• Home
  • Current News
  • Newly-released Letters Expose Aussie Govt Minister in Climate Fraud

Newly-released Letters Expose Aussie Govt Minister in Climate Fraud

Written by PSI Staff

Open letter challenges minister to come clean and admit global warming alarmism based on fear, not science. Freedom of Information (FoI) results on Australian government climate science (2005-2013) proves no one in Howard or Rudd-Gillard governments received any factual scientific evidence on man-made global warming.

 GREG HUNTIndependent climate researcher, Malcolm Roberts, issues another in a series of open challenges to Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, proving Hunt has no empirical scientific evidence for cutting human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Open letter published in full (some contact details redacted) below:

Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts.

Haven Road,

Pullenvale QLD  4069

Wednesday, March 19th, 2014

Gregory-Andrew: Hunt.

Minister for the Environment

PO Box 6022


House of Representatives

Parliament House


Canberra ACT 2600

Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au

Dear Greg:

Sent by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation and electronically

Re: Your letter dated October 31, 2013. Your reference: MC13-001921

 

Without prejudice

Thank you for your letter dated October 31, 2013. Congratulations on your appointment as Minister. By now you will have settled into your new responsibilities.

The ultimate arbiter of science and the basis for policy on scientific issues is empirical scientific evidence. This letter explains how I know factually that you have no empirical scientific evidence of global warming (aka climate change) by carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activity. Yet you continue to falsely imply, though carefully not state, that you have such evidence. In public statements you contradict empirical scientific evidence and misrepresent climate and climate science.

Your behaviour explained below deepens my concerns. I offer a constructive solution to build a successful future for you, our country and our precious natural environment.

You say that the government and presumably you take your, quote: “primary advice on climate science from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO”. You further imply that you rely on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

CSIRO, BOM proven to have no empirical scientific evidence of CO2 as cause

It is beyond doubt through documented evidence that both CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) have no empirical scientific evidence of human CO2 as causation of global warming that ended in 1995 / 1998. Yet again, I refer you to:

  1. CSIRO and BOM responses to my requests under Freedom of Information provisions: they reveal that no senior member of government since 2004 has received any report providing empirical scientific evidence of human causation from BOM and no report at all from CSIRO’s Chief Executive. This is fact and is publicly documented on my web site http://www.conscious.com.au specifically: http://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html Please provide me with copies of reports or advice from CSIRO and BOM on which you rely and that contain specific empirical scientific evidence showing human CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming from 1976 to 1998. If you fail to do so your position is not tenable and you are misleading me, your party, the Prime Minister, our federal parliament and the Australian people;
  2. Correspondence from CSIRO’s Chief Executive Dr. Megan Clark, CSIRO Group Executive‑Environment Dr. Andrew Johnson and BOM Director Dr. Rob Vertessy has been received in response to my requests for empirical scientific evidence of causation. All repeatedly failed to provide such evidence. Instead, all misleadingly imply or state false and/or diversionary claims. These are documented in Appendices 6, 6a and 7 to my report on CSIRO’s flagship report on climate change. Please note examples in Appendix 7 showing BOM manipulated data to fabricate warming from data revealing cooling trends. That report and appendices are at: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html
  3. Detailed analysis of many CSIRO and BOM reports by me and other independent researchers including internationally eminent climate scientists reveal those reports do not contain empirical scientific evidence for their claim of human CO2 causing warming yet misleadingly imply such evidence. This is documented in Appendix 6: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html;
  4. No organisation anywhere in the world has ever presented empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning showing that human CO2 caused or will cause global warming. Others and I have checked every major scientific body in Australia and in prominent western democracies. All organisations have no such evidence. If they had they would have presented it. They fail to present any;
  5. Empirical scientific evidence has been presented to you personally in the logical structure necessary to disprove human causation. That climate data proves beyond doubt that carbon dioxide does not drive climate and that levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere are a result of natural temperature variation. Human CO2 production has no material effect and cannot have any effect on temperature or global climate. See enclosed one-page summary (http://bit.ly/1btyTGE) linked to documents presenting empirical scientific evidence gathered worldwide. It includes data on CO2 levels cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC. By claiming human CO2 has an effect you ignore or overrule Henry’s Law;
  6. Apparent conflicts of interest by the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr. Megan Clark who previously was on the board of Rothschilds Australia bank and who currently sits on the Advisory Board of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Both organisations seek to grab trillions of dollars trading paper CO2 ‘credits’.

You have previously been advised of these facts. By doing nothing you condone corruption of climate science funded by taxpayers. By continuing to knowingly misrepresent climate and science you continue to knowingly endorse that corruption.

Greg, data on levels of CO2 cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC confirm that Nature alone controls the level of CO2 in air. Empirical scientific evidence proves that the level of CO2 seasonally and over the longer term is determined by temperature. The UN IPCC, CSIRO, BOM and you claim the reverse. Thinking that CO2 controls temperature is like thinking that the rooster crowing at sunrise controls the sun. Please see Appendix 4, here: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

 

In your email reply to Bob Beattie, dated January 12th, 2014 you stated quote: “We take our primary advice from the Bureau of Meteorology.” Yet BOM has no empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 caused warming.

Are you aware that BOM and others have fabricated cooling trends into warming trends? Please see examples in Appendix 7: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html. Will you hold an independent investigation and take action to correct and then prevent recurrence of temperature fraud? Will you help restore scientific integrity?

You endorse the UN IPCC yet its proven worldwide to be corrupt

Your letter of October 31st cites the UN IPCC’s 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in a way that misrepresents it as scientific and implies that you rely on it. You requested and were given paper and electronic copies of documentation confirming the UN IPCC as unscientific and pursuing a political agenda. It confirms the UN IPCC has no empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning for its unfounded core claim that human CO2 caused global warming.

The UN IPCC has corrupted climate science and peer-review. This is documented in Appendix 2 to my report on CSIRO sent to you at your Canberra office and your Victorian electorate office by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation in February 2013. It’s here: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html. A one-page summary accompanies and is available here: http://bit.ly/1eOOMXf. Each of the UN IPCC’s five main reports to national governments and media is based on a lie. The UN IPCC behaves fraudulently. You have extensive documented evidence of that fact.

Appendix 2 has been updated in Section 15 to include detailed review (pages 29 & 30-34) of AR5 on which you so heavily rely. AR5 contradicts empirical scientific evidence, reveals traits of propaganda and displays blatant dishonesty.

The specific most recent UN IPCC report to which your letter refers contains no empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 causes global warming or climate change. Please note that my reading of AR5 includes the sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human CO2, Chapter 10 and the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Both reveal no empirical scientific evidence of causation by human CO2. Both contradict empirical scientific evidence.

There was no unusual warming and there is no ongoing warming

That UN IPCC report tried to misleadingly hide the fact that contrary to earlier UN projections upon which you rely, ground-based temperatures have not risen since its second report in 1995. For 70% of the UN IPCC’s existence temperatures have not risen.

Further, since the start of global atmospheric temperature measurements in 1958 atmospheric temperature cooled from 1958 to 1976, rose in 1976 as a result of the entirely natural Great Pacific Climate Shift and thereafter rose very modestly until 1995 / 1998. Since 1998 every year has been cooler than in 1998. The UN IPCC’s claimed greenhouse mechanism is a supposedly atmospheric effect purported to be warming Earth’s surface. Yet in the 57 years of atmospheric temperature measurements, temperatures have shown no warming or been cooling for 34 years. That’s 60% with no warming. The current trend is 16 years of ongoing lack of warming despite ever-rising human CO2 output due largely to China and India. There is no warming.

Fundamentals of the UN’s claimed greenhouse mechanism are investigated here: http://bit.ly/1dO4H4g. It presents empirical scientific evidence, scientific laws and observations in Nature. Can you refute these with empirical scientific evidence?

Would you like to meet with research scientist and UN Expert Science Reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray who has had more than 60 years real-world experience in science including more than 20 years in climate? He has reviewed all five UN IPCC reports: 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2013 and is famous internationally for providing by far the most thorough, detailed and comprehensive review comments on the UN’s 2007 report. He publicly states that there’s no evidence of human CO2 causing warming anywhere in any of the UN IPCC’s five reports.

Would you like to discuss the UN’s reports with Canadian climatologist Professor Tim Ball who has expert detailed knowledge of climate, weather, the natural environment and the UN’s climate deceit? Both men are retired and independent.

Your position is untenable

Unless you can specify clearly the location of specific empirical scientific evidence and explain to me with structured scientific logic that evidence’s significance in causal mechanisms proving human CO2 catastrophically warms our planet your claim remains unfounded and false.

Your position on human causation of cyclical global warming is untenable.

Yet you continue to frighten and mislead Australians with your unfounded, false and distressing public claims that human CO2 is responsible for changes in sea level, ocean alkalinity, extreme weather, glaciation, ice sheets and sea ice, and ocean heat content. Empirical scientific evidence contradicts your claim and reveals all are varying naturally in accordance with inherent natural variation. There are no changes or trends occurring. For example, Dr. Judith Curry as Professor and Chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences in testimony to the USA Senate Committee, January 2014 said, quote: “Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies.” Appendix 7 confirms the 1930’s as warmer than today: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

Oceans are alkaline not acidic. In Earth’s past life thrived in oceans and on land when atmospheric CO2 levels were five times current levels and far above the UN IPCC’s (unfounded) worst case projections. In Earth’s past, CO2 levels have been up to 135 times current levels and fluctuated naturally far more than in minor variations during the last million years. Yet life in the oceans, air and on land blossomed. The work of German researcher Ernst Georg Beck reveals 90,000 reliable measurements of CO2 during the last 180 years with some 40% above current levels. Those data include measurements by Nobel Prize winning scientists. Your claims are false. Please provide the specific empirical scientific evidence on which you base your claims and please explain why you continue to rely on a demonstrably corrupt organisation pushing a political agenda. Please refer to my CSIROh! report’s Appendices 4 & 4a presenting empirical scientific evidence: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

You misled the Deputy Prime Minister in writing

I have lawfully and by fair means obtained a copy of a letter dated December 3rd, 2013 from you to the Hon Warren Truss, Deputy Prime Minister and parliamentary leader of the National Party and subsequently sent by Mr. Truss to one of his constituents.

In that letter you imply and misrepresent to the Deputy PM that CSIRO, BOM and the UN IPCC provide scientific advice and evidence of human CO2 causing global warming. You falsely claim other organisations have done so. Your implied claims are false.

Further, you implicitly misrepresent facts about Nature, carbon dioxide and climate. You use emotive icons such as the Great Barrier Reef yet contradict empirical scientific evidence. You signed that letter and in doing so misled the Deputy Prime Minister. You placed our Deputy PM in a position of misleading his constituents.

None of the organisations you misrepresented to Warren Truss has any empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning showing human CO2 caused global warming. The additional bodies you misrepresented are discussed in Appendix 8, here: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html. Please note particularly the report by the Australian Academy of Science and the involvement of taxpayer funded academics whose behaviour and roles are revealed in Appendix 9 available here: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html. All misrepresent climate, science and Nature. All were funded by the previous ALP-Greens government seeking political advantage. All those academics named have no empirical scientific evidence for their core claim that human CO2 caused global warming. All contradict empirical scientific evidence.

This letter is being copied to Warren Truss for his attention and action.

Were you complicit in misleading Prime Minister John Howard?

Recently former Prime Minister John Howard reportedly conceded publicly that there was no scientific basis for his politically derived position on climate during his prime ministership. He implied it was based on politics and risk management.

During his prime ministership you were outspoken on the matter of human CO2 causing global warming. It seems likely that, together with Malcolm Turnbull your predecessor as (Liberal) Environment Minister, you were responsible for the Liberals’ unscientific and dishonest position in being the first party to introduce a CO2 cap-and-ration-‘trading’ policy in response to perceived electoral advantage fabricated from Kevin Rudd’s climate lies during the 2007 election campaign.

You are hurting the natural environment and humanity

If so, and it seems likely, your actions have cost Australian taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted money and have cost thousands of Australians their livelihood and led to huge and unjustifiable rises in energy costs through the Renewable Energy Target (RET).

The enclosed two-page summary reveals some of the massive costs and consequences of your misrepresentations. It’s available here: http://bit.ly/1g9X10o

Your unscientific contradiction of empirical scientific evidence hurts the environment and humanity. Are you oblivious to or uncaring about the impact on Australians and especially the poor? The economic measures you advocate are a regressive impost most severely hurting the poor and disadvantaged. Do you not care?

Dr. Judith Curry again, in her USA Senate committee testimony, quote: “Claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.

You and your department fail to justify your policy

Nor am I the only person to whom your responses have failed to answer fundamental questions. The meticulous work of independent researcher Graham Williamson has probed your position with detailed questions. Your department’s answers highlight your department’s chronic lack of understanding of science and policy. They are an embarrassing insult to policy formulation and to Australians. His email of Friday, February 21, 2014 is merely one of many examples. It’s available here:

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/Mc14004671SECUNCLASSIFIED(Graham).pdf

Did Public Servant advisers and agencies mislead you?

Perhaps your department misled you? I refer you to correspondence signed by Allan Behm, Chief of Staff for Minister Greg Combet in his letter to me on behalf of Minister Greg Combet dated March 13th, 2013. Mr. Behm’s comments, like yours, ignore massive corruption of climate science and contradict empirical scientific evidence. Our exchange of letters is available here: http://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html. Please note that he failed to respond to my comprehensive reply.

Perhaps Greg Combet and his department saw no alternative after Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the Greens locked the ALP tightly into perpetuating Kevin Rudd’s fraud?

Do you condone publicity by people in your department misrepresenting the colourless invisible gas carbon dioxide (CO2) as ‘carbon’ a black solid and then further corrupting it by calling it ‘carbon pollution’? A concerned volunteer is independently holding your department officers accountable as revealed here: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/holding_them_accountable.php Will you withdraw your department’s false labels and depictions and prevent recurrence?

Please advise whether or not you consider CO2 to be pollution and if so your reasons for classifying it as such. Please refer to this publication’s first four pages: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf

Were you misled by your department, CSIRO, BOM and the UN IPCC?

Your documented extensive support implementing UN Agenda 21 and your denial of detailed knowledge of UN Agenda 21

More worryingly for Australia’s sovereignty, governance and parliamentary democracy, your false claims raise questions as to your sincerity and allegiance. Your position on climate was established and stated in my previous correspondence as unfounded and contradicting science. Your repeated failure to present empirical scientific evidence and especially your repeated failure to specify any errors in my work when combined with your continued pushing of unscientific policy reveals more worrying concerns.

It seems that you prefer to align with and support the beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm in its role as part of the UN’s Agenda 21 for the twenty-first century as documented here: http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/letters/GregHuntAG21Rev.pdf

That is placed in context by Appendix 14, here: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html and by Graham Williamson’s meticulous work here: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/australia_democracy.php Unfounded climate alarm is one of three legs of UN Agenda 21, associated with the Rio Declaration.

Referring to my previous letters, your personal involvement in implementing UN Agenda 21 yet your denial of detailed knowledge of such provisions raises questions as to your motive in failing to discuss empirical scientific evidence. This concern is deepened by your letter’s failure again to address my simple, straightforward question about your documented involvement in implementing UN Agenda 21 in Australia.

Why do you repeatedly choose to fail to reply to my previous letter’s simple question?

Has your electorate or any group or person in your electorate benefitted from funding directed by the UN’s ICLEI agency with its Oceania headquarters in your state’s capital, Melbourne?

Are you aware that at its latest state conference the Queensland Liberal National Party passed, with no opposition, the following motion: “That, the Queensland LNP opposes laws and/or regulations being made by Local, State, and Federal governments that enact the policy objectives of United Nations Agenda 21.

Your behaviour and stated or implied claims undermine and destroy science and objectivity. They hurt the voiceless and support taxpayer-funded rent-seekers.

Some in politics seem to be saying the issue is political and warrants ignoring science to instead play politics. Is that your way? It’s not the way of honest Australian politicians.

You fail to find error in the evidence you requested and were given

On Wednesday, April 27th, 2011 I demonstrated to you in your electorate office the impossibility of your core claim that human CO2 was a cause of global warming (aka climate change). At our meeting you said my presentation was one of the best you’d ever received.

During our meeting it became clear to me that prior to our meeting you were ignorant of the depth of corruption on which you had built your position. It became clear to me that you did not understand the science and that you did not have a scientific basis for your belief that human CO2 caused global warming (aka climate change).

Upon your request I provided you with extensive documentation of corruption of the climate ‘science’ upon which you claim to rely. That file handed to you by Gordon Alderson during our meeting was four centimetres thick. Two days later you were sent the same material electronically to make it easy for you and your staff to check.

Three months later in July I asked you by email to identify any errors in that material. Your reply avoided my straightforward fundamental question. I asked again. Again your reply failed to answer my simple question. I asked again. Again your reply failed to answer my question. In turn you replied that everyone is entitled to their opinion / belief.

You have since been repeatedly given personal notification of further facts in writing by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation and / or by Facsimile with Delivery Receipt. Your responses to my requests repeatedly failed to specify any error in the empirical scientific evidence I present rebutting your false claim of human causation.

With due respect Greg, all members of parliament and particularly Ministers have a responsibility to ensure statements and policies are based solidly on observed science and do not contradict empirical scientific evidence. You have failed to do your due diligence and failed to fulfil your parliamentary responsibility.

Ironically, my first contact with you was via my series of emails sent to all federal parliamentarians starting on May 18th, 2009. That provided facts and emphasised your need to conduct your due diligence. Our communication has come full circle.

I can understand and empathise that some politicians stake careers on a position they perceive as popular and / or emotive and that subsequent admission of error can be perceived as politically embarrassing. Yet your continuing implicit endorsement of corrupt climate science, deception of the Australian people and undermining of Australia’s sovereignty and governance is not sufficient grounds for avoiding or contradicting proven documented facts.

I have added compassion for the position in which you’ve placed yourself. Understandably it may be difficult for you as a politician who previously worked for two years as Director of Strategy at the World Economic Forum in Geneva and then built a political position on what is now proving to be pseudo-environment issue.

Your stated and implied claims on climate conflict with our community’s universal human needs for integrity, accuracy and accountability. You’ve repeatedly stated to others and to me that your position is based on your belief. By your admission your position is not data-driven and scientific. It is faith-based and religious.

Your public comments and your responses to me on climate do not meet community needs for understanding and truth. They undermine the scientific method that is a foundation of modern civilisation’s objectivity and freedom. Your misrepresentations fail to meet community needs for respect and care for humanity and our precious natural environment.

Your claims are aiding and abetting corruption of climate science and fraud*.

Your misleading statements on climate support Agenda 21 to undermine national sovereignty and governance.

From your actions I conclude that you either do not care about our natural environment, humanity, science, scientific integrity, Australia’s economy, Australia’s governance and Australia’s sovereignty. Or perhaps you simply place them behind your political career and the UN’s corrupt Agenda 21.

I cannot know with certainty your intent in repeatedly stating you have evidence when you knowingly do not. Yet in the context of our discussions and correspondence my initial conclusion is that you are doing so deliberately to mislead and/or possibly irresponsibly to hide your unfounded political position. I conclude that your conscious reliance on corrupted science makes you complicit by endorsing corruption.

You benefit at least politically from your misrepresentations and thus one has to ask whether you are committing fraud?

Regardless, by behaving dishonestly and circumventing truth you are damaging your reputation. Further, your claims are detrimental to all Australians apart from those few receiving subsidies associated with climate ‘initiatives’ advocated by you. The easiest way out though, if you want a way out, is to tell the truth.

