JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Nanny State rules: French events banned “for the heat” — Climate lockdowns begin

In France the government is banning events “because of a heatwave” of 40 degrees C (104F) — as if adult mammals cannot figure out whether the temperature is too hot for their own health. Ancestors of mice and rats worked out their own temperature sensors and behaviour changes 200 million years ago. It’s a Big Government attempt to infantalize and gaslight the whole population. Will they obey?

It’s only the region around Bordeaux but will French teenagers accept being told to stay home in forty degree heat, something that millions of humans live with all over the world every summer?

The Counter Signal: Heatwave lockdowns: Region in France bans outdoor gatherings

“Everyone now faces a health risk,” official Fabienne Buccio told France Bleu radio, after announcing the regional restrictions around Bordeaux. Outdoor events – including, ironically, annual ‘Resistance’ celebrations – are banned until the officials declare the heatwave is over. They’re even restricting some indoor events that don’t have air conditioning.

BBC: Outdoor public events have been banned in an area of France as a record breaking heatwave sweeps across Europe.

Concerts and large public gatherings have been called off in the Gironde department around Bordeaux. On Thursday, parts of France hit 40C earlier in the year than ever before, with temperatures expected to peak on Saturday. In Gironde, officials said public events, including some of the official 18 June Resistance celebrations, will be prohibited from Friday at 14:00 (12:00 GMT) “until the end of the heat wave”. Indoor events at venues without air-conditioning are also banned. Private celebrations, such as weddings, will still be allowed.

Excuses, excuses.

The increased use of air-conditioners and fans was forcing France to import electricity from neighbouring countries, grid operator RTE said.

The real problem is not the heat, its that half the French Nuclear power fleet is down (the new reactors have convoluted pipes and odd cracks remember?).

In the UK, temperatures are expected to reach 33C in southern England, while a level three heat-health alert has been issued for London.

It’s not just Europe according to the BBC:

On Wednesday a third of the entire population of the United States were advised to stay indoors due to record temperatures…

At least it was only “advice”.

European countries prepare for blistering weekend heatwave

The Red Cross also organised efforts to distribute fresh water to the homeless community in Toulouse, where temperatures are expected to soar to 38 Celsius today.

Note the ridiculous caveat:

“There are more deaths of people in the streets in the summer than in the winter,” said volunteer Hugues Juglair, 67.

Far more people die in winter, but if we cherry pick a random enough factoid we can make a scary sentence.

Indeed, while there are apparently a few new variants of  “record heat” in France — for most it’s just early in the season — and climate change is so unprecedented that it was even earlier in the season back in 1947.

This is the earliest heatwave ever recorded in France” since 1947, said Matthieu Sorel, a climatologist at Meteo France.

And there they go with that cause and effect thing — if one hot weekend is “climate change” so is every cold snap:

Experts warned that the high temperatures were caused by worrying climate change trends. “As a result of climate change, heatwaves are starting earlier,” said Clare Nullis, a spokeswoman for the World Meteorological Organisation in Geneva. “What we’re witnessing today is unfortunately a foretaste of the future” if concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continued to rise and pushed global warming towards 2C from pre-industrial levels, she added.

It’s a theatre performance of — swoon — the dire new world of “climate change” where any normal hot summer day can be turned into a red light lecture about the “risks” of eating beef, or using cars with petrol engines.

Will young people, at no risk from heat stroke if they drink enough water, really accept the cancellation of their festivals and concerts, because of “climate change?”

10 out of 10 based on 85 ratings

290 comments to Nanny State rules: French events banned “for the heat” — Climate lockdowns begin

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    [ Snip. Off Topic. – LVA]

    60

  • #
    MrGrimNasty

    In the UK we only had one day over 30C, 32.7C yesterday, heat has already departed. Only made 26C where I am. Yes we survived, thanks for the concern.

    430

    • #
      Jack01

      Yep every summer it gets hot and every winter it gets cold, but the fakestream media makes lots of people forget every single year. So like goldfish, they are surprised again and again every time it gets hot in summer or cold in winter, failing to remember every single previous season.

      371

      • #
        Lawrie

        But do they forget? People talk about the cool summer or the warm winter but it is the media and the climate boosters who add the dark descriptors. The obvious challenge to the fear mongers is human activity. People in Australia go North in the winter with thousands of grey nomads seeking the warmth likewise US and Canadian citizens head to Mexico and Arizona for the winter. Yes a few hardy snow bunnies head to the snowfields where once off the slopes they repair to a nice fire and drinks. Very few outdoors types camp in the snow. So humans know that keeping warm is far more important than keeping cool.

        202

      • #
        René Fries

        …a bit of culture could help, perhaps. I recommend “Un hussard sur le toit” and “Le bonheur fou” by Jean Giono, action happening back in 1848.

        20

    • #
      Roger

      Friday was hot here near Windsor in Berkshire, but nothing exceptional, just the normally good hay-making weather that seems to arrive every year during Royal Ascot week (at least since I started farming and making hay back in 1983).

      But Saturday was COLD, well below normal temperatures for this time of year with Royal Ascot racegoers shivering in their summer clothes, with cold winds and grey cloud cover … racing commentators were bemoaning on air that they hadn’t brought coats … having believed the forecasts that the “exceptionally hot” weather would last all weekend!

      Have you noticed how the approach now consistently seems to be to make claims that some “exceptionally” hot or stormy weather will be arriving in the next few days due to “climate change” ? but then very rarely does it happen, or at least nothing like the scary predictions … trying to imprint the idea in the public mind that normal weather is abnormal and to leave the impression of some exceptional event …. even though it doesn’t actually happen.

      140

      • #
        DOC

        over this weekend I’ve seen media hype reports giving weather measurements ‘the worst since 1947’ was one, and the other ‘the highest since 1888’. The first question must be, what was the worst before those dates? Didn’t fit the AGW horror theme of course.

        The biggest question lingering behind all such reports, whether in the USA, EU or Britain, is, ‘What happened in 1887 or 1946 or anytime before these ‘misrepresented’ ‘worsts’ inferred to be mini disasters due to ‘Climate Change’, occurred? Activist media reports this IS due to Climate Change. They unknowingly mislead us not! BUT, their use of CLIMATE CHANGE is not an innocent cop-out. They know readers are so solidly used to adding the ‘man made’ that they can escape arguing the ‘Anthropogenic’ title. ‘ANTHROPOGENIC’ is the only word of the three that opens the entire matter to scientific argument.

        Using ‘Climate Change’ to ascribe warm weather to, as now used by activists, there is no argument. Regardless of how hot it is today in the EU and USA, how come ALL the measured weather history of the past is allowed to be ignored. I would say this is why China, India, Russia and any other recalcitrant but sensible nations refuse to take part in such a self serving, economy destroying creed. Why is the whole basis of this destructive creed not forced into the open to be dissected to expose the limitations used to support it?

        80

        • #
          DOC

          ‘how come ALL………. IGNORED?’ Should read ‘how come NOT ALL the measured…’

          20

        • #
          Lawrie

          The important factor is how many people took notice of either the forecast or the media. I know that in my neck of the woods few if any take notice of either. The biggest scare here is not the end of the Earth but the size of the next power bill. The manager of a bowling club informed listeners to 2GB this AM that his quote for next quarter had increased 156%.

          30

      • #

        Roger
        This is now modus operandi here in AU as well. In 2019 we had bad bushfires in NSW and I noticed the forecast of 38-40 deg C with monotonous regularity. But where I was, and nearly everywhere else we were lucky to broach 30 deg C.

        This is our BOM at work with their ridiculous ideologically driven forecasting. We deride the stupid “rain follows the plough” nonsense that some earlier Australian pioneers claimed but here we are with the BOM practicing this same stupid thing in some strange attempt to either get higher temps, or more sinisterly to inoculate the populace with fear over “unprecedented” climate change.

        30

    • #
      UK-Weather Lass

      The Guardian carried a weather forecast (origin unknown) on Friday that got it completely wrong promising ‘scorching temperatures’ to continue along England’s south coast into next week. Today (Sunday) temperatures have pegged backed by several degrees centigrade.

      As the song asks ‘When will they ever learn?’ …

      80

  • #

    BBC Look North said there was a heat wave in Bridlington. The media said it reached 93 degrees. I looked at the thermometer. It said 73 degrees. We did not bother to open the windows. I presume the 93 degrees came from Heathrow Airport. Heathrow Airport produces all the record temperatures. Tarmac, Jet engines, new weather stations and the elimination of the heat island effect have produced a temperature difference of over ten degrees between Heathrow and the rest of the country. Being told to stay home? Bloody hell, its always hotter inside than out. My BBC weather forecast for Yorkshire goes up to Friday the 1st. The highest temperature it shows is 75 degrees on Thursday. Also I read that ten times more people die due to a cold spell than due to a heat wave. Buy Gold Sovereigns. There is a 2022 Australian Gold Sovereign on ebay going for £686.92p.

    340

    • #
      MrGrimNasty

      It was 91F at Santon Downham top, closely followed by Heathrow (some news sources said it matched Santon, but conversion rounding confusion I think), Kew gardens same as Heathrow, etc. All very similar readings over that London area.

      100

    • #
      Roger

      For a while my eldest son had a part time job in London doing late evenings, we talked about London temperature distortions yesterday and he said that in the winter when he left work the car would show 3C – 4C in London but by the time he was out of London it would be showing -1C to -2C.

      The Urban Heat Island efeect that climate alarmists, including the Met Office rely on to create the impression (illusion) of Global Warming is around 5C, sometimes more, and not the 2C or 3C that they choose to use to “homogenise” and adjust rural temperatures by …. so a -1C in rural areas gets adjusted to a +2C equivalent …. and that is the real way that “Global Warming” is truly man-made !

      150

  • #
    James Murphy

    In Paris, the temperature has been more or less mid-20s for the last few weeks, some days a bit hotter, some a bit cooler. It has been just over 30 for the last 2 days, 37 on Saturday (forecast 39). However, it cools down at night to reasonable temperatures, unlike some parts of the world. Most of Paris is not designed for prolonged heat, because in the scheme of things, it doesn’t stay very hot for that long, but a week above 30, and it’s not the nicest city to be in.

    “Heatwaves” also tends to coincide with air quality dropping, and the haze is noticeable after some days buildup. As usual, some parts of the city are facing garbage strikes, so it is piling up in the streets, not helping the local air quality!

    The metro system now has automated announcements about drinking water and staying hydrated. Yesterday (Friday) they also had a discount day-pass for the public transport system because of the heat (they do it for air pollution too). I find this all very amusing, but such announcements don’t harm anyone, really.

    Sunday is forecast to be 31, next week, mid 20s, though the forecasts cant be trusted more than about 2 days ahead. Earlier in the week, it was supposed to be 38-ish for 3-4 days, and that didnt happen, just as a lot of forecast max temps never seem to be reached…

    210

  • #
    John Hultquist

    More people die in their beds in summer than in the streets. Take my advice and stay out of beds — especially if it isn’t your own!

    340

  • #
    Earl

    Do not worry France your climate change fellow warrior, Australia, is coming to save you in the form of the world’s best treasurer Wayne Maxwell Swan. As chair of the $65 billion construction industry super fund, Cbus, he can influence the flushing allocation of a mountain of money even bigger than your Alps.

    191

    • #
      Dennis

      Compulsory Superannuation Guarantee Levy on employers paid into a fund for employees, Union industry super funds have become extremely influential in p[ublic company boardrooms based on shareholding of invested client’s monies. Renewable energy companies often have industry super fund shareholders.

      No wonder they opposed fund members being permitted to use part of their superannuation to buy a family home.

      100

    • #
      Maptram

      It seems that the Industry Super Fund Industry is a career path for former labor politicians. Former labor politician Greg Combet is chair of Industry Super Australia and Chair of IFM Investors, a global asset management business owned by the industry superannuation funds.

      60

      • #
        Earl

        And do not overlook the banking industry with Queensland Labor’s former flood queen (Cap’n) Anna Bligh who retired from politics and wandered into YWCA NSW as CEO before becoming CEO of the Australian Banking Association which included the role of driving the industry’s response to covid. Interestingly another ex-YWCA CEO Vanessa Beggs is now also on the ABA as its Chief Operating Officer as detailed on the ABA leadership information.

        50

  • #
    David Coe

    Some how I can’t see the French putting up with this one. Frightening them with a “deadly” disease is one thing. A bit of warm weather is another. They generally like a bit of sunshine.

    161

  • #
    R.B.

    I might wheel out this old anecdote again.

    I got a job during the summer break at a dried-fruit packing shed just south of Mildura. The previous seasons dried sultanas were not all packed so our job was to load buckets from the hopper, 16 kg, and toss them into a wooden box to be restored. Two of us would do this and a third would stack the sweat boxes, as they filled, 4 buckets per box, then wheel it into storage and start a new stack.

    We would do 40 tonnes in a day. A bit under 30 the first day as we got the hang of it. Less on the the second day as Mildura hit 46.9°C. It was a 2pm start with no aircon or fans. We worked for almost six hours before my arms cramped and we walked off, getting abuse from the foreman.

    I went home and told my parents who said I should apologise for walking off. They were use to working in the sun near 40 degree heat.

    It was stupid for us to have even started but humans can cope with the heat, especially if dry and you keep hydrated. Near 40 and humid is different.

    That record in 1990 has not been broken. It was a lot less than the two days over 50 recorded in 1906, but different location and before a Stevenson Screen was used. Jan had a monthly mean of 39°C that year, and the next month when people need to harvest, it was 38.8°C with 3 days over 45. The work got done. Not many old people living there then, so no deaths from heat reported.

    211

    • #
      Ian George

      You may find this download interesting.
      Google. ‘VICTORIA’S HIGHEST TEMPERATURE ON RECORD, 123.5°F (50.8°C), AT MILDURA, ON 6 JANUARY 1906 – BUT IS IT VALID?’

      121

      • #
        R.B

        Read it a while back. Comparing it with Deniliquin is silly but it definitely would have been cooler with modern equipment at the airport site. Funny how BOM ignore recent changes that bump up maximums now.

        70

        • #
          Ian George

          It probably was a Glaisher Stand although many targeted weather sites had the SS well before 1910. It seems that the GS measured higher for maximum temps (up to 1.0C in summer) but cooler for minimum temps. The difference between the two that most agree on is that the mean temp for the GS to be around 0.2C warmer than the SS. Most of the problem appears to be the siting of the Stands (also the Greenwich Stands).
          As you point out, the BoM still records Mildura for that day at 50.7C.
          However, the BoM has been adjusting many earlier temps down (through ACORN). Just about all the yearly mean temps since 2000 have been adjusted. Both 2001 and 2011 had means below average but these have been adjusted up so they are no longer BA.
          If the BoM was being ‘honest’, it would take into account ethermometers have a response time of one second and should be adjusting temps down. Onslow’s 50.7C recorded this year is still not listed in the official records (it’s under review) but technically should not be regarded as high as Oodnadatta’s 1960 record.
          Sorry for the rant but the BoM needs to be taken to task – it seems to change the rules/definitions to suit the meme
          eg heatwave and cyclone definitions.

          100

          • #
            R.B

            In the case of Mildura, the PO was open until 1949. All the highest monthly averages occurred before 1907 (1914 october = to 1885) so clearly readings were higher using the older equipment.

            The Airport opened in 1946 and while the hottest winter months, May to August, were 1982 and earlier, it was 2009 and later for the other 8 months.

            The highest monthly mean minimums have 6 occurring between 1971 and 1991, and 7 after 1997 (two Marches had equal highest). Global warming should have a bigger effect on the minimum. Having a bigger effect on maximums is better propaganda.

            20

          • #

            Ian George. I trust you mean well but this is just wrong.
            “ethermometers have a response time of one second” The BoM thermometers do not. They may or may not have the same response as mercury thermometers but neither is even close to 1 second. Mixing up response time and sampling rate is like saying blue weighs more than red or claiming that a kilometre is wetter than a mile if it smells further East. The “1 second” sample rate is a different specification to the response time. Sampling rate should not be confused with response time and neither of those should be confused with averaging period.

            The Glaisher stand reads more extreme than the Stevenson because it is faster. It has a shorter response time. The Modern BoM Stevenson screens seem faster than the old ones. An international comparison study noted that the Australian screens were faster than most others. Screens, platinum probes and glass thermometers all have response times. None of them have sampling rates. Suggesting a platinum probe has a sampling rate is like ordering a cubic meter of philosophy.

            11

            • #
              Ian George

              ‘…… ethermometers have a response time of one second” The BoM thermometers do not.’

              Take that up with Jo. I have often seen up to 1.0C difference within the same minute – I’m sure the old LIGTs couldn’t respond that quickly. Many years ago I saw a report by BoM that there was up to 0.3C difference between ethermometers and LIGTs but it has disappeared. When someone on this blog years ago requested the comparison, BoM said they couldn’t find it.

              00

              • #

                “Take that up with Jo.”
                Why waste her time with something i am better qualified to deal with? I would really like you to understand this. You are close but have confused sampling rate with time constant or response time. If asked to cite your source for “ethermometers have a response time of one second” You won’t be able to.
                Compare this old quote from me (Lance Pidgeon).

                Following the link provided in the ‘Fast Facts’, I found this:

                “It is recommended that the time constant, defined as the time required by the thermometer to register 63.2% of a step change in air temperature, should be 20 s. The time constant depends on the airflow over the sensor.”

                https://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/09/bureau-management-rewrites-rules/

                to
                “The Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Observing Practices (WMO No.8 TP3, paragraph 4.3) recommends that a thermometer should have a
                lag of 30 to 60 seconds in a wind speed of 5 ms-~”
                WMO 315

                It has gone from “30 to 60” down to 20 but not 1.
                The 1 second claim is wrong. It is just an error. Note that if a 2 degree after 1 minute is 63.2%, all that is required is 100/62.3*2= 3.21.
                A change in real air temperature less than you would get from the wind changing direction from a shady spot to over tarmac etc.

                00

              • #

                “The effect of thermometer screen design on the observed temperature”
                WMO 315
                https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=7046#.Yq_pYf1Bzcs

                00

            • #
              R.B.

              BOM use a thermistor that typically have a response time of seconds, depending on what you define as a response time. In this case, you would want to define it as how long to get to within 0.1 degree of the new temperature after a sudden 2 degree spike. Whether it’s 1 or 2 s is irrelevant because it’s the response inside the screen that matters, and it might be weather dependent. No doubt, though, that it will pick up a short burst of heat better than the old equipment and BOM shouldn’t use the highest second reading to compare with old instruments, especially the even slower min/max thermometers in a much larger screen. It shouldn’t use the highest reading, regardless. Such a burst doesn’t represent the region. I’ve seen maximum temperatures two degrees higher than the highest reading reported for the site. These are usually half hour apart but sometimes reported more often. Why it’s not the highest recorded with the past half hour is perplexing, as well as the almost arbitrary intervals.

              10

              • #
                Ian George

                Thanks R.B
                Also found this.
                ‘A key conclusion was that readings from the new electronic sensors needed to be averaged over one to 10 minutes. However, rather than implement practices consistent with their finding, the bureau records one-second extremes (or noise), which can be announced as new record highs.’
                http://103.208.218.180/2017/09/poor-bom-dangerous-deniers-amateurs-attacking-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-debilitating-it-by-asking-questions/

                It may have been Lance that tried to get the comparisons between the ethermometers and the LIGTs but the BoM said they didn’t have it (but only Lance can answer that).

