero. Radiative inertia is very small but independent of radiative power.
04
Will. You wrote: “Check your units, that [hbar*kvector] is energy not momentum.”
Okay, I’ll do that. In what follows, all units are in the Meter/Kilogram/Second (MKS) system. The units of hbar are Joules times seconds [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant]. The units of Joules are force times distance. The units of force are mass times acceleration. The units of acceleration are meters/second^2. Thus, the units of Joules are (Kilograms*meters/second^2)*meters = Kilograms*meters^2/seconds^2. Thus, the units of hbar are Kilograms*meters^2/seconds. The units of kvector are meters^(-1) or 1/meters. Thus the units of hbar*kvector are Kilograms*meters/seconds. The units of momentum are mass times velocity, which are Kilograms*meters/seconds. Thus, the units of hbar*kvector and momentum ARE THE SAME.
The units of energy are force times distance. Thus, the units of energy are (Kilograms*meters/second^2)*meters = Kilograms*meters^2/second^2. So the units of hbar*kvector ARE NOT the units of energy.
00
Hummm, “The units of kvector are meters^(-1)”. Why are you using a de Broglie wavelength, rather than an EMR wavelength? Such is true when a fake momentum exactly equals energy/c, (speed of light), so that energy and action seem to be a linear function of that fake momentum. If EMR had such momentum EMR could transfer such momentum. EMR cannot, as it has no mass! EMR transfers twice its weak inertia to a reflective surface but retains all of its energy (hv), and speed. Only the direction of the flux vector changes. That inertia transfer is sometimes mislabeled radiation pressure.
05
Will, 1:48 pm, 10 March.
The units of a “de Broglie wavelength” and an “EMR wavelength” are the same. Both are units of “length,” which in the MKS system is “meters.” Thus, as I see it your question “Why are you using a de Broglie wavelength, rather than an EMR wavelength?” has no relevance to the issue of “units.”
“I” didn’t pick a de Broglie wavelength, the reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.”] did.
In the reference, the term kvector is written in bold font to indicate a vector as opposed to a scalar. The magnitude of kvector corresponds to the “wave number,” not the “wavelength”. The “wave number” is the number of wavelengths per unit length. In the MKS system, the “wave number” corresponds to the number of wavelengths in one meter. In the CGS system, the “wave number” corresponds to the number of wavelengths in one centimeter. Thus, in either system, the magnitude of the “wave number” is the reciprocal of the wavelength.
Finally, I believe when a molecule absorbs a photon, both momentum and energy must be conserved. In an inelastic collision (the molecule absorbs the photon and all energy of the photon is converted to energy of the molecule), the velocity of the molecule must change in such a way as to conserve both momentum and energy. This means that the momentum of the photon can change the velocity of the center of mass of the molecule. Immediately after the collision, the transfer of photon energy to molecular energy is not to change the speed of the center of mass of the molecule, but rather to add internal kinetic energy via molecular vibration. As I understand it, in a situation where individual molecules can transfer via collisions some of this vibrational energy to the kinetic energy of the center of mass of other CO2 molecules, the velocity of the center of mass of those molecules will change. I believe the reason the change in the molecule’s velocity from absorbing the photon’s momentum is ignored relative to the change in the molecule’s velocity from absorbing the photon’s energy has to do with the relative magnitudes of the corresponding molecular velocity changes.
For example, from the reference the ratio of a photon’s energy to a photon’s momentum is c, the velocity of light. A carbon dioxide molecule has a mass of approximately 7.3×10^(-26) kilograms. The wavelength of an IR photon is somewhere between 7×10^(-6) meters and 10^(-3) meters. Thus, (a) the momentum of an IR photon is somewhere between 6.63×10^(-31) and 9.5×10^(-28) Kilogram meters seconds^(-1), and the energy of an IR photon is somewhere between 1.98×10^(-22) and 2.8×10^(-19) joules.
If we start with a CO2 molecule at rest (zero center-of-mass velocity and zero momentum) and change its momentum by 6.63×10^(-31) Kilogram meters seconds^(-1)–the lowest IR photon momentum, the center-of-velocity mass of the CO2 molecule will be 9.1×10^(-6) meters per second. If we start with a CO2 molecule at rest (zero center-of-mass velocity and zero momentum) and change its center-of-mass kinetic energy by 1.98×10^(-22) joules–the lowest IR photon energy, the center-of-velocity mass of the CO2 molecule will be 73.7 meters per second.
If we start with a CO2 molecule at rest (zero center-of-mass velocity and zero momentum) and change its momentum by 9.5×10^(-28) Kilogram meters seconds^(-1)–the highest IR photon momentum, the center-of-velocity mass of the CO2 molecule will be 0.013 meters per second. If we start with a CO2 molecule at rest (zero center-of-mass velocity and zero momentum) and change its center-of-mass kinetic energy by 2.8×10^(-19) joules–the highest IR photon energy, the center-of-velocity mass of the CO2 molecule will be 2,770 meters per second. Thus, for any IR photon, the change in the velocity of an at-rest CO2 molecule from the conservation of energy is several orders of magnitude greater than the change in the velocity of an at-rest CO2 molecule from the conservation of momentum. I believe it is for this reason that the momentum of a photon is mostly ignored when analyzing the collision of an IR photon with a CO2 molecule.
10
Reed Coray
March 11, 2015 at 7:10 am
Will, 1:48 pm, 10 March.
The units of a “de Broglie wavelength” and an “EMR wavelength” are the same. Both are units of “length,” which in the MKS system is “meters.” Thus, as I see it your question “Why are you using a de Broglie wavelength, rather than an EMR wavelength?” has no relevance to the issue of “units.” “I” didn’t pick a de Broglie wavelength, the reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.”] did.
So much for symbolic algebra! This is the mathematicians futzing with the rest of us!
What total Bull shit, The concept of particle mass, velocity, momentum, and energy has no equivalent to some Power/area transfer as expressed by EMR! Those that try to stuff thermal electromagnetic power transfer into some mechanical model, must always fail.
The term kvector is written in bold font to indicate a vector as opposed to a scalar. The magnitude of kvector corresponds to the “wave number,”.
Only in stupid statistical mechanics. In electrodynamics it is always the movement of power within some length/time interval, A cycle, measured! I.e. The velocity of light. When will you ever learn. 🙂
05
#
Reed Coray March 11, 2015 at 7:10 am
“The units of a “de Broglie wavelength” and an “EMR wavelength” are the same. Both are units of “length,” which in the MKS system is “meters.” Thus, as I see it your question “Why are you using a de Broglie wavelength, rather than an EMR wavelength?” has no relevance to the issue of “units.”
““I” didn’t pick a de Broglie wavelength, the reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon.”] did.”
“Finally, I believe when a molecule absorbs a photon, both momentum and energy must be conserved. In an inelastic collision (the molecule absorbs the photon and all energy of the photon is converted to energy of the molecule), the velocity of the molecule must change in such a way as to conserve both momentum and energy.”
What an interesting conjecture. 🙂 By your own numbers, the claimed “momentum” transfer cannot be measured within the random motion of gas molecules, at achievable temperatures.
Please allow a supportive wild assed conjecture. The “momentum” of insolation compresses the atmosphere so that lower altitudes have both higher density and higher temperature, separate from any claimed “gravitational” attraction upon the mass of this atmosphere! Please continue to believe the measurable, without discarding the immeasurable. The phrase “I do not know”, always indicates wisdom 🙂
03
H/t to Reed Corey!!
The concept of CAGW is equivalent to asking the question:
Because your mother is a sewing machine and your father is a five dollar bill, how many flapjacks does it take to cover the roof of a doghouse? And Answering: Fourteen, because footballs don’t have fenders.
Come on Brad Keyes, only you (Fire Breathing Dragon), can rephrase this to something truly spectacular!!
00
Will. You wrote: “All of your proposed definitions are silly!” That’s interesting in light of the fact that Wikipedia (a beloved source of global warming information for many AGW advocates) defines a greenhouse gas as follows: “A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range” Wikipedia’s definition of a greenhouse gas looks an awfully like my third candidate technical definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas. Since the overwhelming majority of AGW proponents claim CO2 is a greenhouse gas, my third technical definition of a Heat-Trapping Gas may not be complete, but it sure isn’t “silly.”
BTW. I composed the above response during my nap. Responding to your comment didn’t require being either awake or alert.
60
I forgot to include the link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas] to Wikipedia’s definition of a greenhouse gas.
30
I suggest you look at Nikolov & Zeller 2011 “Unified Theory of Climate”.
This argues that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed.
34
OK,
So Wiki is very political, and very much on top of the dumbing down of serfs!
I use “silly” to indicate possibly entertaining, but never understandable!
Beware of my use of the term “brat” 🙂
“I composed the above response during my nap.”
I also composed response during my nap, upon awakening, all is different!!
010
There is no such thing as a “green house gas”. There is no such thing as a Heat-Trapping Gas either! Every gas in this atmosphere spontaneously adjusts its own temperature until it can dissapate all heat energy accumulated or generated outward to space. There is no need for the planetary surface to radiate EMR as the atmosphere does that more efficiently than the surface can.
The very large atmospheric energy storage is in the form of latent heat of evaporation in water vapor. The column atmospheric H20 stays at about 2 cm or 2 grams for every cm^2 of planetary area. Each gram of WV has 2300 Joules of latent heat. Please check my total of 2.4 x 10^22 Joules of energy stored in the atmosphere, ever since this planet has had oceans.
At the same time 4.1 x 10^16 Joules/second are going from the surface as new latent heat and also the same leaving as water condenses somewhere and this energy is continuously radiated to space. The largest nuclear test, Russia’s Tsar bombe, had a yield of only 2.2 x 10^17 Joules. Water vapor does that every five seconds. Please remember the Earth automagically adjusts the total WV to whatever/whenever it wants, and never checks with any Climate Scientist as none, not one, has a clue as to how the Earth does that. 🙂
05
I agree with everything you’re saying, but you have to get your terminology right. Water has a high heat capacity. That isn’t “latent” heat. Latent heat involves a phase transition and/or chemical reaction. Neither are the case.
You should know this.
00
My understanding of “heat” or thermal transfer is that it can happen in three ways: radiation, conduction and convection. You seem to be talking only about radiation. As CO2 is a gas (fluid) in the atmosphere and able to mix and move freely in the atmosphere (except when absorbed into the earth, sea, plant and animals), conduction and convection will be happening. How then does CO2 “trap” heat unless it traps heat in the molecules themselves, in which case, presumably it would raise the temperature of the molecules so they are at a higher temperature (energy level) than their surroundings and would therefore emit heat (by conduction, convection and radiation) to their surroundings.
10
kmac. You’re correct–so far all I’ve talked about is radiation. And from your comment I think that we basically agree. Specifically, what about heat (energy transfer) via conduction and convection? In addition, what about evaporation? One of my pet peeves is the overwhelming emphasis AGW proponents put on radiative energy transfer relative to conductive and convective energy transfer. In fact, in later threads I plan to give examples that demonstrate just how important these two energy transfer mechanisms can be.
BTW, there are two reasons why I think AGW proponents emphasize radiative energy transfer. First, considering the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere as a system, they argue (and I agree) that the overwhelming transfer of energy away from the system to space is radiation. There may be other energy loss mechanisms (e.g., loss of mass to space), but on balance I believe radiation is the dominant means of transferring energy out of the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere system. Second, there are cases where if energy transfer between objects is limited to radiation, an inert object (i.e., an object devoid of its own energy source) surrounding but not touching an active object (i.e., an object with an internal source of energy) will always result in an increased temperature of the active object. One example of this is Willis Eschenbach’s Steel Greenhouse [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/]. In later threads I will argue that the presence of a surrounding inert object will always increase the temperature of the active object provided radiation is the only means of energy transfer between the active object and the surrounding inert object. But I will also argue that if conduction between objects is also allowed, the presence of the surrounding inert object can (doesn’t have to, but can) result in a lower active object temperature. I didn’t include those arguments in this thread because my comment was already too long and I wanted to hear from Joanne’s readers regarding my definitions of terms.
10
Reed 1:52am: There are some issues to consider when your definitions are compared to text book definitions.
Your definition of heat short form: “the flow (transfer) of energy between objects”. This implies heat is in one object and afterwards that same heat is in the other object so to “flow (transfer)”. You then go on to write of internal energy in an object but do not discuss how heat is in any other form that can possibly exist in a single object (so that heat can later transfer from that object). Really, today a single object possesses 100% internal energy and 0% “heat”.