Are you willing to be personally liable for damages incurred by Australian citizens if you continue your advocacy of measures aimed at combating fabricated and unfounded catastrophe? Are you willing to take responsibility for diverting money from real environmental and humanitarian challenges and wasting it on chasing Nature’s atmospheric trace gas essential to life on Earth? Are you willing to do so when the empirical scientific evidence, including measurements of CO2 levels in air reveal that Nature alone controls global atmospheric CO2 levels and that human output can have no impact on CO2 levels or temperature?

Are you willing to continue endorsing waste of taxpayers’ money on your unfounded and unscientific Direct Action policy when the ALP-Greens government placed our country and your government in a serious budget deficit?

Will you choose to face up to the position in which you have placed yourself? If not, do you realise that the poorest and most disadvantaged in our nation will continue paying the price? Will you choose to allow that to continue?

You continue contradicting empirical scientific evidence and facts

Not only do you not have empirical scientific evidence for your position you contradict empirical scientific evidence. Further you do so after previously being notified in writing and repeatedly failing in your responses to provide any specific counter to the empirical scientific evidence and documented facts on corruption that others and I have presented you.

Please specify your empirical scientific evidence of causation

Please provide me with copies of reports or other such advice being advice that you imply to have received from the CSIRO and BOM and that contain empirical scientific evidence showing human CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming from 1976 to 1998 and for any other warming period you claim.

Please provide me with specific empirical scientific evidence and your understanding of how such evidence proves human CO2 caused Earth’s modest cyclic global atmospheric warming from 1976 to 1998.

Until and unless you can provide me with empirical scientific evidence and factually identify specific errors in my work your policy remains hollow and based on nothing more than an erroneous, false and seriously misleading religious belief.

If you fail to provide me with adequate specific responses will you resign or launch a sincere and independent inquiry into corruption of climate science?

A stronger political position is available

Contrary to your letter’s implicit claim there is no need for reducing CO2 output by human industry, agriculture or other activity. There is no need for wasteful, inefficient and economically destructive Renewable Energy Targets (RET) and subsidies.

Instead, there is a need to restore scientific integrity, Australia’s economic competitive advantage, jobs and prosperity.

You’re in a safe seat. I wonder how many Coalition MPs in marginal seats support your ongoing corruption of climate science when there is an alternative and honest strategy to destroy the ALP-Greens alliance that introduced the carbon dioxide tax after misappropriating taxpayer money to fund their fraudulent corruption of climate science?

Let’s meet again as I’m available to assist you pro bono

I’m willing to meet with you again personally and if necessary accompanied by eminent independent climate scientists. There is something to learn here and I am willing to support your learning and be open to learning of your needs and views.

Truth is breaking out as Nature reveals the UN’s misrepresentations and exposes the CSIRO and BOM as fraudulent. Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull have been tossed on climate. As the Australian electorate awakens, will you be next?

You have misled parliament, your party and its leader the Prime Minister and the people of Australia. Your actions prove you do not care for Australians and our natural environment. Will you care for you? Progressively, as Nature and science reveal the truth about climate and CO2, your room to manoeuvre will continue to shrink until you face two choices: resign or be sacked by your party leader or the Australian electorate.

Is Mark Twain’s wisdom helpful: “People’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.

Have you considered solutions presented on pages 4-8 of Appendix 18 for restoring prosperity in Australia? http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html Are you aware that Australians previously enjoyed the world’s highest per capita GDP? As Australians develop understanding of factors driving UN Agenda 21 global governance, (Appendix 14) we can restore our country’s potential and ability to rebuild prosperity for all.

Greg, I’ve done everything I can to assist you. It’s more than would be reasonably expected of a citizen supporting you. Since 2007 it’s cost me and my family millions of dollars in foregone income and sale of assets we had set aside for future retirement. I will though maintain my integrity and continue to protect my family and our nation.

Nature is proving that the core issue is not climate or CO2. The issues are corruption of climate science, fraudulent abuse of taxpayer funds and crooked policy. My need and the community’s need is for you to tell the truth and be accurate and honest, to protect freedom by ceasing implementation of UN Agenda 21 and to instead care for real and substantial humanitarian and environmental challenges.

Yours sincerely,

Original personally signed

Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts.

BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

* Fraud is defined as the presentation of something as it is not for personal gain.

My Personal Declaration of interests is available here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/Personal%20declaration%20of%20interests.pdf

Enclosures:

  •     Greg Hunt’s letter dated October 31, 2013 to Malcolm Roberts
  •     One-page summary of Basic Climate Science illustrating empirical scientific evidence within logical scientific reasoning. Available here: http://bit.ly/1btyTGE
  •     One-page summary on the UN’s climate body. Available here: http://bit.ly/1eOOMXf
  •     Two-page summary on costs and consequences of unfounded climate alarm. Available here: http://bit.ly/1g9X10o

cc: Unless otherwise stated, copies are by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation

Speaker of the House of Representatives, The Hon Bronwyn Bishop

President of the Senate, The Hon John Hogg

The Hon Tony Abbott MHR, Prime Minister

The Hon Warren Truss MHR, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Nationals

The Hon Julie Bishop, MHR, Deputy Leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party

Senator the Hon George Brandis, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Attorney-General

The Hon Andrew Robb MHR

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull, MHR

Barnaby Joyce, MHR

Jane Prentice, MHR, by post

Craig Kelly, MHR, by post

Dennis Jensen, MHR by post

Senator the Hon Eric Abetz, Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Employment, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service

Senator Cory Bernardi, by post

Senator Ron Boswell, by post

Senator Nick Xenophon

Senator John Madigan, by post

Mr. Clive Palmer, MHR Palmer United Party, by post

All federal MPs electronically

Governor-General Peter Cosgrove

Mr. Peter Rawlings, President Flinders Electorate Branch of the Liberal Party

Mr. Richard Pearson, Chairman, Noosa Branch of the LNP, electronically

Mr. John Smeed, Vice-President, Noosa Branch of the LNP, electronically

Mr. Maurice Newman, Chairman of Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, by post

Mr. Dick Warburton, Head of Review of Renewable Energy Target by post

Former Prime Minister John Howard OM AC SSI

Graham Williamson, electronically

Gordon Alderson, who met with us in your office April 27th, 2011, electronically

Miranda Devine, by post

Janet Albrechtson, by post

Jennifer Marohasy, by post

Alan Jones, by post

Grant Goldman, by post

Hedley Thomas, by post

Terry McCrann, by post

Henry Ergas, by post

Andrew Bolt, by post

 

Copy will be made available here: http://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (231)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Avogadro’s hypothesis states that, “equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of units”.
    [/quote]Avogadro’s law is applicable to gasses. Not to liquids.

  • Avatar

    Aert Driessen

    |

    If this is conspiracy to commit fraud at the highest international political level, then why not take this to the International Court in Den Haag (The Hague, Holland)?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]What extreme and ridiculous arrogant nonsense.[/quote]

    Remember, water experiences a phase change at 212 degrees F. Between 32F and 212F water is in the liquid phase. Don’t confuse it with the dew point which has to do with the rate of condensation being greater than the rate of evaporation. (Both of which [condensation and evaporation] are attributes of water in the liquid phase and NOT the gaseous phase, FYI.)

    Science never suffers from being too explicit, too specific, or too accurate, IMO.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please shut up and drive toward the cliff, that all of us know is there, but cannot convince you to turn toward the swamp, which is just as bad! :-x[/quote]If this was a humility contest you would be declared the winner, hands down.[/quote]

    What extreme and ridiculous arrogant nonsense.
    Please shut up and drive toward the cliff, that all of us know is there, but cannot convince you to turn toward the swamp, which is just as bad! 😡

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please shut up and drive toward the cliff, that all of us know is there, but cannot convince you to turn toward the swamp, which is just as bad! :-x[/quote]If this was a humility contest you would be declared the winner, hands down.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]
    I think I know what you mean. People that think they have it all figured out really make it difficult for those of us that do. Cheers,
    Jim McGinn http://www.solvingtornadoes.org[/quote%5D

    What extreme and ridiculous arrogant nonsense.
    Please shut up and drive toward the cliff, that all of us know is there, but cannot convince you to turn toward the swamp, which is just as bad! 😡

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    J.McG: “If you do have evidence that water in the gaseous phase (steam) does exist in our atmosphere is there some reason you are hiding this evidence from the rest of the world?”[/quote]
    Well? (Or is it your own special secret?)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please consider!

    Quotation by poet Irving Layton!: [/quote]
    I bet Irving didn’t get invited to a lot of parties.[/quote]

    Irving Layton’s poetic satire was, and is, well appreciated by those that can and will think! Most that, assume they “know”, hate such: :-?[/quote]I think I know what you mean. People that think they have it all figured out really make it difficult for those of us that do.

    Cheers,

    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please explain the observable and measurable rainbows, without your theoretical nonsense of
    “hydrostatic suspension”![/quote]

    I’ve got my hands full. You’re going to have to chase your own rainbows.

    Cheers,

    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please consider!

    Quotation by poet Irving Layton!: [/quote]
    I bet Irving didn’t get invited to a lot of parties.[/quote]

    Irving Layton’s poetic satire was, and is, well appreciated by those that can and will think! Most that, assume they “know”, hate such: 😕

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]These liquid drizzle drops with a diameter less than 0.3 micron diameter is way more dense than any gas molecule [/quote]Yes, and therefore moist bodies of air are always heavier than dry bodies of air, in complete contrast to what Meteorology chooses to assume. [/quote]

    Please define in scientific terms your use of “moist, heavier, and bodies of air”. You seem to be truly a troll, promoting misunderstanding with undefined words, rather than promoting any understanding by those less arrogant than you!

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”] Your task Jim, if you accept, is to demonstrate and explain “why” these dense “thingies” remain elevated in this atmosphere. These “thingies” produce observable rainbows, with perhaps a large pot of gold, at any or all of its many ends. 🙂

    [/quote]I heard rumors that that might be a hoax. But maybe that’s just propaganda from the leprechaun lobby.[/quote]

    Please explain the observable and measurable rainbows, without your theoretical nonsense of
    “hydrostatic suspension”! I remain as “How dey do dat”, as the only scientific knowledge!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Please consider!

    Quotation by poet Irving Layton!: [/quote]
    I bet Irving didn’t get invited to a lot of parties.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Please consider!

    Quotation by poet Irving Layton!:

    “Since I no longer expect
    anything from mankind except
    madness,
    meanness, and mendacity;
    egotism,
    cowardice,
    and
    self-delusion,
    I have stopped
    being a
    misanthrope.”

    I no longer hate all earthlings,(me included),
    I only pity them.

    No other critter on this planet, thinks they know, they instead learn from “Aw Shits” but never consider this the end to learning, called by earthlings as “knowledge”.

    Earthlings are the only critter that demands knowledge, rather than accepting “What the fuck!”. No other critter is so arrogant, and so far behind on the power curve! 🙁

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]These liquid drizzle drops with a diameter less than 0.3 micron diameter is way more dense than any gas molecule[/quote]Yes, and therefore moist bodies of air are always heavier than dry bodies of air, in complete contrast to what Meteorology chooses to assume.
    Pat, your lesson is over. You have passed! Congratulations!
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Your task Jim, if you accept, is to demonstrate and explain “why” these dense “thingies” remain elevated in this atmosphere.[/quote]I would be reinventing the wheel. It’s already been demonstrated AFAICT. Look up “hydrostatic suspension.”
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”] These “thingies” produce observable rainbows, with perhaps a large pot of gold, at any or all of its many ends. :-)[/quote]I heard rumors that that might be a hoax. But maybe that’s just propaganda from the leprechaun lobby.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]JMc “Do you agree? (Does this make sense so far?”.
    Yes but only with the limitations above! [/quote]Limitations? Don’t play games. You either agree or you don’t.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    Aqueous vapour exists in this atmosphere as a molecule (unit) until 100% relative humidity[/quote]You know this how?
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]With more H2O, that vapour after transfering all latent heat of vaporization to other gasses, forms drizzle drops of liquid[/quote]You are talking about dew point, which is the capacity of the atmosphere to hold very small (invisibly small) droplets/clusters of H2O suspended. Above the dew point the droplets become so big they start dropping out of the sky.

    Remember, water experiences a phase change at 212 degrees F. Between 32F and 212F water is in the liquid phase. It’s that simple. Don’t overthink it. Don’t confuse it with the dew point which has to do with the rate of condensation being greater than the rate of evaporation. Both of which are attributes of water in the liquid phase and not the gaseous phase, FYI.

    Do you agree? Does this make sense so far?

    If not and if you do have evidence that water in the gaseous phase (steam) does exist in our atmosphere is there some reason you are hiding this evidence from the rest of the world?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Continued:[/quote]
    This site refuses to cooperate.
    These liquid drizzle drops with a diameter less than 0.3 micron diameter is way more dense than any gas molecule, or gas many-mer.
    Your task Jim, if you accept, is to demonstrate and explain “why” these dense “thingies” remain elevated in this atmosphere. These “thingies” produce observable rainbows, with perhaps a large pot of gold, at any or all of its many ends. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Continued:
    These liquid drizzle drops

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]”Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids . . . (snip) Convection has to do with mass transfer. Thank you for a polite response. Don’t bust your foot skiing like I did! This is called “learning”. (learning requires many “Aw shits”, no books, no Universities, “only” you.) [/quote]
    Ouch. Sounds painful. Be aware of is Avogadro’s law.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]”equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of units”.[/quote]

    Yes, well, I’m skipping a lot of details, but from this you can derive the weight of a volume of gas. But this derivation is only valid if the particles (molecules) act independently and are not joined into a “multimer” (multimer being a word I got from the Connellys). [/quote]

    Indeed but what kind of chemical “mer” acts independently? Your car is a unit until it runs into a tree, creating much entropy, (disorder). This is the definition of an inelastic collision.
    The Connolly papers only deal with a possible dimerization (phase change) of O2 or N2 molecules at low temperature, low pressure, and low differential gravitational potential. (the stratosphere)! Read again!

    JMc “Do you agree? (Does this make sense so far?”.
    Yes but only with the limitations above!
    Aqueous vapour exists in this atmosphere as a molecule (unit) until 100% relative humidity at that temperature, pressure, and altitude (distance from COM of the earth). With more H2O, that vapour after transfering all latent heat of vaporization to other gasses, forms drizzle drops of liquid

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (continued from previous message)
    Take a look at Espy’s book at this link:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGsAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Take note of the phrase: “It has long been known that (water) vapor is lighter than air . . .
    Take note of the fact that Espy based his assumption on something that was “known” and not on something that was determined through experiment. Now do some research on your own and see if you can find where anybody ever tested this notion that vapor (moist air) is lighter than dry air. You will find it has never been tested or measured.

    The fact that Meteorologists chose not to test this notion does not mean it has not, if effect, been tested. The tests reveal that multimers of H2O DO form in our atmsphere (steam [individual molecules of H2O] does not and cannot exist below 212F [accept, maybe, in outer space]).

    Before I show you this experimental evidence/proof that H2O (in sharp contrast to what Meteorologists chose to believe) does form multimers let’s see where you stand. Are you following? Do you have any questions? Don’t be embarassed to admit you don’t understand if you don’t. It’s not a big deal.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]”Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids . . . (snip) Convection has to do with mass transfer. Thank you for a polite response. Don’t bust your foot skiing like I did![/quote]Ouch. Sounds painful. Be aware of is Avogadro’s law.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]”equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of units”.[/quote]Yes, well, I’m skipping a lot of details, but from this you can derive the weight of a volume of gas. But this derivation is only valid if the particles (molecules) act independently and are not joined into a “multimer” (multimer being a word I got from the Connellys). When multimers are involved the volume of air (pressure is assumed to be at 1 atm in all examples) will actually be heavier than what is indicated when one assumes no multimers. Do you agree? (Does this make sense so far? If not then you need to say something. Don’t be like Tim and pretend you understand something you do not.)[quote name=”Pat Obar”]If you ask a Meteorologists what causes (moist air) updrafts in storms and/or how H2O gets up high in our atmosphere (up to the top of the Troposphere) they will, at best, give you a one word response, “convection.” If you ask them to explain why they believe this they will point you towards Avogadro’s law (which you presente above) and they will point to the fact that H2O has a molecular weight of 18 and N2 and O2 (which comprise the overwhelming majority of molecules in our atmosphere) have molecular weights of 36 and 32 respectively. And they will tell you the buoyancy of the “lighter” moist air convects up through dry air and that this and this alone explains both moist-air updrafts in storms and how water gets high in our atmosphere. And that will be the end of the conversation. If you then ask them whether or not or if H2O molecules might have formed into multimers in our atmosphere they simply won’t respond. If you press them they will become evasive and even antagonistic. If you keep pressing they will begin to insinuate that you are ignorant or illiterate about science. At best they might refer you to James Pollard Espy. (continued in next message)

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]”Anyway, the gravito-thermal effect has now been unmistakenly observed and measured in a Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube … “[/quote]

    But this situation is FAR from equilibrium. As such, it cannot provide any evidence for the true equilibrium situation. Graeff’s experiments are an attempt, but (from all I have seen) they are far from convincing.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

     

    [b]Copy of today’s comment on various climate blogs.[/b]

    It’s not pressure which maintains the temperature – gravity maintains both density and temperature. Pressure just follows.

    The state of thermodynamic equilibrium (which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will be approached) automatically has both a density gradient and temperature gradient. Pressure gradients just follow as a result of these, because it is actual molecules than get moved around first.

    Anyway, the gravito-thermal effect has now been unmistakenly observed and measured in a Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube, so there can be no further dispute, and thus there is no need for any greenhouse effect, which never explained anything anyway.

     

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Greg – I don’t see your explanation as to how the extra energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature by 5 degrees. So I’m not being side tracked to other matters. Same applies to others. You are all stumped.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]Go and argue with PSI member, Dr Hans Jelbring. [/quote]

    Doug, I thought we had been through that already.

    Mr. Jelbring, like you and some others, is a victim of the wrong warmists calculation of the so called “earth radiative temperature” which is according to this nonsensical calculation -18°C. Assuming the real average temperature of +15°C, they got 33°C difference or, as you put it, “additional temperature”.

    As you know very well from our previous discussion, Doug, they applied SB equation to the surface of a sphere, which is blatantly incorrect. It can be applied to a hemisphere, but not to a sphere. So, assuming they did the rest right, the average temperature of the hemisphere facing the Sun would be +30°C and the other side would be cooler depending on the rate of cooling. The total average can well be +15°C, so there is no room for any “greenhouse effect”.

    So, if someone comes up with an explanation of this “additional temperature”, we know automatically that this can only be crap. Because there is no “additional temperature”, get it?

    Sorry for you and Mr. Jelbring, but this had to be said.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

     
     

    [b]PS – to all[/b]

    If ever you think there is conflict between the laws of thermodynamics in a non-gravitational field (or a horizontal plane, such as in 19th century lab tests) compared with a gravitational field, you need to remember that the gravitational field is the more general case.

    The gravito-thermo effect has been observed with large g-force experiments such as with the Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube.

     

    [b]The over-riding consideration is that the state of maximum attainable entropy is what will be approached, no matter what, and that state can have no unbalanced energy potentials – by definition.
    [/b]

    Now I have more to do on Wikipedia.

     

     

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

     

     

     

    [b]Did anyone notice those words[/b] written in 2003 by Dr Hans Jelbring – based on his PhD studies …

     

    [i][b]
    “…mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of ideal gases in a gravity field.”[/b][/i]

     
    Go and argue with PSI member, Dr Hans Jelbring.

     
    Bye

     

     

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

     

    [b]THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
    AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
    [/b]
    Hans Jelbring
    email: hans.jelbring@telia.com

    [b]ABSTRACT[/b]

    The main reason for claiming a scientific basis for “Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming (AGW)” is related to the use of “radiative energy flux models” as a major tool for describing vertical energy fluxes within the atmosphere. Such models prescribe that the temperature difference between a planetary surface and the planetary average black body radiation temperature (commonly called the Greenhouse Effect, GE) is caused almost exclusively by the so called greenhouse gases. Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density. Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere. In a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW, accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes causing climate change.