                10

              • #
                R.B

                Yep. They record every second rather than response time is a second, but definitely faster than the older setup so artificially creating new records.

                20

              • #
                Ian George

                And yet every Aust average mean from at least 2000-2017 has been adjusted up by 0.1C-0.2C. Aust had two below average years (2001 and 2011) but no longer.
                Climate summary http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2011/

                Time series
                http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries

                10

              • #

                R.B
                “Yep. They record every second rather than response time is a second, but definitely faster than the older setup so artificially creating new records.”

                Yes 20 second is faster than 30 to 60.

                Keep going the penny has not quite dropped. You have almost got it R.B
                Now that you have stated the recording rate and response times are two different things you are close. Don’t forget they are different.
                You are correct to say “depending on what you define as a response time” but it is better not to re-invent the wheel. The honest way to do it is to use the already very clearly defined “Thermal time Constant”. Using the poorly defined “Response time” is the choice for the dishonest. Just as confusing sampling rate with response time looks to have been done deliberately to confuse. So instead of calling five time constants your response time, call your response time five time constants etc.

                Note also that time constant can be used to describe the rate of cooling or warming of the thermometer but the thermometer has no sampling rate to describe. The sampling rate or recording rate to memory is something that does not even happen in the same box. It is byte rate to memory. It happens at the other end of the probe cable.
                https://www.mmc.co.jp/adv/dev/english/document/thermistor/thermistor08.html

                00

              • #
                Ian George

                So now we have established that ethermometers record more quickly than LIGTs, you can now explain why the BoM have adjusted Aus mean temps by +0.1C – 0.2C from 2000-2017. ACORN adjustments?

                00

      • #
        Dennis

        No, there were no reliable weather data records before 1910, as the BoM knows better than others.

        /sarc.

        40

  • #
    TIP

    Earlier this year – ANNA ALP (Queensland premier) incited so much fear over a BOM summer storm warning parents were told to collect children early from school…..storm never came.

    Another summer storm warning saw the cancellation of many events including (personally affected) the largest INDOOR swimming competition in QLD of the year……storm never came.

    Since C19, this energy crisis, this developing inflation I have never believed sooooo much in the idea of small government – prior to that I always attributed it to a financial waste issue – now i realise it is much much more.

    190

  • #
    David Maddison

    Australia is one of the more extreme Nanny States and I fully expect our politicians to be “inspired” by France’s lead and do the same thing here next summer, or even ban events in “excessive cold” for the present winter.

    Also, another part of the agenda is that the Elites don’t want public gatherings. People might get angry and protest about their predicament. They want people locked up at home to either boil or freeze depending on season and whether there is power available or not.

    151

    • #
      b.nice

      Ban people going down the beach, because its too hot.

      Ban people going skiing, because its too cold.

      Yeah, that’ll work ! 😉

      181

    • #
      Mike Jonas

      Wouldn’t it be easier if they just banned everything – then they couldn’t be blamed for anything.

      Seriously, though, it isn’t reasonable to justify authoritarian rules on the basis of possible public harm. We all know that cleaning your teeth every day is a good idea, but is it reasonable to make it mandatory and to fine people if they are found not to have cleaned their teeth one day?

      Sometimes it is necessary to have rules – we aren’t each of us free to decide on which side of the road we will drive for example – but this lockdown because of a predicted heatwave??? How does it look if the politicians ban people from going outside and are then seen to go outside themselves – and some of them certainly will go outside. How does ‘partygate’ translate into the french heatwave equivalent? Porte chaude?

      50

  • #
    rodgerwithoutD

    We are visiting the area (Montignac) at the moment – yes it’s hot but nobody seems to care. Have not been informed of this “lockdown” so it’s not wildly publicised.
    Lots of people at the market today and outside dinning tonight.Kids sleeping well.
    Great for the Hang Gliders over the cliffs this pm.
    Suggest it’s French being French and the population will just do as they please.

    160

  • #
    Ronin

    These idiot governments are relishing the chance to get their nannying on, pity they didn’t pay as much attention to electricity production.

    90

  • #
    Murray Shaw

    Hottest early start to Summer in Europe since 1947. Coldest start to Winter in Australia since WW2, in previous post from Jo.
    So on average the temperature is about average!
    Seems when searching the historical record it is possible to find a time in recent history when it was as Hot/Cold, so nothing is new.

    190

    • #
      Ian George

      Reminds me, Murray.
      Perth had its hottest Christmas Day on record last year.
      Just up the road, Darwin had its coldest.
      Temps balanced.

      160

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘Hottest early start to Summer in Europe since 1947.’

      Its no coincidence that the UK winter of 1947 was very snowy, it appears to be blocking behind the extremes.

      40

  • #
    yarpos

    Oh well, we close building sites and stop playing tennis at the Open if it gets hot. So not so different.

    Funny that they think they need to control things. Most people exercise common sense and the streets tend to get quiet when it hot.

    We spent the 2003 heatwave in Europe and most of the deaths were old people at home not young people out doing stuff
    EU housing (especially the old stock) is very good with cold but becomed a misery in prolonged heat. Maybe AC is more common now two decades on.

    80

    • #
      Dennis

      Builders I know have commented that if people worked in their industry away from air conditioned buildings and other artificial climate control systems they might realise that the weather is normal.

      80

  • #
    Double on Tundra

    If the same high quality thinking is used regarding sunscreen as was used with the jab, France will announce that nobody’s sunscreen can possibly work unless everybody else also applies sunscreen.

    Therefore, sunscreen will be made mandatory. Not only would it be selfish to not use it, you will not be allowed outside without government approved sunscreen. Nothing home-made, nothing imported from some other jurisdiction, no amount of staying in the shade by yourself.

    It’s for your own good. You don’t want granny to die, do you?

    200

  • #
    [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

    It’s only a matter of time before they start lowering the temperature at which these ‘climate’ lockdowns are triggered. Soon, they’ll be locking people in their homes at gunpoint when it’s a mere 70 F. Mark my words… these totalitarians will stop at nothing to quash dissent.

    As I’ve often said, if you want to cool an area off, water is the perfect refrigerant. It’s cheap, plentiful, leaves no trace behind after it evaporates, is environmentally beneficial and carries away 8092 BTU / gallon upon evaporation.

    The temperatures where I live have regularly reached 100 F and more lately. We have yet to even run our A/C. We have a misting system installed. I built a 400 GPD reverse osmosis unit. The water first goes through a 40 µm mesh filter with integrated scraper so you can blow it down to flush it, then through a washable 20 µm filter, then through a 1 µm replaceable filter, then through a reverse osmosis unit, then through an activated charcoal finishing filter, then out to the misters which are stainless steel with 0.3 mm holes. The RO filter waste water goes to water the lawn, so we’re getting the cooling practically for no additional cost, as we’d have to water the lawn anyway.

    With the number of misters we’ve got, we’re using ~10 GPH of water (each mister puts out ~0.25 GPH), which evaporates and absorbs ~80,000 BTU / hr, which then convects away (humid air is more buoyant than dry air). That’s equivalent to a ~6.66 refrigerant ton A/C unit, which would take ~97 amps at 240 VAC to run. The misters can be bought on Amazon, and work with usual household water pressure.

    We pull the air into the house via a box fan which takes ~55 watts. So we’re getting ~23.4 kW of cooling for 55 watts. Granted, the house isn’t as cold as one could get it with an A/C unit, but it’s not uncomfortable by any stretch. The air then goes through the open attic hatch to cool the attic space, so the heat in the attic space doesn’t heat the house. Thus we fill the house from the bottom up with cool air, with the warmer air preferentially rising into the attic and getting pushed out through the attic vents.

    We’re still experimenting with placement of the misters and the mesh demister so the fan doesn’t suck in mist and chuck it into the house, but overall, it’s working pretty well.

    The mist is so fine that when the relative humidity is low, it actually starts convecting upward, none of it hits the ground. You can feel the cool air rolling off the mist down toward the ground. I have to stand in front of a mister for about 4 minutes before I feel any moisture accumulating.

    Now imagine if all large buildings were required to install misters. If each building only used 10 GPH, and you had 1000 such buildings, you’d be cooling the area to the tune of 80 million BTU / hr. That’s equivalent to an A/C unit taking ~23 MW.

    And even in so-called ‘humid’ areas, it works… the psychrometric chart shows that as temperature increases, relative humidity decreases. We start the day at ~75-85% RH; at the temperature peak, it’s down to 20-40% RH.

    Water vapor isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause.
    ———-
    You know, the refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:

    A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.

    That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km).

    The effective emission height is ~5.105 km. That also happens to be where atmospheric pressure is 1/2 that at sea level, which isn’t a coincidence.

    7 – 13 µm: >280 K (near-surface)
    >13 – 17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere)

    The emission profile is equivalent to a BB with a temperature of 255 K, and thus an effective emission height of 5.105 km.

    The lapse rate is said to average ~6.5 K / km. 6.5 K / km * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K. That is not the ‘greenhouse effect’, it’s the tropospheric lapse rate. The climate alarmists have conflated the two.

    Polyatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) reduce the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), not increase it (dry ALR: ~9.81 K / km; humid ALR: ~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) by dint of their higher specific heat capacity and/or latent heat capacity convectively transiting more energy (as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics), thus attempting to reduce temperature differential with altitude, while at the same time radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it… they increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source and sink… they are coolants.

    9.81 K / km * 5.105 km = 50.08005 K (dry adiabatic lapse rate, due to homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics), which would give a surface temperature of 255 + 50.08005 = 305.08005 K. Sans CO2, that number would be even higher.

    Water vapor (primarily) reduces that to 272.8675 K – 288.1825 K, depending upon humidity. Other polyatomics (CO2) contribute to cooling, to a lesser extent. The higher the concentration of polyatomics, the more vertical the lapse rate, the cooler the surface.

    So in regards to water vapor, one could say that we live inside the equivalent of the evaporator of a giant world-sized A/C unit.

    171

    • #
      b.nice

      Polyatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) reduce the adiabatic lapse rate

      I doubt you will find any measurements anywhere that shows that CO2 effects the lapse rate.

      Lapse rate is to do with specific energy, and CO2 has a specific energy nearly the same as air.. so trace amounts have zero effect.

      95

      • #
        b.nice

        Actually, CO2 has a specific energy slightly less than air, so in theory , speeds up the lapse rate by a very very tiny amount.

        35

        • #
          [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

          Not true. For an increasing CO2 concentration, the ratio of polyatomics (CO2) to monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) increases.

          CO2 being a polyatomic molecule, has more DOF (Degrees of Freedom) than do the diatomics and monoatomics, thus it has a higher specific heat capacity (CO2: 28.26916348 J mol-1 K-1) than the diatomics (N2: 20.78614962 J mol-1 K-1 and O2: 20.8 J mol-1 K-1) and monoatomics (Ar: 12.4717 J mol-1 K-1). Thus a higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 will result in more energy transported to the upper atmosphere than the homonuclear diatomics or monoatomics could transport, thus more energy which can be emitted, thus more energy emitted to space, which is by definition a cooling process.

          https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png

          That’s from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.

          https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png

          That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

          Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

          Gee… adding more of the predominant upper-atmospheric radiative coolant causes more emitters per unit volume, which causes more emission per unit volume, which causes more emission to space, which causes a larger loss of energy from the system known as ‘Earth’, which causes cooling… who knew? LOL

          It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.

          Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.

          In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.

          The environmental lapse rate would necessitate that the surface also warms, given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation).

          The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of energy…

          https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/figure-2.png

          … which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2, and thus some emission in the atmosphere)…. and a higher radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.

          The chance of any N2 or O2 molecule colliding with water vapor is ~3% on average in the troposphere, and for CO2 it’s only ~0.042%. Logic dictates that as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, the likelihood of N2 or O2 colliding with it also increases, and thus increases the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission. (And yes, t-v and v-v collisional processes do occur from N2 to CO2… if you doubt me, I can post the maths and studies which prove it.)

          Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the ~95.94 – 99.74% (depending upon humidity) of the atmosphere which cannot effectively radiatively emit (N2, O2, Ar) must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor below the tropopause and the largest contributor above the tropopause, water vapor being the main contributor below the tropopause) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.

          So can anyone explain how increasing the concentration of the major radiative coolant gases (H2O, CO2) in the atmosphere (and thus increasing the likelihood that Ar, N2 and O2 will transfer their energy to those radiative coolant gases and then out to space via radiative emission) will result in more ‘heat trapping’, causing global warming? I thought not.

          That’s kind of why, after all, polyatomics (CO2, H2) aren’t used as a filler gas for dual-pane windows. It they were such terrific ‘heat trapping’ gases, they’d be used as such. They’re not. Monoatomics with low DOF generally are.

          72

          • #
            [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

            “That’s kind of why, after all, polyatomics (CO2, H2)”

            -should be-

            “That’s kind of why, after all, polyatomics (CO2, H2O)”

            32

          • #
            b.nice

            PS.. I agree with the rest, its just that CO2 does not affect the lapse rate.. never been measured or observed.

            Lapse rate is a gravity/specific energy relationship, not a radiative one.

            “by dint of their higher specific heat capacity”

            CO2 has a lower specific heat than dry air.

            23

            • #
              [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

              The lapse rate is the effect of the balance of convective transport from the lower atmosphere and the radiative emission out to space, combined with gravitational auto-compression for descending parcels of air and essentially adiabatic cooling for ascending parcels of air.

              Thus, obviously, anything which affects the ability of the upper atmosphere to radiatively emit must affect the point where the lapse rate is “anchored” at TOA (Top of Atmosphere, where the atmospheric density reduces sufficient that the atmosphere is no longer opaque to any given wavelength of radiation… it’s different for different wavelengths).

              And a greater concentration of the predominant upper atmospheric radiative coolant gas (CO2) most definitely affects the upper atmosphere’s ability to emit radiation.

              A higher concentration of CO2 will result in more emitters per unit volume, which results in more emission per unit volume, which results in more emission out to space, which results in a greater loss of energy from the system known as ‘Earth’, which is a cooling process.

              No, CO2 does not have a lower specific heat capacity than bulk air. Stop spreading disinformation:

              https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/the-nanny-state-rules-french-events-banned-for-the-heat-climate-lockdowns-begin/#comment-2559184

              Isobaric (constant pressure):
              CO2: 36.94 J mol-1 K-1
              Air: 29.19 J mol-1 K-1

              Isochoric (constant volume):
              CO2: 28.46 J mol-1 K-1
              Air: 20.85 J mol-1 K-1

              21

              • #
                b.nice

                Lapse rate is calculated as Γ = g/cₚ where cₚ is in kj/kg/K

                isobaric
                CO2: 0.849 kJ/kg/K
                air: 1.006 kJ.kg/K

                isochoric
                CO2: 0.658 kJ/kg/K
                Air: 0.718 kJ/kg/K

                23

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            NASA has a satellite measuring Long Wave (IR) radiation from Earth and say it is increasing. In Climate “Science” this means that the Earth MUST be getting warmer.
            Basis (very basic) thermodynamics says that if you have a constant heat flow (e.g. from a constant sun) into an isolated system and an increasing heat flow out, then the system is cooling.

            101

          • #
            [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

            This illustrates what I’m stating:

            http://imgur.com/Zxq4KlB.png

            That’s a MODTRAN plot at 287.64 K for 415 ppm vs. 830 ppm CO2 for 13.98352 µm to 15.98352 µm radiation (to fully account for the absorption shoulders of CO2). It assumes no water vapor, no CH4, no O3 present. Note that the troposphere plots aren’t appreciably different, whereas the 100 km plots (ie: at the edge of space) are appreciably different. IOW, a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration doesn’t appreciably change the upward or downward radiative flux in the troposphere (because the extinction depth for those wavelengths at 415 and 830 ppm is low enough that it’s thermalizing nearly all of that radiation, the net effect being an increase in CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection, which is a cooling process), but it does appreciably change how much energy is exiting the system known as ‘Earth’, and that represents a cooling process. One can clearly see the effect of CO2 upon energy emission to space, as delineated by the shoulders of the emission spectrum of CO2 in the 100 km plots. That cools the upper atmosphere, and since the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA and since the heat transfer equation must (eventually) balance, that means the lower atmosphere must cool toward the temperature of the upper atmosphere (because a higher concentration of polyatomic molecules shifts the lapse rate vertically, and radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it), and thus the surface must cool with an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration. This is what is taking place, we’re just working through the humongous thermal capacity of the planet, which warmed due to a now-ended long series of stronger-than-usual solar cycles (the Modern Grand Maximum), but it is cooling (in fact, it’s projected that we’re slipping into a Solar Grand Minimum which will rival the Dalton Minimum, and may rival the Maunder Minimum).

            https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Figure-3.png

            Zoomed in…

            https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Figure-4.png

            Note the extreme right-hand edge of that chart… negative and decreasing at an accelerating rate.

            40

            • #
              [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

              “But the 100 km plot has lower radiant exitance than the tropospheric plot! That proves that CO2 is warming the atmosphere!”, you may surmise.

              Yeah, no. That energy must go somewhere, per 1LoT. It is down-converted (primarily to water vapor) and emitted at longer wavelengths.

              That’s why the Brightness Temperature plot shows regions of lower radiant exitance (where molecules are absorbing radiation), and to the left of those regions, regions that are higher than they otherwise would be (where molecules are emitting that energy as down-converted radiation).

              Consider that an increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration is akin to increasing the surface area of an emitting surface. Does the Brightness Temperature decrease if surface area increases for the same energy emitted? Sure it does.

              I_ν = (2 hν^3 / c)(1/(e^(hν/kT) – 1))
              Where:
              —–
              I_ν = Brightness, the amount of energy emitted per unit surface area per unit time per unit solid angle and in the given frequency range between ν and dν;

              T = temperature of the black body

              h = Planck’s constant

              ν = frequency

              c = speed of light

              k = Boltzmann’s constant
              —–

              So there’s three effects happening here to decrease Brightness Temperature with increasing altitude:
              —–
              1) Effective surface area increases (emission height total area is greater than surface total area by ~2.4 billion m^2)

              – and –

              2) An increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is akin to increasing the surface area of an emitting surface.

              – and –

              3) Progressive radiative emission to space with increasing altitude.
              —–

              Brightness temperature is the temperature a black body in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings would have to be to duplicate the observed intensity of a gray body object at a frequency ν.

              A brightness temperature lower than the equivalent gray body temperature implies that energy is flowing from that equivalent gray body temperature to the matter with that brightness temperature, which is shedding energy via radiative emission.

              Matter emits according to the S-B law: B = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
              Sigma is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, B is the brightness and T is the absolute temperature

              Therefore a lower Brightness Temperature implies an absolute temperature below the temperature of the environment from which CO2 is attaining its energy. In this case, it means CO2 is radiatively cooling the atmosphere.

              https://i.imgur.com/fPkPALO.png

              The image above shows the brightness temperature versus altitude. Note that as altitude increases (emission area increases), brightness temperature decreases for the same amount of energy emitted.

              That ‘dip’ in Brightness Temperature is due to progressive radiative emission of energy to space with increasing altitude, the effect of surface area increasing with increasing altitude, and the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing ‘surface area’ of that CO2 at its emission height.

              All three together allow CO2 to shed energy to space more efficiently with increasing altitude and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

              So while the alarmists claim that increasing CO2 concentration in our atmosphere has caused that ‘dip’ in brightness temperature to deepen because CO2 is ‘trapping’ more energy in the atmosphere, in reality the ‘dip’ has deepened because the upper atmosphere has experienced a long-term cooling trend (and ironically enough, that long-term cooling trend is because of the increased CO2 concentration emitting more radiation to space). As well, an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration more readily de-excites O2, O3 and N2 which have become vibrationally excited due to absorption of solar UV, making those molecules available again to absorb more UV, thus shedding more energy to space and thus cooling the column of atmosphere.

