This is funny, GW scientists talking crap.
-
Ultra agressive AGW alarmist Kevin Anderson, Tyndal Center Director, debating with Lawson.http://www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk/audio/kevin-anderson-debates-global-warming-nigel-lawson-jeremy-vines-show[^] Kevin Anderson makes a massive error here in saying the reason Lawson is wrong for saying global warming hasnt been happening in the last 12 years is because lawson is mistaking temperature for energy, a typical mistake for someone with a non scientific background. Well what a pillock. Energy and temperature are fundamentally linked and as energy increases temperature increases relative to the objects specific heat capacity. So you cannot have an increase in energy without an increase in temperature. Of course whats also odd is his use of energy in the first place. Is he trying to say GW is no longer Global Warming, its now Global Energy Increase? Its barely credible that someone who calls himself a scientist can make such a fundamental error of physics but thats the state of science these days. He then says the temperature rise lags after adding heat! :laugh: :laugh: Fuck me, this is ludicrous! You know that with thermodynamics one joule of energy is defined as the energy required to raise one gram of water by one degree! What a fool, and he is the director of the Tyndal Center and he doesnt even know basic physics! :laugh: :laugh:
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Ultra agressive AGW alarmist Kevin Anderson, Tyndal Center Director, debating with Lawson.http://www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk/audio/kevin-anderson-debates-global-warming-nigel-lawson-jeremy-vines-show[^] Kevin Anderson makes a massive error here in saying the reason Lawson is wrong for saying global warming hasnt been happening in the last 12 years is because lawson is mistaking temperature for energy, a typical mistake for someone with a non scientific background. Well what a pillock. Energy and temperature are fundamentally linked and as energy increases temperature increases relative to the objects specific heat capacity. So you cannot have an increase in energy without an increase in temperature. Of course whats also odd is his use of energy in the first place. Is he trying to say GW is no longer Global Warming, its now Global Energy Increase? Its barely credible that someone who calls himself a scientist can make such a fundamental error of physics but thats the state of science these days. He then says the temperature rise lags after adding heat! :laugh: :laugh: Fuck me, this is ludicrous! You know that with thermodynamics one joule of energy is defined as the energy required to raise one gram of water by one degree! What a fool, and he is the director of the Tyndal Center and he doesnt even know basic physics! :laugh: :laugh:
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
Since you're actually posting your trash in the right forum for once, I'll be nice and donate one (and only one) post to point out your fundamental error...
fat_boy wrote:
Energy and temperature are fundamentally linked and as energy increases temperature increases relative to the objects specific heat capacity. So you cannot have an increase in energy without an increase in temperature.
Right, because energy can't possibly be used to create anything but heat... I mean, then there would have to be other forms of energy[^]... That can't be right... I mean, obviously all of that atmospheric circulation is just heat, not kinetic energy, right?
fat_boy wrote:
Its barely credible that someone who calls himself a scientist can make such a fundamental error of physics but thats the state of science these days.
Says the guy who just made a fundamental error of physics... Good thing you don't call yourself a scientist.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ultra agressive AGW alarmist Kevin Anderson, Tyndal Center Director, debating with Lawson.http://www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk/audio/kevin-anderson-debates-global-warming-nigel-lawson-jeremy-vines-show[^] Kevin Anderson makes a massive error here in saying the reason Lawson is wrong for saying global warming hasnt been happening in the last 12 years is because lawson is mistaking temperature for energy, a typical mistake for someone with a non scientific background. Well what a pillock. Energy and temperature are fundamentally linked and as energy increases temperature increases relative to the objects specific heat capacity. So you cannot have an increase in energy without an increase in temperature. Of course whats also odd is his use of energy in the first place. Is he trying to say GW is no longer Global Warming, its now Global Energy Increase? Its barely credible that someone who calls himself a scientist can make such a fundamental error of physics but thats the state of science these days. He then says the temperature rise lags after adding heat! :laugh: :laugh: Fuck me, this is ludicrous! You know that with thermodynamics one joule of energy is defined as the energy required to raise one gram of water by one degree! What a fool, and he is the director of the Tyndal Center and he doesnt even know basic physics! :laugh: :laugh:
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