    [i]Energy & Environment · Vol. 14, Nos. 2 & 3, 2003
    [/i]

     

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

     

    [b]And PSI member, Dr Hans Jelbring[/b] may be able to help you also with details about that 5 degree variation on Venus which he also mentioned in his peer-reviewed paper published in [i]Energy and Environment[/i] over a decade ago.

    If you deign to read it, then it’s [url=http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf]here[/url].

     

     

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

     
     

    [b]Well, Pat Obar[/b], I’m still waiting for your explanation as to precisely how the Venus surface rises in temperature from 732K to 737K when 20W/m^2 of solar radiation strikes its surface for 4 months.

    The carbon dioxide on Venus absorbs (and re-emits to space) over 95% of incident solar radiation. Quite a good blanket, actually, keeping Venus a bit cooler. After all, just as well it doesn’t have as much atmospheric height as there is above the 5,000K Uranus core.

    [b]For more explanation as to why there is no runaway greenhouse effect on Venus[/b] [b]click[/b] [url=http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Venus][b]here[/b][/url].

     

     

    [b]Measurements, Pat?
    [/b]

    You’ll easily find all these in the reports about Voyager 2 and the Russian probes dropped onto the surface of Venus.

     
     

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

     
     

    Oh, and don’t forget Uranus.

    It’s 320K at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere – hotter than Earth, but nearly 30 times further from the Sun than we are, because the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (which is also hydrostatic equilibrium) with maximum entropy (and thus no unbalanced energy potentials) has autonomous density and temperature gradients formed at the molecular level, from which pressure can be calculated, being proportional to the product of density and temperature.

    The thermal gradient in that troposphere is indeed very close to the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, and so it keeps on getting hotter going down to the surface of the 5,000K solid core. This is because molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy interchange during free path motion between collisions.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”] 
    Why do you guys even bother to read the tornado buster’s comments – I don’t. He’s an undergraduate at best with no understanding of physics, and not prepared to do any research or learn anything. Forget him. Don’t feed the trolls who will just use bigger and bigger type shouting at you. Don’t you have ear plugs?[/quote]

    Interesting, indeed! Both Jim McGinn, and Tim Folkerts, have usefull writings that need be considered, even with derision at times! Only Doug Cotton continues with non-thought problems, and fantasy, with never even one measurement of what is physical. Doug, get a fine thermometer to measure the temperature of your blood veins, Venus temperature! Get a rectal thermometer to indicate Uranus temperature! Please detail why these measurements approach the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics? 😕

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”] Why do you refuse to even try to define the words you yourself use “convection” theory, [/quote]
    Couldn’t I ask you the same question?
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not unsympathetic to your predicament. [/quote]
    Obvious BS by a troll. My only problem is I cannot understand what what you mean by your words! If you had asked, what I mean by “convection” I would use wiki, “Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, either through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them. Convection of mass cannot take place in solids, since neither bulk current flows nor significant diffusion can take place in solids.”, unless I was writing of completly different as you seem to be with someone’s theory. Note “convection has nothing to do with heat transfer, only mass transfer, advective or forced. I also do not understand your use of “heavy” as that flips back and forth between “massive” and “having high density”! Could you please define what you mean? I have no interest in what anyone else may mean![/quote]This definition works for me.

    The next concept to be aware of is Avogadro’s law. Are you knowledgeable on this? If so then I have a rhetorical question to ask you that I think will better help you understand the issue.

    We just got a foot of snow in the mountains here in CA. So I’m off to go skiing and won’t be responding for the next 10 hours.

    Cheers,
    Jim McGinn[/quote]

    Thank you for a polite response. Don’t bust your foot skiing like I did! 😥 This is called “learning”.

    “The next concept to be aware of is Avogadro’s law. Are you knowledgeable on this?”

    I am not a Chemical engineer, so no, those damn mer-mers confuse the hell out of me! These folk use the same words for many different things.
    Avogadro’s hypothesis states that, “equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of units”.
    A unit IFAIK is a atom, molecule, or an extremly rigid “mer”! Anything in gaseous form that can withstand an elastic collision without permanent deformation or change in shape, even with the walls of any container, (constraints on degrees of freedom). Change in direction, spin and electrical potential is OK!
    Please show how your H2O many-mers can do that in the troposphere?

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

     

     

    [b]Why do you guys even bother to read the tornado buster’s comments – I don’t. He’s an undergraduate at best with no understanding of physics, and not prepared to do any research or learn anything. Forget him. Don’t feed the trolls who will just use bigger and bigger type shouting at you. Don’t you have ear plugs?[/b]
     
     

     

     
    [/b]

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Tim – copy from DrRoySpencer[/b]

    Doug Cotton says:

    March 10, 2014 at 4:13 AM

    In the above mentioned 2004 paper (by Verkley et al) [url=http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061%3C0931%3AOMEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2]here[/url], they assert that …

    “convective turbulent motions are now taken into account, albeit implicitly. Their role is to mix the potential temperature field, to strive to homogenize it.”

    This is not necessary, as there is no reasonable evidence of such convective turbulence existing on some other planets, notably Uranus. Instead it is the actual movement of molecules between collisions which provides the random mixing they claim is requiring advection. (They are not even precise in their terminology, because “convection” can include diffusion.)

    They deduce in fact two conclusions using different constraints. However the constraint that leads to their deduction of isothermal conditions is not appropriate. It involves assuming constant enthalpy and this implies that there is a compensating increase in mean molecular total energy that is offset by the reduction in density at higher altitudes. This means that the molecules would be retaining equal kinetic energy, whilst gaining gravitational potential energy, that being offset by the reduction in total numbers so that total enthalpy remains constant. There is no justification for this assumption and the constraint is not a reality.

    Furthermore, they introduce “constancy of the integrated potential temperature as a single additional constraint” and then they admit “but this choice is of course open for debate.” Well, of course it is open for debate because there is no logic supporting it. What they are doing is trying to find a reason for the wet lapse rate being less than the dry one. They know that isentropic conditions lead to the dry rate (-g/Cp) but what they don’t realise is what I have explained in my book about the temperature levelling effect of inter-molecular radiation.

    As I have said all along, the empirical evidence that water vapour cools rather than warms supports the fact that the gravito-thermal effect produces the dry gradient which is then reduced in magnitude by the inter-molecular radiation, not primarily the release of latent heat.

    All in all, this is a very wishy-washy paper. Whilst their computations are OK, they do not engage in any detailed discussion or reasoning as to what would be the correct constraints. It would have been appropriate to start by considering a sealed perfectly insulated cylinder of ideal non-radiating gas. If they had done this there would have been no ambiguity about the constraints or any need to discuss advection. This it the approach I have taken in my papers and the book. Once we accept that the gravito-thermal gradient evolves spontaneously at the molecular level without any need for advection, then it is not hard to extend the concept to a troposphere which has a propensity to approach such a thermal gradient, modified by inter-molecular radiation.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Tim – Copy from Lucia’s Blackboard.

    [/b]Doug Cotton (Comment #126658)
    March 12th, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    Neal, with respect your argument has been put to me several times and is obviously yet another attempt among climatologists to rubbish what is of course a very threatening postulate, because it smashes the greenhouse.

    The argument (which I realise you probably are passing on from another source, so don’t take this personally) does not display a correct comprehension of Kinetic Theory, or indeed the manner in which molecules move and collide.

    If a perfectly isentropic state were to evolve then all molecules in any given horizontal plane would have equal kinetic energy, and of course equal potential energy, just as after the first two collisions in the 4 molecule thought experiment above.

    Now, the direction in which a molecule “takes off” in its next free path motion just after a collision is random – rather like what happens with snooker balls.

    So two molecules with equal KE set out in different directions after the collision, but there is no requirement that they must have more KE to go upwards. They don’t travel far anyway. It’s not as if any one molecule goes up a matter of several cm before colliding with another, for example. In fact, they nearly all travel in a direction that is not straight up or down.

    At thermodynamic equilibrium (as you can see in the 4 molecule experiment) when any molecule has an upward component in its direction, it loses KE that is exactly the amount of energy represented by the difference in gravitational potential energy between the height of the molecule it last collided with and that of the next molecule. With the thermal gradient in place, the next molecule it strikes will have KE that is less than the one it last struck, and its own KE will have been reduced to exactly the same KE that the next molecule already has.

    So, at thermodynamic equilibrium all collisions involve molecules which had identical KE before the collision, and so they exit the collision process still having the same KE which is the mean KE for all molecules in the horizontal plane where the collision occurred.

    Now, for a small height difference, H in a “closed system” where g is the acceleration due to gravity, the loss in PE for a small ensemble of mass M moving downwards will thus be the product M.g.H because a force Mg moves the gas a distance H. But there will be a corresponding gain in KE and that will be equal to the energy required to warm the gas by a small temperature difference, T. This energy can be calculated using the specific heat Cp and this calculation yields the product M.Cp.T. Bearing in mind that there was a PE loss and a KE gain, we thus have …

    M.Cp.T = – M.g.H

    T/H = -g/Cp

    But T/H is the temperature gradient, which is thus the quotient -g/Cp. This is the so-called “dry adiabatic lapse rate” and we don’t need to bring pressure or density into the calculation.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Tim[/b]

    I gave you a link to my comment on Lucia’s Blackboard wherein I completely debunked your point (about variations in KE) which had been raised by Neal King, a member of the SkS team. If you don’t read my replies to yourself, then you will remain in the dark.

    I have also explained why there is no runaway greenhouse effect on Venus in another comment above, and [b]you have never attempted to answer my question about Venus[/b].

    Your “conversation” is all one-sided, and I am no longer going to waste time over your continual barrage of assertive, wishy-washy statements that have no foundation in valid physics. It is very clear to me that you don’t understand entropy and thermodynamic equilibrium. In any event, Verkley et al concluded there is a gradient.

    Have you never heard of hydrostatic equilibrium? If you have, then that is also the state of thermodynamic equilibrium as I wrote in a comment above only yesterday. Read it!

    [b]Clearly you don’t read my explanations, let alone answer my questions.
    [/b]

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”] Why do you refuse to even try to define the words you yourself use “convection” theory, [/quote]
    Couldn’t I ask you the same question?
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not unsympathetic to your predicament. [/quote]
    Obvious BS by a troll. My only problem is I cannot understand what what you mean by your words! If you had asked, what I mean by “convection” I would use wiki, “Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, either through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them. Convection of mass cannot take place in solids, since neither bulk current flows nor significant diffusion can take place in solids.”, unless I was writing of completly different as you seem to be with someone’s theory. Note “convection has nothing to do with heat transfer, only mass transfer, advective or forced. I also do not understand your use of “heavy” as that flips back and forth between “massive” and “having high density”! Could you please define what you mean? I have no interest in what anyone else may mean![/quote]This definition works for me.

    The next concept to be aware of is Avogadro’s law. Are you knowledgeable on this? If so then I have a rhetorical question to ask you that I think will better help you understand the issue.

    We just got a foot of snow in the mountains here in CA. So I’m off to go skiing and won’t be responding for the next 10 hours.

    Cheers,
    Jim McGinn

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”] Why do you refuse to even try to define the words you yourself use “convection” theory, [/quote]
    Couldn’t I ask you the same question?
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not unsympathetic to your predicament. [/quote]
    Obvious BS by a troll. My only problem is I cannot understand what what you mean by your words! If you had asked, what I mean by “convection” I would use wiki, “Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, either through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them. Convection of mass cannot take place in solids, since neither bulk current flows nor significant diffusion can take place in solids.”, unless I was writing of completly different as you seem to be with someone’s theory. Note “convection has nothing to do with heat transfer, only mass transfer, advective or forced. I also do not understand your use of “heavy” as that flips back and forth between “massive” and “having high density”! Could you please define what you mean? I have no interest in what anyone else may mean!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Good Gracious! What are YOU waiting for?

    Google it! Pull out a textbook! Show that you have some understanding of the topic! We can’t teach you freshman physics if you are not willing to put in even minimal effort!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory#Temperature_and_kinetic_energy%5B/quote%5DInstead of further embarrassing yourself why don’t you just make a retraction and move on.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]DANG, Brackets don’t show up (they are used for formatting). That last post should look more like

    the result relating average kinetic energy, 〈KE〉, to temperature, T, is
    〈KE〉 = 3/2 kT
    This is a very basic result of kinetic theory. So the “thought experiment” you desire IS kinetic theory (which Doug outlined above, or you can find in any thermo textbook)![/quote]Great! Now you should present an argument to that effect. What are you waiting for?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    DANG, Brackets don’t show up (they are used for formatting). That last post should look more like

    the result relating average kinetic energy, 〈KE〉, to temperature, T, is
    〈KE〉 = 3/2 kT
    This is a very basic result of kinetic theory. So the “thought experiment” you desire IS kinetic theory (which Doug outlined above, or you can find in any thermo textbook)!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]ST, the result relating average kinetic energy to temperature, T, is
    = 3/2 kT
    This is a very basic result of kinetic theory. So the “thought experiment” you desire IS kinetic theory (which Doug outlined above, or you can find in any thermo textbook)!

    If you are not familiar with this, then you are operating at a high school level on this topic and have a LOT of studying to do to get up to speed![/quote]LOL. You use to different concepts interchangeably. You are so decidedly dimwitted that you don’t even realize it. Then I point it out and now, supposedly, its my responsibility to work out the issues for you? Guess again. You science loons are insufferable. Doug is the one that introduced the concept. Why don’t you go ask him to provide you with the empirical evidence that underlies his silly claim. 😆

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    ST, the result relating average kinetic energy to temperature, T, is
    = 3/2 kT
    This is a very basic result of kinetic theory. So the “thought experiment” you desire IS kinetic theory (which Doug outlined above, or you can find in any thermo textbook)!

    If you are not familiar with this, then you are operating at a high school level on this topic and have a LOT of studying to do to get up to speed!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]I did not ask what you may be a proponent of or not![/quote]True, but irrelevant.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”] Why do you refuse to even try to define the words you yourself use “convection” theory, [/quote]Couldn’t I ask you the same question?[/quote]
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not unsympathetic to your predicament. I remember when somebody first told me about the concept of CO2 forcing. I started asking questions about how it is defined/measured/tested. That was 2006 and I still haven’t gotten any answers.[/quote]
    Here are some links that might help:
    http://www.stormdebris.net/philosophy_of_storms.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pollard_Espy
    This last link is a book entitled, The Philosophy of Storms, by James Espy:
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGsAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    If you are looking for something more indepth than this and you find it let me know, I’ve been searching for quite some time now and I can’t find anything.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]What is your definition of convection as you use that word?[/quote]I’m not a proponent of the convection theory of storms. It would be better if you asked somebody who is. Or you could look it up. I hope that helps.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    What is your definition of “heavy” when referring to H20 between a gas and liquid, both, and even back and forth like clouds do?[/quote]You should have no trouble looking up this word in a dictionary.

    Cheers,

    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org[/quote%5D

    I did not ask what you may be a proponent of or not! Why do you refuse to even try to define the words you yourself use “convection” theory, what does convection mean to you? “Heavy” for an atmosphere is 14 tonnes/m^2 is this what you mean? Are the bubbles from a fish tank aerator convection through the water or not? Why?
    You insist like the other two Bozos upon acting like a troll.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]If you know the mean KE per particle, then you know the temperature. [/quote]It should be simple enough to do a thought experiment to demonstrate your assertion, Tim. Go ahead. Make my day.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug Says:
    [quote]Yes, Pat, but Verkley et al got it wrong because their computations were all about enthalpy, not entropy. The Second Law is only about entropy.[/quote]

    By that logic, Doug, then you have it wrong too, because your calculations are all about KE & PE, not about entropy. 🙂

    The point is that people need to do the proper calculations for the given circumstances. There is nothing [i]per se [/i]wrong with looking at enthalpy or KE. And conversely, when looking for errors, you have to look for errors in the given calculations.

    I have pointed out very clearly what I think is wrong with your KE & PE calculations (self-selection of high KE particles reaching the higher altitudes). You need to point out an actual error in the paper.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]From the context of kinetic theory and from the equation KE = 3/2 kT, it should have been obvious that I was talking about “per molecule”. [/quote]This is why I hate conversing with AGW advocates. If you make a point with them the next sentence later they completely reverse themselves. Which is it Tim? Choose one and stick with it: KE = 3/2 kT or KE per molecule = 3/2 kT[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]So, yes, I meant that temperature is directly proportional to the mean KE per particle. [/quote]Well then you need to go to the source and ask Doug to reveal to you the experimental data that underlies this notion. I think it might even be somewhat entertaining to have him explain to us how he measured mean KE per molecule. LOL.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]If you know the mean KE per particle, then you know the temperature.[/quote]You are suggeting I take your word on this? Guess again.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]You do not need any information about the density, the pressure, the molar mass, the volume, or anything else.[/quote]Do you have any experimental data to back up these claims or are you just talking through your A hole, as usual?
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]And once again, high pressure/high density gas at 300 K is the same temperature as low pressure/low density gas at 300 K. Both will warm a thermometer to 300 K.[/quote]
    True but irrelevant. Stick with the issue. Don’t go off on a tangent.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]What is your definition of convection as you use that word?[/quote]I’m not a proponent of the convection theory of storms. It would be better if you asked somebody who is. Or you could look it up. I hope that helps.
    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]
    What is your definition of “heavy” when referring to H20 between a gas and liquid, both, and even back and forth like clouds do?[/quote]You should have no trouble looking up this word in a dictionary.

    Cheers,

    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat, Tim and silent readers:[/b]

    Another way of looking at the thermodynamic equilibrium state with its thermal gradient is to consider the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_gradient_force]pressure gradient[/url] that is being offset by the force of gravity. When all is in balance we have [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium]hydrostatic equilibrium[/url] which is really the same thing as thermodynamic equilibrium in this case, and should be described as having no net energy flow, not a constant rate. If there were any flow, then it is not an equilibrium state.

    I think this is where the confusion occurs. If we had strict thermodynamic / hydrostatic equilibrium (each being the same state with maximum entropy, because there can only be one such state) then convection stops, such as it is observed to nearly stop altogether in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours. We know there is still a temperature gradient when this happens, and it is there because of the explanation I have given about (PE+KE) being constant at all altitudes.

    The gravito-thermal effect sets up the supporting thermal gradient, rather like the sloping side of a mountain. Then advection from a warmer surface flows down the thermal gradient which is maintained by the gravito-thermal profile, rather like water flowing down the mountain. But, because it is really an equilibrium state, it acts like a level lake. If rain falls on one side of the lake, the extra water flows away from that side. Likewise, if the source of new energy is at the top of, say, the Venus troposphere, the energy flows towards the surface.

    The mechanics of it are that gravity forms the temperature and density gradients, and pressure just follows by calculation, being proportional to the product of density and temperature.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    ST says:
    [quote]Take special note of the phrase, “mean KE PER MOLECULE.” This is a different concept than the concept you are introducing into the discussion which is not based on molecules but on groups thereof on indeterminate numbers. [/quote]

    Sorry if I was unclear, but “mean KE PER MOLECULE” is exactly what I was discussing. From the context of kinetic theory and from the equation KE = 3/2 kT, it should have been obvious that I was talking about “per molecule”.

    So, yes, I meant that temperature is directly proportional to the mean KE per particle. If you know the mean KE per particle, then you know the temperature. You do not need any information about the density, the pressure, the molar mass, the volume, or anything else.

    And once again, high pressure/high density gas at 300 K is the same temperature as low pressure/low density gas at 300 K. Both will warm a thermometer to 300 K.

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    [b]Yes, Pat, but Verkley et al got it wrong[/b] because their computations were all about enthalpy, not entropy. The Second Law is only about entropy.

    For more detail rebutting the 2004 Verkley paper see my comment [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2014-0-17-deg-c/#comment-107923]here[/url].