Thermal energy: this is really an acronym shortened form of therm[-odynamic intern-]al energy (Zemansky, M.W., 1970 Vol. 8 “The Physics Teacher”). Better, less confusing to use thermodynamic internal energy. Then you can more clearly see there are only two ways to change the internal energy of a system that doesn’t exchange mass: 1) allow the system to interact with its surroundings at a different temperature, 2) exert a force on the system over a distance. Hence dU/dt = Q+W (1st law as applied to atmosphere).
——
“1) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can absorb but not radiate electromagnetic energy in one or more sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band.
(2) A gas whose molecular and/or atomic structure can radiate but not absorb electromagnetic energy in one of more sub-bands of the IR band.”
Not according to Dr. Max Planck, a gas always absorbs and radiates EM energy at all frequencies as the gas will radiate at a non-zero intensity at all temperatures and all frequencies, see eqn. 274, p. 198 here:
http://mirrors.syringanetworks.net/gutenberg/4/0/0/3/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
——
“Thermal Energy is defined to be the internal energy of an object that is either (a) transferred out of the higher temperature object via heat, (b) transferred into the lower temperature object via heat, or (c) remains forever in the volume of space in which the heat exists.”
Parse this using your definition of heat and the non-acronym for thermal energy:
Therm-odynamic intern-al energy is defined to be the internal energy of an object that is either (a) transferred out of the higher temperature object via the flow (transfer) of energy between objects, (b) transferred into the lower temperature object via the flow (transfer) of energy between objects, or (c) remains forever in the volume of space in which the the flow (transfer) of energy between objects exists.
This makes it easier to see your (c) makes no sense. Also makes it easier to understand your (a) and (b) are just the 1st law in the form dU/dt = Q+W with W=0.
50
LtCusper. Thank you for your response. You make some good points. [As an aside, the points you raise just confirm my overall experience that most (including this one) discussions of heat and temperature involve words and phrases that have different meanings to different people.]
You wrote: “Really, today a single object possesses 100% internal energy and 0% ‘heat’.” I agree. Specifically, “heat” is not a property of matter (objects), but rather represents a transfer of internal energy from one object to another, where the transfer is due solely to a temperature difference between the objects. In this sense, I agree (at least I think we agree) that when attributing energy associated with “heat” to an object, the phrase “thermodynamic internal energy” is much better than the word “heat.”
With respect to your items identified by 1) and 2) above, I also agree. But isn’t it true that the molecular structures of many gases are such that the “radiation versus frequency” curve doesn’t follow Planck’s cavity radiation curve? That is, energy may be radiated at all frequencies, but more energy is radiated in certain frequency intervals than would be predicted by Planck’s cavity radiation law.
[And as an aside, Planck’s cavity radiation law applies to a small planar opening in a cavity whose internal walls are at a uniform temperature. The opening of the cavity is expressed as a differential planar area, not as a differential volume. As such, I don’t know how to apply Planck’s cavity radiation law to a volume of gas. At one time, I emailed a few people asking for a law equivalent to Planck’s cavity radiation law that applied to a volume of gases. I got few responses; but the responses I did get indicated they weren’t aware of such a law. Is there any chance you are aware of such a law?]
Regarding your last point–my item (c) makes no sense. If internal thermal energy is moving from a high-temperature object (A) to a low-temperature object (B) through object C {as in conduction between the element of a stove (object A) and the water (object B) in a pot on the stove}, then some of the internal thermal energy leaving the element stays within the metal (object C) of the pot. In this sense, some of the internal thermal energy leaving the stove ends up in the medium between the stove and the water. Regarding this I make two comments. First, you might say: “Wait a minute. Shouldn’t your discussion of internal energy transfer from the element to the metal of the pot be based solely on the temperatures of the element and the metal?” The answer is: yes it should. However, when people analyze conduction (the heat current) between two objects, they normally consider the temperatures of the two objects and the thermal conduction properties of the joining material. They may talk about a temperature gradient through the joining material, but the joining material’s actual temperature profile is rarely discussed. I’m not sure exactly how to incorporate your concern into a discussion of heat and temperature, but I believe your concern is valid.
Second, steady-state conditions (i.e., when all temperatures have ceased changing), then I agree the internal thermal energy of the joining medium is unchanging; and as such it makes no sense to say (as I did) energy is flowing into (i.e., accumulating) within atmospheric CO2 gas. However, if when the joining medium is first placed between the objects at different temperatures and the temperature of the joining medium is lower than the temperature of either object, then at least for a finite transient time some of the internal thermal energy leaving the higher temperature object will end up in the joining medium. Thus, for a short time at least, the internal thermal energy of the joining medium is increasing. The observation that this condition must have finite duration is one of the problems I have with the concept of atmospheric CO2 trapping heat. At most, atmospheric CO2 can store (in the AGW advocate parlance, trap) internal thermal energy for a finite time interval. At the end of that time interval, no additional thermal energy is being stored and hence no additional thermal energy is being trapped by atmospheric CO2 gas. Bottom line, it seems to me that at best it might be argued that atmospheric CO2 gas “traps” (Oh how I hate that word) heat for a finite time interval, but after a while all “heat trapping” stops. And if this is true, the CO2 can at most be a “heat-trapping” gas for a finite time interval.
00
Reed 2:39pm: ”… words and phrases that have different meanings to different people.”
Agree. An effective writer needs to understand the audience. If engaged in effective writing for the general population (genpop) then words that have meaning are heat, greenhouse, trapping as long as the words are used consistent with the basic science. If engaged in writing for informed, critical subject matter experts (SME) then substitute enthalpy for heat, atmosphere optical depth for both greenhouse & trapping.
“..radiation versus frequency” curve doesn’t follow Planck’s cavity radiation curve?”
No, all matter that has ever been tested does follow the shape of the ideal emissivity = 1.0 Planck curve (eqn. 274, p. 198 above) at a lower intensity due to all real matter having emissivity less than 1.0. All matter includes all gases.
Your object A,B,C example works for genpop, is the zeroth law for SME. If not sure how to work in heat and temperature for genpop & SME, then define/use enthalpy & zeroth law along with dU/dt=Q+W 1st law for thermodynamic internal energy.
Your last verbose paragraph seems consistent with dU/dt = Q+W with W=0. Also you seem to be writing about 1st law in form with W=0: variance in Qp = energy in – energy out = m*Cp*dT which is the finite amount of energy required to infinitesimally change the temperature of any material of unit mass (subscript p being for constant pressure process). Also true for Qv, Cv constant volume process.
50
LtCusper. You wrote: “No, all matter that has ever been tested does follow the shape of the ideal emissivity = 1.0 Planck curve (eqn. 274, p. 198 above) at a lower intensity due to all real matter having emissivity less than 1.0. All matter includes all gases.” I was not aware of that. I made the assumptions that (1) because gases like CO2 have spectral absorption bands, and (2) because AGW proponents make a big deal of “backradiation”, which I take to mean electromagnetic radiation (a) emitted by atmospheric gases in the direction of the Earth’s surface and (b) having emitted power spectral densities heavily weighted in the atmospheric gases’ absorption bands, that the emission spectrums of greenhouse gases closely matched their absorption spectrums. Apparently, part (b) of my second assumption was wrong. Thank you for the information.
If you’re correct (and I’ll try to verify what you wrote), then whatever credibility the “backradiation” argument had (and in my mind, it was very little), has been diminished.
00
Reed 11:30am: Your part b) is not wrong, part b) is correct according to Dr. Max Planck’s paper linked above p. 48 which shows an atmosphere radiates toward space and toward a planet surface.
00
LtCusper 1:54am, 10 March. I got to thinking about your statement: “No, all matter that has ever been tested does follow the shape of the ideal emissivity = 1.0 Planck curve (eqn. 274, p. 198 above) at a lower intensity due to all real matter having emissivity less than 1.0. All matter includes all gases.”
Something puzzles me. In particular, I thought astronomers determined the distance to far-removed stars by measuring the red-shift (classical and relativistic Doppler shift) of the spectral “signature” of the hydrogen atom. That is, the hydrogen atom possesses an electron shell structure (quantized energy states) where photons are emitted when an electron transitions from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. Since these energy states are quantized, both an emission (higher to lower energy state transition) and an absorption (lower to higher energy state transition) line-spectrum ensue. In an inertial rest frame stationary stationary with respect to the hydrogen atom, the pattern of the spectral lines is known and, as far as I am aware, unique. By looking for the pattern in light from a star or stars and measuring the frequency shift (and as far as I know, the “frequency stretching” of the pattern because a different Doppler shift is applied to each spectral line) one can estimate the speed at which the star is moving away from us–i.e., the radial speed if the Earth is at the origin of a coordinate system.
If the above is true, then hydrogen, which I believe in a star is in a gaseous state, exhibits a line spectrum, which as far as I know, is not part of Planck’s cavity radiation law. Doesn’t this contradict the idea that “all matter” follows the Planck curve? I believe the quantum absorption states of CO2 gas are related to the quantum vibrational patterns of the CO2 molecule not the electron energy states; but isn’t it reasonable to assume that transitions between vibrational energy states will both absorb and emit photons at discrete frequencies? If so, then won’t CO2 gas exhibit a line-spectral behavior? Coupled with the fact that CO2 gaseous molecules will have a spread of velocities (and hence a spread of radial speeds relative to an observer), won’t the end result be a “smeared” (i.e., non-zero width) emission line spectrum?
It may be that the total energy associated with these transitions is swamped by whatever causes the shape of Planck’s curve. If so, for all practical purposes they can be ignored. But if for CO2 gas at atmospheric temperatures and pressures the total energy associated with these transitions is non-negligible, then doesn’t such a phenomenon bring into question the concept that the spectral emission pattern of all matter follows the Planck curve?
Any thoughts you have would be appreciated.
00
Reed 2:49am: “Doesn’t this contradict the idea that “all matter” follows the Planck curve?”
No. Thanks for quoting my clip exactly Reed. That spectrum of hydrogen from the distant star (as one on earth) will follow the Planck shape in any frequency interval but not overlay the ideal Planck curve since the real hydrogen curve will be less intensity (lower) at every frequency for the temperature of the distant star’s effective radiating surface (emissivity always less than 1.0). Each distant star spectrum frequency will be shifted an amount from hydrogen spectrum we measure here on earth in part due the expansion of the universe and kinetic radial velocity. Actually, in practice, you will see the real curve at some frequencies rise slightly above ideal Planck curve since temperature is not uniform at the source.
“..isn’t it reasonable to assume that transitions between vibrational energy states will both absorb and emit photons at discrete frequencies?”
Yes. In the Planck paper resonators and oscillators are discussed to a certain extent (see for example p. 174). Planck was among the first if not the first to start dealing with quantum effects around 1900 in a limited way, others (Einstein, Pauli, Bohr..) clarified and added a whole field to the thinking Planck developed on the subject. The H2, CO2 ideal Planck curve doesn’t show these effects as only the real spectrum curve shows them at certain frequency intervals associated with the various possible spectral lines.
“If so, then won’t CO2 gas exhibit a line-spectral behavior?…won’t the end result be a “smeared” (i.e., non-zero width) emission line spectrum?”
Sure, each spectral line shape exhibited in the real CO2 curve is narrow but never identically zero intensity or zero width. Because the CO2 molecules are in motion, they get illuminated by radiation of frequency slightly shifted from that of the source, and thus emit a radiation that is also slightly shifted from that of the source. This doppler broadening is sometimes called pressure broadening which is misleading because the broadening has nothing fundamental to do with pressure.
“..then doesn’t such a phenomenon bring into question the concept that the spectral emission pattern of all matter follows the Planck curve?”
Just be careful with wording, the Planck curve is only ideal for a black body at a temperature, emissivity = 1.0, the real body follows the Planck curve at a lower intensity due the lower emissivity of a real object (since all real objects reflect some light) along with spectral line shape and its doppler broadening.
40
LtCusper 3:58 am, 11 March. I’ll give what you wrote some thought. In any event, from my perspective our dialog on this thread has been beneficial; and for that, I thank you.
50
Reed,
See my 5:43 below, then try to comprehend the magnitude if this CAGW silliness, please!
That should be zero surface work function. 🙂
06
Will 5:43am: “Please show even one physical matter tested”
That’s easy enough. For testing description and results, see Dr. Max Planck list bottom p. 199 cite 1 in the link above 8:14am. Or ref. a modern test in a good text on radiation, I can refer if needed.
All the tests on any material (includes any gas) I’ve ever done personally & all tests I’ve ever read about follow shape of e=1.0 ideal Planck eqn. 274, p. 198 linked above. Perhaps you have evidence for the 1st material ever found that does not follow the ideal Planck shape? And stopped testing after that one…
50
“All the tests on any material (includes any gas) I’ve ever done personally & all tests I’ve ever read about follow shape of e=1.0 ideal Planck eqn. 274, p. 198 linked above.”