I am not going to view the video, as I shall have to take notes. Can't you post a transcript? Global Warming is measured as the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Is he merely stating that this does not accurately measure the increase in energy created by the 'greenhouse effect'? That scientists should be looking elsewhere for evidence of GW? If so, many are in agreement, e.g. John Christy: 1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity? No. The surface temperature, especially the nighttime minimum, is affected by numerous factors unrelated to the global atmospheric sensitivity to enhanced greenhouse forcing (I have several papers on this.) The ultimate metric is the number of joules of energy in the system (are they increasing? at what rate?). The ocean is the main source for this repository of energy. A second source, better than the surface, but not as good as the ocean, is the bulk atmospheric temperature (as Roy Spencer uses for climate sensitivity and feedback studies.) The bulk atmosphere represents a lot of mass, and so tells us more about the number of joules that are accumulating. Watts Up with That?[^]
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
I am not going to view the video, as I shall have to take notes. Can't you post a transcript? Global Warming is measured as the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Is he merely stating that this does not accurately measure the increase in energy created by the 'greenhouse effect'? That scientists should be looking elsewhere for evidence of GW? If so, many are in agreement, e.g. John Christy: 1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity? No. The surface temperature, especially the nighttime minimum, is affected by numerous factors unrelated to the global atmospheric sensitivity to enhanced greenhouse forcing (I have several papers on this.) The ultimate metric is the number of joules of energy in the system (are they increasing? at what rate?). The ocean is the main source for this repository of energy. A second source, better than the surface, but not as good as the ocean, is the bulk atmospheric temperature (as Roy Spencer uses for climate sensitivity and feedback studies.) The bulk atmosphere represents a lot of mass, and so tells us more about the number of joules that are accumulating. Watts Up with That?[^]
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
No, he is not stating this because the surface temperatures arent a good indicator, he is stating this because we havent seen any warming for the last 10 to 15 years. What he is trying to say is the extra heat in the system caused warming at the end of the 20th century, but now the extra heat isnt. Its doing somethign else, which he doesnt explain. This is fundamentally crap, because if you heat something, it gets warmer. (With a few exceptions that arent in evidence on earth because the atmosphere isnt turning froma solid to a gas for example)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Since you're actually posting your trash in the right forum for once, I'll be nice and donate one (and only one) post to point out your fundamental error...
fat_boy wrote:
Energy and temperature are fundamentally linked and as energy increases temperature increases relative to the objects specific heat capacity. So you cannot have an increase in energy without an increase in temperature.
Right, because energy can't possibly be used to create anything but heat... I mean, then there would have to be other forms of energy[^]... That can't be right... I mean, obviously all of that atmospheric circulation is just heat, not kinetic energy, right?
fat_boy wrote:
Its barely credible that someone who calls himself a scientist can make such a fundamental error of physics but thats the state of science these days.
Says the guy who just made a fundamental error of physics... Good thing you don't call yourself a scientist.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Sorry Ian, unless the atmosphere went from a liquid to a gas heating it will cause a temperature change. Really, this is pretty basic physics.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
No, he is not stating this because the surface temperatures arent a good indicator, he is stating this because we havent seen any warming for the last 10 to 15 years. What he is trying to say is the extra heat in the system caused warming at the end of the 20th century, but now the extra heat isnt. Its doing somethign else, which he doesnt explain. This is fundamentally crap, because if you heat something, it gets warmer. (With a few exceptions that arent in evidence on earth because the atmosphere isnt turning froma solid to a gas for example)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
This is fundamentally crap, because if you heat something, it gets warmer. (With a few exceptions that arent in evidence on earth because the atmosphere isnt turning froma solid to a gas for example)
The Earth isn't a pan of water that you put on the stove.
-
fat_boy wrote:
This is fundamentally crap, because if you heat something, it gets warmer. (With a few exceptions that arent in evidence on earth because the atmosphere isnt turning froma solid to a gas for example)
The Earth isn't a pan of water that you put on the stove.