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=” Doug Cotton”][i]”The temperature is fundamentally related to average KE.”[/i]
    [/quote]

    7) Thus, because temperature is a function only of the mean KE per molecule, . . .

    Mean Ke and Mean KE per molecule are two very different concepts. Doug made nonsense claims about mean KE per molecule. Tim is as confused and vague as ever. You two bozos need to stop using different but similar concepts interchangeably. Pay attention to what you are saying. Don’t paraphrase other people’s words. quote them directly.[/quote]

    Jim, read the paper “On maximum entropy profiles” Verkley and Gerkema
    [url]journals.ametsoc.org[/url].‎

    Yes indeed the two bozos never say what they write about. Just like you, What is your definition of convection as you use that word?
    What is your definition of “heavy” when referring to H20 between a gas and liquid, both, and even back and forth like clouds do?
    Who is the overall worst Bozo? What can I do to become a Bozo? Do I have to pay to publish “my” nonsense? 🙂

    Since I no longer expect
    anything from mankind except
    madness,
    meanness, and mendacity;
    egotism,
    cowardice,
    and
    self-delusion,
    I have stopped
    being a
    misanthrope.
    Irving Layton

  • Avatar

     Doug Cotton

    |

    [b]Something strange happens with this editor[/b] when you make a paragraph bold it moves. The last comment should read as below.

    It cannot be substantiated with standard physics that the surface of Venus is kept hot by radiation from the colder carbon dioxide atmosphere.

    In fact the surface temperature rises by about 5 degrees (from 732K to 737K) during the four-month-long day and so this requires an input of thermal energy, which cannot be coming from the colder atmosphere because, if it were, entropy would be decreasing.

    Venus cools by 5 degrees at night, and so it could easily have cooled right down over the life of the planet if the Sun provided no insolation. So we can deduce that it is energy from the Sun which is gradually raising the temperature of the Venus surface during those four months of Earth time. But less than 20 watts per square meter of solar radiation gets through to the surface because carbon dioxide actually absorbs incident solar radiation.

    If one tries to explain the 5 degree difference with Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for radiation, there is a difference of about 450 watts per square meter just between the two temperatures 732K and 737K, and so this is not supplied from the direct solar radiation which is only about one tenth of that which reaches Earth’s surface.

    Hence there is no scientific basis for assuming that direct radiation to the surface is the cause of the high surface temperatures on Venus.

  • Avatar

     Doug Cotton

    |

     

     

     

    [b]
    And, finally, there’s no greenhouse effect on Venus either.[/b]

     

    It cannot be substantiated with standard physics that the surface of Venus is kept hot by radiation from the colder carbon dioxide atmosphere.

    In fact the surface temperature rises by about 5 degrees (from 732K to 737K) during the four-month-long day and so this requires an input of thermal energy, which cannot be coming from the colder atmosphere because, if it were, entropy would be decreasing.

    Venus cools by 5 degrees at night, and so it could easily have cooled right down over the life of the planet if the Sun provided no insolation. So we can deduce that it is energy from the Sun which is gradually raising the temperature of the Venus surface during those four months of Earth time. But less than 20 watts per square meter of solar radiation gets through to the surface because carbon dioxide actually [b]Hence there is no scientific basis for assuming that direct radiation to the surface is the cause of the high surface temperatures on Venus.[/b]absorbs incident solar radiation.

    If one tries to explain the 5 degree difference with Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for radiation, there is a difference of about 450 watts per square meter just between the two temperatures 732K and 737K, and so this is not supplied from the direct solar radiation which is only about one tenth of that which reaches Earth’s surface.

     
    QED

     

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=” Doug Cotton”][i]”The temperature is fundamentally related to average KE.”[/i]
    [/quote]

    7) Thus, because temperature is a function only of the mean KE per molecule, . . .

    Mean Ke and Mean KE per molecule are two very different concepts. Doug made nonsense claims about mean KE per molecule. Tim is as confused and vague as ever. You two bozos need to stop using different but similar concepts interchangeably. Pay attention to what you are saying. Don’t paraphrase other people’s words. quote them directly.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]@ #164 solvingtornadoes

    Wow! Doug’s opinions about the lapse rate are at least plausible, with only some rather subtle problems.

    Your interpretation of kinetic theory and temperature here are completely wrong. KE = 3/2 kT. The temperature is fundamentally related to average KE. Not density. Not pressure. This result is really basic kinetic theory.

    Or go back the 0th Law. Put a box of low pressure gas in thermal contact with a box of high pressure gas. Let them come to thermal equilibrium. By definition, they are the same temperature. By the 0th Law, a thermometer will read the same in either![/quote]
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]@ #164 solvingtornadoes

    Wow! Doug’s opinions about the lapse rate are at least plausible, with only some rather subtle problems.

    Your interpretation of kinetic theory and temperature here are completely wrong. KE = 3/2 kT. The temperature is fundamentally related to average KE. Not density. Not pressure. This result is really basic kinetic theory.

    Or go back the 0th Law. Put a box of low pressure gas in thermal contact with a box of high pressure gas. Let them come to thermal equilibrium. By definition, they are the same temperature. By the 0th Law, a thermometer will read the same in either![/quote]

    That’s because you are not following the discussion, Tim–as usual. Go upthread to message #122, you will see that the issue is based on Doug’s simpleminded claim that “temperature is a function only of the mean KE per molecule, . . .

    Take special note of the phrase, “mean KE PER MOLECULE.” This is a different concept than the concept you are introducing into the discussion which is not based on molecules but on groups thereof on indeterminate numbers.

    Some advice, the best way not to make the error you just made is to quote people directly.

  • Avatar

     Doug Cotton

    |

    [i]”The temperature is fundamentally related to average KE.”[/i]

    Yep, you got that right. Quote from my book (as above) ..

    [i]”However, a physicist by the name of Josef Loschmidt postulated way back in the nineteenth century that the equilibrium state in a vertical column of any material, solid, liquid or gas would exhibit a non-zero temperature gradient (cooler at the top) due to the effect of gravitational force acting upon the individual molecules, because [b]temperature is a measure of the mean kinetic energy (KE) of molecules and is not affected by their gravitational potential energy.”[/b]
    [/i]

    All the rest of what you say only strictly applies [i]”in the absence of an external force field.”[/i][b]

    When are you going to think about that 5 degree rise in the Venus surface temperature?[/b]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    @ #164 solvingtornadoes

    Wow! Doug’s opinions about the lapse rate are at least plausible, with only some rather subtle problems.

    Your interpretation of kinetic theory and temperature here are completely wrong. KE = 3/2 kT. The temperature is fundamentally related to average KE. Not density. Not pressure. This result is really basic kinetic theory.

    Or go back the 0th Law. Put a box of low pressure gas in thermal contact with a box of high pressure gas. Let them come to thermal equilibrium. By definition, they are the same temperature. By the 0th Law, a thermometer will read the same in either!

  • Avatar

     Doug Cotton

    |

    The disk is underwater, Tim, so it isn’t radiating anything to the atmosphere. How do you suppose the back radiation is slowing its cooling? Is it doing so by adding thermal energy and thus heating it and violating the Second Law? It might be getting warmer anyway simply because the water is warmer than it was when it was inserted. So what’s happening to the energy in the back radiation at night?

    If you knew your facts, you should know that the back radiation would not even get past the first millimetre of the water, let alone down to the disk.

    When the sun shines its Planck curve fully envelopes the Planck curve of the back radiation. Because of this there is no increase in the maximum temperature that the Sun can warm it to, because the combined Planck function still has the same maximum. All the radiation, no matter how much, that falls within the Planck function of the water surface merely resonates and is immediately re-emitted. That’s a fact recognised by physicists in the 21st century, whether or not you are comfortable with something that may threaten your potential income or whatever.

    For the umpteenth time, Tim, I recommend you read my paper on radiated energy which was published on several websites over two years ago, and has never been successfully rebutted by anyone in the world. But feel free to submit a formal refutation to PSI.

  • Avatar

     Doug Cotton

    |

    Clearly [b]Tim Folkerts[/b] has not read and understood my peer-reviewed paper on radiated energy, which is in the Publications menu on this site.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]Kinetic Theory used to develop the Ideal Gas Laws.[/quote]Well, Doug, I want to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your prowess on these subjects. Let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it without looking at Wikipedia (A place that is a known haven for trolls like William Connelly.) Here’s the question. Why are the Ideal Gas Laws called the “ideal” gas laws. Why wern’t they just called “gas laws?”[/quote]I knew you would evade this question.
    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]

    One last question. Of the gasses in our atmosphere, which of them are “ideal” gasses and which are not?[/quote]No response.
    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]

    Extra credit: If you assume a gas is an ideal gas and it is not what conceptual problems do you think might ensue? Do you have an example?[/quote]No response.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]ST says [quote]Uh, temperature is a function of how much energy goes into the thermometer, dude. And that has to do with how many molecules collide with the sensitive part of the measuring device AND with how fast these particles are going when they collide. Okay?[/quote]

    No, still not OK.
    The density will determine HOW QUICKLY the thermometer reaches the temperature of the surrounding gas. But it will NOT affect the ultimate temperature of the thermometer. [/quote]Wrong. With higher density (more collisions) there is more energy going into the thermometer. It will read a higher temperature, as is substantiated in the laboratory.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]

    Gas molecules at 300 K will have the same average KE, regardless of the pressure of the gas.[/quote]Not possible.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] A thermometer put into the 300 K gas will (eventually) read 300 K, again regardless of the pressure of the gas.[/quote]Uh, gee golly Tim. This isn’t even a hard one. If what you were saying was true then refrigerators and air conditioners couldn’t/wouldn’t work. You pretty much just make this shit up as you go, don’t you?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Finally Doug, your model train analogy is not a good analogy.

    * A black disc in space that only receives CMBR will be 4 K.
    * If that black disk is surrounded by a 290 K blackbody source or radiation (but no sunlight), the disc will absorb 400 W/m^2 of radiation and in turn warm to 290 K.
    * If that black disk receives 400 W/m^2 of sunlight (but no IR from the 290 K source), the disc will also 290 K.
    * if that disk receives 400 W/m^2 of thermal IR from the surrounding AND 400 of sunlight, it will warm to 345 K.

    The IR by itself will never warm the disk above the temperature of the source of that IR (which would indeed violate the 2nd Law). But the IR in conjunction with the sunlight can and will raise the temperature of the disk above the temperature that the sunlight by itself would.

    I can’t for the life of me figure out why this should be the least controversial or confusing!

    In your analogy, the back-radiation is only preventing the disk from cooling off (or at least slowing the cooling, it is not warming it.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    The tornado exterminator is in effect calling Einstein a dude, because Einstein used Kinetic Theory.

    I suggest everyone totally ignore his comments.

    If you have genuine questions you think I have not answered, look through that thread on Lucia’s Blackboard which I linked above. There are dozens of detailed comments I’ve written there, so please respect my time as I don’t wish to rewrite my whole book and the two papers and several published climate articles here. OK?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug, explaining Venus or Uranus is not trivial. But that does not mean we have to invent a new interpretation of the 2nd Law.

    If several others independently come to the same conclusions that you are not getting kinetic theory right (ie only self-selected high energy molecules get to the higher altitudes, resulting in ), then you need to at least consider that we are right. You cut & paste the postulate of kinetic theory, but you apparently lack the mathematical skills to actually do the calculations. You tell us kinetic theory provides “statistical methods give precise and dependable results”, so show us those results!

    [b]Calculate the distribution of velocities and energies as a function of altitude, so we can see the precise and dependable results![/b]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    ST says [quote]Uh, temperature is a function of how much energy goes into the thermometer, dude. And that has to do with how many molecules collide with the sensitive part of the measuring device AND with how fast these particles are going when they collide. Okay?[/quote]

    No, still not OK.
    The density will determine HOW QUICKLY the thermometer reaches the temperature of the surrounding gas. But it will NOT affect the ultimate temperature of the thermometer.

    Gas molecules at 300 K will have the same average KE, regardless of the pressure of the gas. A thermometer put into the 300 K gas will (eventually) read 300 K, again regardless of the pressure of the gas.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    [b]Here’s more info on the precision of the Ideal Gas Law and thus of Kinetic Theory used by Einstein:[/b]

    Educational Source:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kinthe.html

    The study of the molecules of a gas is a good example of a physical situation where statistical methods give [b]precise and dependable results[/b] for macroscopic manifestations of microscopic phenomena. For example, the [b]pressure, volume and temperature calculations from the ideal gas law are very precise[/b]. The average energy associated with the molecular motion has its foundation in the Boltzmann distribution, a statistical distribution function. Yet the temperature and energy of a gas can be measured precisely.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    [b]To all – these are the important assumptions of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory]Kinetic Theory[/url] as used by Einstein. In general, Kinetic Theory is an accurate representation of atmospheric gases to within 0.1% or better.[/b]

    Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. (That is, they exert no forces on one another.)

    This implies:

    1. Relativistic effects are negligible.

    2. Quantum-mechanical effects are negligible. This means that the inter-particle distance is much larger than the thermal de Broglie wavelength and the molecules are treated as classical objects.

    3. Because of the above two, their dynamics can be treated classically. This means, the equations of motion of the molecules are time-reversible.

    [b]The average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the absolute temperature of the system.[/b]

    The time during collision of molecule with the container’s wall is negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions.

    [b]Because they have mass, the gas molecules will be affected by gravity.
    [/b]

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]Kinetic Theory used to develop the Ideal Gas Laws.[/quote]Well, Doug, I want to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your prowess on these subjects. Let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it without looking at Wikipedia (A place that is a known haven for trolls like William Connelly.) Here’s the question. Why are the Ideal Gas Laws called the “ideal” gas laws. Why wern’t they just called “gas laws?”

    One last question. Of the gasses in our atmosphere, which of them are “ideal” gasses and which are not?

    Extra credit: If you assume a gas is an ideal gas and it is not what conceptual problems do you think might ensue? Do you have an example?

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    [b]Here’s how to get energy from back radiation:[/b]

    Build a model toy train. Place a black disc under water in the tender (coal car) and, at night, the back radiation will warm the black disc (being still as intense as solar radiation in the day) and the water will boil and thus be able to be used to drive a miniature steam engine that makes the train go around, and around, and around .. the track.

    [b]You could make a fortune patenting this process scaled up to light up a city at night.[/b] /sarc

    But, until you do, I’ll rest my case.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    Now stand back while the next 20 screens are filled with large type, as each sentence in the above four comments is copied by the trolls, ST and TF.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    [b]On the topic of radiation:[/b]

    There is no two-way radiation involved when a black metal disc just under the surface of water is receiving solar radiation from the Sun. Its temperature is raised by the hotter Sun. Its temperature is not raised by back radiation from a colder atmosphere, because that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Back radiation does not melt frost in the shade of a tree, but the Sun would if you cut down the tree. But the IPCC and NASA claim that the intensity of back radiation is greater than that of solar radiation reaching the surface.

    Every one-way transition of radiation is a completed, independent process which must (on its own) obey the Second Law. To claim that there is some net reverse process (such as the black disc warming the water which then evaporates and, days later, releases energy when it rains, is absurd. How can the first process of one-way radiation “know” that will happen in the future? What does happen is that the back radiation is pseudo scattered with each photon resonating and only every temporarily raising electron energy (between quantum energy states) in the first molecule it strikes. That electron energy is not thermal energy which takes the form of kinetic energy mostly in the far heavier neutrons and protons. In other words, the energy never gets from the electrons to the nucleus.

    It’s that simple. That’s how and why the Second Law works for radiation. If it didn’t then you certainly could produce a perpetual motion machine.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    Narcissistic [b][i]”I wasn’t wrong”[/i][/b] Jim McGinn (who hopes the world can use his “fissics” to eliminate tornadoes) should edit Wikipedia “[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law]Ideal Gas Law[/url]” which he would greatly simplify to “temperature is proportional to pressure” because they both are proportional to the product of mean kinetic energy and density. And of course to do that, he has to dispute the “[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory]Kinetic Theory[/url]” used successfully by Einstein, and used to develop the Ideal Gas Laws.

    I don’t often call upon authority, but I make exception for our new Einstein on the block. After all, even without attending university, Jim may have heard of Einstein.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    [b]Tim Folkerts[/b] is reproducing the argument put forward by Neal King, a member of the Skeptical Science team.

    My response was written [url=http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/the-fullness-of-time-doug-cotton-comments-unveiled/#comment-126658]here[/url]. There are also many more comments of mine on that thread on Lucia’s Blackboard, where I was once banned.

    [b]Unless and until people who have been brainwashed by Skeptical Science and/or IPCC authors address the issue of Venus warming by 5 degrees, and realise it has nothing to do with radiation from the carbon dioxide atmosphere, they will keep their heads well and truly buried in the carbon dioxide hoax.

    [/b]

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat Obar and silent readers:[/b]

    There is a full explanation in my March 2012 paper “[url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf][i]Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/i][/url]” as to what happens with two-way radiation between metal plates, and I was the first in the world to explain that the one-way thermal energy transfer is determined by the amount of non-resonating radiation, which is represented by the area between the Planck curves. Thermal energy is not transferred from the cooler plate to the warmer one, because that radiation undergoes resonant (or pseudo) scattering. Only electro-magnetic energy (a photon stream) passes each way.

    Likewise I have been one of only two authors to explain (before the end of 2012) how the extra energy gets into the Venus surface in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees. (I did not know of the other author’s book until this year.)

    Obviously you agree with me that radiation from the colder atmosphere cannot raise the Venus surface temperature. What does raise it was explained in my March 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” outlined [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-21st-century-new-paradigm-shift-in-climate-change-science.html]here[/url].

    [b]Everything in my two papers is based on a correct understanding of the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.[/b]

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]ST says “Surely you’re not buying into this gravito-thermal nonsense”

    There are many ways to be wrong. Doug is wrong about his gravito-thermal hypothesis. You were wrong in the section I quoted.[/quote]I wasn’t wrong. I might have been more explicit (less vague) but I wasn’t wrong.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] I have re-read it and it still says that temperature is related to density and not to mean KE. [/quote] Uh, temperature is a function of how much energy goes into the thermometer, dude. And that has to do with how many molecules collide with the sensitive part of the measuring device AND with how fast these particles are going when they collide. Okay? It’s really that simple. Really. Pseudo-scientists get ahold of abstractions and suddenly all this phoney complexity emerges. PE (potential energy) does NOT have a thermal signature!

    That, in a nutshell, is all that underlies AGW hysteria and other invalid scientific notions, like “gravito-thermal effect” nonsense and Meteorology’s notion that convection causes storms.

    If you can force your mind to think in terms of molecules obeying standard laws of motion you will be less likely to fall victim to the psychological pull of abstractions. Keep it simple and you are less likely to fool yourself. And one must never forget that oneself is the easiest to fool.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    ST says “Surely you’re not buying into this gravito-thermal nonsense”

    There are many ways to be wrong. Doug is wrong about his gravito-thermal hypothesis. You were wrong in the section I quoted. I have re-read it and it still says that temperature is related to density and not to mean KE. If that is not what you mean, then you need to re-write your answer to me more clear.

    There are also many wrong answers about thermal radiation.
    * “Photons don’t exist.”
    * “Photons do exist, but no photons travel from warmer areas to cooler areas.”
    * “Some photons travel from warmer areas to cooler areas, but they can’t get absorbed.”
    * “Some photons travel from warmer areas to cooler areas and do get absorbed, but they immediately get re-emited.”