Please describe any test that you personally have ever done, including instruments used, that show any thermal radiative flux in any wavelength interval that is not completely limited by the opposing radiance of your measuring instrument in that wavelength interval!
“Perhaps you have evidence for the 1st material ever found that does not follow the ideal Planck shape? And stopped testing after that one…”
Some theoretical black body mass, independent of surface properties, always must exhibit, the exact specular radiance properties, as illustrated by Max. Such has nothing to do with the measured radiative flux from any matter. Perhaps you can demonstrate black body gas emanating from your anal orifice. Are we having fun yet? 😡
05
Will 8:06am – Thanks for asking about the instrumentation, I’ve already given a cite to describe the basic test procedures. The instrument used for some spectral measurements was a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm. Although I can’t promise that all conclusions are drawn from my own investigations, I can promise that some tests are original – enough to satisfy curiosity. I am also partial to the inexpensive Ryobi IR002. Scientists solve problems. So get to work. Max is watching.
40
LtCusper March 11, 2015 at 1:35 pm
“Will 8:06am – Thanks for asking about the instrumentation, I’ve already given a cite to describe the basic test procedures. The instrument used for some spectral measurements was a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm. Although I can’t promise that all conclusions are drawn from my own investigations, I can promise that some tests are original – enough to satisfy curiosity. I am also partial to the inexpensive Ryobi IR002. Scientists solve problems. So get to work. Max is watching.”
OK you are measuring spectral radiance of “stuff” at temperatures high enough for photometric rather than radiometric analysis and is appropriate. At these temperatures and wavelengths most radiative matter exhibits a frequency continuum rather than resonance. This is true for only metallic gasses, The inert gasses have no measurable radiance or need for emissivity. Helium has no brightness temperature.
04
Will 2:28pm: “The inert gasses have no measurable radiance..”
Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s specific intensity eqn. above 8:14am. True, at some freq. and temperature the helium emission will be too small to measure with today’s Model PR-650 but tomorrow’s? Who knows. If you look up helium-neon laser operations you will find measurable radiance from inert gas namely a 1 mW unit viewed along the axis can be much brighter than a 300W projection lamp. Don’t try this at home.
“Helium has no brightness temperature.”
Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s specific intensity eqn. above 8:14am. Consider its integral over any range of frequencies i.e. d(frequency). This integral approaches 0 as T goes to 0 and infinity as T goes to infinity and its derivative with respect to T is always positive. Thus whatever the instrumentation reads, we can always find one and only one brightness temperature that matches it. For any diffraction negligible material including helium.
30
LtCusper March 12, 2015 at 10:10 pm
Will 2:28pm: “The inert gasses have no measurable radiance..”
“Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s specific intensity eqn. above 8:14am.”
That “eqn” is developed specifically for a Planck defined theoretical black-body and in no way applies to any physical mass or surface ever constructed or discovered on or near this Earth. Has no one ever bothered to teach you how to interpret a technical document written at a specific time period?
First, The audience. Planck was trying to explain the concept of Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation, as spontaneously generated as some function of temperature of mass, to mechanics that depended on mass for understanding. At the time there were no words to describe the difference between a potential for thermal radiative flux and some measurable flux itself. All thermodynamic understanding depended on some differential temperature or pressure of different masses.
Second, The subject. Electromagnetic radiative flux depends not at all on mass, and radiometric temperature has nothing to do with thermometric temperature except, where careless physicists try to shoehorn EMR into a mechanical shoebox! It does not fit ever!
Both post modern,and post normal science education has exploited this “does not fit” to promote gobs of new tiny particles that must have apparent mass and temperature. This is complete departure from anything physical and only requires a consensus of probabilities for any physical existence. This is like having your automobile “fixed” by a statistical mechanic! On the way home precisely, half the wheels fall off!
“True, at some freq. and temperature the helium emission will be too small to measure with today’s Model PR-650 but tomorrow’s? Who knows. If you look up helium-neon laser operations you will find measurable radiance from inert gas”
What nonsense a HeNe laser has a low pressure mixture of MgHeNe. That Mg provides all ionization potential for any power emission! The HeNe in the semi-metal, along with the dimensionality and diffraction effects of the cavity resonator, provide the center frequency, frequency interval, and divergent solid angle of such radiative exitance. The specific radiant intensity depends little on the temperature of anything, but mostly on the value of electrical current powering such exitance. Your HeNe laser is a physical, measurable complex conjugate of Planck’s theoretical black-body.
“Namely a 1 mW unit viewed along the axis can be much brighter than a 300W projection lamp. Don’t try this at home.”
The accepted industry label is “Do not look into laser beam with remaining eye!”
(“Helium has no brightness temperature.”)
“Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s specific intensity eqn. above 8:14am. Consider its integral over any range of frequencies i.e. d(frequency). This integral approaches 0 as T goes to 0 and infinity as T goes to infinity and its derivative with respect to T is always positive.”
But consider the orthogonal integration over any range of temperatures. This is the only possible interpretation of the S-B equation. Works well also for the derivative of flux with respect to T (for of course for black-bodies) as delta T increases in either direction.
Yes indeed,” over any fixed wavelength thermal radiance increases as some non-integer power greater than one of that absolute temperature. That algebraic radiance can approach infinity as temperature approaches infinity. However the actual flux does not approach infinity as it is quantized by frequency. So much for the usefulness of symbolic algebra!
“Thus whatever the instrumentation reads, we can always find one and only one brightness temperature that matches it. For any diffraction negligible material including helium.”
Indeed. But generally by folk that actually understand the terms brightness and brightness temperature.. Your microwave oven exhibits similar characteristics that give a fat finger to the deliberate misinterpretation of Max P. and Jimmy M.
01
Will 12:21pm: “Has no one ever bothered to teach you how to interpret a technical document written at a specific time period?”
No, the time period is immaterial for principles. That’s why the specific intensity eqn. 274 is a well-tested principle of science to this day, principles don’t change – that’s why they call them principles.
“Planck was trying to explain the concept of Maxwell’s…”
Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s own words, see the Preface to First Edition, sentence 2 where he writes the original intention was to account for his own investigations, then added some foundation theory (“Maxwell’s radiation pressure”).
“That Mg provides all ionization potential for any power emission!”
No. There is no Mg employed for lasing HeNe gas laser – I wrote about the original gas laser HeNe wherein the neon is responsible for most of the emission (like a neon sign), helium is not necessary either but hugely lowers the stimulation needed.
“…a potential for thermal radiative flux…..the actual flux…”
Huh? You write there is only a potential flux then write actual flux. Please try to keep your story straight. There is really only actual – though ideal – flux in the specific intensity eqn. 274 first found empirically then from theory. And, yes, discuss helium brightness temperature when actually understand it.
20
LtCusper March 13, 2015 at 1:41 pm
(Will 12:21pm: “Has no one ever bothered to teach you how to interpret a technical document written at a specific time period?”)
“No, the time period is immaterial for principles. That’s why the specific intensity eqn. 274 is a well-tested principle of science to this day, principles don’t change – that’s why they call them principles.”
What principles? All was controversy over EMR and especially thermal EMR. Several folk died in duels over this complete non-principles. The era of SCIENCE!
(“Planck was trying to explain the concept of Maxwell’s…”)
“Not according to Dr. Max Planck’s own words, see the Preface to First Edition, sentence 2 where he writes the original intention was to account for his own investigations, then added some foundation theory (“Maxwell’s radiation pressure”).”
Please try to actually read and understand your referenced document. “foundation theory”? All of the concepts of radiative pressure or momentum were attacked from everywhere, as momentum implies mass. EMR power requires no mass~
(“That Mg provides all ionization potential for any power emission!”)
“No. There is no Mg employed for lasing HeNe gas laser – I wrote about the original gas laser HeNe wherein the neon is responsible for most of the emission (like a neon sign), helium is not necessary either but hugely lowers the stimulation needed.”
So you wrote about nonsense. Even the little ne-2 glow tube required a bit of mercury to operate. ask any Chemist! It is clear that you have never been around any activity that resulted in any gas laser to finally operate.
(“…a potential for thermal radiative flux…..the actual flux…”)
“Huh? You write there is only a potential flux then write actual flux. Please try to keep your story straight. There is really only actual – though ideal – flux in the specific intensity eqn. 274 first found empirically then from theory. ”
Never ever such measurement! All EMR flux measurements have only provided evidence of flux proportional to the difference in opposing radiance. Never some theoretical flux in some direction of no opposing radiance. Take your photons and shove it!
“And, yes, discuss helium brightness temperature when actually understand it.”
Please give the dimensional units for “brightness” then radiative temperature, and explain how they may be related?
01
Will 4:42pm: “What principles? All was controversy over EMR..”
There is no well founded controversy at all over the principle of Dr. Max Planck eqn. 274, it has been supported by every test I have ever done and all the experimenters I’ve ever read correctly using the principle. The controversy is in your unprincipled writing. Show some independent proof supporting your position that there is a controversy.
“All of the concepts of radiative pressure or momentum were attacked from everywhere”
Preposterous Will. A beam of radiation, photon & wave, possesses energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum but not mass. Though it would be more correct to say that the upper limit of the photon mass keeps decreasing, its present value being less than about 10^−24 times the mass of the electron. If it bothers you that a particle without (much) mass can carry much momentum this is because you are stuck on the notion that momentum is mass times velocity. Sometimes this is true (approximately), sometimes not. Momentum is a property complete in itself and not always the product of mass and velocity.
Try to attack this: http://sail.planetary.org/
“Never ever such (flux) measurement!”
Preposterous Will, I’ve personally performed such measurement routinely, Dr. Max Planck is reporting on his own such lab measurements and offers: See among others H. Rubens und F. Kurlbaum, Sitz. Ber. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin vom 25. Okt., 1900, p. 929. Ann. d. Phys. 4, p. 649, 1901. F. Paschen, Ann.d. Phys. 4, p. 277, 1901.
“ask any Chemist!…Please give the dimensional units for “brightness” then radiative temperature, and explain how they may be related?”
Consult any chemist & a modern text book on these subjects & report on your own. It is not too hard Will. Thanks for the humorous discussion.
20
“No, all matter that has ever been tested does follow the shape of the ideal emissivity = 1.0 Planck curve (eqn. 274, p. 198 above) at a lower intensity due to all real matter having emissivity less than 1.0. All matter includes all gases.”
Please show even one physical matter tested, That has ever emitted radiative flux anywhere close to your claim that radiative flux equals specular radiance x PI steradians x emissivity at that frequency! Such radiative flux is always limited by any opposing radiance as per Maxwell’s equations. You insist on the use of Planck’s integral completely out of context, and in error. In addition such a radiance function can only be realized in a metal or semi-metal with zero work function, never any gas! 😥
05
Your reference:
Not according to Dr. Max Planck, a gas always absorbs and radiates EM energy at all frequencies as the gas will radiate at a non-zero intensity at all temperatures and all frequencies, see eqn. 274, p. 198 here:
http://mirrors.syringanetworks.net/gutenberg/4/0/0/3/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Is quite good. However your interpretation of that document is but juvenile nonsense!
You incorrectly assume a non metallic gas approaches a black-body rather than a resonant cavity.
This just after eqn (276)
“This is the specific intensity of a monochromatic plane polarized ray of the wave length λ which is emitted from a black body at the temperature T into a vacuum in a direction perpendicular to the surface.”
You fools refuse to translate “specific intensity” into the current engineering “specular radiance”, a potential for radiative flux. You specifically ignore “into a vacuum in a direction perpendicular to the surface.” which demands a direction with no opposing “radiance” at any frequency.
“Scientists solve problems. So get to work. Max is watching.”
What BS, Scientists create problems for all Earthlings. Engineers solve problems!
The old guys were careful in their writing, not so much any more! 🙂
03
(“Heat is the flow (transfer) of energy between objects where the energy flow exists solely because the objects are at different temperatures. Energy flow in the form of heat is always from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object.”)
“Heat” is never the “transfer” itself, but only what is transferred between interconnected mass, with latent heat, transfer this is never energy, It must be the transfer of mass itself with that contained latent heat. In atmosphere, that is dependent on mass flow (wind), never on some difference in temperature, from one location, to another. This seems so complex only with symbolic algebra. but so simple if spontaneous is allowed or demanded! Thermal EMR spontaneous power transfer is also simple, but not proportional to delta T but proportional to the delta (difference) in two different temperatures, each raised to the fourth power!!