And therefore it behaves like no other matter? Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C. GW theory: Solar energy at the visible wavelength heats the earth. This, being relatively cool, emots its heat in the IR. CO2 in the troposphere absorbs and reradiates this energy, in all directions, so part of it heads back to the surface and causes more warming. All of this, according to the theory, ,results ina temperature change, because the extra energy trapped by the CO2 heats the troposphere, which includes the surface air, and the surface itself. Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, then this extra energy has to cause an increase in temperature of the air or land in accordance with its specific heat capacity. So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system? Saying that although the temperature is not increasing, but energy is, then an awful lot of matter must be changing phase. And it isnt. Sea ice is in fact relatively constant when the arctic and antarctic are taken together, and the small loss from glaciers and greenland, which has been going on for centuries, and is not periodic, cannot account for the loss of energy from the air anf land in the last 15 years. Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
And therefore it behaves like no other matter? Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C. GW theory: Solar energy at the visible wavelength heats the earth. This, being relatively cool, emots its heat in the IR. CO2 in the troposphere absorbs and reradiates this energy, in all directions, so part of it heads back to the surface and causes more warming. All of this, according to the theory, ,results ina temperature change, because the extra energy trapped by the CO2 heats the troposphere, which includes the surface air, and the surface itself. Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, then this extra energy has to cause an increase in temperature of the air or land in accordance with its specific heat capacity. So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system? Saying that although the temperature is not increasing, but energy is, then an awful lot of matter must be changing phase. And it isnt. Sea ice is in fact relatively constant when the arctic and antarctic are taken together, and the small loss from glaciers and greenland, which has been going on for centuries, and is not periodic, cannot account for the loss of energy from the air anf land in the last 15 years. Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C.
You're thinking of the calorie.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C.
You're thinking of the calorie.
Yeah, quite correct, its a little over 4 joules. Its been a looonnngggg time since I studied this in detail. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Yeah, quite correct, its a little over 4 joules. Its been a looonnngggg time since I studied this in detail. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
Q = mcΔT. c = 4.18 J.g-1.K-1 = 1 cal.g-1.K-1.
-
Q = mcΔT. c = 4.18 J.g-1.K-1 = 1 cal.g-1.K-1.
Indeed.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
And therefore it behaves like no other matter? Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C. GW theory: Solar energy at the visible wavelength heats the earth. This, being relatively cool, emots its heat in the IR. CO2 in the troposphere absorbs and reradiates this energy, in all directions, so part of it heads back to the surface and causes more warming. All of this, according to the theory, ,results ina temperature change, because the extra energy trapped by the CO2 heats the troposphere, which includes the surface air, and the surface itself. Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, then this extra energy has to cause an increase in temperature of the air or land in accordance with its specific heat capacity. So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system? Saying that although the temperature is not increasing, but energy is, then an awful lot of matter must be changing phase. And it isnt. Sea ice is in fact relatively constant when the arctic and antarctic are taken together, and the small loss from glaciers and greenland, which has been going on for centuries, and is not periodic, cannot account for the loss of energy from the air anf land in the last 15 years. Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
And therefore it behaves like no other matter?
Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C.First I didn't say that. Second that statement doesn't refute what I said. Third it demonstrates nothing except that you missed the point. Adding energy to a pan of water, which is exactly what you described in your statement above, is NOT the same as adding energy to a complex system like the earth. If you think that they are then either you do not understand what heating a pan of water involves or you do not understand the dynamics and vast complexities of energy systems represented on the earth.
fat_boy wrote:
So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system?
Vastly over simplyfing physics doesn't provide a counter argument. Attempting to model the earth as a pan of water doesn't provide a counter argument either.
fat_boy wrote:
Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
There is nothing that uniformly impacts the entire earth. Not at one moment. And not over time.
-
And therefore it behaves like no other matter? Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C. GW theory: Solar energy at the visible wavelength heats the earth. This, being relatively cool, emots its heat in the IR. CO2 in the troposphere absorbs and reradiates this energy, in all directions, so part of it heads back to the surface and causes more warming. All of this, according to the theory, ,results ina temperature change, because the extra energy trapped by the CO2 heats the troposphere, which includes the surface air, and the surface itself. Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, then this extra energy has to cause an increase in temperature of the air or land in accordance with its specific heat capacity. So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system? Saying that although the temperature is not increasing, but energy is, then an awful lot of matter must be changing phase. And it isnt. Sea ice is in fact relatively constant when the arctic and antarctic are taken together, and the small loss from glaciers and greenland, which has been going on for centuries, and is not periodic, cannot account for the loss of energy from the air anf land in the last 15 years. Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas
Except of course for water, which exists in the atmosphere as a liquid (clouds) and as a gas. Which by coincidence is also the strongest greenhouse gas in absolute values. But then again, clouds are also having a greenhouse effect...