    None of these are consistent with modern physics. Photons do go both ways and do get absorbed. There simple are more photons (with a higher average energy) going warm–>cool than cool–>warm.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    (continued)
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]Now, if there were uniform temperatures at all heights in a column of air, then the molecules at the top would have more PE but an equal amount of KE to those below them.[/quote]Uh, this is a distinction without a difference. The molecules at the top will have more PE regardless of the temperature. So, once again, all we have here is hand waving about things that are common knowledge.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”] So some would fall more than they rise and thus work would be done when they gained KE during the free fall and then increased the KE of molecules they collided with at lower heights.[/quote]Yeah, so? What is your point? How are you, supposedly, telling us anything that isn’t obvious. This is just hand waving.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”] In short, a state of homogeneous KE at different heights in a gravitational field can never be a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum accessible entropy, because work can and will be done. [/quote]And this is significant why?
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]So the above considerations lead to the inevitable conclusion that, at thermodynamic equilibrium, there is in fact a temperature gradient maintained by gravity[/quote]This common knowledge.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”] because all molecules at a higher altitude have a lower mean KE[/quote]You’ve established no such thing. In fact, you’ve indicated that they will naturally (in isolation in your theoretical tube) tend to become more homogenized with respect to their KE. Moreover, PE is irrelevant since it is, as the name suggests, a “potential” and therfore has no energetic or thermal impact.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”] (hence a cooler temperature) than those at a lower altitude.[/quote]Uh, no, the MEASURED temperature will be lower because to get a temperature measurment energy must travel from your medium into your thermometer. At higher altitudes the density (pressure) is lower. At lower density there are fewer air molecules transferring energy to your thermometer. It really is just this simple. Don’t overthink it. You’ve only managed to confuse yourself with reference to PE. PE is irrelevant in this example.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”](copyright: Douglas J Cotton, Sydney, 2014)[/quote]One must always (and constantly) ground their thinking on the molecular level. If you had you might not have made the conceptual error of assuming PE is relevant when it is not.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]. . . there is some interchange of KE and PE . . . [/quote]Common knowledge. Obvious hand waving.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]. . . the molecules that collide tend towards having the same KE at the moment of impact.[/quote]Yeah, so?
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”] This means that there is no propensity for any general air movement up, down or in any direction. [/quote]Actually it tells us nothing at all about “general air movement. These are independent observation/issues.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]But think about what then happens to a molecule which is rising. As it does so it gains gravitational PE and loses an equivalent amount of KE,[/quote]Yes, once again, this is common knowledge. More hand waving.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”] just as happens when you throw a ball upwards into the air. But if thermodynamic equilibrium is prevailing, then the next molecule it collides with at a slightly higher altitude should be expected to have an amount of KE matching the now-lower level of KE in the rising molecule. The opposite happens when molecules fall, and this is in fact the way in which a pressure gradient is maintained in a gravitational field. [/quote]Common knowledge, more hand waving. At this point you have effectively alienated your whole audience in that they are going to come to the conclusion (correctly IMO) that you have nothing to say that couldn’t be found in a college textbook.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]Pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature,[/quote]Common knowledge. More hand waving.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”] so we cannot assume that temperature increases merely because pressure increases.[/quote]Why not? (see below).
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]High pressure does not maintain high temperatures. [/quote]Relevance? Nobod is claiming it does. Once again you have a non-issue that is an issue in your mind only.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]Temperature is the independent variable in planetary tropospheres,[/quote]Why would you assume such an absurdity? You are just confusing yourself with your own rhetoric.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]any given temperature can only be maintained if the supply of energy matches the loss of energy in the normal cooling processes.[/quote]Obviously. You misunderstand your audience. Nobody is interested in being lectured about things that are already known.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]What temperature gradient, if any, should exist in the equilibrium state in a planet’s troposphere? It is actually surprisingly straight forward to resolve this issue[/quote]LOL. This is an issue in your mind only, dude. You are just hand waving, again.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]. . . thermal energy is spread out by the conduction-like process which we call “diffusion” when a gas is involved. [/quote]This is common knowledge. All you have is hand waving.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form tells us that there will be a propensity for a so-called “closed system” to tend towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum accessible entropy. The word “entropy” may be thought of as representing disorder. When there is a state of “order” then work can be done, and entropy will increase when that work is done. The greater the entropy, the less is the work that can still be done within a system. A state of “maximum accessible entropy” is one in which there are no unbalanced energy potentials and thus no means by which further work could be done within the constraints of the system.[/quote]Common knowledge. Who is going to buy a book that does nothing but blather about what is already known?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]I’m taking up too much time explaining things here[/quote]Your thinking is far too esoteric. If you can’t ground your thinking in empirical reality nobody is going to take it seriously.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]This supposedly explains the “lapse rate” which is nothing more nor less than the observed temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere.[/quote]Doug correctly points out that the “lapse rate” is misnamed (or, poorly named) in that it really is not a “rate.” (process/time). It is more accurately decribed as a gradient or continuum or, as Doug suggests here, as an observation.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]What temperature gradient, if any, should exist in the equilibrium state in a planet’s troposphere?[/quote]This is where you drop the ball, Doug. If you can’t explain to your audience why the current understanding of the observed temperature gradient (“lapse rate”) is flawed, mistaken, or incomplete then you are going to lose your audience. Other than pointing out that the “lapse rate” is poorly named you aren’t telling us anything that isn’t obvious. Handwaving does not an argument make.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]It is actually surprisingly straight forward to resolve this issue from a correct understanding of Kinetic Theory in which we consider the motion of individual molecules in the atmosphere. As you may know, such molecules in a gas are very spread out with relatively large amounts of empty space between them. They do collide, however, and have near miss “grazing collisions” and some kinetic energy will be transferred from the molecule with greater energy to the one with less. This is how thermal energy is spread out by the conduction-like process which we call “diffusion” when a gas is involved. [/quote]Once again, you are telling us about something that is already known. At this point you will have lost 95% of your readers. And the 5% that remain are not going to be the brightest.
    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form tells us [/quote]This is common knowledge. You need to put yourself in your reader’s shoes. Why would anybody continue reading your words if your “insight” is something everybody already knows. If you can’t convince your audience that you have something novel and/or useful then your audience is going to (correctly, IMO) dismiss you as a hand waver.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug says:[quote]It is actually surprisingly straight forward to resolve this issue from a correct understanding of Kinetic Theory in which we consider the motion of individual molecules in the atmosphere.[/quote]

    Lets take [quote]your [/quote]example to an extreme. Let’s look at a gas that is so dilute that the particles rarely collide with each other. (Heck, we could even consider an atmosphere of a single molecule.) We will consider the ground to be a large, isothermal thermal reservoir at temperature T_g. Kinetic theory should be able to handle this easily.

    Each time a molecule hits the ground, it will exchange energy with the ground and leave with some random energy consistent with the MB distribution for T_g. If we measure the KE of the molecules leaving the ground, it will average out to (3/2)kT_g.

    Now lets look at the situation at the altitude where PE = (1/2)kT_g, ie h = (1/2)kT_g)/(mg). The particles have (1/2)kT_g less KE than they started with.

    What will the temperature be at this altitude? One might naively say the average KE is only (3/2 k T_g) – (1/2 k T_g) = k T_g and the temperature is 2/3 T_g. This would lead to a linear lapse rate.

    But of course, the air is thinner this high up. Many of the particles that left the ground never get this high. The ones that do were from the high energy end of the MB distribution. Ie, these particles had an average KE considerably MORE than (3/2)kT_g when they left the ground. In fact, you will find that they had and average of (2)kT_g. By the time they had lost (1/2)kT_g of PE, they would be down to an average of (3/2)kT_g, ie the average is STILL the same as it was at ground level and the temperature will still be the same.

    PS The only “handwaving’ part of all this is [i]”you will find that they had and average of (2)kT_g”[/i]. If they had an average GREATER THAN (2)kT_g, the gas would get warmer as you go up. If they had an average LESS THAN (2)kT_g, the gas would get cooler as you go up. If you want to impress us, use your knowledge of kinetic theory that surpasses that of everyone else on the planet and calculate the actual average KE of the particles that would actually get that high.

    If you want to simply repeat your own handwaving intuition, then don;t bother .. we all know what you will say.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    (continued)

    We can answer the question about the temperature gradient in a gravitational field if we investigate and think about just exactly what the state of thermodynamic equilibrium would be in a gas which is subjected to a gravitational field. Thermodynamic equilibrium takes into consideration all forms of energy, but the forms which are likely to change (in the absence of any chemical reaction or phase change) are kinetic energy (KE) and gravitational potential energy (PE). The changes in such internal energy take place when molecules are in free flight between collisions. Whilst they are, there is some interchange of KE and PE just as there is when you drop an egg to the floor.

    ……………….

    However, an atmosphere does not just collapse to the surface because, when a column of air is tending towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the molecules that collide tend towards having the same KE at the moment of impact. This means that there is no propensity for any general air movement up, down or in any direction.

    But think about what then happens to a molecule which is rising. As it does so it gains gravitational PE and loses an equivalent amount of KE, just as happens when you throw a ball upwards into the air. But if thermodynamic equilibrium is prevailing, then the next molecule it collides with at a slightly higher altitude should be expected to have an amount of KE matching the now-lower level of KE in the rising molecule. The opposite happens when molecules fall, and this is in fact the way in which a pressure gradient is maintained in a gravitational field. Pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature, so we cannot assume that temperature increases merely because pressure increases. High pressure does not maintain high temperatures. Temperature is the independent variable in planetary tropospheres, and any given temperature can only be maintained if the supply of energy matches the loss of energy in the normal cooling processes.

    Now, if there were uniform temperatures at all heights in a column of air, then the molecules at the top would have more PE but an equal amount of KE to those below them. So some would fall more than they rise and thus work would be done when they gained KE during the free fall and then increased the KE of molecules they collided with at lower heights. In short, a state of homogeneous KE at different heights in a gravitational field can never be a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum accessible entropy, because work can and will be done.

    So the above considerations lead to the inevitable conclusion that, at thermodynamic equilibrium, there is in fact a temperature gradient maintained by gravity because all molecules at a higher altitude have a lower mean KE (hence a cooler temperature) than those at a lower altitude.

    (copyright: Douglas J Cotton, Sydney, 2014)

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    I’m taking up too much time explaining things here, so I’ll just copy relevant sections of my book to help you all understand better.

    [b]Chapter 5 – It’s all about restoring equilibrium
    [/b]

    The implication in the NASA Energy Budget diagram mentioned in the previous chapter is that the surface is warmed and then energy flows into the atmosphere, where warm air then rises and cools as it does so. This supposedly explains the “lapse rate” (with connotations of water running downhill) which is nothing more nor less than the observed temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere. Mind you, above the tropopause (at the top of the troposphere) temperatures then level out and start to get warmer going further up into the stratosphere. This is because ozone absorbs incident solar radiation more quickly than it can be dissipated. We see a similar effect in the thermocline just below the ocean surface, where temperatures decline rapidly because more and more Solar radiation has already been absorbed the deeper the rays penetrate.

    The tropospheres of other planets also exhibit a temperature gradient, and on Venus that gradient is only a little steeper than that on Earth where it averages about 6.5 to 7 degrees per kilometre. So why do we not see hotter regions at the top of the Venus troposphere where more of the incident solar radiation is absorbed, rather like what happens in the ocean thermocline? Why does the Venus troposphere not get cooler going towards the surface where less solar radiation is received?

    …….

    We now come to the most important consideration in this book and, indeed, for the whole climate debate. We need to answer this seemingly straight forward question: What temperature gradient, if any, should exist in the equilibrium state in a planet’s troposphere?

    ………..

    It is actually surprisingly straight forward to resolve this issue from a correct understanding of Kinetic Theory in which we consider the motion of individual molecules in the atmosphere. As you may know, such molecules in a gas are very spread out with relatively large amounts of empty space between them. They do collide, however, and have near miss “grazing collisions” and some kinetic energy will be transferred from the molecule with greater energy to the one with less. This is how thermal energy is spread out by the conduction-like process which we call “diffusion” when a gas is involved.

    ……….

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form tells us that there will be a propensity for a so-called “closed system” to tend towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum accessible entropy. The word “entropy” may be thought of as representing disorder. When there is a state of “order” then work can be done, and entropy will increase when that work is done. The greater the entropy, the less is the work that can still be done within a system. A state of “maximum accessible entropy” is one in which there are no unbalanced energy potentials and thus no means by which further work could be done within the constraints of the system.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    [b]Pat[/b] – you must know that I agree with your statement [i]”There is never any demonstrated thermal electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher radiative potential.”[/i] After all, I wrote a [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]paper[/url] on this over two years ago.

    [b]The electro-magnetic energy in radiation from a cooler source is never converted to thermal energy in a warmer target.
    [/b]
    Instead, it is immediately re-emitted (as Prof Claes Johnson explained) because of a resonance process. So I’m glad that Claes, you and I and the Second Law of Thermodynamics agree on that.

    [b]Place a black disk just under the surface of water and the Sun will raise its temperature, but not the back radiation.
    [/b]
    But why do you bother to even reply to a troll like Jim McGinn who has no science degree that he has been able to tell us about, and makes such glaringly fictitious claims which are nothing more than figments of his wild imagination that has him ridding the world of tornadoes?

    Don’t feed the trolls – report their abusive and defamatory comments, because that is always their last resort – unless perhaps they are as narcissistic as Jim McGinn, the tornado ridder.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    [b]The Second Law is all-embracing[/b]

    Whilst the statement in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]third paragraph[/url] applies, as it says, to a non-gravitational system, a more detailed explanation is required for an isolated system in a gravitational field. Thus we need an understanding of the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an all-embracing law pertaining to thermodynamic equilibrium evolving as entropy increases. For example, it also explains the obvious density gradient in a planet’s troposphere, and this is because entropy will increase if there are unbalanced energy potentials, such as extra gravitational potential energy in molecules at higher altitudes.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    Tim

    You continue to fail to realised that isothermal conditions relate strictly only to non-gravitational systems. I pointed that out in the third paragraph [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]here[/url].

    The strict definition of thermal equilibrium is that it also is a state of maximum entropy where there is no further net energy transfer across any internal boundary. Obviously there cannot be two different states of maximum entropy for the same system.

    What I write in Wikipedia (which sometimes sticks) is always accurate, because I am arguably one of very few who have done extensive study in (and gained a comprehensive understanding of)both climatology and the physics of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics.

    The stable “lapse rate” in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours is a good example wherein heat flow by convection has stopped, and yet there is still a thermal gradient, because it is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    [b]You can learn from me if you deign to do so, or you can live out your life adhering to your misconceptions. When I help undergraduates with their physics I set them questions which make them think. You will start to realise that they must be misconceptions when you think about the question I posed about Venus. [/b]

    So go back and answer the question about the extra 5 degrees in the Venus surface, because, as best I know, no one else in the world has done so with any other explanation than mine, certainly not in any publication or climate blog posting.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]There is never any demonstrated thermal electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher radiative potential. [/quote]

    Relevance?

    Why don’t you tell us how you looked on the internet to find evidence to backup your claim and never found it. Strange how Meteorology has gone all this time without that assumptions every being tested. How hard could it be to weigh air?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]I do not agree with anything from Doug Cotton. OTOH He presents much that you and your authorities cannot explain.[/quote]

    Like what?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]
    2) I agree with you 100% that ST blew it when he said [i]”At the bottom of the column the density is higher. … This is why the temperature is higher. It has nothing to do with KE per molecule.” [/i] It has EVERYTHING to do with the mean KE per particle.
    [/quote]This is such a dimwitted statement. Whenever you measure temperature you are measuring a mean.

    Surely you’re not buying into this gravito-thermal nonsense, are. It’s blatant pseudo-science, just like AGW.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]2) I agree with you 100% that ST blew it when he said “At the bottom of the column the density is higher. …[/quote]pressure is higher. Density is higher.
    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] This is why the temperature is higher. It has nothing to do with KE per molecule.” It has EVERYTHING to do with the mean KE per particle. [/quote]

    Mean is irrelevant (and immeasurible). Don’t let Doug confuse you. temperature goes up as pressure goes up simply because the collission of molecules on the thermometer are greater with greater density. More molecules with the same KE results in higher temperature. Mean is irrelevant.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Douglas Cotton”]I guess with the very low density in the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere]thermosphere[/url] (above the mesosphere, which is above the stratosphere) Bill SolvingTornadoes McGinn (scientist by his theory alone) would expect it to be rather cold up there.

    [i][b]”The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day.”[/b][/i][/quote]

    Your gravito-thermal effect bites the dust.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    Sorry, that’s [url=http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/home]Jim McGinn[/url] (not Bill) – the one who’s going to save the world from tornadoes, as he writes on that website …

    [i]”Tornadoes are associated with thunderstorms but not all thunderstorms. Only about 10% of thunderstorms produce tornadoes (and most of these are not very destructive). What is the mechanism by which some thunderstorms produce violent tornadoes and some do not? And is the mechanism subtle? This last question, we contend, is an important question because if the answer to this question is yes then the next question is whether or not (and to what degree) us humans might be able influence the, purportedly, subtle factors that are the trigger-cause of large, destructive tornadoes in order to prevent them altogether. On this website we argue that the answer to this last question is, in fact, yes: the cause of tornadoes is subtle. And we will explicate, in detail, what this subtle cause is. We will then propose some simple and inexpensive solutions that, hopefully, will someday make [b]these deadly and highly destructive natural phenomena a thing of the past.[/b]”[/i]

    I guess that our “theoretical scientist” probably could do so with his fictitious fissics. All it takes is to step outside reality into Alice’s wonderful dreamland.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug,

    1) As you say: [i]”entropy is a measure of progression towards thermodynamic equilibrium, not thermal equilibrium alone”[/i]. So we are looking at a progression toward mechanical equilibrium and chemical equilibrium [quote]and thermal equilibrium. [/quote]That is worth repeating. You agree that thermal equilibrium is a subset of thermodynamic equilibrium. SO any progress toward thermodynamic equilibrium necessarily includes progress toward thermal equilibrium.

    2) I agree with you 100% that ST blew it when he said [i]”At the bottom of the column the density is higher. … This is why the temperature is higher. It has nothing to do with KE per molecule.” [/i] It has EVERYTHING to do with the mean KE per particle.

    3) EVERY system (not just non-gravitational systems) tends toward thermodynamic equilibrium. And since thermodynamic equilibrium INCLUDES thermal equilibrium, then the final equilibrium state will be isothermal.

    4) It is [i]still [/i]humorous to hear you quote your own edits to Wikipedia as if they were some neutral opinion on the issue. Just man up and say “here is what I think”.

  • Avatar

    Douglas Cotton

    |

    I guess with the very low density in the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere]thermosphere[/url] (above the mesosphere, which is above the stratosphere) Bill SolvingTornadoes McGinn (scientist by his theory alone) would expect it to be rather cold up there.

    [i][b]”The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day.”[/b][/i]

  • Avatar

    SolvingSolarSystems

    |

    Sorry, that quote from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Wikipedia[/url] should read …

    [i]It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated [b]non-gravitational[/b] physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium[/i]

  • Avatar

    SolvingSolarSystems

    |

    [i]It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential gravitational[/b] physical system, leading decrease in an isolated [b]non-eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.[clarification needed][/i]

    In order to understand how this law functions in a [b]gravitational system [/b](where gravitational potential energy must also be taken into account) we refer to the fact that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has no unbalanced energy potentials. Hence it has homogeneous entropy and may be said to be isentropic. If this were not the case, then entropy could still continue increasing, because the state of maximum entropy (within the system constraints) would not have been attained.

  • Avatar

    SolvingSolarSystems

    |

    [b]Tim Folkerts[/b] wrote [i]”You are the one forbidding heat flow and thereby forbidding the system from moving toward equilibrium.”[/i]

    First of all, what type of equilibrium are you talking about, TF?

    The Second Law of thermo[i]dynamics[/i] is talking about thermo[i]dynamic[/i] equilibrium, not thermal equilibrium.