The EMR flux is always proportional to the “average” temperature raised to the third power times the linear difference in temperature, and always (only) in the direction imposed by that linear delta temperature. Such can never be considered “heat” as it has no mass and no temperature. EMR is completely relativistic, and any mass, is completely denied. 🙂
An example of spontaneous is the Rooster crowing, before dawn, to get the hens lined up this morning! -will-
19
It is gravity which “traps heat” not back radiation. There is solid empirical evidence now in a vortex cooling tube that centrifugal force produces a temperature gradient, as does the force of gravity. The evidence is here along with the explanation based on the laws of physics.
This is what climatologists need to understand ….
Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot’s earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the “fall” or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference. [source]
That is why in a planet’s troposphere there is homogeneous molecular (PE+KE) when entropy is a maximum and so there are no unbalanced energy potentials. And that is why there is a temperature gradient formed by gravity and not by back radiation from water vapor, carbon dioxide etc.
06
Hi Reed,
I have a bit of a problem with your definition of Heat!
I don’t have a reference. However my understanding is that Heat is Thermal Energy. An object that aquires heat will become hotter and if it looses heat it will get cooler. Units are Joules or Calories.
If Heat is an energy flow then it cannot be trapped, because then it would not be heat.
02
I hate to resort to the D word but using it literally as a verb, is this the Green’s only British MP denying Climate Change ?
” The Brighton Pavilion MP told the crowd: “We are saying no to climate change and no to fossil firms. ”
at the London Mad March Climate March on Saturday.
Plenty of the usual climate clowns were out in force.
“Comedian Russell Brand and fashion designer Vivienne Westwood were among the celebrities who led a climate change protest outside the Houses of Parliament today.”
“They were led by a man with green leaves attached to his head, who was riding a bicycle with large wings bearing the slogan: “Look after your mum.”
At one stage about 100 marchers blocked traffic outside Charing Cross station after siting down in the middle of the road with their bicycles.”
“Speaking at the event via video link, Ms Westwood described the demonstration as “super important”.
She said: “As you march my models will be walking down the catwalk.
“It’s very important you are there. I believe this demo is super important for the whole world.””
50
” The Brighton Pavilion MP told the crowd: “We are saying no to climate change and no to fossil firms. ”
——————–
I bet the climate won’t listen.
I’ve tried before and it didn’t work.
I had to move to Florida to get the climate I wanted.
141
Was the MP’s name Canute, by any chance?
30
Have a look at the graph showing how all timescales of the Central England Temperature show climate change and the recent period is by no means unusual:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/03/06/proof-recent-temperature-trends-are-not-abnormal/#comment-31481
121
Nice graph of the CET record, Scottish Sceptic. May I download and use it in arguments as needed?
70
“They were led by a man with green leaves attached to his head, who was riding a bicycle with large wings bearing the slogan: “Look after your mum.”
So he will take his elderly mother shopping (or to a hospital) on the back of his bike.
60
Well it makes a change anyway, from:-
“Think of the grandchildren”
60
Ian George: Well, at least he does luv his mum!
00
That’s hilarious. VW reckoned it was important that people were at the march and yet it was even more important that her models were on the catwalk. Trivialities both.
70
Annie,
Maybe what she really meant was that it was important for ppl to be there because her models were on the catwalk. ( and VW is simply jumping on the bandwagon? ) 😮
So doubly trivial? 😉
Abe
70
That’s a bit harsh Annie. Dear old Dame Viv. is more than a triviality, in her field, but admittedly her authority on Climate is mere indulgence. Appeals to celebrity and appeals to popularity are what it’s all about though. (Is appeal to celebrity just another form of appeal to populism or is it something else in its own right I wonder )
40
I’m afraid that celebrity and popularity are both trivial to me.
00
“Comedian Russell Brand ” apparently bereft of a personality and compelled to adopt the melange of acting personas he’s played-out on the screen, acts out the hackneyed role of a left wing brain-dead revolutionary to the tee. The truly funny thing is that some folk take him seriously.
10
A cartoon by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune, comparing global warming skeptics to creationists, anti-vaccination nuts, and ISIS:
http://www.caglecartoons.com/viewimage.asp?ID={08A8F0DE-ABB5-4EEE-86FB-7A23360B64B0}
20
How does that latest piece look on Patchy ?
Tony Abbott wants to be careful he’s got up to date, state of the art encryption on his Laptop, Mobile and other Comms. devices.
There are Global forces that would stop at nothing to get rid of him before The Paris COP in November and the latest IPCC shenanigans might be giving them fresh ideas.
Tony should check out all his devices immediately for the latest cyber security flaw . as well as more generally for outdated cypher protocols and other flaws with eg the Qualys client test
and he should be careful what websites he visit’s by checking out their security eg. at SSL Labs first. and avoid using public WiFi.
Indeed is any man in a senior leadership position safe from hackers.
Getting his Personal Assistant to handle all his E-Mail and Texts might be a smart move.
130
That’s one hot piece. How is it held on I wonder ?
20
If Tony is using an iPhone, iPad or other iOS/Apple Mobile device he should download and start using the Google Chrome browser immediately, instead of using Apple’s resident Safari browser. At least until Apple fixes their latest security weakness exposing all users to deliberately weakened US Govt. Export codes.
20
Windows is broken too. Use Firefox or Chrome from a Laptop of Desktop to avoid Internet Explorer till MS fixes it.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/3046015.aspx
00
SSL security is broken. That comforting Padlock symbol displayed on your Web Browser when dealing on-line with your bank, payroll details or tax accounts, is only as secure as the latest problem to be published to the burgeoning on-line criminal community and none of it is secure from state apparatus. Not just your own Government, but is just about as accessible to any Government.
Security is an illusion, for your peace of mind. On-line banking is akin to leaving all your valuables locked in your car, but don’t lose any sleep over it.
40
Having found a way to prove that recent climate change is indistiguishable from normal natural variation I’m now working on a follow up article and would welcome some feedback. In summary the article says:
“It has frequently been stated that 2oth century warming was “unprecedented” or “cannot be explained”. This article sets out to test this assertion on CET the longest available temperature series. I find the CET data rejects the hypothesis of ‘climate change’ (>58%) & current ‘global warming’ (>72%) and that overall global temperature has not changed significantly more than would be expected.”
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/03/06/proof-recent-temperature-trends-are-not-abnormal/#comment-31481
130
9 March 2015, CSIRO via theconversation:
February carbon dioxide levels average 400ppm for first time
“The US government’s greenhouse gas monitoring site at Mauna Loa in Hawaii has confirmed that its average recorded carbon dioxide levels for February topped 400 parts per million (ppm) – the first time that this has been seen in a northern winter month.
Carbon dioxide is one of the primary greenhouse gases.
Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to climate change.
The amount of warming produced by a given rise in greenhouse gas concentrations depends on feedback processes in the climate system, such as the water vapour response.”
~ ~ ~
MARCH 06, 2015 (travelpulse)
Hawaii Pelted With Heavy Snow on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa … received more than a foot of snow from the storm.
. . .
How does carbon(sic) do that?
90
handjive,
It doesn’t.
From the conversation:
No, it is not. It only comprises 0.04% of all atmospheric gases. That means there is one molecule of CO2 to every 2,500 molecules of water vapor.
Naked assertion. (a statement without corroborating evidence) This claim is based on computer simulations whose parameters are questionable at best, or just plain wrong at worst.
False. If this were true, then tropospheric temperatures would have continued to increase as concentrations of CO2 increased. This has not happenned, so this hypothesis has been falsified by observation.
Final Note:
The moment they began to claim that the hiatus in temperature rise was caused by something other than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the whole theory collapsed. This is clear from their continued claims that CO2 is the primary driver of atmospheric temperatures on this planet, and can be proven false by simple logic that any high-school student can grasp.
If CO2 is the primary driver, then other influences cannot stop it.
If some influence can stop CO2, then that influence is stronger than CO2.
It follows that any influence strong enough to stop CO2 from heating the atmosphere must be, by definition, the primary driver.
As Edward R. Murrow would say:
Good night, and good luck.
Abe
100
Edward R Murrow is one of my favorite personalities. I quote him above to show my agreement with his closing remarks on March 19, 1954 and not to in compare myself to him. Here’s an excerpt from the full show that aired that night, as they appear on the Berkeley Edu webpage. They go along with this youtube clip.
I’ve emphasized portions of this excerpt because I feel they are just as pertinent now, in our time, as as they were in the period in history in which they originally aired.
I intentionally divided the excerpt into two parts. The first part is dedicated to Willie Soon. I believe it’s clear why. The second part is dedicated to all skeptics. I believe it’s also clear why.
Abe
50
Quote Just-A-Guy:
“Final Note:
The moment they began to claim that the hiatus in temperature rise was caused by something other than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the whole theory collapsed.”
Fwiw, Clive Best posted this 3 March, 2015:
IPCC Scientist’s dilemma
“Michael Mann’s pause explanation drives a coach & horses through AR5 attribution analysis described in chapter 10.
Mann is quite right that the PDO/AMO may likely be the cause of the hiatus, but by accepting this possibility he unfortunately drives a coach and horses through the AR5 attribution analysis described in chapter 10.
This is because the probability analysis used there depends on natural variability being precisely zero since 1951.
Invoking the AMO/PDO to explain the pause in global warming essenially means that Internal Variability can no longer be assumed to be zero.”
. . .
You would think that was ‘game over’.
20
handjive,
I know, right? Like one of those wind-up toys we had as kids. When they run out of ‘steam’, you just wind them up again . . . and off they go!
Back in the BOM under fire thread last week I wrote this:
On Judith Curry’s blog, from two days ago, she asks more direct and to the point:
Michael Mann? Go figure.
Abe
30
Water vapour is around 1%, can be up to 4% so make that 25 to 100 molecules of water per molecule of CO2.
10
Also, note in my travelpulse link, the answer to my question of rising co2 causing snow, quote:
“When asked about how often snow storms occur on the Hawaiian Islands, assistant professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Hawaii, Ken Rubin, told Weather.com:
“It snows here every year, but only at the very summits of our three tallest volcanoes (Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea and Haleakala).”
~ ~ ~
Snowfall in Hawaii
by Saul Price, Pacific Supervisory Office, U.S Weather Bureau, Honolulu, 1962:
Our records show the following measured maximum depths and lowest elevations reached for the period 1915 – 1958, inclusive.
example: Mauna Loa – 1 foot – 10,000 feet 9 feb 1922
. . .
Egad.
Do I really need to link the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide graph?
10
‘In Boston, where they have had 8 feet of snow since January 24th, it was the 2nd coldest February and month ever. It was the snowiest winter (DJF) on record and will be the snowiest season perhaps by Monday. There is some evidence this may be the snowiest year since the Pilgrims were here in 1717.’
Joe D’Aleo (Icecap)
110
The LIA was real and we are fairly certain a weak sun was responsible, so there is a suggestion that we can prove our point by digging a hole on Mars.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/drill-into-mars-for-clues-to-earths-climate/
50
Al Gore likes to travel. If he is not available there are several others I would like to see on Mars.
80
el gordo,
Which brings us to another flaw in the AGW hypothesis.
The Two IPCC Claims
Their first claim is that CO2 acts as a positive feedback of heat into the atmosphere and therefore the temperature of the atmosphere should rise as CO2 rises. Their second claim all along has been that the sun has only a minor influence on the atmospheric temperature.
There is no logic to these two statements because they contradict each other.
If CO2 is feeding heat back into the atmosphere, where did that heat come from if not the sun? CO2 can only feed back what it has received and no more. If it can only feed back what it receives, then the more it receives, the more it feeds back. And so, the less it receives, the less it can feed back.
Therefore, the sun must be the primary driver and not CO2.*
Thermodynamics doesn’t care about the IPCC models and conjectures. It is what it is.
Abe
*I’m not claiming I believe this to be the case one way or the other. My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion at this point. What I am saying is that the two claims made by the IPCC contradict each other.
80
Good argument Abe.
40
Thanks, compa. I gat a few kicks left in me.
40
The warmists often say something to the effect of ‘unless it’s peer reviewed, it’s not worth anything – and you’re not a climate scientist, what could you possibly know about it?’
When I see or hear this sort of thing, I generally conclude that the person holding forth either hasn’t got much of a science background, or is using the accusation as a tactical ploy to shore up their argument or point of view.
Why?
Anyone who works in science, technology, or engineering is always going to have to learn new concepts, techniques, and solve problems.
I know, because like countless others I’ve been there, done that.
Here’s my thumbnail sketch career.