              In other words, dips in the Brightness Temperature below the profile average indicate cooling, whereas spikes above the profile average indicate warming (usually due to absorption of solar insolation). Thus the dip that the alarmists point to as causing warming is actually indicative of cooling, whereas the narrow-band upward spike in the bottom center of that dip indicates a diminution of that relatively wider-band cooling process (but does not indicate actual warming… it’d have to spike above the emission profile average for it to indicate that). This alone destroys the CAGW hypothesis.

              31

              • #
                b.nice

                B = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h

                Just a trial, can’t find a subscript c so will use a u.

                B = ε σ (Tₕ⁴ – Tᵤ⁴) Aₕ

                12

          • #
            Lawrie

            Sounds a bit complicated and energy expensive running water through very fine filters so I just have a question-why not just use an evaporation unit which works very well in high heat and low humidity situations?

            10

            • #
              [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

              The mineral content of the water leaves a white mineral deposit if you just spray tap water, and it’ll plug the misters, necessitating that you soak them in vinegar, then brush the mineral deposits off.

              You have to get the minerals out of the water. That’s what the RO unit does. A side benefit is that I built the RO unit large enough that we’ve got water for drinking and washing vehicles that’s ultra-clean. The tap water here ranges between a swampy taste and an overly-chlorinated taste. The RO water tastes clean.

              FYI, if you’ve never done it, turn off your water heater, hook a hose up to the bottom of the water heater, turn off the house water supply, open the water heater drain, then go around and open the hot water taps until the heater is drained. You’ll likely be surprised by how much gunk comes out. Most of that gunk came in with the water, some of it might be from the sacrificial anode(s).

              Once it’s drained, turn the house water supply on and flush water into the water heater while the drain is open to wash any remaining gunk out, then turn off the house water supply and drain down the heater again. Do that a few times, until the water runs clear.

              Then close the heater drain, fill it, and run water through the hot water taps… you’ll likely get more gunk out of the pipes. I once pumped vinegar through the pipes of an older house I’d bought, and let it sit for a couple days to knock loose a heavy mineral deposit in the pipes… lots of gunk came out after that.

              Then check the sacrificial anode(s) in your water heater… if you got a bunch of gunk out of the heater, the sacrificial anodes are likely corroded badly. Replace them, then flush the water heater once a year to extend the heater’s life.

              30

        • #
          b.nice

          The reason H2O affects the lapse rate is because of its latent heat capacity

          Show me an equation for lapse rate that includes anything but H2O.

          43

        • #
          [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

          b.nice wrote:
          “Actually, CO2 has a specific energy slightly less than air”

          Depends upon what you’re referring to in regards to specific heat capacity (the below is from Wikipedia… I did the actual calculations for my post above for the isochoric molar heat capacity case):

          Isobaric (constant pressure):
          CO2: 36.94 J mol-1 K-1
          Air: 29.19 J mol-1 K-1

          Isochoric (constant volume):
          CO2: 28.46 J mol-1 K-1
          Air: 20.85 J mol-1 K-1

          In both cases, however, CO2 has higher specific heat capacity than bulk air. That’s an old diversionary device that the climate alarmists tried years ago, and it lives on even today. Odd, that… given that one can easily either look up the specific heat capacity of CO2 and air, or do the calculations. They must think people are stupid or something. LOL

          51

          • #
            b.nice

            Lapse rate is calculated as Γ = g/cₚ where cₚ is in kj/kg/K

            isobaric
            CO2: 0.849 kJ/kg/K
            air: 1.006 kJ.kg/K

            isochoric
            CO2: 0.658 kJ/kg/K
            Air: 0.718 kJ/kg/K

            13

            • #
              [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

              Your being pedantic about units? You can’t convert between units? LOL

              Why does the mass of the gas matter, rather than the number of molecules? Is it the total mass (in kg) of the gas doing the emitting, or each individual molecule? Is it the total mass of the gas (in kg) doing the transiting of the energy, or each individual molecule? That’s why we use the isochoric molar heat capacity (ie: on a per-parcel or per-volume basis), not the isobaric mass heat capacity. Unless you’re now going to claim that a convecting parcel of air somehow retains the same pressure as it convects. That is the meaning of isobaric. LOL

              Again, that’s a diversionary tactic used by the climate alarmists from long ago. They failed at it then, just as you’ll fail at it now. LOL

              43

              • #
                b.nice

                https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Adiabatic_lapse_rate

                Units used in lapse rate formula are kJ/kg/K..

                The wet lapse rate also uses kJ/kg/K..

                Nowhere does CO2 enter into the calculation of lapse rate.

                43

              • #
                b.nice

                ” You can’t convert between units?”

                I can, actually… Seems you forgot to.!

                62

              • #
                b.nice

                FYI… on conversion to correct units..

                “Isobaric (constant pressure):
                CO2: 36.94 J mol-1 K-1
                Air: 29.19 J mol-1 K-1”

                CO2 is approx 0.228 kg/mol x 36.94 = 0.842 kJ/kg/K (slight discrepancy from 0.849?)
                Air is approx 0.345 kg/mol x 29.19 = 1.007 kJ/kg/K (check)

                32

              • #
                b.nice

                correction.

                For some reason I missed out typing the first 0 after the decimal point in both calcs (its on my hand calcs)

                should be..

                CO2 is approx 0.0227 kg/mol x 36.94 = 0.839 kJ/kg/K
                Air is approx 0.0345 kg/mol x 29.19 = 1.007 kJ/kg/K

                22

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “CO2 is approx 0.0227 kg/mol”

                Again, are you pulling these numbers out of thin air? LOL

                CO2: 44.0095 g mol-1

                Your number is now approximately half what CO2’s molar mass actually is. LOL

                You went from 5.18 times heavier than it actually is, to approximately half. LOL

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                now reverse the units , ! D’Oh!

                12

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “now reverse the units , ! D’Oh!”

                44.052863436123348017621145374449

                CO2: 44.0095 g mol-1

                D’oh!, indeed. LOL

                21

              • #
                b.nice

                Which, as you have shown, calculates to 0.839 kJ/kg/K which is less than for air , which is around 1.006 kJ/kg/K

                Thanks for verifying.

                Maybe you will get there eventually.

                Remember, lapse rate calculations use kJ/kg/K..

                Look it up, and stop using the wrong units.

                32

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Which, as you have shown, calculates to 0.839 kJ/kg/K which is less than for air , which is around 1.006 kJ/kg/K”

                Actually, that calculates to 0.83853800000000000000000000000001 kJ kg-1 K-1 because you can’t even get the molar mass of CO2 correct. LOL

                And again, the per-mass-unit specific heat capacity of CO2 is only lower than other molecular species because CO2 is a heavier molecule… it says nothing about each molecule’s ability to transit heat in that molecule’s specific heat capacity, which is higher than other molecular species.

                That’s why we don’t calculate upon the per-mass-unit specific heat capacity… it’s sophistry promulgated by the climate alarmists to bolster their narrative.

                One doesn’t calculate upon the per-unit-mass specific heat capacity because one gets an incorrect result, leading to the incorrectitudes of CAGW. One instead calculates upon each molecule’s ability to transit heat in its specific heat capacity, which for CO2 is higher than other molecular species. The mass of the molecule doesn’t matter one whit. It’s sophistry promulgated by the climate alarmists to bolster their narrative.

                If one wishes to ascertain what effect an increasing atmospheric concentration of any given molecular species is, one calculates upon the molar ratio of that molecular species in relation to other molecular species, and thus upon its molar specific heat capacity. Not upon the total mass of that molecular species in relation to the total mass of other molecular species.

                Stop shilling for CAGW using old and long-defenstrated bafflegab. LOL

                33

              • #
                b.nice

                ” 0.83853800000000000000000000000001 kJ kg-1 K-1″

                Now you are going off the deep end into hilarious silliness…

                You just cannot accept that you have proven me correct, can you 🙂

                Lapse is calculated using units of kJ/kg/K. Something you will just have to get used to.

                As you have shown, for lapse rate calculations, Cp for CO2 is less than Cp for air.

                Why argue about your own proven fact ?

                22

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Lapse is calculated using units of kJ/kg/K. Something you will just have to get used to.”

                I’ve already shown you two instances in which lapse rate is calculated using J mol-1 K-1. Something you will just have to get used to.

                Further, you’ll just have to get used to the fact that the mass of a molecule has no relation to how much specific heat capacity each individual molecule can carry… using the mass specific heat capacity to calculate lapse rate is just sophistry used by the climate alarmists to bolster their narrative, something that’s already been proven for years.

                The molar specific heat capacity is higher for CO2 than it is for other molecular species. Each individual CO2 molecule can carry more energy in its DOF than other molecules. That something else you’ll just have to get used to.

                [SNIP]

                And finally, you’ll just have to get used to [SNIP] of knowing that you’re wrong in yet again attempting to foist the sophistry of mass specific heat capacity in calculating the lapse rate, when molecular mass has nothing to do with specific heat capacity. It’s all about the DOF of the molecule. That’s why the incredibly low molecular mass (in relation to CO2) water molecule has such a high specific heat capacity, in both its mass specific heat capacity form and its molar specific heat capacity form.

                [SNIP]

                11

            • #
              [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

              Further, that’s for the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K km-1). How exactly are you calculating for the change in lapse rate for a changing concentration of polyatomics (ie: the changing latent heat capacity and specific heat capacity due to that changing concentration), when that equation discounts all polyatomics (water included), using instead the heat capacity of an idealized gas? LOL

              The proposed dry adiabatic thermal lapse rate is:

              dT / dz = -g/c_p ≠ 0

              Where:
              g = gravitational acceleration (presumed constant)
              cp = heat capacity per kilogram of the particular “ideal” gas at constant pressure

              But such a system cannot be dT / dz ≠ 0 in stable thermodynamic equilibrium.

              Further, that equation assumes that the only means of achieving equilibrium is adiabatic mixing of the air.

              If the distribution of energy in a column of atmosphere is changed, gravity causes a flow of energy (ie: heat) that will change the distribution of energy such that T_bottom > T_top. That’s gravitational auto-compression.

              In other words, any energy added to this column of atmosphere will always distribute itself in such a way as to maintain the lapse rate.

              Now, as an exercise, imagine this column of atmosphere has a highly heat-conductive material connecting the top and bottom of this column of atmosphere. Obviously, since there is always a lapse rate due to gravitational auto-compression, energy will flow (ie: heat) along this material from bottom to top.

              One now has two choices:
              1) energy added to the top will redistribute itself to maintain the adiabatic lapse rate. There must be a net flow of energy from top of column to bottom.

              2) energy will flow from the bottom to the top until they are in thermodynamic equilibrium.

              It should be clear that 1) above is impossible. Heat would flow in such a system forever, a perpetuum mobile.

              Now in the first case, remove the heat-conductive material and replace it with the thermal conductivity of the gas in the column of atmosphere. One is left with the impossible scenario of the gas moving constantly in attempting to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium.

              In reality, the gas would reach a state of static force equilibrium. Buoyancy and gravity in perfect balance throughout, regardless of the lapse rate.

              We get the lapse rate in pressure terms:
              https://i.imgur.com/mEsQtn9.png
              Where:
              P_0 is the pressure at the bottom of the column of atmosphere

              In reality, the dry adiabatic lapse rate (which you showed the equation for) comes about because the system is heated from the bottom of the column of atmosphere. This causes convective / advective cooling of the surface.

              The assertion that the dry adiabatic lapse rate alone accounts for “greenhouse warming” of the atmosphere is incorrect. The atmosphere is not an ideal gas in a singular column.

              IOW, you’re calculating upon the wrong thing. The climate alarmists tried this years ago, and failed. One must take into account the molar heat capacity of each constituent of the atmosphere, then calculate for a changed atmospheric concentration of any given atmospheric constituent, to ascertain any changes due to that change in atmospheric concentration.

              FYI, the mass heat capacity of CO2 is lower than other molecules simply because it’s a heavier molecule. That says nothing about its molar ability to transit energy via specific heat capacity.

              I’m not sure where you’re getting that CO2 is “approx 0.228 kg/mol”. That’s 5.18 times heavier than it actually is. Further, 0.228 * 36.94 = 8.42232, not 0.842. That makes the rest of your calculations suspect. Guess you can’t convert between units. LOL

              Let us change J mol-1 K-1 to J g-1 K-1.

              For CO2: 44.0095 g mol-1

              36.94 J mol-1 K-1 / 44.0095 g mol-1 = 0.83936422817800702121132937206739 J g-1 K-1

              Check the calculated number here. It’s 0.839: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities

              For Ar: 39.948 g mol-1

              20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 / 39.948 g mol-1 = 0.5203314308601181535996795834585 J g-1 K-1

              Check the number here. It’s 0.5203: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities

              For water (25 C): 18.01528 g mol-1

              75.327 J mol-1 K-1 / 18.01528 g mol-1 = 4.1812838878996052240098405353678 J g-1 K-1

              Check the number here. It’s 4.1813: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities

              For N2: 28.0134 g mol-1

              29.12 J mol-1 K-1 / 28.0134 g mol-1 = 1.0395025237921851685264908936438 J g-1 K-1

              Check the number here. It’s 1.040: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities

              For O2: 31.9988 g mol-1

              29.38 J mol-1 K-1 / 31.9988 g mol-1 = 0.91815943097866169981374301536308 J g-1 K-1

              Check the number here. It’s 0.918: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities

              21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Further, the molar mass of dry air is not “0.345 kg/mol”. That’s 11.911050347491947094221586966204 times heavier than it actually is.

                28.9647 g mol-1

                41

              • #
                b.nice

                “It’s 0.839: ”

                I maybe read 0.849 for some reason, but as you can clearly see, it is LESS that for air = 1.006

                ““approx 0.228 kg/mol””

                1/44.0095mols/kg = 0.022722 just a mis-type.. (had paint all over my hands)

                The fact remains, that using the correct units for the lapse rate calculation, cₚ for CO2 is less than cₚ for air.. as I originally stated.

                24

              • #
                b.nice

                Just a missing 0 in the conversion factor typing.. The calc is actually correct for using 0.0345.

                1/28.967 = 0.0345

                Sorry for my typo.

                Your own calculations confirm my values.

                The fact remains, that using the correct units for the lapse rate calculation, cₚ for CO2 is less than cₚ for air.. as I originally stated.

                24

              • #
                b.nice

                using your own table

                cₚ for air (first line) = 1.0035 (values on the web vary in the third dp)

                cₚ for CO2 = 0.839.

                Do you still dispute that the cₚ of CO2 is less than cₚ of air ??

                14

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “I maybe read 0.849 for some reason, but as you can clearly see, it is LESS that for air = 1.006”

                Only for the mass heat capacity, and only because CO2 is a heavier molecule. That says nothing about its ability to transit energy via specific energy in a molar sense.

                Does one calculate the kg of each atmospheric constituent when calculating upon a change in that constituent’s concentration, or does one calculate upon the molar change?

                I think you can see now where you’ve gone wrong… you’ve bought into the bafflegab of the climate alarmists, which they use to bolster their narrative. LOL

                21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “1/44.0095mols/kg = 0.022722 just a mis-type.. (had paint all over my hands)”

                Again, where are you pulling these numbers from? It can’t be from thin air… it’s got to be some place… darker. LOL

                You really don’t know how to convert units, do you? Not even when you’ve got an example… that’s less than 2.5/4.0 knowledge. Perhaps you’d do well to just stop embarrassing yourself. LOL

                For CO2: 44.0095 g mol-1

                36.94 J mol-1 K-1 / 44.0095 g mol-1 = 0.83936422817800702121132937206739 J g-1 K-1

                41

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “1/44.0095mols/kg”

                There are not 44.0095 mol kg-1. There are 22.722366761721900953203285654234 mol kg-1.

                Hilarious. I don’t think it was “paint all over your hands”… might it have been “alcohol drunkenly spilled all over yourself”? LOL

                22

              • #
                b.nice

                “The climate alarmists tried this years ago, and failed. One must take into account the molar heat capacity of each constituent of the atmosphere, then calculate for a changed atmospheric concentration of any given atmospheric constituent, to ascertain any changes due to that change in atmospheric concentration.”

                Changing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm might affect the lapse rate in the 3rd decimal place. (or maybe the 4th dp)

                ie, by an immeasurable amount in a continually moving atmosphere.

                34

              • #
                b.nice

                Seriously, Lapse rate calculated in kJ/kg/K

                your own table gives.. as calculated !

                cₚ for air (first line) = 1.0035

                cₚ for CO2 = 0.839.

                Read your own table, and stop being ridiculous.

                cₚ of CO2 is less than cₚ of air

                By your own table, and by your own calculations.

                24

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Changing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm might affect the lapse rate in the 3rd decimal place. (or maybe the 4th dp)”

                So you admit, then, that it has an effect. Progress!

                As I stated in my prior post, the effect of CO2 below the tropopause is negligible… the extinction depth of 14.98352 µm is already ~10.4 m near-surface, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would reduce that to ~9.7 m. The net effect, then, since 14.98352 µm radiation absorption near-surface is saturated (all the radiation being absorbed now will be absorbed at a higher CO2 concentration), the net effect is an increase of CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection, which increases convective transport of energy to the upper atmosphere (especially when considering the higher molar specific heat capacity of CO2 vs. bulk air), while at the same time increasing the number of molecules able to emit in the upper atmosphere, effectively increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere. Thus more radiation is emitted, and owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation, the majority of that radiation will be upwelling after a few hops, thus more radiation is emitted to space, and that represents a cooling process for the system known as ‘Earth’.

                That is why, after all, the upper atmosphere has experienced a long-term and dramatic cooling trend (so much so that the thermal shrinkage has caused space junk to de-orbit over a longer period, exacerbating the space junk problem), why OLR has increased by ~6 W m-2 over ~73 years. And given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA, that means the lapse rate must equilibrate by increasing the cooling at the surface, as well. We’re just working through the humongous thermal capacity of the planet.

                42

              • #
                b.nice

                36.94 J mol-1 K-1 / 44.0095 g mol-1 = 0.83936422817800702121132937206739 J g-1 K-1

                = 0.839 kJ/kg/K for CO2, exactly what I said.

                Thanks..

                Similar for air

                Cp = 1.006 kJ/kg/K

                Cp for CO2 is LESS THAN Cp for Air.

                23

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “cₚ of CO2 is less than cₚ of air”

                Only on a per-unit-mass basis, not on a per-molecule basis, and that only because CO2 is a heavier molecule. That says nothing of each molecule’s ability to transit energy in its specific energy, which is higher than other molecular species.

                Stop buying into the blather put out by the climate alarmists to bolster their narrative. LOL

                42

              • #
                b.nice

                Lapse rate uses kJ/kg/K.. get over it !!

                Anyone can verify that.

                Stop making up your own units for basic calculations.

                You are making a fool of yourself.

                34

              • #
                b.nice

                Since Cp for CO2 is less than CP for air, (proven by calculation and from data tables you presented)

                .. if you increase the CO2 concentration from 300ppm to 400ppm, you lower the final Cp value for the atmosphere (by a tiny amount)

                This increases the calculated dry lapse rate (more cooling) by a very tiny amount.