    [i]”The entropy of any isolated system cannot decrease. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium — the state of maximum entropy of the system.”[/i]

    Look up for yourself what thermodynamic equilibrium is all about, and how entropy is a measure of progression towards thermodynamic equilibrium, not thermal equilibrium alone, but also mechanical and other forms of equilibrium. How else do you think the Second Law explains the obvious gradient in density in a gravitational field? The Second Law isn’t just all about temperature. Temperature (mean kinetic energy) and gravitational potential energy are intertwined, because every time a molecule moves in free (frictionless) flight between collisions (or an apple is falling off a tree) kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy are interchangeable, but only kinetic energy affects temperature measurement – not density as non-scientist Jim McGinn (aka Solvingtornadoes) tries to convince silent readers.

    Hence, when considering energy potentials, you have to include gravitational potential energy. It’s not hard to understand and it’s all explained in Wikipedia in the laws of thermodynamics and the assumptions of Kinetic Theory.

  • Avatar

    SolvingSolarSystems

    |

    [b]”SolvingTornadoes” has really displayed his lack of knowledge of physics[/b] when he tries to claim that density affects thermometer readings.

    Silent readers can read about self proclaimed “theoretical scientist” Jim McGinn on his [url=http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/home]website[/url].

    [b][i]If you have a science degree Jim McGinn, what subjects did you do from second year onwards, when and at what tertiary institution?
    [/i][/b]

    I gave our friend Jim McGinn (self proclaimed theoretical scientist) a link to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory]Kinetic Theory[/url] but, as usual he writes from his own incorrect assumptions, rather than established facts and laws of physics – something which I easily detected long ago.

    I quote …

    [b][i]”The average molecular kinetic energy is proportional to the absolute temperature.”
    [/i][/b]

    [i]”In 1738 Daniel Bernoulli published Hydrodynamica, which laid the basis for the kinetic theory of gases. In this work, Bernoulli posited the argument, still used to this day, that gases consist of great numbers of molecules moving in all directions, that their impact on a surface causes the gas pressure that we feel, and that [b]what we experience as heat is simply the kinetic energy of their motion[/b].”[/i]

    In that Jim McGinn (“scientist” according to his own theory) is not prepared to admit his error in this regard, or to read about the [url=http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url], I am not prepared to waste more time helping him with degree-level physics. I normally get paid for doing so.

    I know he can’t answer the question about Venus on his own, without reading Wikipedia.

    If he asks any more questions of me without admitting his error about temperature measurements, and without answering the question about Venus (even if he cribs the answer from Wikipedia) then I will just refer him back to this comment. Fair enough, mate?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”SolvingSolarSystems”]ST quotes me “temperature is a function only of the mean KE per molecule” and then says “What you state here is not true” which just shows how little he understands about the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory#Assumptions]assumptions of Kinetic Theory[/url] which Einstein and others used successfully many times and from which is derived the Ideal Gas Law.

    SolvingTornadoes has no understanding of degree level physics (in which I have helped undergraduates for nearly 50 years) and he has no correct understanding of kinetic theory, the second law of thermodynamics, thermodynamic equilibrium (which he thinks is the same as thermal equilibrium) and entropy which he thinks is the same as enthalpy. He is way out of his depth here.
    [b]
    Now, ST, answer the question I asked months ago about the 5 degree rise in temperature in the Venus surface.[/b]

    Douglas J. Cotton, B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin[/quote]At the bottom of the column the density is higher. Therefore there are more molecules colliding with the measuring equipment. This is why the temperature is higher. It has nothing to do with KE per molecule. It stays the same.

    This should have been obvious to you, Doug.

  • Avatar

    SolvingSolarSystems

    |

    ST quotes me “temperature is a function only of the mean KE per molecule” and then says “What you state here is not true” which just shows how little he understands about the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory#Assumptions]assumptions of Kinetic Theory[/url] which Einstein and others used successfully many times and from which is derived the Ideal Gas Law.

    SolvingTornadoes has no understanding of degree level physics (in which I have helped undergraduates for nearly 50 years) and he has no correct understanding of kinetic theory, the second law of thermodynamics, thermodynamic equilibrium (which he thinks is the same as thermal equilibrium) and entropy which he thinks is the same as enthalpy. He is way out of his depth here.
    [b]
    Now, ST, answer the question I asked months ago about the 5 degree rise in temperature in the Venus surface.[/b]

    Douglas J. Cotton, B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin

  • Avatar

    SolvingSolarSystems

    |

    My “special secret” is already explained in my book and in Wikipedia.

    I’m still waiting for you or anyone to explain the 5 degree rise in temperature for the Venus surface during its 4-month-long day. This question is answered correctly in Wikipedia, and in my book. But no one on any of about 15 climate blogs has been able to answer the question, because they think they know what Wikipedia says and so can’t be bothered to read it and [b][i]understand[/i][/b] it.

    Here’s a summary of my book written by a retired physics educator, and it will give you a clue …

    [i]Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures. Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.[/i]

    John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
    [b]
    Now, anyone, answer the question about the Venus surface temperature rising by 5 degrees. My answer is already in simple Wikipedia.[/b]

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]Why won’t I answer? Because I know you don’t really want to learn what thermodynamic equilibrium is all about. You think it is only about temperature.[/quote]

    Is there some reason you are not telling us your special secret?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]
    [b]7) Thus, because temperature is a function only of the mean KE per molecule, . . .[/b][/quote]
    Here’s the flaw in your argument, Doug. What you state here is not true. Think about it. You’ll figure it out. Think of your vertical column. Think about a rather obvious, measurable difference between the top and the bottom. (Hint: it starts with a D.) Conceptualize it. Now reconsider what you stated above and retract all of this nonsense.

    Vague minded people like you should avoid science.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    “I couldn’t find anything on the internet … ” (LOL)

    Try a simple Wikipedia explanation …

    [i]”… density and pressure do not even out in a vertical plane, and nor does temperature because gravity acts on individual molecules, and this means molecular kinetic energy interchanges with gravitational potential energy in free path motion between collisions.”[/i]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    “Once you find a question …..” (LOL)

    Yes, well you answer my question about how the energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature 5 degrees. Radiation won’t do it.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Why won’t I answer? Because I know you don’t really want to learn what thermodynamic equilibrium is all about. You think it is only about temperature.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Out of curiosity, do you come to the same gravito-thermal conclusion for solids and liquids?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] If I carried a chunk of water up 1 km in an insulated container up the side of a mountain, would it cool by 9.8 K? By some other amount?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] Or stay the same temperature?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] What about a chunk of copper?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] What about a sealed, insulated container of air at constant volume?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] All of these are gaining gravitational PE, so do all of them ought to be losing KE and hence cooling, right?[/quote]No response.[/quote]So, uh, Doug. Why won’t you answer these questions?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Doug, you have this completely backwards (and can’t even see it).

    You are the one who is going against the 2nd law. You are the one forbidding heat flow and thereby forbidding the system from moving toward equilibrium (ie air parcels adiabatically isolated from other air parcels). Removing the adiabatic restriction will allow a further increase in entropy by allowing heat flows and the spreading out of energy.[/quote]Tim, let me give you some advice on how to handle trolls like Doug. The worst thing you can do is attempt to engage them in a normal conversation. For a troll they will see this behavior as a sign of your weakness. You had the right idea above. Ask him short, simple questions that he can’t answer. Then when he evades the question just keep asking him the same question over and over again. Never, ever try to explain anything to a troll. Never give them a direct response. Once you find a question a troll won’t answer just keep asking the question over and over again. Repetition, simplicity are the key. Never try to educate a troll. Just make a sarcastic comment and keep asking him the same, simple, relevant questions over and over again. Then just watch them squirm.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]I am not interested in any internet consensus of “convection”.[/quote] So, uh, why do you think it is that Meteorologists refuse to address this issue? Did you think the fact you couldn’t find anything on the internet was a fluke? It’s no fluke, pal. The reason you won’t find anything on this is the same reason you won’t find climatologists discussing CO2 forcing–it doesn’t exist.

    Paradigms persist because of lazy minded people like yourself.

    (You couldn’t find anything on the internet, could you? :-* ) I mean, they are (supposedly) the experts on this subject. Aren’t they? I’m just one person. Meteorology is a big subject. It’s been around for close to 200 years. Surely you should find some kind of empirical verification/support for convection model of storm theory. Right? How is it possible nobody ever tested it?

    The fact that Meteorologists choose to believe it doesn’t make it true any more than the fact that some people choose to believe in backradiation makes that true.

    Science is about facts. Not imagination.

    You lost the argument, Pat. Give it up. Go away and sulk.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug says:
    [quote]So there you have it. That, Tim Folkerts is what you are up against when, in effect, you are claiming entropy can decrease so that isothermal conditions can exist in a vertical plane in a gravitational field.[/quote]

    Doug, you have this completely backwards (and can’t even see it).

    You are the one who is going against the 2nd law. You are the one forbidding heat flow and thereby forbidding the system from moving toward equilibrium (ie air parcels adiabatically isolated from other air parcels). Removing the adiabatic restriction will allow a further increase in entropy by allowing heat flows and the spreading out of energy.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    The implication of this article is that Greg Hunt is guilty of fraud, reminding me of the allegations thrown by John O’Sullivan at Dr. Michael Mann in other articles posted on this blog. What is not considered is that Greg Hunt (a politician not a scientist) might simply have been misled by others.

    Allowing for that I sent a further E-mail to Greg Hunt and it can be seen at “http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/spotlighton-aussie-govt-minister-in.html” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/spotlighton-aussie-govt-minister-in.html)

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    test comment

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    You still haven’t looked up the [url=http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]second law of thermodynamics[/url] and read it all yet, have you? Anyone? You don’t dare do you? Or if you have, you don’t dare admit to anyone what it says.

    You guys should use Wikipedia a little more … quite often you read it there first, long before it gets into textbooks, which you wouldn’t buy anyway.

    In a vertical plane in a gravitational field, thermodynamic equilibrium exhibits a non-zero gradient in pressure, density and temperature, each being less at the top of a planet’s troposphere.

    [b][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection]Convection[/url][/b] is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, [b]either through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them.
    [/b]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Good God Jim, I have stated nothing of convection at all.[/quote]
    Actually,you did.[/quote]
    Where Please identify your claim at all!

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]However I observe that you are completely fucked up on convection. You can not even define what convection may be![/quote]
    “Do you know anybody that has a computer hooked to the internet? Maybe they could look it up for you? Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out.”

    I am not interested in any internet consensus of “convection”.
    What is “your” precise definition of “convection”, that has any relationship to your insane claims of your physics of convection? Go away and sulk.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    The implication of this article is that Greg Hunt is guilty of fraud, reminding me of the allegations thrown by John O’Sullivan at Dr. Michael Mann in other articles posted on this blog. What is not considered is that Greg Hunt (a politician not a scientist) might simply have been misled by others.

    Allowing for that I sent a couple of E-mails to Greg Hunt and here is a summary of what I said.

    START

    The PSI article “Newly-Released Letters Expose Aussie Govt. Minister in Climate Fraud” implies that you are guilty of committing fraud. It focuses on a letter sent to you on 19th March by Malcolm Roberts making numerous allegations about you, e.g:
    – behaving dishonestly and circumventing truth,
    – misleading parliament and the people of Australia.
    – condoning corruption of climate science funded by taxpayers,
    – aiding and abetting corruption of climate science and fraud.

    In my opinion making such allegations goes way beyond the realm of freedom-of-speech criticism of a public figure and reminds me of the numerous attacks on Dr. Michael Mann by John O’Sullivan. On 18th March in one of those attacks he posed the boastful question “Will Steyn now Stick it the O’Sullivan Way to Climate Fraudster Michael Mann?”. Perhaps Malcolm Roberts was encouraged to “stick it the O’Sullivan way” to you.

    Malcolm Roberts is a member of the PSI blog and in May 2012 I asked how he had become involved with the blog owner John O’Sullivan. He responded “ .. I have found John a delight to work with. In my dealings with John, I’ve found him to be honest, intelligent, prompt, courteous accurate, clever, savvy and effective. He’s also strong and direct, two traits that could upset people of lesser character .. I’ve learned much and developed considerable regard for John and continue to benefit from knowing him .. I have enormous regard for John O’Sullivan .. ”.

    Despite my efforts to get Malcolm Roberts to undertake careful due diligence into PSI and its founding members he refused to remove his blinkers. There are none so blind as those who choose not to see, but one has to ponder and speculate about the reasons for such a choice!

    Following one of my comments on his article “Mann v Ball Case hit by Fatal Technicality” John O’Sullivan commented “ .. For anyone wanting further proof Ridley is a pyscho, simply Google: peter ridley cyberstalker .. ”. I have a much more worthwhile suggestion. For anyone wanting further proof that John O’Sullivan is a liar, google “John O’Sullivan” and “Liar” which will produce links to articles such as:
    – July 2011 “SO MANY LIES – AND THE LIAR WHO TELLS THEM” (http://hot-topic.co.nz/so-many-lies-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/)
    – July 2012 “John O’Sullivan, master manipulator – A Closer Look” (http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/john-osullivan-master-manipulator.html),

    This is the same John O’Sullivan for whom Malcolm Roberts has such enormous regard!

    END.

    The full text can be found at http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/spotlighton-aussie-govt-minister-in.html .

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Good God Jim, I have stated nothing of convection at all.[/quote]Actually, you did.[quote name=”Pat Obar”]However I observe that you are completely fucked up on convection. You can not even define what convection may be![/quote]Do you know anybody that has a computer hooked to the internet? Maybe they could look it up for you? Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    I leave you with this quote …

    [i][b]The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature[/b]. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But [b]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.[/b] ”[/i]
    –Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
    [b]
    So there you have it. That, Tim Folkerts is what you are up against when, in effect, you are claiming entropy can decrease so that isothermal conditions can exist in a vertical plane in a gravitational field.[/b]

    That is utter rubbish TF, and it would be totally against nature to somehow build up gravitational potential energy at the top in a vertical plane and even out the temperature, density and pressure gradients in a gravitational field. You really do need to catch up on physics as it is taught in degree level courses, not to junior teenagers.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    It doesn’t take much effort, much talent, much skill or much training to be skeptical about something new. Everybody is skeptical of something new. Philosophers of science don’t write books about being skeptical about something new. The real difficulty in science comes with being skeptical about what is known, what is understood, what is most familiar. This is where talent, intelligence, hard work and training come into play. Just about anybody can become an expert in a scientific discipline if they put in the time and effort. But that is nothing to pat yourself on the back about. The heavy lifting in science comes with finding what is wrong with a notion when all you instincts are telling you everything about it is right.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    There is no ambiguity in the [url=http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics.[/url] Go and read it all as you might be surprised what it says.

    Then, rather than assertive statements such as Tim Folkerts likes to make, the only arguments I will consider are those which discuss entropy and thermodynamic equilibrium, because that is what the Second Law refers to.

    And I repeat, I do not necessarily accept calls to authority. Whilst I said I [i][b]could[/b][/i] call upon authority, I made it quite clear that, in general, I only call upon valid physics. The Second Law is one such example which, despite the assertive statements of TF, has in no way been tampered with by myself.

    So if you think you can substantiate the existence of isothermal conditions having maximum extropy, then go to – but keep the discussion to physics based on your own knowledge of such, and what Wikipedia states regarding the Second Law.

    Go on – dare to read what is there. I bet you have no idea what to expect.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Tim, I do not agree with anything from Doug Cotton. OTOH He presents much that you and your authorities cannot explain.[/quote]

    Uh, like what? Honestly. All I’m seeing is borderline sociopathy. He’s a troll that once took a class in thermodynamics (and probably dropped out). He’s a believer. Believers should avoid science in general. Doug is out of his element in anything remotely resembling a two way discussion. He’s like a deer in the headlights. But you seem to be able to fake it most of the time. You’ll have ohter opportunities. Why don’t you tell us how you looked on the internet to find evidence to backup your claim and never found it. Strange how Meteorology has gone all this time without that assumptions every being tested. How hard could it be to weigh air?[/quote]

    Nonsense not worth a reply!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Tim, I do not agree with anything from Doug Cotton. OTOH He presents much that you and your authorities cannot explain.[/quote]

    Uh, like what? Honestly. All I’m seeing is borderline sociopathy. He’s a troll that once took a class in thermodynamics (and probably dropped out). He’s a believer. Believers should avoid science in general. Doug is out of his element in anything remotely resembling a two way discussion. He’s like a deer in the headlights. But you seem to be able to fake it most of the time. You’ll have ohter opportunities. Why don’t you tell us how you looked on the internet to find evidence to backup your claim and never found it. Strange how Meteorology has gone all this time without that assumptions every being tested. How hard could it be to weigh air?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]OK Asshole! There is never any demonstrated thermal electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher radiative potential. (higher thermometric temperature)! Go away and sulk.[/quote]LOL. Convection is the CO2 Forcing of Meteorology. And you are the Doug Cotton of convection.[/quote]

    Good God Jim, I have stated nothing of convection at all. I have only 39 years of carefully measuring Thermal electromagnetic radiative flux.. I know nothing of convection.
    However I observe that you are completely fucked up on convection. You can not even define what convection may be! Go away and sulk.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]OK Asshole! There is never any demonstrated thermal electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher radiative potential. (higher thermometric temperature)! Go away and sulk.[/quote]LOL. Convection is the CO2 Forcing of Meteorology. And you are the Doug Cotton of convection.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]OKI Asshole![/quote]Why don’t you go find a Meteorologist who can help you formulate an argument. (You couldn’t find anything on the internet, could you? :-* ) I mean, they are (supposedly) the experts on this subject. Aren’t they? I’m just one person. Meteorology is a big subject. It’s been around for close to 200 years. Surely you should find some kind of empirical verification/support for convection model of storm theory. Right? How is it possible nobody ever tested it?

    The fact that Meteorologists choose to believe it doesn’t make it true any more than the fact that some people choose to believe in backradiation makes that true.[/quote]

    OK Asshole! There is never any demonstrated thermal electromagnetic radiative flux in a direction toward a higher radiative potential. (higher thermometric temperature)! Go away and sulk.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]OKI Asshole![/quote]Why don’t you go find a Meteorologist who can help you formulate an argument. (You couldn’t find anything on the internet, could you? :-* ) I mean, they are (supposedly) the experts on this subject. Aren’t they? I’m just one person. Meteorology is a big subject. It’s been around for close to 200 years. Surely you should find some kind of empirical verification/support for convection model of storm theory. Right? How is it possible nobody ever tested it?

    The fact that Meteorologists choose to believe it doesn’t make it true any more than the fact that some people choose to believe in backradiation makes that true.

    Science is about facts. Not imagination.

    You lost the argument, Pat. Give it up. Go away and sulk.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]please consider your claims of Heavy air in regard to the nonsense of Doug Cotton.[/quote]
    That argument is over, Pat. You conceded that argument when you failed to respond to my request for empirical support (measurement/testing). Science involves facts, not your imagination. Sorry to burst your bubble.[quote name=”Pat Obar”] Please carefully check your claims of H2O dimers and trimers that you claim are more dense than H2O monomers![/quote]You lost the argument a long time ago and now you are trying to paraphrase from memory, and you are making a mess of it. Quote me directly and in context or just go away. I’m busy writing a book. If you are too lazy to express yourself clearly then go watch the weather channel or something.[/quote]

    OKI Asshole!