Now retired, I trained as a nurse many years ago. Three years, studying a variety of subjects – for example, physiology, pharmacology, anatomy, various disease processes and so on.
Afterwards, I worked in an Accident and Emergency department for a year, before undertaking a degree in Human Biology. Some of the material overlapped the nursing course, other subjects such as biomechanics were new to me. I became more and more interested in biochemistry, and made a career move to hospital laboratory work. This was totally unlike anything I’d ever done before, using assay systems rejoicing in such names as immunoelectrophoresis, heamagglutination, flow cytometry, and many more besides. When I later worked for my Ph.D., I had to learn about DNA sequencing and microbiological techniques relevant to my field of study.
There won’t be too many nurses who know how to carry out DNA sequencing, and there won’t be many laboratory scientists who know what a displaced Colles fracture is.
But they can find out.
In other words, anything can be learned, and in science it’s necessary to ask new questions and adapt many times during a career.
The suggestion that nobody but the elite ‘chosen ones’ can possibly ask sensible questions or comment about the alleged man-made global warming is totally without foundation.
110
The New 21st Century Paradigm in Climate Science
We can learn a lot from the planet Venus. The Sun’s direct radiation to the Venus surface supplies only about 20W/m^2, not the much greater and incorrect Science of Doom figure. The 20W/m^2 was estimated from measurements by Russian probes dropped to the surface.
Yes, for the temperature of a location on the surface to actually rise from 732K to 737K there would need to be over 16,000W/m^2 if radiation were what was raising the temperature. But it’s not. And radiation from a colder troposphere cannot raise the surface temperature one iota.
What does supply the necessary thermal energy to the Venus surface is downward convective heat transfer which is acting in accord with the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics whereby entropy is increasing and there is a propensity towards thermodynamic equilibrium.
The Sun’s radiation reaching Venus can only raise the temperature of regions that are at temperatures less than about 400K in the upper troposphere and above. From there the energy is transferred downwards, but not by radiation as that would violate the Second Law.
People like James Hansen had absolutely no concept of the new 21st century developments in our understanding of entropy. Nor have most readers here I suspect, so you could all start here from which I quote …
“The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, along with the first law of thermodynamics comprise the most fundamental laws of physics. Entropy (the subject of the second law) and energy (the subject of the first law) and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life (biology, evolutionary theory, ecology), cognition (psychology). According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a ‘law of disorder’. The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the “law of maximum entropy production” or “MEP” and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws. This site provides basic texts, articles, links, and references that take the reader from the classical views of thermodynamics in simple terms, to today’s new and richer understanding.”
24
Good God Doug,
Please go else-were/when then destroy itself. We can handle that. It takes effort from admiring the girlies.
06
This has been bugging me for a while. This is the plot of HadSST for NH and SH. The monthly data are compressed so they show the three month average starting from Dec of 1989 (seasonal average).
As the anomalies are for the difference from the long term average for that month, no seasonal variability is seen for the SH data and the NH data until 2003, when the two deviate from each other.
Another problem is the satellite data. I don’t know why the correlation would come out so good before 2002. The same can be seen in UAH.
The UAH shows an interesting trend from about 2000.
Since RSS and UAH are fairly close to each other (no obvious problem in RSS), any problems would be in data coming from NASA.
You should never attribute to a conspiracy what could be due to plain old incompetence but the step up in maximum temperatures around 2000 here in Aus after an instrument change suggests that it was known that the world would cool rather than just pause after 2000.
40
Has someone at the BOM been deleting data?
Back on 23 Feb 2015, we were discussing Cyclone Marcia: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/category-five-storms-arent-what-they-used-to-be/
At the time the Bureau of Meteorlogy (BOM) was claiming that Cyclone Marcia was a category 5 cyclone when it crossed the coast, north of Yeppoon (as far as I know they still claim it was a category 5).
The cyclone passed close to BOM ground stations at: Middle Percy Is, Williamson, Samuel Hill, Yeppoon and Rockhampton.
At the time I looked at the BOM data under “Latest Observations”. The data can be accessed from the BOM site for all the ground stations in Australia, as well as off shore islands and bases in Antarctica. Data is published every half hour, or more frequently if there has been a sudden change (eg wind speed during a cyclone) and is available for the previous 72 hours. After that the daily extremes are transferred to “Daily Weather Observations”,
I noted (or thought I noted) that data which had previously been available a few hours earlier for Middle Percy Island and Samuel Hill had been disappeared!
This was subsequently confirmed by Jennifer Marohasy, who had printed out the Latest Observations for Middle Percy Island. The printout showed that the data had been recorded up to at least 5:19am on 20 Feb, by which time the peak of cyclone had passed by. The highest wind gust was 208km/h recorded at 04:19. That is the highest gust speed recorded. On that observation Cyclone Marcia was a category 3 cyclone. AY that time it had not crossed the coast. It seems to have weakened rapidly after that.
The currently available Daily Weather Observations for Middle Percy indicate that the data stopped sometime after 3pm on 19 Feb. The max gust speed on 20 Feb does not appear. The data stream was restored on Monday 23 Feb sometime before 9am.
In the case of Samuel Hill data seems to have been lost from sometime on 20 Feb after 3pm and not restored until 8 Mar at 04:30pm.
I find that I had also printed out a record for Samuel Hill which shows that data was available up until at least midnight on 22 Feb 2015. At that time conditions were recorded as calm.
Yeppoon is also missing data from 20-23 Feb.
Wind speed data from these 3 stations seem to be critical to the assessment of the strength of Cyclone Marcia.
The sites at Williamson and Rockhampton do not show any interruption to the data, even though we know (From Tony for Aus) that Rockhampton was without electrical power for days following the cyclone.
Site, Maximum gust
Williamson, 106kph
Rockhampton, 113
So we have a situation where data was available on the public record, but now it is gone. Why would the BOM do that?
The BOM does make this general note on observations:
90
The forecasting of the next cyclones is ‘ ‘monsters’, all the way, even going ‘nuclear’, according to a couple of cyclone chasers. Let’s see how this will play out in the week ahead.
60
Sometimes it’s just more accurate to withdraw some of the data and extrapolate from what’s left, using computer modelling 😉
60
Short answer appears to be “yes”.
However, many of us collected the hourly readings from the key stations as the event unfolded, and at least one person did full screen captures, so it is all retrievable.
I check on JCU Cyclone Testing Station from time to time:
https://www.jcu.edu.au/cts/
There is an interim report. I was a staff member at JCU Engineering, and I keep in touch. I ended up being the Building Officer (Statutory) for a nearby local council, and cooperated with CTS staff in checks of building approvals for compliance with design wind speeds.
40
Before hyperventilating on the strength of Marcia check out Tony from Oz & my own recent comments at the end of Jo’s original thread on this subject – http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/category-five-storms-arent-what-they-used-to-be/
bill b
20
Thanks Bill,
I missed your comments at the end of the Cyclone Marcia Post, but I have read them now.
However my comment was not about the strength of C. Marcia per se. It was about the BOM removing data from the public domain! Why would they do that?
10
By now, I can understand how some of you would be heartily sick and tired of my coming here and speaking out against rooftop solar power, but it makes me furious when I read what some people say about it. They always tell us of the absolute best of everything, how the panels produce so much power, sometimes more than they are rated at, that they are lasting longer than what is claimed, they still produce prodigious amounts of power after years of use, how they have batteries which will last well beyond the recommended timeframe and cost so little, and are getting cheaper, none of it true, how their returns are so big, how they make more power than they consume in their homes, and unwittingly gloat that their returns pay for their other non solar consumption, without realising that it is the rest of us paying for their luxury.
When I point out these things, THEY are the ones who then get angry and tell ME that I’m telling lies.
OK, then, let’s look at it from another angle.
In reality, I suppose it is a crowd funded power plant. There are now around 1.5 million of these rooftop systems installed across Australia. The average installation is now up around 2.5KW, and when all added up this gives quite a large total power installation, coming in at around 3.8GW, or 3800MW, which when looked at in this respect is in fact quite large, and is almost the same as for 2 large scale coal fired power plants. It’s always this seemingly large Nameplate figure which is quoted.
But, as I have always said it’s not the Nameplate, but the actual power delivered for consumption, and when those figures are looked at, it’s almost pitiful how little power is generated and how even more pitiful the amount of power returned to grids, and it’s not a localised grid for say even half a State, as with a major power plant, but this pitifully small amount is spread across the whole of Australia. That power delivered is at a Capacity Factor of 13% at best, and here I’m being conservative and bumping that up a bit, because while some places in the North might manage as high as 15%, the units in the South, Victoria and South Australia might only average 11% and in Tasmania, some as low as 9%. So, when calculating power delivery, then this CF needs to be taken into account. That’s not my using a guess for that CF, but in fact the actual Standard for power calculation, taken across the full 12 Months, not just in the best case clear days of Mid Summer, but for the whole 12 Month period.
So, 3,800MW at 13%, the power delivery now comes in at only an equivalent of 494MW, and I’ll round that up to 500MW. Consider now that between one half and two thirds of that power is being consumed by the residence where those panels are fitted depending on the size of the unit. I’ve actually been told that people having these systems have been advised to try and move the bulk of their power usage in the home to after hours, so they can maximise return from their rooftop installation. So now, only one part of that power is being fed back to the grids, spread across all Australia. So now we have the equivalent of only 165MW to 250MW at most is being fed to the grid. It’ll be more in Mid Summer, but an awful lot less in Winter. Because it is widespread across the whole of Australia, this power at individual grids amounts to all but nothing really, and would not be relied upon by any grid controller who wants to keep his job. Even that part of the power consumed by the homes themselves amounts to very little.
All of that is just dead boring, the actual data for power generation. Who really cares about that eh?
So, let’s look at the money.
1.5 Million installations. Crowd sourced funding. The average cost for an installed 2.5KW unit is around $6000. The range is from around $5K to almost $7K. Now some of you may question this cost when you see these units advertised for as low as $3.5K, but go to those costings and note that most of them do not include the installation cost, and that quoted price is just for the system itself.
So, 1.5 Million systems at $6K, so straight up, there’s $9 Billion.
$9 BILLION ….. for what is basically only a 500MW power plant. Any other power plant and there would be screams of derision, screams of outright incredulity at the enormous cost.
That’s the crowd sourced funding part of it. Look at the Government subsidy paid for those systems. The average system for all this is 2.5KW and the Government funded subsidy for that is $1,900, so, with 1.5 million installations, there’s $2.85 Billion, and that’s basically for the useless power fed back to the grids, or for the equivalent of only a 165MW to 250MW power plant.
What about that FIT. While now reduced in nearly all States, those existing units are still receiving their exorbitant FIT, ranging from 32 cents per KWH up to 44 cents per KWH, and their contracts stipulate that they will get this until 2024, another ten years. There’s no firm data on what is actually the total fed back to the grid, so we can only guess (even if roughly calculated) but it would not be unreasonable to say that the FIT amount, (varying in different States, so again no way to calculate an average) but it could be up to $1 Billion and probably North of that even. There’s no altruism in this on the part of the power retailers, as they just pass that full amount down to every other consumer by increasing the overall cost of the electricity provided from the grid.
WE, all the electricity consumers pay for that, for those people to make what is basically an economic decision only, as there’s nothing at all in this about saving us from CO2 emissions of coal fired power, which it doesn’t do anyway, as this tiny amount of power does not lower the output of one coal fired plant. And virtually all of that cost is passed down to residential consumers only as consumers in the Commerce and Industry sectors pay locked in contractual prices for their electricity consumption.
Give the people who have rooftop panels installed the same price as retailers pay for the electricity they buy at wholesale from existing traditional power plants, and see how many systems get sold then. Not very many would be my guess.
Rooftop solar power is all but useless in overall power generation, delivers tiny and basically unused electricity back to grids, and costs an enormous amount of money, all of it paid for by those of us who cannot afford to take advantage of what can only be described as an economic decision for those who can afford it.
If they want rooftop solar, let them do it correctly. Go off the grid. The cost for that is enormous, and ongoing, with battery replacement the largest ongoing cost for that, and trust me, batteries are NOT getting cheaper.
It does nothing for the overall electricity consumption as it is only a very small part of RESIDENTIAL consumption only, and that sector is only 28% of overall consumption. The total yearly power generated by rooftop solar and actually used by those 1.5 million installations comes in around 3TWH which is around 1.3% of total Australian power generation. It’s a niche amount at absolute best, will not increase by very much more than that, and it’s only for those who can afford it, and have the rest of us pay for it.
THAT’S what makes me angry.