                I’ll leave you to calculate how much, since you have already managed to prove that Cp for CO2 is less than Cp for air. 🙂

                33

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Lapse rate uses kJ/kg/K.. get over it !!

                Anyone can verify that.

                [snip]

                Are you sure that the lapse rate is always calculated only using kJ kg-1 K-1?

                clear all; format long g; clc; clf;

                p0 = 101325; %Pa
                L = 0.0065; %K/m
                T0 = 288.15; %K
                g = 9.80665; %m/s2
                M = 0.0289644; %kg/mol
                R = 8.31447; %J/(mol*K)

                h = 0:100:10000; %m

                A = (g*M)/(R*L);
                B = L/T0;

                p = p0.*(1-B.*h).^A

                plot(p,h)

                Now convert pressure to temperature… just as I showed you in a prior post. Or weren’t you aware that pressure and temperature are intricately intertwined? LOL

                In statistical mechanics the following molecular equation is derived from first principles: P = n k_B T for a given volume.

                Therefore T = (P / (n k_B)) for a given volume.

                Where: k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J·K−1); T = absolute temperature (K); P = absolute pressure (Pa); n = number of particles

                If n = 1, then T = P / k_B in units of K / m³ for a given volume.

                Now, [snip …”you may say”] something like “Temperature does not have units of K / m³ !!!“… note the ‘for a given volume‘ blurb. We will cancel volume in a bit. LOL

                We can relate velocity to kinetic energy via the equation:
                v = √(v_x² + v_y² + v_z²) = √((DOF k_B T) / m) = √(2 KE / m)
                As velocity increases, kinetic energy increases.

                Kinetic theory gives the static pressure P for an ideal gas as:
                P = ((1 / 3) (n / V)) m v² = (n k_B T) / V

                Combining the above with the ideal gas law gives:
                (1 / 3)(m v²) = k_B T

                ∴ T = mv² / 3 k_B for 3 DOF

                ∴ T = 2 KE / k_B for 1 DOF

                ∴ T = 2 KE / DOF k_B

                See what I did there? I equated kinetic energy to pressure over that volume, thus canceling that volume, then solved for T.

                [Attack the comment not the individual .]AD

                20

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “This increases the calculated dry lapse rate (more cooling) by a very tiny amount.”

                If the ADLR increases, that increases the temperature gradient. That would imply a warming. You’re yet again diametrically opposite to reality. LOL

                In point of fact, the higher molar specific heat capacity of CO2 molecules as compared to other molecular species transits more energy from surface to upper atmosphere. That reduces temperature differential with altitude, which makes the lapse rate more vertical (reduces the lapse rate), while at the same time, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 will effectively increase atmospheric emissivity in the waveband centered on 14.98352 µm, increasing emission in that band. Owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation, the majority of that radiation will be upwelling, emitted to space, a cooling process for the system known as ‘Earth’.

                The only reason the mass specific heat capacity of CO2 is lower is because CO2 is a heavier molecule. That says nothing about each molecule’s ability to transit energy in its specific heat capacity, which is higher than other molecular species.

                One doesn’t calculate upon the per-unit-mass specific heat capacity because one gets an incorrect result, leading to the incorrectitudes of CAGW. One instead calculates upon each molecule’s ability to transit heat in its specific heat capacity, which for CO2 is higher than other molecular species. The mass of the molecule doesn’t matter one whit. It’s sophistry promulgated by the climate alarmists to bolster their narrative.

                Again, the climate alarmists have already tried this bit of sophistry in the past, and they limped away bruised and battered, just as you’ll do. Goodness knows, what with you pulling kookmaf from your sun-don’t-shine and demonstrating repeatedly that you cannot convert units and demonstrating that you’ll cling to an incorrectitude if it bolsters your narrative, you’re already plenty bruised and battered.

                Do keep in mind it’s not me doing that bruising and battering… it’s reality. LOL

                32

              • #
                b.nice

                You poor thing, you just cannot face the fact that CO2 has a lesser Cp than air, can you.

                And hence a tiny amount of increase in the lapse rate, hence tiny tiny change in cooling.

                Oh well, having proven me correct once is enough, I guess.

                33

              • #
                b.nice

                Cp for CO2= 0.839 kJ/kg/K

                Cp = 1.006 kJ/kg/K

                Cp for CO2 is LESS THAN Cp for Air.

                Basic simple fact, no matter what other waffle you want to come up with.

                33

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                I hit the green button for one of your posts above for introducing some new perspective on the matter.

                Now I’m starting to have doubts.

                The use of the number;

                22.722366761721900953203285654234 mol kg-1. suggests that you are not that familiar with the material you’re dealing with.

                Anyone with any education in this type of analysis knows that it’s basically irrelevant to quote anything more than four significant figures.

                You show thirty two for effect.

                There’s also the issue of quantification.
                You say that CO2 has a certain specific heat but dismiss the fact that in considering thermal transport in the atmosphere CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant.

                Even my great grandmother knew that. 🙂

                KK

                33

              • #
                b.nice

                “So you admit, then, that it has an effect”

                I said that before.. so tiny its immeasurable, certainly in an atmospheric situation.

                Do you really, in your wildest lack of understanding and comprehension, think that you can ever measure a change in lapse rate in the 3rd or 4th decimal place?

                And it would increase the lapse rate (in the 3rd or 4th decimal place), thus ever so tiny extra cooling.

                33

              • #
                b.nice

                “36.94 J mol-1 K-1 / 44.0095 g mol-1 = 0.83936422817800702121132937206739 J g-1 K-1”

                Oh dear, so little understanding of mathematics and numbers !

                Max four digits 36.94.. best you can say is 0.8394 kJ/kg/K, anything extra digits are meaningless

                And btw, 0.8394 is still less than 1.006 😉

                33

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “You poor thing, you just cannot face the fact that CO2 has a lesser Cp than air, can you.

                And hence a tiny amount of increase in the lapse rate, hence tiny tiny change in cooling.

                Oh well, having proven me correct once is enough, I guess.”

                You poor thing, declaring ‘victolly!’ in the midst of your being utterly routed, shown to be promulgating long-debunked sophistry to advance a fatally-flawed CAGW ideology which does not and cannot reflect reality… and all while you demonstrate that you can’t convert units, you can’t do simple math, you can’t figure out that molecular mass has nothing to do with specific heat capacity, it’s the DOF of the molecule, which is why the relatively low molecular mass water has such high mass specific heat capacity and molar specific heat capacity.

                Just admit that mass specific heat capacity used to calculate the lapse rate is sophistry pushed by CAGW acolytes to advance their agenda because otherwise they’d have to admit that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant (because its molar specific heat capacity is higher than O2, N2 and Ar, and because it’s a radiative molecule)… the truth will out, and you’ll only be all the more embarrassed by your continued denials of that truth. LOL

                23

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Oh dear, so little understanding of mathematics and numbers !

                Max four digits 36.94.. best you can say is 0.8394 kJ/kg/K, anything extra digits are meaningless

                And btw, 0.8394 is still less than 1.006”

                Oh dear, so little understanding of mathematics! You can’t even get the correct numbers for CO2 molar mass, let alone do simple math. LOL

                The mass specific heat capacity of CO2 is only lower than other molecules because CO2 is heavier. That has nothing to do with its ability to transit energy via specific heat capacity. Its molar specific heat capacity is higher than O2, N2 and Ar.

                The mass of a molecule has nothing to do with the specific heat capacity of a molecule. The climate loons just use mass specific heat capacity because if they used molar specific heat capacity, they’d have to admit that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant (because it’s got a higher molar specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar, and because it’s a radiative molecule).

                But pushing sophistry is all you climate loons are left with. You do so via mathematical fraudery via a misuse of the S-B equation, you do so via a misuse of specific heat, you even bastardize the S-B equation into a ‘forcing formula’ which builds-in a warming trend! If you half-wits didn’t have lying as a tactic, you’d have nothing. LOL

                23

              • #
                b.nice

                “bruising and battering… it’s reality”

                Yep, you have been left wanting, that is for sure.

                You have even proven my point several times, and still can’t accept the facts.

                Reality is leaving you totally battered.. like a sav. !

                33

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Kalm Keith wrote:
                “22.722366761721900953203285654234 mol kg-1. suggests that you are not that familiar with the material you’re dealing with.”

                What’s the issue?

                For CO2: 44.0095 g mol-1

                1000 g kg-1 / 44.0094 g mol-1 = ???

                Is it not exactly 22.722366761721900953203285654234 mol kg-1?

                Sure it is.

                14

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Why all that anger?

                That last paragraph is over the top.

                Kalm down.

                Why bring the S-B equation into your preliminary explanation.

                Sure, there are strange things happening in the upper upper atmosphere but given the quantities of matter being dealt with the total heat/thermal content being discussed is most likely not really all that relevant.

                Can’t we agree that CO2 goes up by convection and gets to a point where it can release a small quantity of energy which heads for outer space; I haven’t gone through all of your stuff but I think that’s part of your outline.

                CO2 cools the planet.

                ?

                33

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Yep, you have been left wanting, that is for sure.

                You have even proven my point several times, and still can’t accept the facts.

                Reality is leaving you totally battered.. like a sav. !”

                I’ve proven that you’re pushing the sophistry of mass specific heat capacity, when molecular mass has nothing to do with the specific heat capacity of a molecule… it’s all about the DOF of that molecule, which is why water (which is relatively low molecular mass) has such high mass specific heat capacity and molar specific heat capacity.

                I’ve proven that you only push that sophistry because that gives CO2 the appearance of having a lower specific heat capacity than other molecular species… because if the climate loons had to admit that the molar specific heat capacity of CO2 was higher than O2, N2 and Ar, they’d have to admit that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant. With a lower mass specific heat capacity, they can bamboozle the gullible rubes into believing that CO2 causes warming by lowering the cumulative specific heat capacity of bulk air.

                As I said, if you climate loons didn’t have sophistry, you’d have nothing. LOL

                22

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Kalm Keith wrote:
                “Why bring the S-B equation into your preliminary explanation.

                Sure, there are strange things happening in the upper upper atmosphere but given the quantities of matter being dealt with the total heat/thermal content being discussed is most likely not really all that relevant.

                Can’t we agree that CO2 goes up by convection and gets to a point where it can release a small quantity of energy which heads for outer space; I haven’t gone through all of your stuff but I think that’s part of your outline.”

                It’s not a “small quantity of energy”… CO2 is the prevalent upper atmospheric radiative coolant. The NASA SABER project showed that it rejects massive amounts of energy to space.

                As to the S-B equation, I can mathematically prove that the climastrologists have misused the S-B equation to bolster their narrative (both the S-B equation itself, and their FUBAR ‘forcing formula’ derived from the S-B equation, used in IPCC AR6, which builds-in a warming trend), and I can provide empirical examples, the Kiehl-Trenberth graphic being one such example.

                Would you like to see that? It’s long, it’s complicated, but it definitively defenestrates CAGW.

                22

              • #
                b.nice

                Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K

                0.8394 kJ/kg/K is less than 1.006 kJ/kg/K.

                Them’s the facts.

                Except them… or keep waffling and flapping your arms aimlessly.!

                Conversion calcs are simple, I just made a couple of typos because I was doing other jobs at the time.

                They even agree with your own calculations.

                Stop your silliness and just admit that the Cp for CO2 is less than Cp for air for lapse rate calculations.

                Until you are man enough to admit that fact, its pointless continuing.

                —–

                “you climate loons”… say what ?

                Now you are really being totally ridiculous.

                I would be one of the very last people to be classed as a “climate loon”

                23

              • #
                b.nice

                “As to the S-B equation, I can mathematically prove that the climastrologists have misused the S-B equation to bolster their narrative (both the S-B equation itself, and their FUBAR ‘forcing formula’ derived from the S-B equation, used in IPCC AR6, which builds-in a warming trend), and I can provide empirical examples, the Kiehl-Trenberth graphic being one such example.”

                Agree completely !

                “CO2 is the prevalent upper atmospheric radiative coolant.”

                Agree completely

                21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “I would be one of the very last people to be classed as a “climate loon””

                Then stop acting like one. LOL

                The only reason the climate loons push calculating the lapse rate via mass specific heat capacity is because it gives CO2 (a heavier molecule) the appearance (and only the appearance) of having lower specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar. That’s what they use to bamboozle the gullible into thinking that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will lower the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, thus that the atmosphere can transit less energy, thus that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause warming.

                If they had to admit that the molecular mass has nothing to do with specific heat capacity, that it’s the DOF of a molecule which determines its specific heat capacity, they’d have to use molar specific heat capacity, and that would force them to admit that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the specific heat capacity of air (because CO2 has a higher molar specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar which make up the bulk of the atmosphere), allowing each parcel of air to transit more energy, increasing convective and advective cooling of the surface… and all while the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration also puts more emitters into the upper atmosphere.

                IOW, they’d have to admit that CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space)… that it’s a net atmospheric radiative coolant.

                And that would destroy CAGW.

                23

              • #
                b.nice

                So difficult for you to accept even your own calculations

                Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K

                0.8394 kJ/kg/K is less than 1.006 kJ/kg/K.

                Them’s the facts.

                And all your waffling does not change them.

                will lower the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, thus that the atmosphere can transit less energy

                NO.. It would INCREASE the lapse rate, by a tiny, tiny, tiny amount. Essentially zero effect whatsoever.

                When you increase lapse rate, you increase net radiative flux.

                13

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K

                0.8394 kJ/kg/K is less than 1.006 kJ/kg/K.

                Them’s the facts.

                And all your waffling does not change them.

                will lower the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, thus that the atmosphere can transit less energy

                NO.. It would INCREASE the lapse rate, by a tiny, tiny, tiny amount. Essentially zero effect whatsoever.

                When you increase lapse rate, you increase net radiative flux.”

                I’ve shown you two lapse rate calculations now which use J mol-1 K-1, not kJ kg-1 K-1.

                I’ve explained to you that specific heat capacity has nothing to do with molecular mass, it has everything to do with the DOF of the molecule, thus the mass specific heat capacity calculation is sophistry used by climate alarmists to push their narrative.

                I’ve explained to you that the climate loons only use the mass specific heat capacity calculation because it gives CO2 (a heavier molecule) the appearance (and only the appearance) of having lower specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar. That’s what they use to bamboozle the gullible into thinking that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will lower the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, thus that the atmosphere can transit less energy, thus that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause warming.

                If they had to admit that the molecular mass has nothing to do with specific heat capacity, that it’s the DOF of a molecule which determines its specific heat capacity, they’d have to use molar specific heat capacity, and that would force them to admit that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the specific heat capacity of air (because CO2 has a higher molar specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar which make up the bulk of the atmosphere), allowing each parcel of air to transit more energy, increasing convective and advective cooling of the surface… and all while the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration also puts more emitters into the upper atmosphere.

                IOW, they’d have to admit that CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space)… that it’s a net atmospheric radiative coolant.

                I’ve explained to you that to “INCREASE the lapse rate” (your words) implies a greater temperature differential with changing altitude and thus a higher surface temperature. It would not be a cooling as you claim. You are diametrically opposite to reality.

                You’ve repeatedly failed to properly convert units. You’ve repeatedly failed to properly do simple math.

                And now you’re babbling about some connection between an increase in the lapse rate and an increase in net radiative flux. And that’s after you stated “Lapse rate is a gravity/specific energy relationship, not a radiative one.” (your words).

                In short, I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about. You appear to be confused and just spouting whatever you think will allow you to squirm out of getting crushed by an intellectual giant. LOL

                Now bleat your same mantra:
                Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K
                … maybe if you say it often enough, you’ll convince some gullible goober to believe that mass specific heat capacity should be used, even though mass has nothing to do with specific heat capacity, it’s all about the molecule’s DOF. LOL

                22

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K” LOL

                If we take λ = 1.4, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 0.029 kg mol-1,
                then:

                dT / dh = -0.4/1.4 * (((0.029 kg mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1)

                = -9.7760806531728947221121107403409 K km-1

                Now, we can change M to any constituent molecular species of the atmosphere. We can calculate the aggregate M of the atmosphere from the constituent molecular species of the atmosphere in any concentration we wish.

                All without dealing with the sophistry of using mass specific heat capacity, which misleads the gullible into thinking that CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than the bulk atmosphere. The mass of a molecule doesn’t matter, and there is no reason for the climastrologists to use mass specific heat capacity except to mislead the gullible. All that matters to the specific heat capacity of a molecule is its DOF.

                And all using J mol-1 K-1. LOL

                Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K” LOL

                21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                AD wrote:
                “[Attack the comment not the individual .]AD”

                Well, the comments come from the individual. They are part and parcel of the individual. And if that individual is shilling for even the smallest portion of the sophistry promulgated by the climastrologists, it is my sincere conviction that both belief and belief holder should be attacked. A faulty thought process denotes a faulty brain which denotes a faulty person… and those faulty people are tearing our civilization down while we mince around and treat them with kid gloves.

                No more ‘gloves on’. These fecktards are destroying civilization with their BS. The very least we should do is ridicule them for their stupidity and gullibility in their buying into the poorly-told CAGW fairy-tale narrative, even if only in part.

                32

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Too many people have gone into the IPCCCCC’s faux models and wasted time and energy picking them apart in the way you are describing your own efforts.

                Those “things” are not models and your posts here illustrate that.

                The sad fact of the matter is that you are being misleading in arguing that the specific heat of CO2 is critical in determining whether CO2 causes Global Warming and death by incineration due to human origin CO2.

                Total atmospheric CO2 is a thermodynamic irrelevance above about 30 metres agl and up where jets fly. Watch the temperature gauge in modern aircraft flying over 10,000 metres.

                P.V = nR.T rulz in that operating zone.

                To further rubbish the IPCCCCC conceptualization just consider the effect of human origin CO2 which is a minor fraction of total CO2.

                Human input into this concept is so small and tiny as to be completely irrelevant and from the larger perspective illustrates the true purpose of these IPCCCCC “models” which is to mislead, control and rob the formerly wealthy western democracies.

                Arguing about and nit picking concepts thrown up by the UNIPCCC is just being led by the nose.

                Your huge input here shows that they’ve got you in their grip; no doubt they applaud when they see people running in circles.

                https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/the-nanny-state-rules-french-events-banned-for-the-heat-climate-lockdowns-begin/#comment-2559361

                33

              • #
              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Kalm Keith wrote:
                “The sad fact of the matter is that you are being misleading in arguing that the specific heat of CO2 is critical in determining whether CO2 causes Global Warming and death by incineration due to human origin CO2.

                Total atmospheric CO2 is a thermodynamic irrelevance above about 30 metres agl and up where jets fly. Watch the temperature gauge in modern aircraft flying over 10,000 metres.”

                Not even sure how to classify you, Kalm Keith. You’re not a ‘warmist’. You’re sort of a ‘coolist’, but you’re more of a ‘mheh’. You discount the effect of CO2, which is large even at current atmospheric concentrations. Dramatic and long-term upper atmospheric cooling. LOL

                CO2 is not “irrelevant above about 30 metres” above ground level, it is the prevalent upper atmospheric radiative coolant. Water vapor is the prevalent tropospheric radiative coolant. CO2 rejects massive amounts of energy to space, as the NASA SABER project showed.

                https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png

                That’s from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.

                https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png

                That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

                Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

                As you can see, CO2 has a large effect in the upper atmosphere. The largest of all atmospheric constituents in the upper atmosphere.