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]please consider your claims of Heavy air in regard to the nonsense of Doug Cotton.[/quote]
    That argument is over, Pat. You conceded that argument when you failed to respond to my request for empirical support (measurement/testing). Science involves facts, not your imagination. Sorry to burst your bubble.[quote name=”Pat Obar”] Please carefully check your claims of H2O dimers and trimers that you claim are more dense than H2O monomers![/quote]You lost the argument a long time ago and now you are trying to paraphrase from memory, and you are making a mess of it. Quote me directly and in context or just go away. I’m busy writing a book. If you are too lazy to express yourself clearly then go watch the weather channel or something.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”D o u g  C”]Answer the questions you were asked upthread, [/quote]
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2014-0-17-deg-c/#comment-107923

    Ball Four:
    Doug’s problem is ignorance of gas enthalpy all together. In solids and liquids, the difference between internal energy changes and enthalpy changes is negligible so Doug is ok (for solids) using total energy analogy examples like solid billiard balls where Doug’s intuition stems from solids. In atm. physics, our primary interest is a gas where this difference is not negligible (where gas enthalpy is conserved quantity = H = U + pV) and is the main cause for Doug’s correct decision to withdraw his book above.

    Doug:
    You can’t deny what I described between four molecules will happen regardless.

    Ball Four:
    Yet I do deny it. What you show is impossible in nature because the 4 gas molecules interaction described doesn’t increase entropy in the universe, nor does it agree with quantity conserved 1st law for a gas. No hope for it.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”D o u g  C”]I debunked the Verkley paper here. It should be obvious they made the mistake of working with enthalpy instead of entropy, as in the Second Law.

    [b]I am not the slightest bit interested in majority viewpoints or calls to authority.[/b]

    I [i]could[/i] call on the authority of the brilliant Josef Loschmidt, [/quote]

    “Loschmidt, who died more than 100 years ago in 1895, claimed that the equilibrium temperature declined with height, and that a perpetual motion machine of the second kind operating by means of such column was compatible with the second law of thermodynamics. Thus he was convinced he had detected a never ending source of usable energy for mankind.”
    http://andreastrupp.com/loschmid.htm

    So, Doug, do you believe in perpetual motions machines? Is this your big secret? Your trillion dollar idea?[/quote]

    Jim,
    please consider your claims of Heavy air in regard to the nonsense of Doug Cotton.

    Loschmidt was carefully trashed by Jimmy Maxwell, John Poynting, Max Planck, Ludy Boltzmann,and his mentor DR Stephan. all because he claimed energy from what was not.

    Please carefully check your claims of H2O dimers and trimers that you claim are more dense than H2O monomers!

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Here’s some homework for [b]SolvingTornadoes[/b] which may even help him to find the reason for what I suspect would be slight temperature variations within his tornadoes.

    Explain how the air cools in a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube]Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube[/url] – the type of vortex others of us were talking about when you first butted in.

    Of course [b]Tim Folkerts[/b] doesn’t have a hope of explaining it, and will avoid the issue like the plague. So I’ll just give him a “fail” on that question.

    [b]And one homework question for everyone:[/b]

    The IPCC says water gas (vapour) is the main GH gas, and that GH gases raise the Earth’s surface temperatures by 33 degrees. So, if water gas molecules and suspended water droplets do most of this 33 degrees of warming (let’s say 25 degrees at least) then show some evidence (with calculations) that inland tropical regions with higher precipitation have significantly higher temperatures than similar but drier regions at similar altitudes and latitudes in their hottest month when the Sun passes almost directly overhead.

    [b]So, let’s say I give you all about three to four days to respond to your as-yet-unanswered homework questions. Have a thinking weekend.
    [/b]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug, no one doubts the math behind the dry adiabatic lapse rate — g/Cp shold be the adiabatic lapse rate as you show. The objection is to the idea that this is the equilibrium condition.

    Think about the very name “adiabatic” lapse rate. This means that heat flow is forbidden between a given parcel of air and the surroundings, ie the parcel moves up or down adiabatically. If each parcel is thermally isolated from the others, then this lapse rate will indeed naturally exist.

    Since air is a good insulator, the adiabatic [i]approximation [/i]is quite good. So the adiabatic lapse rate is a good [i]approximation [/i]of what will happen. Once this lapse rate is set up, the atmosphere can only [i]SLOOOOWLY [/i]return toward the true equilibrium condition (isothermal) via conduction. In real situations, the efforts to return the atmosphere to equilibrium will be so weak that the [i]de facto[/i] lapse rate will be very close the (definitely non-equilibrium) adiabatic lapse.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]When it comes to discussing cutting edge 21st century findings in the field of physics, Tim Folkerts and the like . . . [/quote]

    Answer the questions you were asked upthread, you evasive jackass.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    typo – still [i]wouldn’t[/i] deign to read my previous comments

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Solvingtornadoes who butted in half way through this discussion with his irrelevant mention of vortices and tornadoes (and his book) and who had this pointed out to him, still deigns to read my previous comments on this thread, where the issue of perpetual motion was discussed here …
    #73 D o u g C 2014-03-27 22:35

    Even a simple search on the thread for the word “perpetual” (using CTRL-F if you don’t know) would have saved his time and mine.

    Readers need to understand that PPM was the big “in” topic in the 19th century, and the state of thermodynamic equilibrium was not well understood.

    As readers (other than ST) know, there are numerous comments wherein a certain Tim Folkerts tried to postulate PPM but failed every time, because, after all, he and all those who believe that, even in a vertical plane in a gravitational field, there can be no diffusion of kinetic energy from a cooler to warmer region (such as we know must happen in the Venus troposphere) are indeed still living with 19th century physics, which they learnt in their early teens.

    When it comes to discussing cutting edge 21st century findings in the field of physics, Tim Folkerts and the like prefer to bury their heads in the carbon dioxide hoax that places (carbon free?)bread and butter on their tables.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]I debunked the Verkley paper here. It should be obvious they made the mistake of working with enthalpy instead of entropy, as in the Second Law.

    [b]I am not the slightest bit interested in majority viewpoints or calls to authority.[/b]

    I [i]could[/i] call on the authority of the brilliant Josef Loschmidt, [/quote]

    “Loschmidt, who died more than 100 years ago in 1895, claimed that the equilibrium temperature declined with height, and that a perpetual motion machine of the second kind operating by means of such column was compatible with the second law of thermodynamics. Thus he was convinced he had detected a never ending source of usable energy for mankind.”
    http://andreastrupp.com/loschmid.htm

    So, Doug, do you believe in perpetual motions machines? Is this your big secret? Your trillion dollar idea?

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    And here are the calculations in the book ….

    [i]
    Let us consider a thought experiment in which a region of a non-radiating gas of mass M all happens to move downwards by a small height difference, H in a “closed system” where g is the acceleration due to gravity.  The loss in PE will thus be the product M.g.H because a force Mg moves the gas a distance H.  But there will be a corresponding gain in KE and that will be equal to the energy required to warm the gas by a small temperature difference, T.  This energy can be calculated using the specific heat Cp and this calculation yields the product M.Cp.T. Bearing in mind that there was a PE loss and a KE gain, we thus have …
    M.Cp.T = – M.g.H 
    T/H = -g/Cp
     But T/H is the temperature gradient, which is thus the quotient -g/Cp.

    This result is well known, as is the fact that the atmospheres of all planets exhibit a similar temperature gradient that can be calculated from the gravitational force on that planet and the mean specific heat of the gases in its atmosphere.
    [/i]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    The mathematical calculations for the thermal gradient are in detail in my book, but briefly stated in numerous climate blog comments such as [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2014-0-17-deg-c/#comment-107923]here[/url] and [url=http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/new-lapse-rate-by-gravitation-loschmidt.html?showComment=1394670040374#c8201574191268755997]here[/url].

    Yes, in summary I and about five other leading physicists who, like myself, have also delved into climatology and the claims made by the IPCC are the ones who are right, because all the others have been misled and brainwashed by a few who misled them from the early 1980’s.

    I leave you with a quote from my book and I shall return sometime to read your attempts at explaining the physics of the Venus and Uranus tropospheres from which you could learn a lot if you did but think for yourself instead of calling upon selected cherry picked authorities …

    [i][b]Chapter 2 – A slice of history
    [/b][/i]

    [i]The world will one day look back upon a small slice of history that began in the 1980’s and sadly have to conclude that never in the name of science have so many people been so seriously misled by so few for so long. Never have so many careers, so much time and so much money been spent in the pursuit of such a misguided and ineffective goal to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide, a harmless gas which comprises about one molecule in every two and a half thousand other molecules in the atmosphere of our planet, Earth.

    The author is very much aware of the arguments put forward and the extent of vested interests dependent upon those billions of dollars of government funds shelled out in the belief that “the science is settled” and now we must get on with the task of “saving the planet” by cutting “carbon” emissions no matter what the cost to society. He is also aware from personal experience in debate with many hundreds of believers and so-called “deniers” that very, very few exhibit a valid understanding of the relevant physics and physical laws in the field of thermodynamics.

    The physics involved is actually at the forefront of current knowledge, and the hypothesis put forward in this book has not, to the author’s knowledge, been published anywhere else in world literature. Yet the IPCC authors make their “greenhouse effect” sound all too obvious, and even young school children are taught in simplistic terms by misled teachers that this wicked “pollutant” carbon dioxide acts like a blanket making the world a hotter place. It is incorrectly accused of allowing all incoming radiation from the Sun to strike the Earth’s surface, but “trapping” all upwelling long-wave infrared radiation. Then it is assumed that, when you warm up some very cold molecules of air in the atmosphere by a fraction of a degree, that extra energy somehow returns to Earth and makes it hotter, like hot air physically trapped in a glass greenhouse. [/i]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”][quote]Thus, if you wish to attempt to prove your absurd assumption … [/quote]

    Here’s the thing Doug. My “absurd assumption” is standard physics, accepted by textbooks and professors of physics, engineering, and meteorology. There are lots of proofs. Start with Verkley and Gerkema. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%282004%29061%3C0931%3AOMEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    You are the one who has the proving to do,. Give hard numbers. Derive something mathematically. Explain which specific steps in the above peer-reviewed paper are wrong. So far what we have is your personal hand-waving assertions that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That you and you alone know how to interpret the 2nd Law. [/quote]

    You Tim Folkerts are the one that must provide
    some repeatably measured evidence of what you have written, as a fantasy. as you are the arrogant academic that insists that authority is “science” rather than “evidence”! Where is your repeatable demonstration that shows:

    1) All matter with a temperature, radiates electromagnetic energy proportional to that (matter’s absolute temperature)^4 quite independent of the opposing radiance in each
    frequency, and in each direction. h/t to Gus Kirchhoff that did get it correct.

    2) The Clausius statement of 2LTD, involving only the spontaneity of energy subject to some potential difference, and claiming a LAW, based on observation that “nothing” including energy ever spontaneously proceeds in a direction opposing that potential difference.

    3) Energy transfer in the atmosphere within a gravitational potential is not also subject to the “LAW” of spontaneity as described by Rudy.

    Tim, I do not agree with anything from Doug Cotton. OTOH He presents much that you and your authorities cannot explain. The conflict, and argument is called “SCIENCE”!

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Sorry, I did the links in HTML instead of the code used here. They should be:

    [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2014-0-17-deg-c/#comment-107923]The Verkley paper[/url]

    [url=http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf]Dr Hans Jelbring’s paper[/url]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    I debunked the Verkley paper here. It should be obvious they made the mistake of working with enthalpy instead of entropy, as in the Second Law.

    [b]I am not the slightest bit interested in majority viewpoints or calls to authority.[/b]

    I [i]could[/i] call on the authority of the brilliant Josef Loschmidt, who was the first in the world to estimate the size of air molecules, or the authority of PSI member Dr Hans Jelbring who studied the gravito-thermal effect for his PhD and had a peer-reviewed paper published in [i]Energy & Environment[/i] in 2003, but all I call upon is the long-established Second Law of Thermodynamics in which there is no ambiguity, just a need for understanding on your part.

    You prove to me that you don’t understand the Second Law, or even what entropy is, because you cannot answer the questions about Venus and Uranus properly without hand waving comments, such as is all you have provided.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]Thus, if you wish to attempt to prove your absurd assumption … [/quote]

    Here’s the thing Doug. My “absurd assumption” is standard physics, accepted by textbooks and professors of physics, engineering, and meteorology. There are lots of proofs. Start with Verkley and Gerkema. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%282004%29061%3C0931%3AOMEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    You are the one who has the proving to do,. Give hard numbers. Derive something mathematically. Explain which specific steps in the above peer-reviewed paper are wrong. So far what we have is your personal hand-waving assertions that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That you and you alone know how to interpret the 2nd Law.

    You will forgive us for not overturning fundamental physics based on the conjectures of a random guy on the internet.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    In an adiabatic process in a sealed and perfectly insulated vertical cylinder of a solid, liquid or gas a thermal gradient evolves in accord with the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    This fact may be used to deduce that such will also occur in calm conditions in a planet’s troposphere if no new energy were being absorbed, such as is close to the case in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours, when surface cooling and upward advection almost stops. In such as situation we can observe that there is indeed a thermal gradient, but there is no heat transfer from the lower warmer regions to the cooler regions above, for the simple reason that there is already a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Molecules move in random directions after each collision, and the direction is not significantly dependent upon the kinetic energy in the molecule. So the calculation of the thermal gradient has nothing to do with pressure or density or rising packets of air. There is no such thing as a moving packet of air in adiabatic conditions anyway, because the probability of trillions of molecules all moving in the same direction is absolutely infinitesimal in the absence of wind or forced advection caused by an external energy source like a fan.

    Temperature is the independent variable and only changes if mean molecular kinetic energy changes. Gravity sets up non-zero gradients in density and temperature. Pressure is merely the end result because pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]The Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url] states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium— a state depending on the maximum entropy.

    Thus, if you wish to attempt to prove your absurd assumption that an isothermal state in a vertical column of a solid, liquid or gas would be the state of maximum entropy, despite the evidence in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, and the evidence that water vapour does not warm Earth’s surface by something of the order of 10 degrees per 1% of water vapour in the atmosphere, then you are welcome to try. Good luck. I’ll be waiting for the thermal gradient in the Uranus troposphere to flatten out.

    And just exactly how did you say the required energy gets into the surface of Venus?

    And just exactly why did you say the Uranus troposphere “knows” that it should be 320K at the base thereof?

    Take your fanciful cogitations that disregard the Second Law elsewhere.

    [b]Either prove that your imagined isothermal state does not have unbalanced energy potentials due to all the extra gravitational potential energy at the top, or shut up with your nonsense and unending red herrings.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]Blimey, can’t you understand, Tim Folkerts, that, by carrying anything up a mountain, you yourself are providing the extra gravitational potential energy that it acquires, not from its own kinetic energy (thus cooling) but from the energy in your food. What a corker![/quote]

    Hmmm … so with a packet of water, there is an external force that balances gravity, so that the net force as it is lifted is zero. Since this external work (from my body in this case) balances the negative work of gravity, there would be no net work, and no change in KE and no warming expected as the packet rises to a greater altitude.

    I like that reasoning. I will defer to your expertise and your explanation here. Things lifted with a net force of zero (and a net work of zero as well) will not cool.

    But! A “packet of air” is held up by a buoyant force. With a packet of air, there is an external force that balances gravity, so that the net force as it is lifted is zero. Since this external work (from the buoyant force in this case) balances the negative work of gravity, there would be no net work, and no change in KE and no warming expected.

    Thanks for providing this explanation for why neither water nor air should not cool as it rises.
    🙂

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]Out of curiosity, do you come to the same gravito-thermal conclusion for solids and liquids?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] If I carried a chunk of water up 1 km in an insulated container up the side of a mountain, would it cool by 9.8 K? By some other amount?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] Or stay the same temperature?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] What about a chunk of copper?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] What about a sealed, insulated container of air at constant volume?[/quote]No response.[quote name=”Tim Folkerts”] All of these are gaining gravitational PE, so do all of them ought to be losing KE and hence cooling, right?[/quote]No response.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

     
    IN A NUTSHELL

    Unless you understand the physics you will never be convinced of the validity of the gravito-thermal effect. It is a direct corollary of the evolving process which statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics describe. Hence is cannot be just a temporary state, because it is the state of [i]maximum[/i] entropy. You cannot decrease entropy, and that is what you would be doing if you were trying to generate an isothermal state with more gravitational potential energy per molecule at the top, and yet the same kinetic energy per molecule as at lower levels.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    When they drilled the KTB borehole down to 9Km depth in Germany they were surprised at how much water they found underground. This then helps confirm that the gravito-thermal effect is also apparent in solids and liquids. At 9Km depth it was 270C, far hotter than they expected, with a thermal gradient in th eouter crust at least 20 times as steep as the mean gradient to the centre of the core. That’s because specific heat increases very significantly with the hotter temperatures in the mantle and core.

    If you plotted just the temperatures between, say, 9Km and 4Km you would find that the near linear plot extrapolates quite well to the actual mean minimum daily temperatures at the surface. Why is it so?

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [b]PS:[/b]

    Tim Folkert wrote: [i]”If I carried a chunk of water up 1 km in an insulated container up the side of a mountain”[/i]

    How can that possibly have any relevance to an adiabatic process in an insulated sealed cylinder of water of significant height – 1Km in this case?

    Blimey, can’t you understand, Tim Folkerts, that, by carrying anything up a mountain, you yourself are providing the extra gravitational potential energy that it acquires, not from its own kinetic energy (thus cooling) but from the energy in your food. What a corker!

    [b]Now all silent readers can really see what I mean about Tim Folkerts having a sad lack of understanding even of school-boy physics like this. But he’s a beggar for punishment, so keep watching as he comes back for more.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [b]Footnote: [/b]

    I removed the reservoir in my first example to clarify the explanation, and then I put it back in by postulating connections through which gas (or liquid) could flow at both the top and bottom. You then removed it again by talking about thin metal dividers including one at the bottom I assumed, instead of the reservoir.

    So, going back to the reservoir, the systems are indeed one system from the outset, and so it would not be possible to keep the gases (or liquids) separate in general. So if they do mix then thermodynamic equilibrium is only reached when mixing is complete and then of course we just have two identical columns with the same mixture and gradient. It is more complex discussing liquids that don’t mix, but this is not relevant to any typical planetary troposphere where gases usually mix well.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    In that it is based on false physics, the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture can indeed be proved invalid with many line of argument, several of which are in my book. However, we need to know why temperatures are what they are, if only because science likes to solve mysteries.

    Understanding the gravito-thermal effect, and the consequences thereof, provides that needed explanation, and we find that my comprehensive hypothesis (also explaining energy flows) is supported by data in planetary tropospheres, surfaces and sub-surface regions throughout the Solar System.

    [b]So the greenhouse is well and truly demolished.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    The Second Law refers to the maximum entropy, and some versions make it clear that it is the maximum entropy among the states accessible to the system. Joining the tops removes a constraint, so the new maximum entropy state can indeed have more entropy. I explained this in my book from which I quote ….

    [i]A state of “maximum accessible entropy” is one in which there are no unbalanced energy potentials and thus no means by which further work could be done within the constraints of the system. For example, if you hold an egg above the ground it may be temporarily in a state of mechanical equilibrium with an upward force from your hand balancing the downward force from gravity. Remove your hand from the system and some of the gravitational potential energy in the egg is converted to kinetic energy (as it falls) and thence partly into thermal energy and partly into energy which fragments the shell, leaving it on the floor in a somewhat greater state of disorder, but, never-the-less, a new state of equilibrium.[/i]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    I am not the slightest bit interested in talking about [b]thermal[/b] equilibrium.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is what we are talking about and it applies to whole isolated systems which are approaching thermo[b]dynamic[/b] equilibrium, which is quite a different thing from thermal equilibrium and also includes mechanical equilibrium, which brings gravitational potential energy into it.

    Physicists don’t talk (like Tim) about there being thermodynamic equilibrium between parts of a system, like the tops of two columns that are in the same system because the bottoms are joined: they only talk about a whole system reaching thermodynamic equilibrium. These are the types of comments which help me detect Tim’s lack of understanding of degree level physics.

    Now if you join the tops you will get some modification of the temperatures around both the bases and tops of each column, but a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve and then, and only then, will net energy transfers cease. There is absolutely no possibility of perpetual motion, and nor does this in anyway disprove the fact that a thermal gradient develops in a perfectly insulated sealed cylinder of gas. That is all that is relevant to climate.