Incidentally, I said way back at the top of this Comment that the Nameplate is almost equal to two large scale coal fired power plants, Well, that approximate total of 3TWH returned to the grids from rooftop solar is delivered by just one plant, Bayswater in around 60 days, from 1.5 million tiny power plants which actually destabilise the grids they are feeding, and you wonder why States are having to gold plate their power grids.
Tony.
242
Keep up the pressure. Ms Palaszczuk wants to see a lot more of this junk.
Maybe send something off to a few State reps? A few years ago I emailed a report on domestic rainwater tanks to a few reps and a couple of mandarins. The report contained results from a process model that “ran” a harvesting system based on adjustable tank size, roof area, and usage rates against daily rainfall figures along with logic tests for tank empty/tank full. Eventually the Queensland Development Code was changed from compulsory with opt out to not compulsory with opt in.
40
Tony I kept going back to the previous Weekend Unthreaded as I considered it one of the best genuine robust debates on rooftop solar I’ve seen yet, it’s unfortunate the sheeple won’t ever read it.
For me the clincher is always your final comparisons as in your final paragraph above, without any of the emotional or wishful thinking those figures never lie do they?
Disclaimer/ unless those figures are input for an IPCC CGM.
20
What always gets me is how they think that rooftop solar is making a difference in the wider area of power consumption.
Rooftop solar provides for an all but insignificant section of just Residential power consumption, and the total consumption across all of that sector is only 28% in total of ALL power consumption from the three sectors, Residential, Commerce and Industrial.
Because it is grid connected, it’s total delivery (both for the homes themselves and the useless amount fed back to the grid) that total generation is only for daylight hours, and if you look at a typical power generation curve, (and one is shown at this link, and I have purposely used the best one I can find for a bright clear mid summer day) you’ll see that it really has no effect at all until mid morning and then drops off in the mid afternoon. All you get is small amounts of power for a few hours around midday, and that’s for only the smallest fraction of 28% in total for consumption.
The rest of the 72% gets its REAL power from sources which can actually supply REAL power and do it for the full 24 hours of EVERY day.
Rooftop solar has ….. NO EFFECT whatsoever in wider consumption, and only tiny effect in that Residential sector.
Tony.
70
Tony,
you forgot to mention the variability of solar power, shown quite clearly in your linked website. At any point output can suddenly drop, March 7, 2015 has numerous 2000kW+ spikes, recovering shortly after. The sudden drop and subsequent recovery needs to be managed in some way. It must present real problems for the grid.
30
Big Dave,
those dips you see (and some of them are substantial) are clouds passing across the face of the Sun.
This UQ system is one of the largest non commercial solar installations in Australia, most probably funded from the Government funding to Universities, and most probably also in receipt of a Government grant as well.
Even so, this huge (by ordinary rooftop standards) installation still only manages just on 14% Capacity Factor.
Tony.
40
Hi Tony,
did you push the Energy Storage button? Big sucker. Wonder what the numbers are on it, i.e. cost, lifetime cycles, depth of discharge etc.
It would power my house for a total of 8 days in winter 😉
20
I’ll answer my own question. The Redflow M90 system is rated at 90kW/240kWh. According to an SMH article from 2012 it costs around $1000/kWh, so the UQ system cost around a quarter of a million dollars for the battery system alone. This excludes the 340kW solar panel array.
According to the case study it provides a load shift capability, discharging completely over a 2.5 hour period in the afternoon, covering the afternoon peak. Presumably evening, night and early morning demand must be met by the grid.
Redflow states the battery handles discharge depth to 100%. I couldn’t find any indication of expected battery life.
Interesting stuff but I’d really like to see a more detailed cost breakdown. Doubt there would be much change out of a half a million dollars in CAPEX, have no idea what the OPEX would be.
10
It looks like the batteries shut down after just over 2 hours supplying 30A (which I suppose is just over 6 Amp at mains voltage). Page 16
10
Joe V,
According to their data the M90 is rated at 90kW. At UQ it delivers ~360A for 2.5 hours before cutoff.
00
In any case, one cannot – illegal due to safety considerations
Living the green dream is for MSM puff pieces, albeit that these are eagerly swallowed by those who refuse analytical objectivity (as I’ve noted, a majority, a bare majority perhaps)
The issue that makes me laugh out loud is when those who have installed and boast about solar panels and batteries are asked what rated appliances they actually run off batteries after dark and for what period. Never have I seen an honest reply to that question – disturbs their smugness
51
TonyfromOz.
“When I point out these things, THEY are the ones who then get angry and tell ME that I’m telling lies.”
~ ~ ~
A dear friend recently installed solar panels, watching the meter everyday, disappointed he didn’t get in when the tariff was higher.
I sent him these emails, which point out pitfalls in the quackery:
ABC: Solar power inquiry conducted by Senate to shine spotlight on complaints with retailers
crikey: Oh dear, why did I install solar panels?
His response said he deleted the emails , and to stop sending him bad news.
I replied that what is good news to some, is bad news for others.
My views on the renewable energy scam is known to him.
We still talk on the phone, but, all emails have stopped.
60
Regarding the costs of renewable power. The ACT government has made a big commitment to using renewable power. Recent contract rates for renewable power:
Solar (PV farm at Royalla, ACT local) – $186/MWh
Wind (Hornsdale SA) – $92/MWh *
Wind (Ararat VIC) – $87/MWh *
Wind (Bendigo VIC) – $81.50/MWh *
For comparison, spot rates for Coal are generally in the range $30-40/MWh. So renewable power costs 3-6 times that from coal fired power stations. And you wonder why the power bills keep going up.
* – feed in tariff, not adjusted for transmission losses to ACT
30
Big Dave:
Thanks.
Now if only Rick Will from last week would read this. He believes wind is only $23 a MWh, but he doesn’t know what EBITDA means.
I notice all 3 wind farms are yet to be built, and have to supply for 20 years. That time will strain the maintenance budget as they try to make the turbines work that long at a good capacity.
30
Tony, you always get this wrong!
You are comparing apples and oranges because the coal power is continuous and the solar power is sporadic. If you want to compare power sources then you must adjust for all value parameters of the energy source. This means that you must assume storage for the solar power of the minimum to make it coal equivalent in reliability which is 24 hours, and then you need to use the minimum sustainable output over that period as the capacity.
You are playing the warmists game if you take the maximum capacity of a solar sytem and multiply it by 0.13. It assumes the best possible utilisation which never happens. For example in Victoria you might get a capacity factor of 0.11 annualised, but over winter you would be lucky to get 0.04. Your system has to be designed to cope with the worst possible conditions – not the best, hence the politicians whinging about gold plating… What’s the alternative, communities getting kicked off the grid whenever there’s a dull day. Is that acceptable? You bet its not!
Whenever the local pollie starts whining about gold plated electricity assets – just remind him of the biggest gold plating of all – rooftop solar.
20
Hi Bobl,
agree with what you’ve said. Would like to add that there are not a lot of options when it comes to energy storage at the grid level. Purdue University has published an excellent paper on a range of technologies.
Bottom line is that pumped hydro is the only realistic solution to large scale energy storage at the present time. Compressed air and exotic batteries are examined but are not really viable right now. Rud Istvan had some interesting things to say regarding grid storage legislation coming up in California.
10
In Venezuela, fuel coasts less than 1cent per liter.
Great in the city, but in small towns like Santa Elena where there is only one petrol station, cars are parked in a line the night before it opens for over a kilometer, just to get gasolina.
As one of our taxi drivers said, your not paying for the coast of fuel when you take a cab, your paying for his time to fill up.
70
What is wrong with them? One of the taxi drivers should open another Service Station instead of waiting in line.
50
Oil, like a lot of things in Venezuela, is nationalised, so the service stations are government controlled. And at less than 1cent per liter, it wouldn’t be the best of business ventures anyhow.
The entire economy is up the clapper, with long cues for even the most basic products like toilet paper and a currency that is seen on the world market as worthless. They can’t import anything with their currency, so the government trades fuel with countries like China for goods. I guess that is one saving grace, being one of the worlds top oil producers.
But a worthless currency is bonus for anyone bringing in US dollars to trade on the black market. The Venezuelan government gives an official rate of about US$1 – 6Bs (Bolivias), but on the street, you can trade greenbacks at anywhere from 150 -220Bs per $1, depending on what area of the country you are in. This brings the coast of everything down considerably, hotels that should coast $200 or so per night down to about $6 or $7 per night. The same is with food, transport and anything else you need to pay for,it becomes an incredibly inexpensive country to travel through. But if you are Venezuelan, you have 40 – 60% inflation rate, a scarcity of supply and one of the highest crime rates in all of South America.
End of rant
30
But at less than one cent per litre, how would be make a living?
20
Pssst! Everyone. There’s a new brilliant limerick by Ruairi at the end of the end”Google” thread.
50
There’s still a $5,000 reward on offer if you can prove me wrong in my paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures and produce a study of temperature and precipitation data (similar to that in the paper) but which proves water vapour warms as the IPCC claims by at least 15 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere.
Water vapor lowers the gradient by inter-molecular radiation and so the thermal plot rotates downwards at the surface end. Hence water vapour cools the surface but actually makes the temperature warmer at the top of Mt Everest, which is only 4 degrees out of the tropics and more than half way up the troposphere. See the page Slaying the Slayers in our group’s website.
25
Doug would you accept being proven wrong in IPCC terms with “Your paper is wrong because shut up!”?
That’ll be $5,000 thank you. 🙂
40
Ok this has been really bugging me, Harrison Ford crashes his PT-22 vintage plane last week and is going to recover, that’s fine.
However this is the same Harrison Ford that that appeared in the CAGW propaganda drivel “Years of living dangerously” where he sincerely warns and pleads with humans to stop our evil CO2 polluting ways or we’re all doomed, really?
Harrison Ford owns a fleet of aircraft, vintage cars and motorcycles, an 800 acre ranch in Jackson a waterfront property on Bowen Island BC, a net worth of $210 million and once again we have a Hollywood hypocrite talking the talk but never walking the walk.
From someone who’s so passionate about saving the planet from dangerous emissions we get the quote from 2010 “I’m so passionate about flying, I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger.”
I believe those old “Hand Solo” jokes were ironically correct in a preemptive personality predictive way.
80
Why ‘walk the walk’ when you can drive . . . ride . . . or . . . fly! 😮
Abe
50
I bet this doesn’t get a run on the ABC or in any other Australian media but it is probably / possibly a more than significant sign of the times and indicates a coming end to the utter hypocrisy, madness and imbecility of the climate science academic and green elite together with all their ignorant bigoted running dogs in the media.
Not to mention the unthinking, unquestioning ignorance of the useful fools who can’t even think for themselves and so get conned into so called climate change demonstrations.
Seems the Swiss have had enough of the climate change c**p and as is quite usual for the Swiss, have refused to part with their precious Swiss Franks on any grounds that can’t be demonstrated as being directly related to their personal well being and benefit.
Take a look at that percentage ! Looks like THE END IS NEAR in western Europe, the center of the entire global warming ideology and religious faith.
Our politicals should be made fully aware of this Swiss outcome on the voting for their proposed carbon tax.
From the GWPF
“Green Fiasco: 92% Of Swiss Voters Reject Carbon Tax In Referendum –
[quoted]
Swiss voters Sunday overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that would have scrapped the Alpine country’s value-added-tax system and replaced it with a carbon tax, a move that would have made gasoline, heating oil and other forms of power more expensive for consumers.
Roughly 92% of voters opposed the initiative, known as “Energy Rather than VAT,” while 8% supported the measure, according to preliminary results from 13 of the country’s 26 cantons.
The initiative would have encouraged Swiss households to use renewable energy sources, including solar and wind, which would have been exempt from taxes. The initiative, which was introduced by the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland, was designed to help lower carbon emissions and reduce global warming.
The Swiss cabinet had recommended voters reject the proposal because it would likely have caused a falloff in revenue for the federal government. The current VAT tax, which ranges from 2.5% to 8%, generated income of 22.6 billion Swiss francs ($22.92 billion) for the federal government in 2013, according to government data.
The initiative was backed by the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland and supported by the Green Party of Switzerland, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace Switzerland.
[ / ]
130
92% voted to reject it.
Hmm!
Obviously, they worded the question wrongly.
Tony.
70
I guess the Greens, WWF and Greenpeace are learning that you can’t get easy access to other peoples money anymore, well the Swiss at least LOL.
Let’s hope others take the same tact and treat these parasites like economical pariah’s, in the future I’d like to take the tambourine of a Greenpeace beggar and wrap it over their head without being publically vilified in the MSM.