                As I’ve already stated, the effect of CO2 below the tropopause is negligible… the extinction depth of 14.98352 µm is already ~10.4 m near-surface, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would reduce that to ~9.7 m. The net effect, then, since 14.98352 µm radiation absorption near-surface is saturated (all the radiation being absorbed now will be absorbed at a higher CO2 concentration), the net effect is an increase of CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection, which increases convective transport of energy to the upper atmosphere (especially when considering the higher molar specific heat capacity of CO2 vs. bulk air), while at the same time increasing the number of molecules able to emit in the upper atmosphere, effectively increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere. Thus more radiation is emitted, and owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation, the majority of that radiation will be upwelling after a few hops, thus more radiation is emitted to space, and that represents a cooling process for the system known as ‘Earth’.

                That is why, after all, the upper atmosphere has experienced a long-term and dramatic cooling trend (so much so that the thermal shrinkage has caused space junk to de-orbit over a longer period, exacerbating the space junk problem), why OLR has increased by ~6 W m-2 over ~73 years. And given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA, that means the lapse rate must (eventually) equilibrate by increasing the cooling at the surface, as well. We’re just working through the humongous thermal capacity of the planet.

                22

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                This series of posts has been exceedingly strange and leaves important questions hanging.

                What is the real purpose of the presence of [email protected] here?

                Perhaps we have a visitor from Skeptical Skience whose primary focus is nominally “the science” but in reality is looking to create points of argument that go round in circles.

                Anybody who so obviously demonstrates an intense fascination for the ant riding on the elephant’s back while ignoring the elephant has something else going on.

                Wherever it is, I hope that it can be resolved.

                KK

                43

              • #
                b.nice

                Pointless arguing with a LOL-Kook that can’t accept the basic facts..

                .. even after he has verified those values himself and produced tables that show those values to be correct.

                Its really quite bizarre !

                Lapse rate is calculated as Γ = g/cₚ where cₚ is in kj/kg/K (verified anywhere you look up the term lapse rate.)

                isobaric
                CO2: 0.849 kJ/kg/K
                air: 1.006 kJ.kg/K

                isochoric
                CO2: 0.658 kJ/kg/K
                Air: 0.718 kJ/kg/K

                Cp for CO2 is less than Cp for Air..

                LOL-kooks has proven these values himself by both simple maths and from tables.

                Time he stopped his waffling.

                33

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Pointless arguing with a LOL-Kook that can’t accept the basic facts..

                .. even after he has verified those values himself and produced tables that show those values to be correct.

                Its really quite bizarre !

                Lapse rate is calculated as Γ = g/cₚ where cₚ is in kj/kg/K (verified anywhere you look up the term lapse rate.)

                isobaric
                CO2: 0.849 kJ/kg/K
                air: 1.006 kJ.kg/K

                isochoric
                CO2: 0.658 kJ/kg/K
                Air: 0.718 kJ/kg/K

                Cp for CO2 is less than Cp for Air..

                LOL-kooks has proven these values himself by both simple maths and from tables.

                Time he stopped his waffling.”

                And you’ve been shown multiple examples of why you’re wrong.

                If we take λ = 1.4, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 0.029 kg mol-1,
                then:

                dT / dh = -0.4/1.4 * (((0.029 kg mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1)

                = -9.7760806531728947221121107403409 K km-1

                Now, we can change M to any constituent molecular species of the atmosphere. We can calculate the aggregate M of the atmosphere from the constituent molecular species of the atmosphere in any concentration we wish.

                All without dealing with the sophistry of using mass specific heat capacity, which misleads the gullible into thinking that CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than the bulk atmosphere. The mass of a molecule doesn’t matter, and there is no reason for the climastrologists to use mass specific heat capacity except to mislead the gullible. All that matters to the specific heat capacity of a molecule is its DOF.

                And all using J mol-1 K-1. LOL

                I’ve explained to you that specific heat capacity has nothing to do with molecular mass, it has everything to do with the DOF of the molecule, thus the mass specific heat capacity calculation is sophistry used by climate alarmists to push their narrative.

                I’ve explained to you that the climate loons only use the mass specific heat capacity calculation because it gives CO2 (a heavier molecule) the appearance (and only the appearance) of having lower specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar. That’s what they use to bamboozle the gullible into thinking that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will lower the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, thus that the atmosphere can transit less energy, thus that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause warming.

                If they had to admit that the molecular mass has nothing to do with specific heat capacity, that it’s the DOF of a molecule which determines its specific heat capacity, they’d have to use molar specific heat capacity, and that would force them to admit that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the specific heat capacity of air (because CO2 has a higher molar specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar which make up the bulk of the atmosphere), allowing each parcel of air to transit more energy, increasing convective and advective cooling of the surface… and all while the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration also puts more emitters into the upper atmosphere.

                IOW, they’d have to admit that CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space)… that it’s a net atmospheric radiative coolant.

                I’ve explained to you that to “INCREASE the lapse rate” (your words) implies a greater temperature differential with changing altitude and thus a higher surface temperature. It would not be a cooling as you claim. You are diametrically opposite to reality.

                You’ve repeatedly failed to properly convert units. You’ve repeatedly failed to properly do simple math.

                Then you started babbling about some connection between an increase in the lapse rate and an increase in net radiative flux. And that’s after you stated “Lapse rate is a gravity/specific energy relationship, not a radiative one.” (your words).

                And now you won’t admit that you’ve bought into one tiny slice of the CAGW narrative. It would be just as easy for the climastrologists to use molar specific heat capacity… in fact, it’d be easier to calculate upon any change in concentration of any given constituent molecular species, whereas mass specific heat capacity gets the wrong answer because mass has nothing to do with specific gravity, the molecule’s DOF does. They choose not to for only one reason… and you aid them in continuing to buy into their mis-use of science to bolster their narrative.

                22

              • #
                b.nice

                LOL-Kook says.. “As I stated in my prior post, the effect of CO2 below the tropopause is negligible”

                Which again is in total agreement with what I have said all along.

                (3rd or 4th decimal place at best, a tiny immeasurable increase in lapse rate)

                Thanks for admitting I am correct.. again.

                H2O on the other hand, effects lapse rate at the whole number level.

                23

              • #
                b.nice

                No more.. totally pointless trying to make LOL-kooks see basic facts and commonsense.

                23

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “No more.. totally pointless trying to make LOL-kooks see basic facts and commonsense.”

                “basic facts” like the fact that lapse rate isn’t only calculated using kJ kg-1 K-1 (mass specific heat capacity), as you claim?

                If we take ϒ = 1.4, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 0.029 kg mol-1,
                then:

                dT / dh = -0.4/1.4 * (((0.029 kg mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1)

                = -9.7760806531728947221121107403409 K km-1

                Now, we can change M to any constituent molecular species of the atmosphere. We can calculate the aggregate M of the atmosphere from the constituent molecular species of the atmosphere in any concentration we wish.

                All without dealing with the sophistry of using mass specific heat capacity, which misleads the gullible into thinking that CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than the bulk atmosphere. The mass of a molecule doesn’t matter, and there is no reason for the climastrologists to use mass specific heat capacity except to mislead the gullible. All that matters to the specific heat capacity of a molecule is its DOF.

                And all using J mol-1 K-1 (molar specific heat capacity). LOL

                “basic facts” like that?

                Or “basic facts” like the fact that mass specific heat capacity gets a wrong answer because mass has no bearing upon the specific heat capacity of a molecule, only the molecules Degrees of Freedom does, hence the misuse of mass specific heat capacity by the climatastrologists leads the gullible to believe that CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than bulk air, when in reality it’s got a greater heat capacity than bulk air, which the climastrologists use to claim that we must curtail CO2 emission because an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration would reduce the specific heat capacity of air, transit less energy away from the surface convectively and advectively, and thus contribute to CAGW?

                “basic facts” like that?

                Or “basic facts” like the fact that you can’t even properly do simple math or unit conversions, nor can you even get the molar mass of molecules correct?

                “basic facts” like that? LOL

                Or “basic facts” like that you strut around like you’re right, despite having made mistake after mistake after hilarious mistake?

                “basic facts” like that? LOL

                Or “basic facts” like the fact that you and Kalm Keith are now attempting to smear me as some CAGW acolyte stalking horse, when I’m the guy who originally figured out and mathematically, scientifically and definitively disproved the CAGW scam in such a way that the climastrologists couldn’t wriggle their way out of it with their bafflegab? Before me, everyone was focused on “glaciers are growing” or “temperature has fallen” or “it’s not really that bad” or “it’s the sun”, all ineffective, which is why CAGW go as far as it has. I smashed the entire edifice of CAGW apart, proving that they can only make their claims through mathematical fraudery.

                “basic facts” like that? LOL

                Or “commonsense” [sic] like the fact that your continued buying-in to this tiny sliver of the sophistry perpetrated by the climastrologists materially contributes to the advancement of their CAGW scam?

                “commonsense” [sic] like that? LOL

                22

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Which again is in total agreement with what I have said all along.”

                b.nice wrote:
                “I agree with the rest, its just that CO2 does not affect the lapse rate

                b.nice wrote:
                “Changing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm might affect the lapse rate in the 3rd decimal place. (or maybe the 4th dp)”

                I guess the good thing about flip-flopping and stating completely different things at different times is that you can then claim you were ‘not wrong’ all along, eh? LOL

                At least until someone calls you on your continual sophistry. LOL

                21

    • #
      RickWill

      The atmosphere over tropical ocean is like a set of louvres. If ocean surface ever gets to 32C, the surface never sees clear skies.

      In fact the surface temperature is limited to 30C because that is where surface heat input balances surface heat output.

      All the atmospheric was does is add thermal lag to the response at the top of the atmosphere. The temperature at the surface is about 24 days ahead of what happens at the top of the atmosphere. Literally building a head of steam. It is like a refrigerator but the most significant factor is the temperature control setting at the surface is 30C and that controls the incoming heat to the surface.

      Once everyone realises that open ocean surface does not and cannot exceed 30C then any notion of CAGW goes away – unpalatable for some that have pushed this fable and produce models that have impossible trends:
      https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhFG4cx21dMijUI3H

      60

      • #
        [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

        I’ve often thought of ocean currents as a kind of ‘conveyor’… if we could ascertain exactly how long a ‘parcel’ of water took to ‘overturn’ (ie: go from surface, to depth, and back to surface) for the entirety of the oceans, we’d have much better predictive abilities for climate.

        Think about it… if the sun’s in a Solar Grand Maximum and we’re getting hammered by higher UV flux, the surface ocean water is going to be a bit warmer than average. It gets dragged down to the depths and resurfaces X years later to affect the climate by releasing that energy.

        Likewise, if the sun’s in a Grand Solar Minimum and UV flux is lower, the surface ocean water is going to be a bit cooler than the long-term average. It gets dragged down to the depths and resurfaces X years later to affect the climate by absorbing energy.

        So we might be in a period where some past Grand Solar Maximum warmed water and that water is just now resurfacing, which might be why the planet is responding so slowly to a series of relatively weak solar cycles.

        If that warmer water runs out at the same time that we’re in a Grand Solar Minimum, Lord help us.

        22

        • #

          Your efforts are certainly voluminous. You’ve done nicely to expose two of the alt-physics proponents here. It is pointless arguing with Andy b.nice about the kg in his calculations because his alt-physics relies on gravity acting on mass, while at the same time waving away any suggestion that CO2 or any molecule has the molecular properties you described. He waves away decades of simple observations and the physics that predicts them. Once you know that he/they is/are coming from another reality you might feel better about just letting them ramble on.

          25

          • #
            b.nice

            Poor Gee, another little mind that cannot accept basic facts.

            23

          • #
            b.nice

            You should know, LOL-Kook, that Gee is a “true believer” in the AGW farce.

            You will get on well together.

            Maybe you could explain to him that tropospheric lapse rate is calculated with a simple formula using Cp in terms of kJ/kg/K

            … and that the only variations of this formula are to account for the over-riding effects of H2O.

            23

            • #
              [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

              Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K” (ie: mass specific heat capacity) LOL

              If we take ϒ = 1.4, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 0.029 kg mol-1,
              then:

              dT / dh = -0.4/1.4 * (((0.029 kg mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1)

              = -9.7760806531728947221121107403409 K km-1 (molar specific heat capacity)

              Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K” (ie: mass specific heat capacity) LOL

              Your continued buying-in to this tiny sliver of sophistry committed by the climastrologists shows that you support their advancement of CAGW.

              Their choosing to calculate their lapse rate via mass specific heat capacity rather than molar specific heat capacity is for a reason. It was not randomly chosen.

              If they had to admit that the molecular mass has nothing to do with specific heat capacity, that it’s the DOF of a molecule which determines its specific heat capacity, they’d have to use molar specific heat capacity, and that would force them to admit that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the specific heat capacity of air (because CO2 has a higher molar specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar which make up the bulk of the atmosphere), allowing each parcel of air to transit more energy, increasing convective and advective cooling of the surface… and all while the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration also puts more emitters into the upper atmosphere.

              IOW, they’d have to admit that CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space)… that it’s a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

              And that would destroy CAGW. They chose to use mass specific heat capacity for a reason.

              Empirical measurement of reality bears this out:

              https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png

              https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png

              The top image is from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.

              The bottom image is adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

              Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

              10

              • #
                b.nice

                If we take ϒ = 1.4

                LOL !! Do you even know where this comes from? That it is an approximation of the value for air.

                I’m betting you think that using 20+ decimal places makes you feel “clever”, …

                … but sorry, it makes you look incredibly stupid because it shows you really don’t understand the numbers you are working with.

                Did you know that if you calculate the lapse rate for 100% CO2 by this method, you get almost the same value as you do using the usual method. (g/cp)

                Now, lets see how your method copes with an atmosphere with a wet lapse rate.. 😉

                01

              • #
                b.nice

                And guess what, CO2 increases the lapse rate. 😉

                So a small increase in atmospheric trace level CO2 causes a very very tiny, immeasurable, theoretical increase in the lapse rate

                And I just noticed, you used 0.029 (another approximation) you should be LOLing at yourself.

                Do you realise how incredibly stupid it is to use two 2 sig fig approximation in the calculation, and then give an answer to some 30 decimal places.

                11

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “And guess what, CO2 increases the lapse rate”

                How many times are you going to repeat this sophistry, and why do you persist in doing so?

                The increased molar specific heat capacity of an increased CO2 concentration atmosphere would act to decrease temperature differential with altitude by transiting more energy from surface to upper atmosphere… it would decrease the lapse rate. And that at the same time that it radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it. It is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

                The mass specific heat capacity formula misleads people to the conclusion that an increasing CO2 concentration will reduce the aggregate specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, which would transit less energy from surface to upper atmosphere, which would increase the lapse rate (increase the temperature differential with altitude), which is what the climastrologists use to claim that CO2 causes CAGW.

                So again, why do you keep reiterating exactly what the climastrologists claim for an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration?

                10

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “LOL !! Do you even know where this comes from? That it is an approximation of the value for air.”

                Yeah, that was sort of the point… calculating the dry adiabatic lapse rate for dry air using the molar specific heat capacity (J mol-1 K-1), because you keep bleating:

                “Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K” (ie: mass specific heat capacity) LOL

                So now you must either completely ignore the fact that you are yet again spewing incorrectitudes (lapse rate is not only calculated using mass specific heat capacity… the climastrologists consciously chose that to advance their agenda because it incorrectly places a larger effect upon molecular mass than it does upon the Degrees of Freedom of those molecules), or you’ll be forced to admit that you are yet again incorrect. LOL

                We sit at edge of seat to see which you’ll choose… I’m taking odds it’s be the former. LOL

                b.nice wrote:
                “I’m betting you think that using 20+ decimal places makes you feel “clever””

                I’m betting that if I didn’t arrive at the exact result, you’d do as other pedantic kooks do, and claim the result, if not exact, is wrong. LOL

                b.nice wrote:
                “Now, lets see how your method copes with an atmosphere with a wet lapse rate..”

                The dry adiabatic lapse rate equation I posted using molar specific heat capacity would “cope with an atmosphere with a wet lapse rate” about as well as the dry adiabatic lapse rate equation you posted using mass specific heat capacity… what’s your point? Did you have a point? Or was it lost in your mouth-frothing urge to lash out? LOL

                Especially in the case of hydrogen you can see how idiotic the mass specific heat capacity is when used for the atmosphere. To get an appreciable mass of hydrogen into a space to act as a coolant, one must compress it. It’s not going to have much of an effect at atmospheric pressure, even at high concentrations (not accounting for the fact that it wouldn’t stick around for long… it’d get chucked out to space or chemically converted into other molecules pretty quickly).

                Electrical generation stations use compressed high-purity hydrogen piped directly into the generator at pressure (as high as 6 bar) to cool them. They don’t use it, however, because of its higher mass specific heat capacity… it has lower isobaric molar specific heat capacity than air… they use it because it has 7 times the thermal conductivity than air, a 35% higher heat transfer coefficient than air, a 14 times lower density than air to minimize windage, it’s inert, and it’s easy to detect leaks.

                H2O | 18.01528 g mol-1 | 75.327 J mol-1 K-1 | 4181.2838 J kg-1 K-1

                N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 1039.5025 J kg-1 K-1 | 78.084% of atmosphere

                O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 918.1594 J kg-1 K-1 | 20.9476% of atmosphere

                Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 520.3314 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.934% of atmosphere

                CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 839.3642 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.042% of atmosphere

                Ne | 20.1797 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 1030.0549 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.001818% of atmosphere

                He | 4.002602 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 5193.1718 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.000524% of atmosphere

                CH4 | 16.04246 g mol-1 | 35.69 J mol-1 K-1 | 2224.7211 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.00018% of atmosphere

                Kr | 83.798 g mol-1 | 20.95 J mol-1 K-1 | 250.0059 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.000114% of atmosphere

                H2 | 2.01588 g mol-1 | 28.82 J mol-1 K-1 | 14296.4859 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.000055% of atmosphere

                I’ll post the Rules of Mixtures Specific Heat Capacity calculation using Molar Specific Heat Capacity soon… then you’ll have to eat every single word you’ve posted in this thread to date. LOL

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                ““Lapse rate formulas use kJ/kg/K””

                Lapse rate calculated match measured lapse rates, matches your method. where is your problem ?

                And no, I am not incorrect. that is all in your mind and your blinkered tunnel vision.

                Still waiting for your wet lapse rate formula.

                Very easy, and verified by measurement, using kJ/kg/K

                Again, anyone can look up Lapse rate calculations in any meteorology book and see the formulas.

                “in your mouth-frothing urge to lash out?”

                Only person I can see mouth throthing is you.. are you too blind to see that ?

                I’m just laughing at your incompetence. 🙂

                11

              • #
                b.nice

                “lapse rate is not only calculated using mass specific heat capacity”

                Thanks for admitting that Lapse rates are generally calculated using kJ/kg/K

                Yes, I’m sure there are other methods that can work.

                You need to cure your addiction of 20+ decimal places, and get back to reality. !

                11

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Thanks for admitting that Lapse rates are generally calculated using kJ/kg/K”

                Don’t try to turn this around. It was you who claimed that the lapse rate was only calculated using kJ kg-1 K-1 (mass specific heat capacity). Only later, after I posted the J mol-1 K-1 (molar specific heat capacity) dry adiabatic lapse rate calculation obtained from Thermal Physics (Garg, 2014) that you were forced to admit that lapse rate is not only calculated in its mass specific heat capacity form.