-
fat_boy wrote:
And therefore it behaves like no other matter?
Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C.First I didn't say that. Second that statement doesn't refute what I said. Third it demonstrates nothing except that you missed the point. Adding energy to a pan of water, which is exactly what you described in your statement above, is NOT the same as adding energy to a complex system like the earth. If you think that they are then either you do not understand what heating a pan of water involves or you do not understand the dynamics and vast complexities of energy systems represented on the earth.
fat_boy wrote:
So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system?
Vastly over simplyfing physics doesn't provide a counter argument. Attempting to model the earth as a pan of water doesn't provide a counter argument either.
fat_boy wrote:
Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
There is nothing that uniformly impacts the entire earth. Not at one moment. And not over time.
jschell wrote:
First I didn't say that.
Elaborate on what you said then.
jschell wrote:
Second that statement doesn't refute what I said.
If you havent explained yourself then this is likely.
jschell wrote:
Third it demonstrates nothing except that you missed the point
If a point isnt clearly made then this is likely.
jschell wrote:
Adding energy to a pan of water, which is exactly what you described in your statement above, is NOT the same as adding energy to a complex system like the earth.
And it can equally be said that adding CO2 to a container of air in a lab is not the same as adding CO2 to a complex system like the earth. :)
jschell wrote:
Vastly over simplyfing physics doesn't provide a counter argument.
Its not a sumplificaiton, its fact. You add heat to matter and its temperature increases (unless its undergoing a phase change).
jschell wrote:
There is nothing that uniformly impacts the entire earth. Not at one moment. And not over time.
You have missed the point, misunderstood and not refuted. :) In fact CO2 distribution is fairly even over the entire earth and has increased steadilly over time. So in fact if it has caused warming for 30 years it cant stop causingn warming for 15. Unless it wasnt CO2 that caused the warmihng. Which is the point I am making. As I am sure you understand. If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to explin HOW CO2 can switch on and off in this way?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas
Except of course for water, which exists in the atmosphere as a liquid (clouds) and as a gas. Which by coincidence is also the strongest greenhouse gas in absolute values. But then again, clouds are also having a greenhouse effect...
Yes, adding water into the problem makes it impossibly compex because it does undergo phase changes as thus has a massive effect on the energy in the system. Its ability to take heat fomr the surface through evaporation, transfer that heat high up in the atmosphere as clouds and release that heat from the system as rain is powefull. Not only that coulds change earths albedo and thus the energy received at the surface hugely. Its for this reason, that GCMs dont model water at all well, that they are so inaccurate.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Yes, adding water into the problem makes it impossibly compex because it does undergo phase changes as thus has a massive effect on the energy in the system. Its ability to take heat fomr the surface through evaporation, transfer that heat high up in the atmosphere as clouds and release that heat from the system as rain is powefull. Not only that coulds change earths albedo and thus the energy received at the surface hugely. Its for this reason, that GCMs dont model water at all well, that they are so inaccurate.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Its for this reason, that GCMs dont model water at all well, that they are so inaccurate.
And to make it worse: If you combine two greenhouse gases, the end result is not linear. Same with the clouds, the effect depends on the size of the droplets, the thickness and concentration of the clouds, and then there is a third state to consider. Snow.
-
jschell wrote:
First I didn't say that.
Elaborate on what you said then.
jschell wrote:
Second that statement doesn't refute what I said.
If you havent explained yourself then this is likely.
jschell wrote:
Third it demonstrates nothing except that you missed the point
If a point isnt clearly made then this is likely.
jschell wrote:
Adding energy to a pan of water, which is exactly what you described in your statement above, is NOT the same as adding energy to a complex system like the earth.
And it can equally be said that adding CO2 to a container of air in a lab is not the same as adding CO2 to a complex system like the earth. :)
jschell wrote:
Vastly over simplyfing physics doesn't provide a counter argument.
Its not a sumplificaiton, its fact. You add heat to matter and its temperature increases (unless its undergoing a phase change).
jschell wrote:
There is nothing that uniformly impacts the entire earth. Not at one moment. And not over time.