60
1) Switzerland is not actually part of the EU
2) Although I find much to like in the Swiss concept of citizen-initiated referenda, you need to look at the record of what happened when the Swiss Govt got a referendum result it didn’t like (although in this CO2 tax case, the Govt advised a NO vote and overwhelmingly got it)
30
I didn’t mention the “EU” but referred to “Europe”.
So without going in and doing much research, I would gather that the Swiss won’t be signing on for any international agreements to “Stop” [ ?? ] Global Warming / Climate Change at the 2015 Paris COP [ “Conference Of Parties”; number 21 ].
Nor I gather will the Poles be signing on or only doing so to look good if they know the whole Paris thing will be null and void before it is over.
And possibly not Australia if Tony Abbott and a good section of the LNP have a say.
Canada probably not either as they backed out of Kyoto a few years ago.
Obama will likely sign but like the Kyoto agreement, it will be refused ratification by Congress and / or the Senate and therefore will be null and void from the American perspective which might suit Obama perfectly as the image will look good but the dirty work is being done by somebody else that he can and most definitely will blame in a bid to scupper the Republicans at the next election.
The Republicans will merely point out that they saved America from a destructive progressive set of policies that Obama acquiesced to and which did nothing but further enriched the small time kleptocrats of the third world to nobodies advantage and handed over even more power to the power accumulating kleptocrats of the UN to America’s great disadvantage.
The American Congress and Senate are getting very touchy about the UN’s attempted power accumulation and attempted intrusions into American life at every level.
As an example not related to anything climate; ;Senate GOP Kills Controversial UN Disability Treaty
India won’t sign if India has to comply with anything at all that will limit its options for future development.
A number of minor players might refuse to sign unless there is a watertight agreement to hand over of very large lumps of [ western ] developed world cash [ $100 billion US’ annually is the demand ] with no limits on the way that cash is to be spent or kleptorised [ if such a word construct exists! ]
China will sign if the get out of jail card is freely available for the Chinese to use entirely at their own discretion and if and when they want to use it at any level they might choose.
And if the snow comes down again in late November in the USA and Europe or even just one of those, the big time UN COP 2015 that was going to “fix” the global climate and “STOP global warming” will be from the climate activists/ greens / watermelon perspective, nothing more than another another truly disastrous rehash of Copenhagen 2009 and probably the end of the line for the global,warming / climate change cult ideology.
[ To use the term again! The utter imbecility of trying to STOP “climate change” is almost beyond any rational understanding and demonstrates a profound ignorance and total divorce from the realities of climate and weather that can only come from a totally irrational mind set that is totally fixated to the point of a complete mental paranoi on the highly destructive to human well being, the climate cult’s deadly humanity destroying ideology.
90
Self-evident
My point is that Switzerland is not controlled by Brussels bureaucrats; the Swiss will need to be bribed in some other way. It may be objectively interesting to watch how. Despite the referendum result (ie. VAT vs CO2 tax), trust not the Swiss Govt
I have strong doubts that a Paris “failure” will be the Last of the Mohicans – this has been said for each failed annual attempt but each year again another attempt is mounted with all the pompous panoply of the Roman Emperors
I think on balance the war against this insanity is lost to the overwhelming PR onslaught of the MSM (a few battles may still be won), but what may yet prove me wrong is probably best summarised as hard resistance to loss of sovereignty and national treasure. Very difficult to persuade a populace to just give these away
50
Judith Curry’s / Climate Etc’s latest offering ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom
[ Original article ; Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom]
which I confess I have only rapidly scanned through in the last few minutes, is a fairly recent and trending pattern of a growing analysis on what is the continuing driver of the global warming / climate change ideological cult and the science that purportedly supports this cult like faith.
This analytical trend is only something that has surfaced in academic literature within the last few months and I think heralds a rethink and a possibly about face within the not so different future as the psychology of the funders, the science and political bureaucracies, the herd instincts of much of science, the complete failure of the research, the failure of the activists to convince the increasing bulk of the general public , the failure of political supporting apparatus tom,influence the public in the direction it wants the climate change meme to go and the increasingly distaste for much of the environmentalists NGOs and their increasingly mafia like disposition and tactics and strategy.
All of which has started to unravel as the Climate Science boom runs out of steam through a combination of incompetence and increasingly acknowledged corruption and highly questionable manipulation of the basic recorded data in the actual science exemplified by the total failure of ALL the catastrophic predictions arising from any so called any immeasureable, human created global warming.
We have and are constantly exposed to the sheer grating stridency of the climate activists which is enough to slowly turn most people off,
the constancy of beating around the head that the ordinary citizen has taken for his / her supposed sinning against the so called climate for not adhering to the dictates of the climate science activists and innumerable hanger ons and the dishonesty and immorality of the climate science troughers.
The sheer scale of the utter waste of accumulated societal wealth on totally impotent items such as de-salination plants, wind turbines that don’t work for more than a few hours at the most each day. solar panels where neighbours see and hear of relatively well off persons in their community collecting large amounts of money from solar panel subsidies while their own power costs climb inexorably skywards for which they see absolutely no benefit to then personally what so ever despite the higher power costs and many other common factors.
All of which slowly add up to drive an increasing community awareness that they might just be getting thoroughly conned into something that has no benefit for them, that costs each of them a rather increasing amount compared to their income and is possibly just a bloody great big con by some highly placed ivory towered academics and politicals who wouldn’t know what a Climate was even if it hit them full on in the face.
[ It is very interesting to read the history of the rise of the Siclian Mafia and then compare the parallels in the [ unfinished ] rise in the power and in the increasingly malevolent influence and tactics of Greenpeace, the WWF and other environmental NGO’. ]
All of the above plus much, much more is now starting to seriously erode the whole political, green climate activist. climate alarmist science basis of the entire CAGW meme.
The articles whose links I quoted above delve into this slow disintegration of the belief in the global warming ideology typified by previous episodes of a similar supposedly science based booms that over time just collapsed and failed, They failed as both the supporting science was proven to be discredited or was just plain corrupted and deadly wrong and the costs to the public of that science was proven to be a complete waste of resources and of no benefit to anybody except to the insiders who made a mockery of scientific disinterest and impartiality by leeching every dollar they could from the public purse.
And in the end was ultimately proven to be highly deleterious to the overall benefit of society.
To quote a couple of paras from Climate Etc’s post [ and article; link above ]
Abstract.
Scientific disciplines, like economies, can and do experience booms and busts.
We document a boom in climate science, sustained by massive levels of funding by government entities, whose scientific direction is set by an extra-scientific organization, the IPCC, which has emerged as a “big player” in the scientific arena, championing the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
We note the difficulties in obtaining definitive empirical clarity due to the complex nature of climate, the feedback between the effects of the IPCC’s advocacy and the government’s willingness to fund the science, the ideological and political agendas at play, the dangers to the integrity of scientific procedure in the context of ideological bias, and the poor performance of the “crony capitalist” enterprises that have grown on the back of politicized science.
&
So, funding by itself, even if directed to favor one hypothesis over another, is not the problem; the problem arises when the provision of funding allows for or even encourages the continuation of research and publication activities which undermine the operation of the feedback inherent in the standard procedures of science – feedback which performs the scientific analog of profit and loss in assessing the scientific value of publications and in furthering the scientific reputations of their authors.
&
From the original paper [ link above ]
Introduction;
Recent science booms (and ensuing busts) in the US include the boom in space science and some related disciplines in the aftermath of the 1957 Sputnik launch and the boom in computer science prompted by the Japanese “Fifth Generation” project in 1984. These were relatively short-lived phenomena, and the busts came when political interest (and funding) waned, due to the purported crisis no longer being seen as a pressing concern.
More comparable to the situation in climate science would be the long-lasting scientific booms in eugenics and in nutrition science.
[2] The eugenics boom, although very adequately funded, came to an end with the exposure of the eugenics-inspired atrocities of the Nazis, and the nutrition science boom has slowly (and quietly) given way to the gradual accumulation of empirical evidence difficult to fit within the government-favored hypothesis.
In both of these cases, the object of scientific study was, like the climate (and the economy), a complex system which is not susceptible to the precision of empirical testing possible on simpler physical systems.
Our exposition of the causes and consequences of the climate science boom proceeds as follows:
[ more ]
40
not hyperventilating.
Tropical Cyclone Marcia made landfall on Friday 20 Feb 2015.
as late as 3 March, it was still being reported that “if confirmed as a Category 5 cyclone, Marcia will be” etc:
3 March: SMH: Peter Hannam: Australia posts second hottest February as warm run continues
***If confirmed as a category 5 cyclone, Marcia will be the most southerly storm of such size on record for the east coast and possibly the west coast too…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/australia-posts-second-hottest-february-as-warm-run-continues-20150302-13slj0.html
it is now 9 March, 2015.
QUESTION: how long does it take for BOM to declare which Category Marcia was, whether at Shoalwater or anywhere else in Queensland?
what is being emphasised by MSM is how Marcia strengthened –
-from a Category One to a Category Four system in just 10 hours- (Sky News, 3 March)
nothing beats the politics, though. hence the inference these farmers were hit by a Cat5 cyclone, & the PM is heartless, unlike our Premier:
5 March: ABC: Tropical Cyclone Marcia: Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk urges PM to lend farmers more support
Friday marks three weeks since Tropical Cyclone Marcia slammed into the coast as a category five system.
Among those still cleaning up in the wake of the storm are farmers…
They are currently eligible for Category B disaster help …
but Ms Palaszczuk said Canberra had delayed signing off on the next level of assistance measures.
She said she had a conversation with Mr Abbott about allowing Category C disaster relief payments, which were usually considered once the impacts of the disaster on affected communities had been assessed.
Category C assistance is requested from the states and requires agreement from the Prime Minister.
***But a spokeswoman for the Federal Government said Mr Abbott had responded to a letter from Ms Palaszczuk, saying Queensland authorities had been asked to provide more information about the extent of the damage.
“I am calling on the Prime Minister – show compassion, show leadership, step up to the plate and start delivering for central Queensland,” Ms Palaszczuk said.
“I have met with families today in tears – their livelihoods have gone…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/annastacia-palaszczuk-calls-on-tony-abbott-for-more-support/6284508
meanwhile, in recent days, the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin’s Amy Haydock has run stories about residents in Emu Park & Lammermoor, both south of Yeppoon, being hit by a Cat 5 cyclone, & the alarmism has already begun about Qld possibly facing Cyclone Nathan “as low looms large” by the end of the week.
BOM – your time is up. what Category was TC Marcia?
70
i fully understand some people don’t want to argue over what Category Marcia was, but here’s a Cat 5 that i lived through – though hundreds of people sadly didn’t.
yes, many of the homes, including my own, were not sturdy, but my corrugated zinc roof was secured beforehand & stayed in place (no damage to the house either).
however, hundreds of roofs were flying through the air & posing a danger to anyone foolish enough to remain outside, as houses fell all around.
for me, and the poor, but resilient, people of Montego Bay & Jamaica, it was nonetheless an exhilirating experience & people picked up the pieces, helped one another out, put the houses back in order, & got on with their lives. it was simply Mother Nature doing her thing.
Wikipedia: Hurricane Gilbert
Hurricane Gilbert was an extremely powerful tropical cyclone that formed during the 1988 Atlantic hurricane season and brought widespread destruction to the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. It was the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic basin, until Hurricane Wilma surpassed it during 2005. Gilbert was also one of the largest tropical cyclones ever observed in the Atlantic basin. At one point, its tropical storm-force winds measured 588 mi (946 km) in diameter…
On September 10, Gilbert attained hurricane intensity, and rapidly intensified into a Category 3 hurricane on September 11. After striking Jamaica the following day, rapid intensification occurred once again, and the storm became a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale late on September 13…
Gilbert wreaked havoc in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico for nearly nine days. In total, it killed 433 people and caused about $7.1 billion (1988 USD) in damages over the course of its path. As a result of the extensive damage caused by Gilbert, the World Meteorological Organization retired the name in the spring of 1989; it was replaced with Gordon…
Hurricane Gilbert produced a 19 ft (5.8 m) storm surge and brought up to 823 millimetres (32.4 in) of rain in the mountainous areas of Jamaica, causing inland flash flooding. 49 people died. Prime Minister Edward Seaga stated that the hardest hit areas near where Gilbert made landfall looked “like Hiroshima after the atom bomb.” The storm left $4 billion (1988 USD) in damage from destroyed crops, buildings, houses, roads, and small aircraft…
More than 100,000 houses were destroyed or damaged and the country’s banana crop was largely destroyed. Hundreds of miles of roads and highways were also heavily damaged…
The poultry industry was also wiped out; the damage from agricultural loss reached $500 million (1988 USD). Hurricane Gilbert was the most destructive storm in the history of Jamaica and the most severe storm since Hurricane Charlie in 1951. Till this day Jamaica is still rebuilding some parts…
Aftermath, Retirement & Records
The overall property damage was estimated at $7.1 billion (1988 USD)…
A final count of Hurricane Gilbert’s victims is not possible because many people remained missing in Mexico, but the total confirmed death toll was 433 people. Gilbert was the worst hurricane in the history of Jamaica and the most destructive tropical cyclone on record to strike Mexico…
The destruction in Jamaica was so heavy that Lovindeer, one of the country’s leading dance hall DJs, released a single called Wild Gilbert a few days after the storm. It was the fastest selling reggae record in the history of Jamaican music…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gilbert
“Wild Gilbert” – Lovindeer
A devastating hurricane named “Gilbert” ravaged Jamaica on September 12, 1988. And as most Jamaicans do in the face of hardships and tragedy they sing about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8flDlixo4KA
Jamaican patois lyrics can be found online.