                Your argumentation tactics are deplorable. You’ve been caught repeatedly contradicting yourself, then claiming that you were right all along. You’ve been caught repeatedly posting misinformation. You’ve been caught repeatedly stating exactly what the climastrologists state for the effect upon the lapse rate for an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, and despite being repeatedly corrected, you persist. And now you’re attempting this history rewrite.

                10

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “LOL !! Do you even know where this comes from? That it is an approximation of the value for air.”

                The isentropic exponent of air (aka heat capacity ratio, aka adiabatic index, aka ratio of specific heats aka Laplace’s coefficient) is an approximation?

                I could have sworn it was a calculation:
                γ = C_p / C_v

                Alright, we’ll use the exact calculated value for dry air at 15 C: 1.404

                Is your pedantism assuaged now? LOL

                N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 1039.5025 J kg-1 K-1 | 78.084% of atmosphere

                O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 918.1594 J kg-1 K-1 | 20.9476% of atmosphere

                Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 520.3314 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.934% of atmosphere

                CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 839.3642 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.042% of atmosphere

                Ne | 20.1797 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 1030.0549 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.001818% of atmosphere

                He | 4.002602 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 5193.1718 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.000524% of atmosphere

                CH4 | 16.04246 g mol-1 | 35.69 J mol-1 K-1 | 2224.7211 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.00018% of atmosphere

                Kr | 83.798 g mol-1 | 20.95 J mol-1 K-1 | 250.0059 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.000114% of atmosphere

                H2 | 2.01588 g mol-1 | 28.82 J mol-1 K-1 | 14296.4859 J kg-1 K-1 | 0.000055% of atmosphere

                Let’s do the calculation using molar specific heat capacity, for a volume containing 1 mol of atmosphere at atmospheric pressure… it’s actually very simple. Whereas with mass specific heat capacity, one had to use:

                C_mixture = (m_1 / m_mixture) Cp_1 + (m_2 / m_mixture) Cp_2 + (m_3 / m_mixture) Cp_3, etc.,etc.

                … using molar specific heat capacity one only need use:

                C_mixture = (Molar Specific Heat Capacity_1 * percentage of composition) + (Molar Specific Heat Capacity_2 * percentage of composition), etc., etc…

                (29.12 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.78084) + (29.38 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.209476) + (20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00934) + (36.94 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00042) + (20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00001818) + (20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00000524) + (35.69 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.0000018) + (20.95 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00000114) + (28.82 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00000055) = 29.102714376804 J mol-1 K-1

                What’s the calculated molar specific heat capacity of air?

                Air: 29.19 J mol-1 K-1 for air at “typical room conditions), 29.07 for dry air.

                Now, let’s double CO2 and decrease N2 by the same percentage to account for CO2 displacing N2 (the most prevalent and thus most affected molecule in terms of concentration) within that 1 mol of air:
                (29.12 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.78042) + (29.38 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.209476) + (20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00934) + (36.94 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00084) + (20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00001818) + (20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00000524) + (35.69 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.0000018) + (20.95 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00000114) + (28.82 J mol-1 K-1 * 0.00000055) = 29.105998776804 J mol-1 K-1

                29.105998776804 J mol-1 K-1 is greater than 29.102714376804 J mol-1 K-1.

                Increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration increases molar specific heat capacity of the atmosphere.

                The advantage of the molar specific heat capacity calculation is that one can then easily add in water vapor at any desired concentration:

                H2O | 18.01528 g mol-1 | 75.327 J mol-1 K-1 | 4181.2838 J kg-1 K-1

                You’ll note that water vapor drastically increases the molar specific heat capacity of the atmosphere, as common sense dictates.

                Hence water vapor drastically increases the ability of the atmosphere to transit energy from surface to upper atmosphere, thus that attempts to decrease temperature differential with altitude, reducing the lapse rate… while at the same time radiatively cooling the upper troposphere faster than it can convectively warm it.

                IOW, water vapor is a net atmospheric coolant, in the strict “refrigeration cycle” sense.

                You know, the refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:

                A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.

                That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km).

                In effect, we live inside the equivalent of the evaporator of a world-sized A/C unit, with water acting as a literal refrigerant. Other polyatomics contribute to the cooling… the more DOF a molecule has, the more it contributes to surface cooling.

                Now, stop shilling for the sophistry perpetrated by the climastrologists in their choosing intentionally to use mass specific heat capacity in order to fool the gullible into believing that an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration reduces the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere.

                If they had to admit that the molecular mass has little to do with specific heat capacity, that it’s the DOF of a molecule which determines its specific heat capacity, they’d have to use molar specific heat capacity, and that would force them to admit that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the specific heat capacity of air (because CO2 has a higher molar specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar which make up the bulk of the atmosphere), allowing each parcel of air to transit more energy, increasing convective and advective cooling of the surface… and all while the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration also puts more emitters into the upper atmosphere.

                IOW, they’d have to admit that CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space)… that it’s a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

                And that would destroy CAGW.

                Empirical measurement of the atmosphere proves this out:

                https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png

                https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png

                The top image is from atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.

                The bottom image is adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

                Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

                11

              • #
                b.nice

                You say…“29.105998776804 J mol-1 K-1 is greater than 29.102714376804 J mol-1 K-1.”

                Then you say “Increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration increases molar specific heat capacity of the atmosphere.”

                Now, since M is in the numerator of your equation… you get an increase in lapse rate (in about the 3rd or 4th decimal place)

                …. exactly as I have stated.

                Thanks for proving me correct , YET AGAIN !

                Its been fun watching you flap about aimlessly ! 😉

                Good bye !

                01

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Now, since M is in the numerator of your equation… you get an increase in lapse rate (in about the 3rd or 4th decimal place)”

                How many times are you going to repeat this sophistry, and why do you persist in doing so? What’s your game? I mean, besides attacking scientific truth. LOL

                The increased molar specific heat capacity of an increased CO2 concentration atmosphere would act to decrease temperature differential with altitude by transiting more energy from surface to upper atmosphere… it would decrease the lapse rate. And that at the same time that it radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it. It is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

                The mass specific heat capacity formula misleads people to the conclusion that an increasing CO2 concentration will reduce the aggregate specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, which would transit less energy from surface to upper atmosphere, which would increase the lapse rate (increase the temperature differential with altitude), which is what the climastrologists use to claim that CO2 causes CAGW.

                So again, why do you keep reiterating exactly what the climastrologists claim for an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration?

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                Great cut and paste compilation.

                Why not use the much simpler method, gives the same answer.

                Its what everyone else uses, meteorologists, airlines etc etc….

                Yes, they know the moist lapse rate is less than 9.7760806531728947221121107403409 😉

                11

              • #
                b.nice

                btw, you do know that gamma is not the same for air as it for CO2, don’t you ?

                “Is your pedantism assuaged now? LOL”

                You are clown using 30 decimal places. 😉

                Yes, we are laughing.. at you.

                11

              • #
                b.nice

                “Increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration increases molar specific heat capacity of the atmosphere.”

                Thank you.. as you can see, 3rd decimal place… as I suspected.

                Will therefore increase the lapse rate, every so slightly, as I have said all along.

                Thanks heaps for your confirmation. 🙂

                21

              • #
                b.nice

                Its so hard to accept that all your waffle and carrying-on confirm exactly what I have said, isn’t it. 🙂

                You calculate by a different convoluted method, and get the same answers.

                Enough.. And thanks for the confirmation.

                21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Will therefore increase the lapse rate, every so slightly, as I have said all along.”

                You’ve been wrong all along. The increased molar specific heat capacity of an increased CO2 concentration atmosphere would act to decrease temperature differential with altitude by transiting more energy from surface to upper atmosphere… it would decrease the lapse rate. And that at the same time that it radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it. It is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

                Your sticking with the mass specific heat capacity formula misleads people to the conclusion that an increasing CO2 concentration will reduce the aggregate specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, which would transit less energy from surface to upper atmosphere, which would increase the lapse rate (increase the temperature differential with altitude), which is what the climastrologists use to claim that CO2 causes CAGW.

                You’ve outed yourself, b.nice. You can say all you like that you’re a climate skeptic, but your actions in continuing to shill for this ancient and long-debunked portion of the CAGW sham shows that you’re no climate skeptic, as does your descending into petty insults rather than attempting a refutation of what I write… because you know, I know, everyone knows you cannot refute reality. LOL

                11

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Let’s agree that Lapse rate can be calculated in different ways, and they they give essentially the same answers.”

                That’s a funny way of saying that I was correct all along, whereas you were wrong all along. You were slower than most to come around to reality. LOL

                So you agree with me, and you agree that you were wrong to claim that lapse rate is only calculated via J kg-1 K-1 (mass specific heat capacity).

                And you agree with me that an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will increase the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere.

                Especially after I calculated the Rule of Mixing Specific Heat Capacity of the atmosphere using molar specific heat capacities and demonstrated that it’s trivial to add in water vapor at any desired concentration.

                Now… I wonder why the climastrologists cling to the mass specific heat capacity form of the lapse rate calculation, when it’s so trivial to use the molar specific heat capacity form, even when including water vapor at any desired concentration?

                Might it be because then they can convince people that an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will reduce the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, thus less energy will be convectively transited from surface to upper atmosphere, thus the temperature differential with altitude increases, thus the lapse rate increases, thus the surface warms… which is their way of claiming that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause CAGW? Sure it is.

                Now if I can only shake your death-grip on using mass specific heat capacity, my victory will be complete. LOL

                11

              • #
                b.nice

                ” whereas you were wrong all along.”

                Got the same answers as you.. so yep, I guess I must be wrong !

                Wake up, you are looking like a fool. !

                11

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Great cut and paste compilation.”

                I wrote every word of it.

                b.nice wrote:
                “Why not use the much simpler method, gives the same answer.”

                No, no it doesn’t. And it’s not simpler, it’s more complex.

                The method of calculating mass specific heat capacity is FUBAR when calculating for a mixture of different molecular species. It assumes the effect of mass is greater than the effect of the Degrees Of Freedom of the molecules.

                We can do the actual calculation to determine the specific heat capacity of air to demonstrate this point:

                Cp_mixture = (m_1 / m_mixture) Cp_1 + (m_2 / m_mixture) Cp_2 + (m_3 / m_mixture) Cp_3, etc.,etc.

                N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 1.0395025 J g-1 K-1 | 78.084% of atmosphere

                O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 0.9181594 J g-1 K-1 | 20.9476% of atmosphere

                Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 0.5203314 J g-1 K-1 | 0.934% of atmosphere

                CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 0.8393642 J g-1 K-1 | 0.042% of atmosphere

                Ne | 20.1797 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 1.0300549 J g-1 K-1 | 0.001818% of atmosphere

                He | 4.002602 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 5.1931718 J g-1 K-1 | 0.000524% of atmosphere

                CH4 | 16.04246 g mol-1 | 35.69 J mol-1 K-1 | 2.2247211 J g-1 K-1 | 0.00018% of atmosphere

                Kr | 83.798 g mol-1 | 20.95 J mol-1 K-1 | 0.2500059 J g-1 K-1 | 0.000114% of atmosphere

                H2 | 2.01588 g mol-1 | 28.82 J mol-1 K-1 | 14.2964859 J g-1 K-1 | 0.000055% of atmosphere

                Now, we construct a 1 mol atmosphere comprised of the above.
                6.02214076e23 particles mol-1

                N2: 28.0134 g mol-1 * 0.78084 mol = 21.873983256 g
                O2: 31.9988 g mol-1 * 0.209476 mol = 6.7029806288 g
                Ar: 39.948 g mol-1 * 0.00934 mol = 0.37311432 g
                CO2: 44.0095 g mol-1 * 0.00042 mol = 0.01848399 g
                Ne: 20.1797 g mol-1 * 0.00001818 mol = 0.000366866946 g
                He: 4.002602 mol-1 * 0.00000524 mol = 0.00002097363448 g
                CH4: 16.04246 g mol-1 * 0.0000018 mol = 0.000028876428 g
                Kr: 83.798 g mol-1 * 0.00000114 mol = 0.00009552972 g
                H2: 2.01588 g mol-1 * 0.00000055 mol = 0.000001108734 g

                Now, we pour that all into a martini glass. Shaken, not stirred:
                https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/rule-of-mixtures

                That gives us 1.00461 J g-1 K-1

                Now, we can double CO2 atmospheric concentration:
                CO2: 44.0095 g mol-1 * 0.00084 mol = 0.03696798 g

                To do so, we’ll assume the largest constituent of the atmosphere had the largest percentage reduction in concentration due to displacement by the increased concentration of CO2:
                N2: 28.0134 g mol-1 * 0.78045 mol = 21.86305803 g

                That gives us 1.00449 J g-1 K-1.

                As you can see, the mass specific heat capacity calculation misleads people into believing that an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration reduces the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere.

                Thus, the climastrologists use that to claim that that increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will transit less energy surface to upper atmosphere, which increases temperature differential with altitude, which increases the lapse rate, which causes the surface to warm. That’s part and parcel of their claim that CO2 causes warming.

                That’s diametrically opposite to reality:

                https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/the-nanny-state-rules-french-events-banned-for-the-heat-climate-lockdowns-begin/#comment-2559818

                An increased atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the molar specific heat capacity of the atmosphere, which transits more energy from surface to upper atmosphere, which reduces temperature differential with altitude, which decreases the lapse rate, which cools the surface. And all that while it radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it.

                Hence, CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space)… it is a coolant. In point of fact, it is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming at the tropopause, where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

                Again, empirical measurement bears this out:

                https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png

                That’s from atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.

                https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png

                That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

                Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

                And the fact that molar specific heat capacity increases for an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration destroys CAGW. The climastrologists cannot claim that CO2 causes warming without being shown as fraudsters.

                10

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Mr b,

              This series of comments by [email protected] is a prime example of how dangerous the blogosphere has become. This example of “thinking” illustrates the point:

              https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/the-nanny-state-rules-french-events-banned-for-the-heat-climate-lockdowns-begin/#comment-2559705

              From page one, the writer has been duped into analysing an element of the UNIPCCC AR document and then proceeds to hide behind a pointless analysis of peripheral “science”.

              In responding to the UNIPCCC AR he has given credit to something that is a scientific farce.

              Weird doesn’t describe it.

              12

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Your comment is a prime example of someone who either refuses to or simply cannot educate himself as to how reality works.

                https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/the-nanny-state-rules-french-events-banned-for-the-heat-climate-lockdowns-begin/#comment-2559818

                The molar specific heat capacity vs. mass specific heat capacity argument is central to the climastrologists claim that CO2 causes warming.

                If they had to admit that the molecular mass has little to do with specific heat capacity, that it’s the DOF of a molecule which determines its specific heat capacity, they’d have to use molar specific heat capacity, and that would force them to admit that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the specific heat capacity of air (because CO2 has a higher molar specific heat capacity than O2, N2 and Ar which make up the bulk of the atmosphere), allowing each parcel of air to transit more energy, increasing convective and advective cooling of the surface… and all while the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration also puts more emitters into the upper atmosphere.

                IOW, they’d have to admit that CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space)… and it radiates that energy away… that it’s a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

                And that would destroy CAGW.

                It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are actually the “greenhouse gases”. Remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.

                Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.

                In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.

                The environmental lapse rate would necessitate that the surface also warms, given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation).

                The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of energy…

                https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/figure-2.png

                … which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2, and thus some emission in the atmosphere)… and a higher radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.

                The chance of any N2 or O2 molecule colliding with water vapor is ~3% on average in the troposphere, and for CO2 it’s only ~0.0415%. Logic dictates that as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, the likelihood of N2 or O2 colliding with it also increases, and thus increases the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission. (And yes, t-v and v-v collisional processes do occur from N2 to CO2… if you doubt me, I can post the maths and studies which prove it.)

                Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the ~95.94 – 99.74% (depending upon humidity) of the atmosphere which cannot effectively radiatively emit (N2, O2, Ar) must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor below the tropopause and the largest contributor above the tropopause, water vapor being the main contributor below the tropopause) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.

                So can anyone explain how increasing the concentration of the major radiative coolant gases (H2O, CO2) in the atmosphere (and thus increasing the likelihood that Ar, N2 and O2 will transfer their energy to those radiative coolant gases and then out to space via radiative emission) will result in more ‘heat trapping’, causing global warming? I thought not.

                10

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                And, the starting point for science is to understand the big picture, then focus in on the detail. Saint Perfect Converter may need to be renamed St Verbose.

                Look at this;

                https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/the-nanny-state-rules-french-events-banned-for-the-heat-climate-lockdowns-begin/#comment-2559841

                01

              • #
                b.nice

                “the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission.”

                Again, proven by actual measurements.

                The slight drop on out-going in the narrow CO2 band is more than compensated by out-going radiation through the atmospheric window.

                https://i.ibb.co/h2dR1bd/radiative-change-2.jpg

                Again, you are confirming everything we already are aware of, just with lots of pointless bluster.

                11

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Kalm Keith wrote:
                “And, the starting point for science is to understand the big picture, then focus in on the detail. Saint Perfect Converter may need to be renamed St Verbose.”

                A complex, non-linear and chaotic system cannot be described succinctly and accurately. So what you’re really stating is “TLDR” because anything longer than your average 22 lines per post is beyond your attention span. LOL

                11

          • #
            [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

            b.nice claims that you support CAGW, is that true? If so, by what metric do you support that, given that I’ve shown that both CO2 and water vapor are atmospheric coolants, with water vapor acting as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause?

            If you’ve changed your mind and now acknowledge the reality that polyatomic molecules, by dint of their higher specific heat capacity and ability to radiatively emit (given that the only way our planet can shed energy is via radiative emission to space), act as coolants, that we live in what can be analogized to the evaporator of a giant world-sized A/C unit, that the more molecules with high DOF there are in the atmosphere the more there is thermodynamic coupling between the heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space), now would be the time to state your change of stance.

            Imagine how embarrassed b.nice would be, knowing that my arguments are so correct that I’ve converted a CAGW believer to climate skepticism… of course, you wouldn’t be the first. I’ve converted many, including climatologists and warmist physicists, one of whom publicly apologized for his alarmism and wrote a book.

            12

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              My sincere and unabated apologies to you Mr [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks.

              That last paragraph on conversion puts you way, way up there with all others.

              11

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                The others;

                St Peter, St Paul. St John.

                21

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Quotation from on high;

                “my arguments are so correct that I’ve converted a CAGW believer to climate skepticism… of course, you wouldn’t be the first. I’ve converted many, including climatologists and warmist physicists, one of whom publicly apologized for his alarmism and wrote a book”.

                Bow your heads in shame before this infinite perfection. How dare you !

                31

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Oh, there’s no need to deify me. You could just throw money. It’s just like most religions, but this one drains your bank account and you don’t have to attend any services. LOL

                10

            • #
              b.nice

              What an incredible w**k of a statement.

              I have always known H2O and CO2 act as atmospheric coolants and that AGW is a complete farce.

              Many times I have stated that H2O and CO2 act as a conduit for atmospheric cooling.

              Its people like GEE that you can try to persuade.. but you will get nowhere.

              Now, back to your formula for moist lapse rate. 😉

              21

            • #

              Imagine how embarrassed b.nice would be, knowing that my arguments are so correct that I’ve converted a CAGW believer to climate skepticism… of course, you wouldn’t be the first. I’ve converted many, including climatologists and warmist physicists, one of whom publicly apologized for his alarmism and wrote a book.

              and you have the gall to call people Sophists? This is hilarious even if true. Time into paste your sludge in another forum. We can’t have two competing alt-physics. This blog has one already.

