This is funny, GW scientists talking crap.
-
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.
-
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.
You know I actually emailed Kevin Anderson, the guy who said this, and he actually admitted what he said was incorrect. So really, everythig you have said is redundant. :) Anyway, regardless of the complexity of a system, adding heat will generate a temperature rise. And dont forget this is the very heart of AGW theory. Additionally, how can you have this happen for 25 years, and then it NOT happen for 10? How does the mechanism switch itself on and off like this? Well, negative feedbacks are one way. The heat is transported OUT of the atmosphee into space byt some process. Or, it wasnt CO2 doing the warming back then, it was some other factor, lilke earth albedo (check out the earthshine project).
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
-
You know I actually emailed Kevin Anderson, the guy who said this, and he actually admitted what he said was incorrect. So really, everythig you have said is redundant. :) Anyway, regardless of the complexity of a system, adding heat will generate a temperature rise. And dont forget this is the very heart of AGW theory. Additionally, how can you have this happen for 25 years, and then it NOT happen for 10? How does the mechanism switch itself on and off like this? Well, negative feedbacks are one way. The heat is transported OUT of the atmosphee into space byt some process. Or, it wasnt CO2 doing the warming back then, it was some other factor, lilke earth albedo (check out the earthshine project).
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:
Anyway, regardless of the complexity of a system, adding heat will generate a temperature rise.
The earth is not a simple system nor is it an ideal (energy) system either. And no matter how many times you repeating your simplistic statement it will never change that.
fat_boy wrote:
And dont forget this is the very heart of AGW theory.
I don't need to "forget" anything because I wasn't commenting on that at all. I was commenting on exactly what I quoted.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Anyway, regardless of the complexity of a system, adding heat will generate a temperature rise.
The earth is not a simple system nor is it an ideal (energy) system either. And no matter how many times you repeating your simplistic statement it will never change that.
fat_boy wrote:
And dont forget this is the very heart of AGW theory.
I don't need to "forget" anything because I wasn't commenting on that at all. I was commenting on exactly what I quoted.
No matter how often you talk of complexity, if you add heat to matter, its tempoerature goes up, unless its undergoing a phase change, in which case its even more aparent. Its fundamental 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 matter how often you talk of complexity, if you add heat to matter, its tempoerature goes up, unless its undergoing a phase change, in which case its even more aparent. Its fundamental 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:
No matter how often you talk of complexity, if you add heat to matter, its tempoerature goes up, unless its undergoing a phase change, in which case its even more aparent. Its fundamental physics.
No matter how many times you repeat that it still is wrong.
-
fat_boy wrote:
No matter how often you talk of complexity, if you add heat to matter, its tempoerature goes up, unless its undergoing a phase change, in which case its even more aparent. Its fundamental physics.
No matter how many times you repeat that it still is wrong.
No its not wrong. You cant state that 45 billion grams of water behaves differently to one gram. The sasme for air. Unles you have evapopration and condensation, ie phase changes from water vapour in the atmosphere which is transporting the heat OUT of the system the system WILL get warmer. And if the former is the case then thats a hell of a negative feedback.
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 its not wrong. You cant state that 45 billion grams of water behaves differently to one gram. The sasme for air. Unles you have evapopration and condensation, ie phase changes from water vapour in the atmosphere which is transporting the heat OUT of the system the system WILL get warmer. And if the former is the case then thats a hell of a negative feedback.
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:
No its not wrong. You cant state that 45 billion grams of water behaves differently to one gram. The sasme for air.
I didn't "state" either of those. In any way. But for clarification I will now.... There is a difference, which if you have done lab work you would understand, in that any process that different volumes due can cause problems and lead to different results. Thus if you use a candle to heat one gram of water and use the same candle to heat 45 billion grams then there is in fact a DIFFERENCE, because the volume of the source of heat is different in comparsion between the two. And there are many examples of that when people have tried to scale up processes that work in the lab into practical, and larger, operations. If it worked the way you are claiming then it would be simple to scale any laboratory process in to practical production. There would never be any question that it would succeed. That however is NOT how the real world works.
fat_boy wrote:
Unles you have evapopration and condensation, ie phase changes from water vapour in the atmosphere which is transporting the heat OUT of the system the system WILL get warmer.
Restating your simplistic example still doesn't make it right. In a complex system like the earth heat absorption is NOT a simple process. You are talking about water. The earth is not water in a beaker over a bunsen burner.
-
fat_boy wrote:
No its not wrong. You cant state that 45 billion grams of water behaves differently to one gram. The sasme for air.
I didn't "state" either of those. In any way. But for clarification I will now.... There is a difference, which if you have done lab work you would understand, in that any process that different volumes due can cause problems and lead to different results. Thus if you use a candle to heat one gram of water and use the same candle to heat 45 billion grams then there is in fact a DIFFERENCE, because the volume of the source of heat is different in comparsion between the two. And there are many examples of that when people have tried to scale up processes that work in the lab into practical, and larger, operations. If it worked the way you are claiming then it would be simple to scale any laboratory process in to practical production. There would never be any question that it would succeed. That however is NOT how the real world works.
fat_boy wrote:
Unles you have evapopration and condensation, ie phase changes from water vapour in the atmosphere which is transporting the heat OUT of the system the system WILL get warmer.
Restating your simplistic example still doesn't make it right. In a complex system like the earth heat absorption is NOT a simple process. You are talking about water. The earth is not water in a beaker over a bunsen burner.
OK, I know you are playing a middle position, and that, form your experience, in the lab, that some processes dont scale up and that you were merely pointing out that the earth isnt a cup of water. Good, we al know that, but the fact is that Andersons statement was wrong, and he admitted that in an email discussion with me last week. :) Fact: You cant add heat to the earths climate system with it having an effect.
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
-
OK, I know you are playing a middle position, and that, form your experience, in the lab, that some processes dont scale up and that you were merely pointing out that the earth isnt a cup of water. Good, we al know that, but the fact is that Andersons statement was wrong, and he admitted that in an email discussion with me last week. :) Fact: You cant add heat to the earths climate system with it having an effect.
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:
OK, I know you are playing a middle position, and that, form your experience, in the lab, that some processes dont scale up and that you were merely pointing out that the earth isnt a cup of water.
Good, we al know that, but the fact is that Andersons statement was wrong, and he admitted that in an email discussion with me last week.None of that has anything to do with what I said. My first reply quoted exactly what I was responding to.
fat_boy wrote:
Fact: You cant add heat to the earths climate system with it having an effect.
That is simplistic as well. For starters I can in fact add 'something' to many systems without it having a measurable impact. And for other systems where it is measurable it might not be significant.