20
Today’s email to most Australian federal politicians …
Australia should be sick of UN garbage about carbon dioxide’s alleged warming
Dear PM Abbott and other politicians
Can you imagine a vortex cooling tube suddenly just not working? The tube has no working parts. Yet, when air is sent spiraling down the tube the centrifugal force splits it into colder and hotter streams. So too does the force of gravity split a planet’s troposphere as it produces a temperature gradient. That is why the surface temperature is hotter than the average a few kilometres up in the atmosphere. Back radiation from water vapour and carbon dioxide is NOT the reason. You can read more at http://climate-change-theory.com or in my book below. There are also links to my two peer-reviewed papers in that website now endorsed by our group of persons suitably qualified in physics.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A.(econ), Dip.Bus.Admin
35
As far as I am aware there is only one brand of pure electric car that has a range of over 400 kilometres on a single charge of batteries, the US made Tesla sedan and sports. They cost at least double what a luxury car with conventional internal combustion engine costs and if the US Government did not subsidise production costs the retail price would be a lot more. In my opinion they are like wind turbines, too expensive and not an efficient use of my money. With the latest technology even small petrol engines are offering 3-6 litres per 100 Kilometres of highway conditions driving and the cost to buy is averaging below A$30K and some closer to A$20K. Common rail intercooler turbo diesels are similar, I have a 7-seat AWD SUV with a 2.2 Litre Diesel that consistently averages (computer results) 6-7 Litres per 100 Kilometres highway and country town driving and towing a caravan 9-10 Litres per 100 Kilometres. The vehicle cost me with fleet owners discount and buying a December build in April of the next year $30K.
I cannot see electric cars being practical even for city motoring conditions for most people. And hybrids are too expensive, for example a Mitsubishi hybrid SUV costs about $45K and the petrol fuel consumption is no better than my SUV provides.
The turning point would of course be if batteries are more efficient, lighter, faster to charge and less expensive. And with battery replacement stations where the battery tray is removed and replaced without the driver waiting for re-charge. And microwave charging points located in public carpark spaces. But the cost of new infrastructure would be prohibitive until there is a real fossil fuel/oil crisis.
20
I think that was tried by a company called Better Place.
10
The Tesla uses thousands of AA rechargeable batteries just like in your wireless mouse, nothing special about them.
00
The fools are at it again at the Drum.
Hewson’s ignorance in uncontestable.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-09/hewson-this-isnt-a-vision-for-a-fair-and-prosperous-society/6290952
21
John Hewson apparently never got over being denied the opportunity to be prime minister in 1993 when his Fightback economic plan was rejected at the federal election won by Labor led by PM Keating. Ever since he has behaved like a spoiler towards the Liberal Party and most who dared to become leader. He is of course another personal wealth creator who wants an ETS, a mate of Malcolm Turnbull and associates. Hewson was not born wealthy, his father as I recall it was a tradesman, and despite a humble start in life he has made a success of his working life.
How he and people like him can conveniently ignore the truth about natural climate change, Earth cycles, and promote self indulgent schemes that increase the cost of living for all people, and for businesses that contribute to national prosperity, suggests not a nice person. There are other descriptions that I leave to your imagination.
I can’t wait for the curtain to drop exposing the rotten act behind climate change gravy train agenda.
51
In the Google Thread, someone was talking about the proposed ETS legislation in the U.S. the one which ultimately failed to get through and was dropped.
I’m not sure, but I think the commenter was looking for the legislation, and Google was, umm, hiding it, or had dropped it.
Originally, I did have access to it via one of the sponsors of the bill, and it was at his home site. That was John Kerry, as the bill was referred to as the Kerry Lieberman Bill, and artfully called The American Power Act. Kerry dropped the Bill from his site after it failed and I lost track of it as it was no real biggie for me, as I had already spent so much time trawling through it, because, at the time, I was asked to do some Posts at my home site on it.
I did those Posts (in May of 2010) and when it was dropped, I had no real need to see it again. I mean, at 987 pages, it was hard yakka to trawl through it. It dealt with an ETS, CCS, Renewable power etc, and on and on and on.
Anyway, having lost it myself, and then seeing it again as a Comment here at Joanne’s site, my interest was piqued, so I spent some time and went looking for it, and actually ended up finding it. (aint the Internet grand eh!)
For anyone (right Tony, as if) who wants to see it, it’s at this link, and be careful it’s a 987 page pdf document.
Would it surprise any of you to know how close Kevin Rudd’s ETS was to this legislation, and, umm, cut and paste comes immediately to mind.
The first of my own Posts in that series is at the following link, and at the bottom of that Post are the further links to others parts in that series. I was mainly interested in the ETS part of it, CCS, and Renewable Power aspects.
Kerry Lieberman – The Great Big April Fools Day Tax Grab
April Fools Day in my title. Well, the wef date for collection of the money was April First each year.
Tony.
50
We all seem to be the serf fools every day of every month. When oH when are the torches oiled enough, and the pitchforks sharpened enough, to actually wade through this SH*T? Sorry Jo 🙂
24
Incidentally, the search engine wording I used was ‘Kerry Lieberman American Power Act’.
It was the second from top link and in the first line after taking that link there it was linked to with the wording ‘comprehensive bill’.
Without knowing the title of the actual bill you’d probably be hard pressed to find it, and the Kerry Lieberman was just an added something no one here in Oz would even think of.
Tony.
20
Update from Christy et al: still no tropospheric hot-spot: http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/04/differential-temperature-trends-at-the-surface-and-in-the-lower-atmosphere/
10
Folks in Queensland, keep an eye to the weather. Looks like you have a storm coming that has the potential to be stronger than the last one. And it also looks like possibly two, one smaller one forming near the coast and a larger one getting its act together farther out to sea.
10
Hello. My first comment here.
I have a question about a claim concerning climate models. The claim is this: climate models cannot track recent global warming without factoring in CO2 forcing.
(I know the claim is preposterous: the models can’t track past or present temperature changes very well no matter what factors they include.)
My question is: where did this claim originate? I see it fairly often. For instance, journalist Steve Connor lobbed it at Freeman Dyson a few years back: “Computer models have shown that the increase in global temperatures can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (5).” Dyson rejected the claim, of course, with a single word: No.
I suspect its origins lie all the way back in the 1990s. Any ideas? Thanks.
10
It would be interesting to know when the first form of this circular reasoning appeared. It may be even earlier than the 90s.
00
I think it is a kind of affirming the consequent. Those making the claim seem to simply ignore the possibility that the models are doing what they say they’re doing because (1) the models drastically underestimate natural forces, and (2) drastically overestimate the effect of increasing CO2. That we don’t actually understand how natural forces affect climate seems not to occur to them.
00
Joanne Nova,
Total shock on my part. 😮
I was under the impression that the discovery of this circular reasoning was the push that brought you out of the greens in the first place. I was also under the impression that most of the regulars here were also aware of this contradiction.
Unofficially, it was decided on May 8th, 1989 with the signing of this document
establishing the IPCC.
Officially, it was made public and entered into Force on 21 March 1994 in this document by the UNFCCC.
The IPCC was created to assess climate change. Not to determine whether or not it exists.
Therefore,
all the models are designed to assess climate change, not to determine whether or not it exists.
So, of course when confronted/cornered with the circular reasoning they respond, as Bernd Felsche points out, with an argument from ignorance. i.e. It has to be CO2, what else could it be?
Abe
00
Of course. It’s argument from ignorance. When you see the phrase “can only be explained by …” it usually means that not enough thought has gone into the problem to discover other plausible factors: That there is too little understanding of the physicalities.
The terminology “CO2 forcing” grates at every corner of my Engineering subconscious. There is no “force” being applied by CO2. It’s a gross misnomer. A change in the constraints and inputs to a system is a perturbance or perturbation. Of course that doesn’t sound as significant as “forcing”. But then that “forcing” has nothing to do with force; merely a corruption of the core meaning; deliberate or through ignorance. /rant
04
Apparently the models have huge spurious variation in the amount of solar radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere much larger than the amount of change caused by CO2
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/03/new-paper-finds-large-calculation.html
00
If one were to take CO2 out of the models, as a forcing, or reduced to near zero forcing, would the models have any ability to forecast or hindcast?
Has it ever been tried?
00
NO! If ever tried, so damn embarrassing! The models only represent the illusions of academic politicians.
05
It now looks like TC Pam WILL become a Cat 5 storm. Whether it will remain so to landfall is to be seen. I would suggest following Ryan Maue (WeatherBell Analytics) on Twitter
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/575119541908320256/photo/1
00
The whole GH conjecture is based on the false assumption that back radiation supplies over 320W/m^2 of thermal energy to Earth’s surface. This was supposed to explain “missing energy” that was obviously needed. But in fact that energy comes from “heat creep” as explained here http://climate-change-theory.com
The flux from Earth’s surface, where the temperature is 288K, is about 390W/m^2 of radiation plus about 102W/m^2 of non-radiative heat transfers – nearly 500W/m^2 in total. You have no explanation as to what supplies most of the input required to match that output.
In reality, the Sun’s direct radiation supplies about 168W/m^2 and the heat creep process supplies over 320W/m^2 some of which originally came from the surface, but most from where solar radiation was absorbed in the atmosphere.
05
Temperatures for planets and satellite moons are “anchored” by the fact that radiative balance with the Sun’s insolation must occur and be represented by a temperature usually found in the planet’s troposphere. If there is no atmosphere then it will be at the solid surface, as for the Moon. In the case of Uranus, it is in the methane layer in the stratosphere. That is where we find temperatures around the effective radiating temperature of (58±3)°K. [source]
The temperature profile builds up to warmer temperatures at lower altitudes and in the troposphere it follows closely the expected |g/Cp| temperature gradient. When we use the known data to calculate that gradient and then apply simple geometry to determine the temperature 350Km further down at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus we get about 329K. Estimates here say it is 320K and that makes sense because the gradient is always reduced a little by inter-molecular radiation.
Now, the point is that there must be a mechanism operating that allows the temperature profile to build up downwards, because otherwise it would be highly improbable that we would find the right temperature at the base of the troposphere. Furthermore, if all temperatures from the core outwards were supposedly due to the core still cooling off, then what would happen to the gradient calculations in the distant future when the base of the troposphere might be only, say 250K?
The mechanism (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) represents a major breakthrough in 21st century climate science, because it also functions on Venus, Earth etc and completely does away with any need to assume back radiation supplies the extra energy, which it simply cannot do anyway. You may read about it here.
Therein lies the death knell of the radiative greenhouse conjecture.
06
EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS
This experiment (written up only last year) is a real breakthrough because it proves that a force field like centrifugal force or gravity does in fact create a temperature gradient at the molecular level, cooling at the top where potential energy is greatest.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy maximization, and that is achieved when the sum of mean molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous at all altitudes. This explains the temperature gradient, not back radiation and the assumption of isothermal temperatures by greenhouse advocates is wrong. This is now proven empirically in this centrifuge machine and also in the vortex cooling machine which works on the same principle.
04
EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS
This experiment (written up only last year) is a real breakthrough because it proves that a force field like centrifugal force or gravity does in fact create a temperature gradient at the molecular level, cooling at the top where potential energy is greatest.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy maximization, and that is achieved when the sum of mean molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous at all altitudes. This explains the temperature gradient, not back radiation and the assumption of isothermal temperatures by greenhouse advocates is wrong. This is now proven empirically in this centrifuge machine and also in the vortex cooling machine which works on the same principle.
04
Moderator – Sorry – could you please delete the first copy of this comment wherein the link does not work.
00