              22

              • #
                b.nice

                Has ga, who has barely a primary school level understanding of physics. So funny.

                I agree LOL-Kooks should paste his sludge elsewhere.. as should you.

                11

              • #
              • #
                b.nice

                “Time to face reality, Gee Aye.”

                Sorry LOL-kooks.. not a chance of convincing ga.

                Reality is not in his purview. (Purview (defn) ..range of experience or thought.)

                Let’s agree that Lapse rate can be calculated in different ways, and they they give essentially the same answers.

                We seem to agree on basically everything else.

                11

              • #

                LOL… lol

                you didn’t blow up anything apart from your chest to bluster.

                02

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Mheh, I posted this upthread… not liking the limited threading. Usenet allowed practically unlimited thread depth. I miss Usenet.

                b.nice wrote:
                “Let’s agree that Lapse rate can be calculated in different ways, and they they give essentially the same answers.”

                That’s a funny way of saying that I was correct all along, whereas you were wrong all along. You were slower than most to come around to reality. LOL

                So you agree with me, and you agree that you were wrong to claim that lapse rate is only calculated via J kg-1 K-1 (mass specific heat capacity).

                And you agree with me that an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will increase the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere.

                Especially after I calculated the Rule of Mixing Specific Heat Capacity of the atmosphere using molar specific heat capacities and demonstrated that it’s trivial to add in water vapor at any desired concentration.

                Now… I wonder why the climastrologists cling to the mass specific heat capacity form of the lapse rate calculation, when it’s so trivial to use the molar specific heat capacity form, even when including water vapor at any desired concentration?

                Might it be because then they can convince people that an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will reduce the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, thus less energy will be convectively transited from surface to upper atmosphere, thus the temperature differential with altitude increases, thus the lapse rate increases, thus the surface warms… which is their way of claiming that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause CAGW? Sure it is.

                Now if I can only shake your death-grip on using mass specific heat capacity, my victory will be complete. LOL

                11

              • #

                Threading temporarily increased to max 10 layers. Up from 7. We’ll see if that helps.

                Re Moderation: A small team here moderates comments one at a time, so no one person may read the whole subthread. Comments from both sides of this particular subthread are being held to keep the temperature down a bit. As a rule — crass language is not usually the mark of a genius. It doesn’t prove anyone right or wrong, but makes me less interested in following the rest.

                Regarding Lapse Rates: the concept seems like a fairly blunt artificial tool that over simplifies the atmosphere. The true lapse rate is constantly shifting in different layers and locations between wet and dry areas. Different greenhouse gases have different emission heights at every single frequency. Averaging the lapse rate across the whole atmosphere doesn’t seem like a useful path.

                31

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                It is true that the atmosphere is dynamic… we’re looking here at the long-term overall change due to an increase of CO2 concentration.

                There is a reason the climastrologists have chosen the mass specific heat capacity calculation, rather than the molar specific heat capacity calculation, despite it being more complicated and harder to add in water vapor… because the mass specific heat capacity calculation is their bedrock… it shows bulk atmospheric specific heat capacity decreasing for an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration because it over-weights mass and under-weights DOF.

                That is part and parcel of their claim that CO2 is a ‘heat trapping, global warming’ gas.

                Do away with that and force them to use the proper molar specific heat capacity calculation, and they’re forced to admit that an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration increases bulk atmosphere specific heat capacity.

                And with that higher bulk atmosphere specific heat capacity comes the admission that each parcel of higher CO2 concentration air can convectively transit more energy than a lower CO2 concentration parcel of air.

                And with that comes the admission that more energy transited surface to upper atmosphere acts to reduce temperature differential with altitude, a decrease in the lapse rate (the same reason water vapor reduces the lapse rate, BTW). At the same time, the higher number of emitters allows the upper atmosphere to be radiatively cooled faster than it can be convectively warmed by that increased CO2 atmospheric concentration.

                And with that comes the admission that CO2, like all radiative molecules in our atmosphere, are coolants… the contribution to the cooling predicated upon the DOF of each molecular species.

                Water vapor is the most striking example… it is literally a refrigerant (in the strict “refrigeration cycle” sense):

                You know, the refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:

                A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.

                That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km). You’ll note the dry adiabatic lapse rate (which would imply a very warm surface) is due to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics… which are actually the ‘greenhouse gases’.

                Other radiative molecules contribute to the cooling, based upon the DOF of each molecular species.

                11

              • #

                As I said, lapse rate is just a human simplistic construct that doesn’t reflect what is happening in all the layers and frequencies of the atmosphere.

                Hence I don’t find it very useful.

                22

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Jo Nova wrote:
                “We have different definitions. I know only one.”

                I assume you’re using the commonly-held definition as used by psychologists… that of a minimum IQ of 125, combined with personality characteristics such as drive and persistence, high ability, high productivity, and high creativity, plus the necessary opportunities for talent development. [1][2][3]

                While I’m not nearly intelligent enough for the Mega Society, I can bring Promethean fire to the huddled masses, IYKWIM.

                [1] Jensen, Arthur R. (1998). The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence. Westport (CT): Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-96103-9. ISSN 1063-2158.

                [2] Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6.

                [3] Pickover, Clifford A. (1998). Strange Brains and Genius: The Secret Lives of Eccentric Scientists and Madmen. Plenum Publishing Corporation. ISBN 978-0688168940.

                13

              • #

                Your arrogance knows no bounds. Put your own IQ back in your box and figure out which part of the bell curve I’m talking about when I say “one”.

                41

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Jo Nova wrote:
                “Your arrogance knows no bounds.”

                What you misconstrue as arrogance is merely a soaring ability, a quick wit and a wicked sense of humor. I’m not gifted, I’m blessed.

                If you’re referring to the top 1%, that’s only an IQ of 137.

                Now figure out which part of the Bell curve I’m talking about when I say 0.001. LOL

                12

              • #

                Blessed or a narcissist?

                So far you’re hopelessly wrong twice and arrogant to the core. Perhaps cut your losses instead of giving away how slow you are to get my point?

                Ask yourself what are the odds I’ve only met one hundred people in my life to meet one paltry person above 137 IQ, and you’ll get some idea of how many magnitudes you are out.

                31

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Jo Nova wrote:
                “As a rule — crass language is not usually the mark of a genius.”

                Jay, K. L., & Jay, T. B. (2015). Taboo word fluency and knowledge of slurs and general pejoratives: Deconstructing the poverty-of-vocabulary myth. Language Sciences, 52, 251–259. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2014.12.003

                “A voluminous taboo lexicon may better be considered an indicator of healthy verbal abilities rather than a cover for their deficiencies. People who use taboo words understand their general expressive content as well as nuanced distinctions that must be drawn to use slurs appropriately. The ability to make nuanced distinctions indicates the presence of more rather than less linguistic knowledge, as implied by the POV [Poverty of Vocabulary] view.”

                I know many fellow geniuses who delight in using profanity to emphasize a point and in using creative slurs to destroy their opponents.

                Free yourself from the shackles of mediocrity, Jo! Swear yourself up a storm to show the world that you are, indeed, a genius. Dammit. LOL

                11

              • #

                “I know many fellow geniuses”.

                We have different definitions. I know only one.

                21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Gee Aye wrote:
                “you didn’t blow up anything apart from your chest to bluster.”

                Denial isn’t refutation, Gee Aye, it’s a tacit admission that you know you’re wrong, but don’t want to admit it. Time to face reality, Gee Aye.

                11

              • #
                b.nice

                “You were slower than most to come around to reality”

                Say what? You still haven’t caught up with the fact that the method used everywhere, using kJ/kg/K, gives the same answers as your convoluted method.

                That is incredibly SLOW of you ! Bizarre, actually !

                Victory, imagined in your little tunnel mind.

                “thus the lapse rate increases”

                You have yourself PROVEN that add a bit of extra trace CO2, the lapse rate increase, in the 3rd or 4th decimal place..

                Why are you arguing with your own calculations ? That is just dumb !

                This is immeasurable and totally swamped by the effects of H2O.

                CO2 has no discernible affect on lapse rate, and certainly does not cause warming.

                21

              • #

                LOL- I looks around me and I see that since you’ve arrived, nothing has changed and I see the same everywhere else. You influence amounts to zero. telling people they are wrong in 2000 words or more does not mean they are wrong. It means you wasted your time.

                31

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Say what? You still haven’t caught up with the fact that the method used everywhere, using kJ/kg/K, gives the same answers as your convoluted method.”

                Would those be the same methods you denied existed until I posted them? The same methods which you now acknowledge exist, and which you’ve stated you agree with? LOL

                Convoluted? What’s convoluted is the mass specific heat capacity calculation.

                Cp_mixture = (m_1 / m_mixture) Cp_1 + (m_2 / m_mixture) Cp_2 + (m_3 / m_mixture) Cp_3, etc.,etc.

                The molar specific heat capacity calculation is so straightforward that one can easily incorporate water vapor at any desired concentration.

                C_mixture = (Molar Specific Heat Capacity_1 * percentage of composition) + (Molar Specific Heat Capacity_2 * percentage of composition), etc., etc…

                12

              • #
                b.nice

                On the contrary, LOL-K has shown us a different way of calculating lapse rate.. that gives essentially the same answers.

                Sure it was rather blustery and mathematically silly, what with all those decimal places, but it was interesting.

                Neither of us is wrong, just looking at it from different angles.

                Sorry it was all so far above your feeble capacity for understanding.

                21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Gee Aye wrote:
                “LOL- I looks around me and I see that since you’ve arrived, nothing has changed and I see the same everywhere else. You influence amounts to zero. telling people they are wrong in 2000 words or more does not mean they are wrong. It means you wasted your time.”

                You’re not the audience, Gee Aye. I write for those other readers looking for scientific truth. I know of dozens that I’ve converted to climate skepticism, there are likely thousands more who silently converted because I provided them the scientific explanation necessary to counter the sophistry promulgated by the climastrologists.

                You can cling to your incorrectitude however long you wish. You change reality not one whit in so doing. Me? I’m changing minds and improving reality.

                22

              • #

                Name me one mind you changed? And one thing that is that the “climatestrol whatevers” get wrong? Your bleating of sophistry reminds is just dressing up ignorance as confidence. Prove otherwise (in 100 words or fewer)

                21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                Ok, Gee Aye… a very short portion of a very long text detailing all that the climastrologists have done wrong. 840 words, 5600 characters.

                1) The climate alarmists are, as usual, provably diametrically opposite to reality.
                ———-
                The climate alarmists misuse the S-B equation, using the form meant for idealized blackbody objects upon graybody objects:
                q = σ T^4
                … and slapping ε onto that (sometimes) …
                q = ε σ T^4

                Their misuse of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all graybody objects, necessitating that they carry that error forward through their calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate alarmists to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).

                https://i.imgur.com/2Bd25TG.png

                The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmerenergy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to coolerenergy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density (temperature is a measure of energy density, the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the energy density gradient.

                Their problem, however, is that their take on radiative energetic exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their insane take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?

                The second law states that there exists a state variable called entropy S. The change in entropy (ΔS) is equal to the energy transferred (ΔQ) divided by the temperature (T).

                ΔS = ΔQ / T

                Only for reversible processes does entropy remain constant. Reversible processes are idealizations. All real-world processes are irreversible.

                The climastrologists claim that energy can flow from cooler to warmer because they cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle, which states that an object’s radiant exitance is dependent only upon that object’s internal state, and thus they treat real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects via:
                q = σ T^4
                … thus the climate alarmists claim that all objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K. In reality, idealized blackbody objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K, whereas graybody objects emit radiation if their temperature is greater than 0 K above the ambient.

                But their blather means that in an environment at thermodynamic equilibrium, all objects (and the ambient) would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, but since entropy doesn’t change at thermodynamic equilibrium, the climastrologists must claim that radiative energy transfer is a reversible process.

                Except radiative energy transfer is an irreversible process, which destroys their blather. In reality, at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows, which is why entropy doesn’t change.

                All idealized blackbody objects above absolute zero emit radiation. Idealized blackbody objects do not emit (nor absorb) according to the energy density gradient. Idealized blackbody objects don’t actually exist, they’re idealizations.

                Real-world graybody objects with a temperature greater than zero degrees above their ambient emit radiation. Graybody objects emit (and absorb) according to the energy density gradient.

                It’s right there in the S-B equation, which the climate alarmists fundamentally misunderstand:
                https://i.imgur.com/pFBcBl0.png

                They cite Clausius out of context… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. They’re idealizations. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.

                If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. – Arthur Eddington: The Nature of the Physical World. (1929)

                Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.

                10

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Neither of us is wrong, just looking at it from different angles.”

                That’s a funny way of acknowledging that you claimed for days that the scientific truth I promulgated didn’t exist, that you contradicted yourself repeatedly then claimed you’d been right all along, and that you shilled for the sophistry promulgated by the climastrologists. LOL

                03

              • #
                b.nice

                Seriously LOL-K.. It was you that was LOLing about using KJ/kg/K..

                I repeat, because its totally correct.

                The normal method of calculating laspe rate, uses Cp in kJ/kg/K. (or J/g/K)

                Anyone can verify this anywhere in any meteorology book or in basically any discussion of lapse rate.

                They are just different methodologies.. Get over it !

                END of more pointless discussion, now you have agreed completely with my numbers and that AGW is a total farce.

                21

              • #
                b.nice

                ps,

                I’ll leave you to play with Gee Aye .. have fun 😉

                21

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “You have yourself PROVEN that add a bit of extra trace CO2, the lapse rate increase, in the 3rd or 4th decimal place..”

                If you cannot even get the sign of the lapse rate change correct, what hope do you have of getting anything else correct?

                A lapse rate increase implies less energy is being transited surface to upper atmosphere, thus the temperature differential with altitude increases, thus surface temperature increases.

                An increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration would increase the molar specific heat capacity of the bulk air, transiting more energy from surface to upper atmosphere, reducing the temperature differential with altitude, hence reducing the lapse rate… while at the same time radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it, thus surface temperature decreases.

                You’ve been told this repeatedly, let’s hope this time it sinks in. LOL

                Unless you’re intentionally repeating this bit of misinformation to further the CAGW agenda. Are you?

                11

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Anyone can verify this anywhere in any meteorology book or in basically any discussion of lapse rate.”

                Funny, I got the molar specific heat capacity form of the dry adiabatic lapse rate calculation from the book “Thermal Physics” by Garg.

                Are you now claiming that a bog-standard thermal physics text is incorrect? Or are you yet again attempting to shill for the sophistry promulgated by the climastrologists?

                21

              • #
                b.nice

                “thermal physics text is incorrect?”

                You really are beyond DUMB or very low in comprehension…

                I said they are different methodologies.

                No more wasting time on your sillimess.

                12

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “You really are beyond DUMB or very low in comprehension…

                I said they are different methodologies.”

                More of your petty insults? I still see no refutation of what I’ve written… in fact, you’ve gone from claiming that what I state didn’t exist to agreeing with me.

                Are you going to complain to the mod ‘AD’ again and get me put on auto-mod? Or are you ‘AD’, “Andy”? LOL

                Where did you say there were different methodologies? Show me the link to your post stating that… it’d better be pretty near the beginning of our conversation, or you’ll be forced to admit that you denied the scientific truth I promulgate until I posted the molar specific heat capacity calculation, and showed that the bulk atmosphere specific heat capacity increases with an increasing CO2 concentration, whereas the mass specific heat capacity calculation incorrectly shows that the bulk atmosphere specific heat capacity decreases with increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration, which is diametrically opposite to reality but that’s what you were shilling for. LOL

                Makes one wonder why you’ve got such a death-grip upon the mass specific heat capacity lapse rate calculation, given that the mass specific heat capacity calculation shows bulk atmosphere specific heat capacity decreases with an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration.

                Also makes one wonder why you keep incorrectly stating that an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration will increase the lapse rate, despite being repeatedly told that an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will increase the specific heat capacity of the bulk atmosphere, thus it will transit more energy surface to upper atmosphere, thus it will act to decrease temperature differential with altitude, thus it will decrease the lapse rate… and all while it radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it.

                In other words, CO2 is a coolant, not a ‘heat trapping, global warming’ gas. But you keep shilling for the very methodology which the climastrologists use to claim that CO2 is a ‘heat trapping, global warming’ gas. Strange, that. LOL

                20

              • #
                b.nice

                Different methodologies, same outcome..

                What is so, so difficult for you to comprehend. !

                Enough. !

                02

              • #
                [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

                b.nice wrote:
                “Different methodologies, same outcome..”

                Not the same outcome:
                https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/the-nanny-state-rules-french-events-banned-for-the-heat-climate-lockdowns-begin/#comment-2559940

                The mass specific heat capacity calculation shows a decreasing bulk atmospheric specific heat capacity with increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration, which the climastrologists use to claim that an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration will reduce energy transit surface to upper atmosphere, thus temperature differential will increase with altitude, thus the lapse rate will increase, thus the surface will warm. That’s part and parcel of how and why they claim that CO2 is a ‘heat trapping, global warming’ gas. That’s what you’re shilling for.

                That’s diametrically opposite to reality:

                https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/the-nanny-state-rules-french-events-banned-for-the-heat-climate-lockdowns-begin/#comment-2559818

                An increased atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the molar specific heat capacity of the atmosphere, which transits more energy from surface to upper atmosphere, which reduces temperature differential with altitude, which decreases the lapse rate, which cools the surface. And all that while it radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than it can convectively warm it.

                Hence, CO2 increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (the surface) and heat sink (space)… it is a coolant. In point of fact, it is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except for negligible warming at the tropopause, where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

                Again, empirical measurement bears this out:

                https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png

                That’s from atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.

                https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png

                That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

                Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

                And the fact that molar specific heat capacity increases for an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration destroys CAGW. The climastrologists cannot claim that CO2 causes warming without being shown as fraudsters.

                No matter how many times you repeat the misinformation that they have the same outcome, no matter how many times you repeat the misinformation that an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the lapse rate, no matter how many times you deny reality only to backpedal and claim that you were right all along, I’ll be here to set things right. LOL

                20

  • #
    [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

    Mheh… I don’t know why, but it seems every website messes this up. I’ll put a period before each greater than sign, that usually fixes it.

    7 – 13 µm: .>280 K (near-surface)
    .>13 – 17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere)

    41

    • #

      the triangular brackets are used for formatting. It is not the site messing it up, it is your ignorance of how it works that causes you issues.

      Seems to be analogous to something I saw recently

      02

      • #

        I tried to add the less than symbol to the buttons for posting comments and broke the site today. Sigh. Even displaying the symbol on the button of one old small plugin was too much. Sigh. Apologies. I won’t try that again…

        10

      • #
        [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

        It works on other sites. No reason it can’t work here. All one need do is change the code interpreter such that it doesn’t just look for the greater than and lesser than symbols alone, it must have HTML or CSS markup tags coterminous to those symbols in order to be treated as markup, otherwise it’s treated as plaintext.

        10

  • #
    [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

    Nope.

    7 – 13 µm: greater than 280 K (near-surface)
    greater than 13 – less than, equal to 17 µm: ~220 K (near the tropopause)
    greater than 17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere)

    11

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    If the French event went ahead, and there were medical problems excavated by the heat, and because of the number of these events, the inability of first aid personnel to respond quickly because of the crowd, and this caused death, where by not having the event would prevent that, what would a responsible authority do?