You have missed the point, misunderstood and not refuted. :) In fact CO2 distribution is fairly even over the entire earth and has increased steadilly over time. So in fact if it has caused warming for 30 years it cant stop causingn warming for 15. Unless it wasnt CO2 that caused the warmihng. Which is the point I am making. As I am sure you understand. If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to explin HOW CO2 can switch on and off in this way?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Elaborate on what you said then.
Read my first response. Read what I quoted. Read the words that I wrote in response to what I quoted.
fat_boy wrote:
You have missed the point, misunderstood and not refuted
No you did. In my first response I quoted exactly what I was responding to. And I have repeated it several times....the earth is not the same as a pan of water.
fat_boy wrote:
If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to explin HOW CO2 can switch on and off in this way?
What I disagree with is your comparison of the earth to a pan of water.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Its for this reason, that GCMs dont model water at all well, that they are so inaccurate.
And to make it worse: If you combine two greenhouse gases, the end result is not linear. Same with the clouds, the effect depends on the size of the droplets, the thickness and concentration of the clouds, and then there is a third state to consider. Snow.
Yep, and clouds at different altitudes affect cooling in different ways. Its a complex thing, and thats why the models are little more than amusements. What is fairly clear is that positive fedbacks are not in evidence (otherwise with the CO2 we have already added we would have had more than a 0.6 degrees C rise, which is what the IPCC (via CRU) say we have had). Thus the most we will get from doubling CO2 from preindustrial times is around 1 degree C.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
Elaborate on what you said then.
Read my first response. Read what I quoted. Read the words that I wrote in response to what I quoted.
fat_boy wrote:
You have missed the point, misunderstood and not refuted
No you did. In my first response I quoted exactly what I was responding to. And I have repeated it several times....the earth is not the same as a pan of water.
fat_boy wrote:
If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to explin HOW CO2 can switch on and off in this way?
What I disagree with is your comparison of the earth to a pan of water.
I didnt mention water, you did, thus saying the earth isnt a pan of water and accusing me of saying it was is stupid. I said it doesnt matter how much matter you have, if you add heat, you get a temperature rise, be it one gram or 20,000 tonnes. And in fact the oceans are really imprtant, since they can store far more heat than the air, and arent UHI affected. They are thus a very good measure of how much extra heat is in the system. So your statement, the earth is not a pan of water, is acctually wrong. It doesnt matter whether you have one gram of water, of an entire oceans worth. IF YOU ADD HEAT YOU GET A TEMPERATURWE RISE: ONCE CALORIE WILL RAISE ONE GRAM OF WATER 1 DEGREE C. Its very very basic physics. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I didnt mention water, you did, thus saying the earth isnt a pan of water and accusing me of saying it was is stupid. I said it doesnt matter how much matter you have, if you add heat, you get a temperature rise, be it one gram or 20,000 tonnes. And in fact the oceans are really imprtant, since they can store far more heat than the air, and arent UHI affected. They are thus a very good measure of how much extra heat is in the system. So your statement, the earth is not a pan of water, is acctually wrong. It doesnt matter whether you have one gram of water, of an entire oceans worth. IF YOU ADD HEAT YOU GET A TEMPERATURWE RISE: ONCE CALORIE WILL RAISE ONE GRAM OF WATER 1 DEGREE C. Its very very basic physics. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
I didnt mention water, you did, thus saying the earth isnt a pan of water and accusing me of saying it was is stupid. I said it doesnt matter how much matter you have, if you add heat, you get a temperature rise, be it one gram or 20,000 tonnes.
You said "...from a solid to a gas". And that is what I quoted. That is a simplistic model that applies to simple compounds such as water. It does not apply to more complex systems. Complex systems exhibit a variety of behaviors when heated. The earth is a hideously complex system - it is not a simple compound.
fat_boy wrote:
So your statement, the earth is not a pan of water, is acctually wrong. It doesnt matter whether you have one gram of water, of an entire oceans worth. IF YOU ADD HEAT YOU GET A TEMPERATURWE RISE: ONCE CALORIE WILL RAISE ONE GRAM OF WATER 1 DEGREE C.
If you take an ocean, the entire thing (just the water) and put that in a pan and apply heat, in a reasonable way to approximate heating a pan, then you get what you describe. But the that does not model the earth.
fat_boy wrote:
Its very very basic physics.
It is a very basic fallacy and nothing more.