    Using the line ‘ as if adult mammals cannot figure out ’ is saying that all risk is personal- and by extension there should be no road rules, for example, as adult mammals should be able to figure it out themselves

    121

    • #
      b.nice

      PF shows that he desperately NEEDS someone to tell him what to do.

      His ability for rational self-thought is basically non-existent.

      151

    • #
      [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks

      Peter Fitzroy wrote:
      “If the French event went ahead, and there were medical problems excavated by the heat, and because of the number of these events, the inability of first aid personnel to respond quickly because of the crowd, and this caused death, where by not having the event would prevent that, what would a responsible authority do?”

      And personal responsibility comes into it where, exactly? We are adults. If one is unable to act as a responsible adult, if one buys into the infantilization of the populace, then they get what they deserve.

      The sheeple are being herded… and it’s the wolves doing the herding. This won’t end well for the sheeple. They’d best grow a spine quick. We all know exactly where this is headed, we’ve seen it all before. The wolves can only succeed if the sheeple continue being sheeple.

      291

    • #
      David Maddison

      People will decide if it is too hot for them or not Peter. If it’s too hot, then don’t go out. In any case 40C is well within the temperature tolerance of most mammals, including those of us who identify as human. There are plenty of places around the world, including parts of Australia where summer temperatures regularly reach 40C.

      And this Leftist view of treating everyone like a child and unable to make decisions or be responsible for their own actions is pathetic and dangerous.

      I DO NOT WANT people like you or your comrades deciding what is good for me….get it?

      By all means, you stay at home quivering in terror under your bed on hot days (or at any other time). Let the rest of us make up our own minds.

      231

    • #
      OldOzzie

      If a Marmot/GroundHog can work out the risks – surely Adult Mammals can figure it out

      Free practice for the Canadian Grand Prix this Friday in Montreal was marked by the surprise visit of a marmot, which crossed the Gilles-Villeneuve circuit in the middle of the session. The rodent narrowly escaped the wheels of Carlos Sainz’s Ferrari and Alonso’s Alpine

      2022 Canadian GP FP1: Alonso and Sainz have near-miss with groundhog track invader

      60

    • #
      Ronin

      Surely a mention on your ticket to an ‘event’ might read, ‘ as this is an outdoor event and it is midsummer, you may need to exercise caution in the heat, you are adults, you know what to do.’

      60

      • #
        MP

        Surely that’s the same thing in a different format and prejudice to blind persons as they won’t know it’s hot if they can’t read.
        As the population of Europe is 50% African and as the heat is coming from Africa is this not racist to boot?

        I like this wokie stuff!

        110

    • #
      Dave

      If the French event went ahead, and there were medical problems excavated by the heat, and because of the number of these events, the inability of first aid personnel to respond quickly because of the crowd, and this caused death, where by not having the event would prevent that, what would a responsible authority do?

      You sound exactly like Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister!

      81

    • #
      MP

      The absurdity of your (not) logic is mind numbing.

      Road rules are the go to analogy for you mentally hindered types. So we have road rules, nobody gets injured or dies on our roads thanks to “rules”. We have fire bans so luckly we no longer have fires.
      Except the reality is, people break road rules a million times a day in our country, always have always will. So let’s ban cars, but only on the days that people break rules!

      The stick analogy. I saw a child hit another child with a stick, I took the stick off the child and demanded all sticks be removed from the country.

      Stupid people do stupid things, I understand why you need to have politicians tell you what is stupid.

      Is there enough stuff you need to have banned to make you happy, because no government can fix stupid!

      150

    • #
      wal1957

      You are speaking nonsense as usual. Stay in your bunker, don’t venture outside else you may step on a crack and break a leg.

      70

    • #

      In answer to Peter Fitzroy:

      If the French event went ahead, and there were medical problems for the vaccinated due to weak hearts causing sudden adult death syndrome, excavated by the heat, and because of the number of these events, the inability of first aid personnel to respond quickly because of the crowd, and the ambulance service and emergency departments in hospitals already under double the usual number of patients under threat of death, due to the excess death rate, due to the vaccine, already running at a thousand a week, where by not having the event would prevent that, what would a corrupt mass murdering irresponsible authority do?

      Using the line ‘as the unvaccinated figured out’. If the unvaccinated are 27 times better protected by natural immunity, and the vaccinated are three times more likely to get Covid than the unvaccinated. Then it must be true that the only protection the vaccinated get from Covid, is the same as for children with an immature immune system. The average age of death for Covid is 82. The deaths occur due to an allergic response to an overactive immune system on the eighth day of infection. The cytokine storm which results in rapid deterioration of lung function is in fact an allergic reaction, most likely to fragments of spike protein, as the virus is killed off. It occurs on the 8th day after the first onset of symptoms and is unrelated to the severity of the initial infection. Its why children with an immature immune system are not effected. So this immaturity is replicated by the vaccination of adults. There is evidence the vaccinated immune system is degraded by the vaccine, making the vaccinated more susceptible to other viruses, but giving them a few weeks protection from death, until their immune system recovers. Then they get a second jab, a third jab and so on, each jab protects them from the cytokine storm, but brings them closer to death from every other cause of death.

      140

    • #
      David Maddison

      Peter, thank you for reminding us what we are fighting against.

      We rational thinkers sometimes forget about the extreme stupidity, feelings of helplessness and fear that people who are unwilling to think for themselves or take responsibility for themselves, and expect others to make decisions for themselves experience.

      Eric Fromm once wrote a book in 1941 called The Fear of Freedom (also called Escape from Freedom) and he wrote about how, when people cannot handle the “dangers” and responsibities inherent in freedom, they turn to authoritarianism. And he would know, he was a refugee from the National Socialists.

      110

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      it comes down to this. – there are some rules which are acceptable, and others are up to an ‘adult’ to decide. That is Anarchy

      116

      • #
        David Maddison

        Just follow the “orders” heh Peter?

        Attitudes like that, including the inability to think for oneself, are terrifying.

        120

        • #
          el+gordo

          Leaving out the analogies, no value in mixing memes, essentially governments are elected to look after the health and prosperity of the electorate. They have a responsibility to take action to prevent loss of life.

          ‘ … the inability to think for oneself, are terrifying.’

          No man is an island, we are all influenced in one way or another.

          011

          • #
            David Maddison

            I guess one of the main differences between Leftists and conservatives is that Leftists like to be told what to do, or tell others what to do, while conservatives prefer to think for themselves and are comfortable with letting others make their own decisions.

            90

        • #
          Harves

          I think what Peter is saying is that we all should follow any rule that he finds ‘acceptable’. Otherwise, without Peter to guide us what will happen to us all?
          It’s beyond belief that Australia’s indigenous people survived for tens of thousands of years in temperatures up to 50 degrees C with no technology, and no government lockdowns – they didn’t even have Peter to tell them to stop burning wood in case it changed the climate.

          120

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          That just excavates the problem.

          00

      • #
        b.nice

        Bow down to the bureaucratic whim.

        Don’t ask why, or if it is rational.

        Just do it. !

        50

      • #
        MP

        The proof there is no limit to stupid…Right there.

        You just wrote that an adult deciding is unacceptable. Who in government do you think is making these rules you need, the surviving new born’s that got past your first line of depopulation defenses.

        30

      • #
        b.nice

        “That is Anarchy”

        Yes, make too many dumb, irrational, idiotic “rules”… you get anarchy, justly deserved.

        41

      • #
        yarpos

        Ooooohhhh, govern me harder Petey!!!

        30

    • #
      Murray Shaw

      Re your road rules analogy, it seems to work in India Peter, the adult mammals seem to work out who has right of way.

      71

    • #
      Ronin

      Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise.

      30

  • #
    Rosco

    “something that millions of humans live with all over the world every summer?”

    Slight underestimation – I’d say multi billions – India, China, Africa, Middle East, Australia, SE Asia, USA, Brazil and even significant parts of Europe.

    What a joke but the gullibles will but it !

    After all they will soon need something to justify their electoral choice as Labor is now on course to impoverish us all and, heavens above, threaten blackouts reddering their iPhones inert !

    120

  • #
    David Maddison

    The high levels of compliance with putting most of the population under house arrest, as happened in most Western countries during the covid lockups, but particularly Australia, proved that the totalitarians can get away with this.

    100

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Heat-Scorched Odessa, Texas Has Been Without Water All Week Due To “Ageing Infrastructure”

    Amid scorching temperatures which have hovered above 100 degrees all week, one Texas city has had its water supply shut off for multiple days running. What started as a possibly 48-hour local crisis for Odessa, a West Texas town long known for oil production, has gained national media attention at a time of severe record-breaking heat waves in various parts of the US. The crisis is now pushing toward a full week of over 120,000 residents having no water supplying their homes and businesses, as Axios reports Saturday:

    An initial announcement addressing the water emergency by Mayor Javier Joven said the following:

    “Because of the critical nature of the loss in pressure, we were compelled to take the plant offline to begin the repairs that are ongoing,” he told a Tuesday press conference. “Crews have been on site since 6 p.m. Midland has been a big help. They have sent equipment and crews. We are in contact with the state and we have more water en route.”

    That’s when the city, fearing that leaks in the system may result in bacterial contamination, extended the boil-water notice through Friday. As of Saturday morning the city’s water hasn’t been restored.

    As residents are hopeful that the crisis finally resolves Saturday, it’s worth noting the irony in billions of taxpayer dollars currently being sent to places like Odessa, Ukraine – even as Americans in places like Odessa, Texas can’t even get drinkable water due to “ageing infrastructure”.

    From the Comments

    – This can surely be fixed with more immigration, diversity, inclusion and equality.
    – Probably Russia’s fault
    – It’s someone else’s fault. — Quotations from Resident Sundowner Joe Tzu’s Little [email protected] Book
    – Obviously we should also implement a mask mandate.

    With Finally

    – Maybe the road can identify as a water pipe – problem solved.

    140

  • #
    John

    The French government is worried because in 2003 thousands of elderly people died in Paris due to lack of care (and lack of air-conditioning) during a heatwave that saw hot air dragged up from northern Africa.

    – It was summer and, as usual, the families were on holidays, probably hundreds of kilometres away, and Paris almost shutdown.
    – The heatwave, like those before it and since, was due to hot air being dragged up from northern Africa (i.e. the Sahara Desert).
    – In 2003 there was also a drought, with rivers low and the ground very dry. (Some nuclear power stations had to get special permission to release cooling water back into rivers at higher than normal temperatures.) The dry ground, and grass, meant little moisture to evaporate, so little heat was used in evaporation, almost all of it heated the ground and caused higher temperatures.

    90

  • #
    Ronin

    How’s that fire going south of the ‘Gong’.

    30

    • #
      Sambar

      I wondered was it caused by trying to get just a bit more current through, you know, to prevent blackouts. Its impossible to force a wind turbine or solar panel to do anything but a transformer from a proper power station could be just “pushed” a whisker beyond its capabilities. There is a fair chance it had been constantly operating “over optimum” for a few days .

      50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Don’t worry France.

    Australia will soon shut down its remaining coal power stations and will stop eating tasty but climate destroying farm animals in favour of insects.

    That’ll stop the hot days!

    110

  • #
    Ronin

    You can just visit the supermarket to witness the drastic drop in human intelligence in the last 3 decades or so, e.g., ‘ Caution on a packet of peanuts, caution, contains nuts or a frozen pizza, warning, best served hot and ‘remove cardboard base before eating.’

    150

  • #
    Philip

    Wow. Another prediction I made come true. Im like Nostradamus here. But humans wouldn’t fall for such hysteria would they ?

    90

    • #
      Honk R Smith

      Everybody’s Nostradamus these days.
      How far down the absurd, Monty Python parody rabbit hole, will government and its’ prostitute media go?
      One’s park bench profit credentials are only limited by the one’s imagination … and experience with psychedelics.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vasQ9CG_O4

      I defy anyone to present a more accurate portrayal of the modern relationship between government, the governed, and ‘science’ than this.

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    People are far more likely to die of excessive cold than excessive heat.

    This is demonstrated by the large numbers of people who die from energy poverty due to the energy starvation policies related to the anthropogenic global warming fraud. Even the far Left Guardian newspaper admits to 9700 deaths from cold houses and 32000 excess deaths per year due to cold in Once Great Britain. Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/dying-cold-europe-fuel-poverty-energy-spending

    The focus on heat and not cold is related to conditioning us that alleged anthropogenic global warming is “dangerous” and that to fix it we must destroy our standard of living and freedoms even more. But let’s not worry about excessively cold houses that kill far more people due to the inability of poor people to heat them adequately.

    70

  • #
    Zane

    Meanwhile in Victoria the BoM got it completely wrong again: yesterday it was forecasting fine sunny weather, whereas the reality is a cold fog is covering the state this morning!

    80

    • #
      MP

      But the forecast yesterday was for today, they got the date right.

      40

      • #
        Zane

        The sun finally showed up at 11am. It obviously ignored the memo from the BoM. When you are the biggest hydrogen bomb in the solar system, you can thumb your nose at petty bureaucrats.

        30

        • #
          Annie

          Sun finally showed up here c. 1300. We were at church in Marysville where it was sunny. The fog finished between Buxton and Marysville but is often here until lunchtime or later.

          30

  • #
    Dennis

    October 1976 I was in the UK and there was a similar heatwave underway and 1996 I was there staying in London and there was another heatwave underway and a few days later the same in Amsterdam.

    It happens from time to time.

    50

    • #
      Annie

      It does. My parents were stifled by the heat in England in 1976. They visited Cyprus that summer to inspect their latest grandson and it was a cooler summer than usual there. There were only 5 really hot days there that summer and by great good fortune we were up in the Troodos Mountains for those very days.
      2003 and 2006 were hot summers in England. 1990 was very dry too. There’s nothing ‘unprecedented’ except for the amount of wilful stupid we are seeing.

      101

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    A French nanny … hmm.

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity.

    Thomas Sowell

    170

    • #
      Harves

      I read “Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” by Jared Diamond 15 years ago. It details how societies destroyed themselves despite abundant resources – including examples of societies that followed nonsensical cult-like philosophies be it in refusing to use readily available resources or spending resources paying homage to gods.
      Imagine an archaeologist in the year 2500 trying to work out why a thriving fossil-fuel based Western society suddenly died out despite centuries available supplies of fossil fuel. And trying to work out what people were thinking building windmills in the 21st century… 🤔

      10

  • #
  • #
    Ross

    I have not experienced it, but those European and British cities must be horrid in heatwave conditions. But again , like those damaging German floods recently ( was it just last winter?) all have precedence.

    50

  • #
    John in Oz

    Oz is currently experiencing a cold snap so, on average with France, all is normal.

    60

  • #
    Zane

    These are the kind of headlines that have the greenies jumping with joy. ” See, we told you! ” they shriek. ” We need CLIMATE ACTION NOW! “

    40

  • #
    b.nice

    “CLIMATE ACTION”

    Sorry, but what the **** is “climate action” ?

    No-one anywhere has done anything that will have any influence on the global climate.

    81

    • #
      bobby b

      “Sorry, but what the **** is “climate action” ?”

      Smudgepots. Burning tires. My car warming up outside until comfortable. Driving my RV.

      That’s MY kind of climate action. They assure me that doing these things will cause my local climate to warm up. I’m tired of snow and -25F, so I’ll try what they say. Fewer people will die from cold, crops will grow faster, and I can ditch the down jackets.

      50

  • #
    Zane

    Paris, France, in late June: it’s a heatwave! It’s too hot!

    Colombo, Sri Lanka, in March/April: you think you know what hot is? Hold my beer.

    60

  • #
    Annie

    We twice had holidays in the Chamonix area at this time of the year and it became very hot and humid. Surely most French people aren’t so wimpy they need Nanny to tell them what to do in the heat; they know perfectly well! These holidays were a few years ago, having travelled in our own car on one of the many car ferries to Dieppe or Calais. At the end of the second time, we stayed in the Jura; most of our journey there we had watched a massive storm approaching from the west. We had hardly unloaded our cases into our room when the storm hit, with massive hailstones battering our poor car. Repairing it was a 5 week job back in England and some of the dints are still visible in certain lights. Our windscreen survived but many hundreds did not.
    We imported that car on our return to Australia and that same windscreen has just been wrecked by a tiny piece of gravel kicked up by an overtaking car on a newly surfaced road near Buxton! My husband was travelling at only 80kph as he’d had a puncture and was using the emergency wheel…sigh! Now it’ll be a long trip to our insurer’s windscreen replacement people in Shepparton.
    That storm was the time we had to close our room window to stop the golf ball sized hailstones from bouncing into the room; well, except when we needed some of Mother Nature’s very kindly supplied ice for our Gin and Tonics!

    61

  • #
    John Connor II

    It’s a Big Government attempt to infantalize and gaslight the whole population. Will they obey?

    That’s rhetorical btw.
    The Covid “obedience training” will no doubt kick in and they will comply…

    As for temperature – I’ve spent 3 hours at -19C with 100km/h winds on a mountain climb in shorts & a tshirt (yes, that’s pretty much all I wear 😊) and 4 hours in full sun in wind free 40C temps but only 10% humidity, wielding an angle grinder.
    It’s not the temperature that gets me, it’s the humidity.
    The inability to regulate your temperature is the problem.

    70

  • #
    el+gordo

    Blocking high pressure, sometimes know as a warm dome, is impacting the US.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/18/weather/record-heat-midwest-southeast-weekend/index.html

    10

  • #
    Zane

    For some unconscious reason the tune to the song ” The Heat is On ” just popped into my mind. From the Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack. When I was younger this was played constantly on the radio. In those pre-Apple days, radio disk jocks owned your earholes when stuck in rush hour gridlock. Had to check online for the artist – Glenn Frey. It sure was a catchy beat. The b&w video clip for it is pretty darn toasty too! Give it a watch on U Tube!

    Ah the 80s! 😃

    10

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Back in 2006 my wife and I were running a quarantine fumigation course in a courtyard surrounded by a stone wall in Cheni in India. It got to 46C ambient but probably a bit hotter in the courtyard. I can’t say it was pleasant but with lots of water on hand we got through the day although some of the Indian government wallas fell by the wayside. Humans are adaptable.

    40

  • #
    tomo

    I wonder if Aussie plod is going to enforce this with the enthusiasm they showed for lockdowns?

    That’d be fun.

    30

  • #
    DD

    ‘Record heat’ in France.
    Record cold in Australia.
    Drought in California.
    Rain in Australia.
    Gee, it’s almost as if Earth’s climate is a closed system in which everything averages out. Who’d have guessed!

    50

  • #
    Grogery

    How do France expect to enforce this?

    If a citizen disobeys and roams the streets when the government has declared it “too hot”, surely the gendarmes will be playing cards in their aircon back at the station.

    20

  • #
    Brian Watson

    German Motorcycle Racing Enthusiasts obviously never got any message to stay indoors to beat the heat. All seats were sold for the outdoor event and 232,000 people attended the Saxon Ring Circuit 17/19 June 2022.
    Air Temp was 35C and Ground air up to 51C.

    00

  • #
    el+gordo

    Critical evidence supports the idea that an Omega Block caused the heatwave.

    https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/recordbreaking-june-heat-hits-europe/643020

    00

  • #
    CHRIS

    Remember that our glorious meteorological entities such as the WMO and our own BMO lie and cheat to keep the myth of AGW alive. The BMO shut down recording stations in the Alps this winter (eg: Charlotte Pass) so that they could fake temperature readings once any cold snaps were over. The BMO cannot be trusted for any proper meteorological data; it is run by indoctrinated AGW zealots.

    00

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>