    These gradients form from the top of the atmosphere down in some cases where there are no surfaces. They are maintained by solar energy which then spreads by convection (meaning diffusion and/or advection) in all directions away from where it was absorbed.

    [b]The gravito-thermal effect is now well proven with 21st century advances in the understanding of thermodynamics, as well as by 850 21st century experiments carried out by Roderich Graeff, an explanation (at last) as to how the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube works and a better understanding of what is happening on other planets using data now available. They had none of this in the 19th century where climatologists seem to be coming from.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug says:
    [quote]But initially we had two isolated (insulated) systems and now, because conduction between the two is possible through the metal, we have only one combined system, which can of course have its own new state of thermodynamic equilibrium with its own gravito-thermal gradient.[/quote]
    No!

    First of all, the original system was two columns [i]thermally connected at the bottom.[/i] They were NOT isolated.

    So the whole system was initially at thermal equilibrium.
    * (Top of Column 1) is in thermal equilibrium with (Bottom of Column 1).
    * (Bottom of Column 1) is in thermal equilibrium with (Bottom of Column 2).
    * (Bottom of Column 2) is in thermal equilibrium with (Top of Column 21).

    So what can we conclude? Seems pretty clear that (Top of Column 1) is in thermal equilibrium with (Top of Column 2).

    You conclude that even with a system that was initially at equilibrium there can still be flows if different parts of the equilibrium system are brought into contact. This would FURTHER increase the entropy, so the system could not have been at equilibrium to start with.

    I know you don’t [i]WANT [/i]this to be true, but there is really no way around this without re-defining the 2nd Law and redefining thermal equilibrium (and redefining the 0th Law as well). Your hypothesis keeps leading to fundamental contradictions that have no solution.

    Venus and Uranus are (slightly) challenging to explain, but not challenging enough to overthrow thermodynamics.

    Out of curiosity, do you come to the same gravito-thermal conclusion for solids and liquids? If I carried a chunk of water up 1 km in an insulated container up the side of a mountain, would it cool by 9.8 K? By some other amount? Or stay the same temperature? What about a chunk of copper? What about a sealed, insulated container of air at constant volume? All of these are gaining gravitational PE, so do all of them ought to be losing KE and hence cooling, right?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]
    if the gravito-thermal effect is true then the greenhouse effect is false.
    [/quote]There are many ways to disprove AGW. I bet there are hundreds. So, Doug, if you disprove AGW you will be one of many. Join the crowd. The proponents of AGW hysteria don’t do hard science. Claims that you can prove something mean only that they will be more deliberate about ignoring you.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]the trillion dollar question[/quote]You are out of touch with reality, dude. The believers aren’t interested in anything that will stop them from believing. The people that should care about the kind of proof you claim will ignore it as they have many others.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    In fact Tim, I had already explained that issue in Wikipedia where I fixed up the “[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer]Heat Transfer[/url]” page so that it was in agreement with their statement of the Second Law. So my modification reads …

    “When an object is at a different temperature from another body or its surroundings, heat flows until thermodynamic equilibrium is established with the maximum entropy attainable, as described by the second law of thermodynamics, and there is thus no further net transfer of thermal energy across the boundary between the systems, or across any internal boundary.”

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Dear me, Tim, I just noticed your last line [i]”Heat cannot flow within a system at thermal equilibrium!”
    [/i]
    True. But initially we had two isolated (insulated) systems and now, because conduction between the two is possible through the metal, we have only one combined system, which can of course have its own new state of thermodynamic equilibrium with its own gravito-thermal gradient. I explained how you now have a combined system in a comment way back.

    Still you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of thermodynamics, and still you refer to thermal equilibrium rather than the state of thermo[b]dynamic[/b] equilibrium which the second law of thermo[b]dynamics[/b] is all about.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    So what Tim if you [i]”Just leave a thin metal barrier between the two gas columns at the top.”[/i] You’ll get an average temperature at the top and an average at the bottom where it will still be warmer. You should not expect different gradients now because you no longer have perfectly insulated cylinders.

    You need to think a bit more before you try to rubbish me, because you won’t succeed on the issue of the gravito-thermal gradient. I’ve given you proof both from physics theory and empirical evidence which you ignored in a comment just above.

    [b]You can’t win, Tim. The gravito-thermal gradient is fact, and the greenhouse effect is fiction. I [i]know[/i] that from a huge amount of research and consideration of all the evidence. In comparison, you have barely started to think about the issue, even though BigWaveDave suggested you should two years ago.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [b]So [url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/#comment-909809]BigWaveDave[/url] didn’t say much didn’t he, Tim?[/b]

    If effect he said that the gravito-thermal effect seems to have been forgotten about. Then he said that if it is true then the greenhouse effect conjecture is not needed to explain observations.

    In other words, [b]if the gravito-thermal effect is true then the greenhouse effect is false.[/b]

    He concluded that this is not a matter that we should just agree to disagree on.

    I say it is [b]the trillion dollar question[/b] the answer to which should determine whether or not the world wastes (eventually) trillions of dollars on the carbon dioxide hoax.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug, certainly if you mix the gases, then the adiabatic lapse rate will be some weighted average of the adiabatic lapse rate of the two gases. [b]But there is no need to mix the gases.[/b] Just leave a thin metal barrier between the two gas columns at the top.

    You just predicted that the He on one side will be one temperature and the H on the other will be a different temperature — with the whole works at thermal equilibrium. With the tops of the columns separated by a thin sheet of metal, heat will flow from one gas to the other.

    That is simply impossible. Heat cannot flow within a system at thermal equilibrium!

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    The two tube issue:

    Suppose we have one sealed tube filled with hydrogen with [url=http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html]specific heat[/url] 14.32kJ/kg K and another such tube filled with helium which has specific heat 5.19kJ/kg K.

    Two quite different thermal gradients thus evolve. But, if you now connect the tubes just at the top and bottom the connection allows gas to flow between the tubes. No matter how long it takes, thermodynamic equilibrium is not reached until the two gases are perfectly mixed by diffusion and there is an identical homogeneous mixture in each tube with, of course, a thermal gradient now based on the weighted mean specific heat of the gases.

    This weighted mean was used for determining the thermal gradient in the Uranus troposphere (which is mostly hydrogen with some helium) and the result of the calculations of [i]-g/Cp [/i]was within 5% of the actual thermal gradient in the 350Km high nominal Uranus troposphere.

    But it is near the top of the Uranus atmosphere where the temperature is pre-determined to be around 60K in order that there be radiative balance with the trickle of solar radiation.

    [b]
    So, Tim, how does the base of the Uranus troposphere “know” that it should be 320K (hotter than Earth) so that just the right thermal gradient exists all the way through that 350Km?[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    If you wish to be pedantic, Pat Obar the Second Law [b]describes[/b] an [b]evolving process[/b] and specifies the direction of the process (entropy increasing) and the limiting state (thermodynamic equilibrium) and conditions (maximum entropy) for such.

    [i]”The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always [b]evolve[/b] toward thermodynamic equilibrium— a state depending on the maximum entropy.”[/i]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Tim writes, in regard to the validity of the gravito-thermal effect, “I (and every physics book on the topic) assert otherwise.”

    Well the physics books haven’t caught up with what [url=http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf]Dr Hans Jelbring[/url] wrote over 10 years ago, or the experiments of Graeff, and neither have you. So what? It’s not going to go away.

    You can assert otherwise, but I’m not interested in your continual barrage of assertive statements without proof based on either valid physics or empirical evidence.

    The 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff demonstrate the validity.

    The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube demonstrates the validity.

    The evidence in all planetary tropospheres demonstrates the validity.

    The evidence on Earth of negative correlation between temperature and precipitation proves that water vapour cools – but from what? From a higher mean surface temperature which would have prevailed if only the gravito-thermal effect operated without the counter effect of inter-molecular radiation between water vapour molecules and between those of other GH gases.

    “Let them all come to thermal equilibrium”

    They come to thermodynamic equilibrium. Then when you connect them they soon come to a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Is your knowledge of physics so limited that you can’t even get the right words describing what sort of equilibrium you are talking about?

    Try using two pipes filled with water but at different angles (representing different thermal gradients) and connect them at top and bottom. See if you can do your washing in the circulating water. /sarc

    Go now and explain the temperature difference in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube]Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube[/url] – not by quoting others, but by thinking about what the second law of thermodynamics is all about. Then think about how the gradients adjust to a new weighted mean gradient when you connect two systems.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]”Tim Folkerts still has not understood the significance of what BigWaveDave told him … “[/quote]
    Dave didn’t really say much there — he only [i]asserted [/i]that a temperature gradient would evolve. I (and every physics book on the topic) assert otherwise.

    [quote]”In any connected set of systems a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves (with thermal gradients in all solids, liquids and gases) and so there is no further net energy transfer.
    “[/quote]
    And this leads to exactly the paradox I pointed out earlier.
    * start with a thermal reservoir at thermal equilibrium at some altitude.
    * add a “connected system” which is a tall column of air (insulated on the sides, but thermally connected to the reservoir).
    * add another “connected system” which is a tall column of hydrogen. Because the specific heat is larger, the adiabatic lapse rate will be lower.

    Let them all come to thermal equilibrium, so that there are no more net energy transfers possible – everything is stable and constant. You claim that the tops are at different temperatures, ie that the adiabatic lapse rate is the equilibrium situation.

    Now connect the systems at the top of the tall columns. We will now have “unbalanced potentials” and we will have a “net energy transfer” from the cool hydrogen to the even colder air.

    The solution to the paradox is that when equilibrium is reached, the tops of the columns must be at the same temperatures as each other, and at the same temperature as the thermal reservoir at the lower altitude.

    Until YOU can address THIS issue, there is no point in going off to Venus or Uranus.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]Pat Obar

    The second law is quoted [/quote]2LTD is a law. Not a process. Find another hobby.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Pat Obar

    The second law is quoted in my comment just above – nothing about “hot to cold.”

    Likewise, nothing here either …

    [i]”When an object is at a different temperature from another body or its surroundings, heat flows until thermodynamic equilibrium is established with the maximum entropy attainable, as described by the second law of thermodynamics, and there is thus no further net transfer of thermal energy across the boundary between the systems, or across any internal boundary.”[/i]

    It seems to me you are a disciple of 19th century “masters” and perhaps haven’t caught up with 21st century experiments (eg Roderich Graeff’s) or inventions like the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube which helps confirm the existence of the gravito-thermal effect.

    As [url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/#comment-909809]BigWaveDave[/url] wrote two years ago …

    [i]”Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHG’s. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhD’s, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.”[/i]

    I guess you’re going to be badly affected when the world finds out the truth why it’s not carbon dioxide after all, but some people will be relieved and better off, and some lives will be saved with funds that would have been wasted otherwise. But don’t let other people’s lives or concerns worry you.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]invisible water gas molecules rising all by themselves, as explained in Wikipedia …[/quote]empirical reality isn’t determined by wikipedia or any website.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]

    “So called “natural convection”[/quote]Is there any such thing as unnatural convection? There is more to science than putting new labels on things you can’t explain. Sorry to burst your bubble.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]
    may be triggered by an excess of thermal energy,[/quote]Leave your imagination out of the discussion.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]

    such as when the Sun heats the Earth’s surface, or (in gravitational fields) by buoyancy forces, such as when water gas molecules rise through nitrogen and oxygen molecules which are heavier.”[/quote]Not possible (read upthread). Repeating delusions doesn’t make them true.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]Still no one seems capable of answering my question above which I repeat …

    I’m still waiting for you (or anyone in the world) to explain how else the necessary thermal energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature by five degrees (732K to 737K) spread over the course of its four-month-long day. How about you discuss this issue?[/quote]
    It’s not an issue. It’s an observation. 2LTD is a law. Not a process. Find another hobby.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    “The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium — a state depending on the maximum entropy.”

    “Evolve” .. mmm – looks like a process to me.

    Sometimes I quote Wikipedia: sometimes I write significant contributions and corrections to Wikipedia (as I have in about 4 items now) based on about 50 years’ of studying physics and helping people to understand it.

    Good luck with your book ST. Keep away from Singapore or you’ll get a sweat up with all the invisible water gas molecules rising all by themselves, as explained in Wikipedia …

    “So called “natural convection” may be triggered by an excess of thermal energy, such as when the Sun heats the Earth’s surface, or (in gravitational fields) by buoyancy forces, such as when water gas molecules rise through nitrogen and oxygen molecules which are heavier.”

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Still no one seems capable of answering my question above which I repeat …

    I’m still waiting for you (or anyone in the world) to explain how else the necessary thermal energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature by five degrees (732K to 737K) spread over the course of its four-month-long day. How about you discuss this issue?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]2LTD never speaks of what is, only of what is not![/quote]Yes. Unfortunately, Doug will never understand this. People who are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between a law and a process should stay out of scientific discussions. This is why this dimwit keeps presenting the same non-argument over and freekin over again. Intellectually he is retarded. He is incapable of distinguishing between a law and a process. Subconsciously he is so determined to maintain this delusion that his mind won’t even allow him to enunciate his thoughts. He is incapable of being honest with himself in this respect. Doug is typical. Doug is a believer, not scientist.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]SolvingTornadoes

    Go and edit Wikipedia[/quote]Leave me out of your delusions.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”] and come back if your changes are accepted.[/quote]Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam

    “Steam is the technical term for the gaseous phase of water, which is formed when water boils. Technically speaking, in terms of the chemistry and physics, steam is invisible and cannot be seen; however, in common language it is often used to refer to the visible mist of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses in the presence of (cooler) air.”[/quote]How is this relevant? Do you have a point?
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

    “On average, a fraction of the molecules in a glass of water have enough heat energy to escape from the liquid. Water molecules from the air enter the water in the glass, but as long as the relative humidity of the air in contact is less than 100% (saturation), the net transfer of water molecules will be to the air.”

    H2O gas molecules are lighter than nitrogen and oxygen gas molecules.[/quote]Are you dense? This isn’t at issue. Trolls like you present no argument. You just keep presenting the same nonissues over and freekin over again. You are a complete bore.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”] They can exist on their own diffused in amongst all the other air molecules, and, as molecules, they can pass between other molecules. [/quote]Not possible. Read upthread.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]They don’t each drag about 98 or 99 other molecules of nitrogen and oxygen along with them when they are in the simple gaseous state, as distinct from suspended water droplets. [/quote]What are you babbling about now? Can’t you follow a simple discussion?
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

    “By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. “[/quote]You appear to be incapable of following a rational discussion. Any idiot can copy things from Wikipedia. There is no skill in that. You have no insight. You are like a church lady who can only repeat the last sermon. You have no business pretending to be a scientist.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug Cotton”][b]To Pat Obar and others:[/b] Go back to #47 and discuss what I have said there, rather than make assertive statements.[/quote]
    I refuse to engage with your nonsense in #47.
    Do you have anything interesting to state?

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [b]To Pat Obar and others:[/b] Go back to #47 and discuss what I have said there, rather than make assertive statements.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Yours is the nonsense, Pat Obar.

    Look up the “second law of thermodynamics” and “heat transfer” in Wikipedia and quote to me the exact words that say heat only transfers from hot to cold. But don’t quote anything that mentions it applies in a non-gravitational field.

    Why do you suppose physicists now state the second law in a totally different way than the hot to cold Clausius statement from circa 1850?

    I’m still waiting for you (or anyone in the world) to explain how else the necessary thermal energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature by five degrees (732K to 737K) spread over the course of its four-month-long day. How about you discuss this issue?

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug  Cotton”]Don’t worry – I’ll be seeing that Hunt gets a copy of my book.

    “The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a simplistic rule that heat always transfers from warmer to cooler regions if there is a temperature difference”.

    Indeed the 2LTD as stated by Clausius is but observation now for over 350 years of “spontaneity”. Which states that spontaneous heat (energy) transfer is never, ever, in a direction toward a higher temperature! There is no known process that ever violates 2LTD. 2LTD never speaks of what is, only of what is not!
    Doug, take your nonsense elsewhere! 😛

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    SolvingTornadoes

    Go and edit Wikipedia and come back if your changes are accepted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam

    “Steam is the technical term for the gaseous phase of water, which is formed when water boils. Technically speaking, in terms of the chemistry and physics, steam is invisible and cannot be seen; however, in common language it is often used to refer to the visible mist of water droplets formed as this water vapor condenses in the presence of (cooler) air.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

    “On average, a fraction of the molecules in a glass of water have enough heat energy to escape from the liquid. Water molecules from the air enter the water in the glass, but as long as the relative humidity of the air in contact is less than 100% (saturation), the net transfer of water molecules will be to the air.”

    H2O gas molecules are lighter than nitrogen and oxygen gas molecules. They can exist on their own diffused in amongst all the other air molecules, and, as molecules, they can pass between other molecules. They don’t each drag about 98 or 99 other molecules of nitrogen and oxygen along with them when they are in the simple gaseous state, as distinct from suspended water droplets.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

    “By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. “

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]all I’m interested in [/quote]Do you have any announcements that aren’t obvious?

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    To all:

    I’m not here to argue about what the Second Law says. Read at least down to “CONTENTS” here and see if there is any reference to the outdated Clausius (hot to cold) statement which only strictly applies in a horizontal plane and non-gravitational system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

    The whole thrust of the Law is that a state of maximum attainable entropy is approached. If such a state is imagined in an ideal gas then there will be no unbalanced energy potentials because it is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Look up and read carefully what thermodynamic equilibrium entails.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium

    Now, if the final state were isothermal in a gravitational field there would very obviously be unbalanced energy potentials, because the mean gravitational potential energy would be greater the higher you go. So entropy would not be at its maximum attainable, and this is easily understood because any non-horizontal movement of any molecule causes it to gain or lose kinetic energy, and that then changes the KE of the next molecule it collides with. Extend this to a macro scale and you should be able to understand why the gravito-thermal gradients is a reality seen throughout the Solar System, and never successfully refuted.

    Solvingtornadoes thinks water molecules take on different forms in steam or water gas, but all I’m interested in is the fact that they cause the thermal gradient established by gravity to be reduced because they radiate and thus transfer thermal energy up and out of the atmosphere. Because they lower the gradient (aka lapse rate) this leads to lower supported temperatures at the surface, and empirical temperature and precipitation data confirms this fact.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Tim Folkerts still has not understood the significance of what BigWaveDave told him two years ago here …

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/#comment-909809

    In any connected set of systems a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves (with thermal gradients in all solids, liquids and gases) and so there is no further net energy transfer.

    Robert Brown was totally mistaken in that he did not understand the maximum entropy conditions stated in the second law of thermodynamics, and of course neither does Tim Folkerts. Read BigWaveDave’s comment carefully, especially the last paragraph.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]
    Now, it is a fiction that moist air passes through dry air,[/quote]Don’t over think it. Moist air is heavier than dry air. Moist air, therefore cannot get higher in our atmosphere as a result of convection. (moist air convection is refuted.) Nevertheless moist air does get up high in our atmosphere (troposphere), continually. Consequently there must be some other mechanism–something Meteorology cannot explain–involved. It’s that simple. Don’t overthink it.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]
    because all that happens is that there is diffusion of the water gas molecules and, they being lighter than nitrogen and oxygen molecules, will rise to form clouds.[/quote]This isn’t even germaine to the discussion. You are off on a tangent.
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”] Most of us are aware that this happens,[/quote]In science if you can’t get the simple things right you will have no choice but to resort to pretending that you understand the big things when you don’t. The reason you can’t answer the question is because you are confused and embarassed to admit it.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]check out the molecular weights
    Nitrogen, N2 28.0134
    Oxygen, O2 31.9988
    Water Vapor – Steam, H2O 18.02[/quote]Steam doesn’t exist in our atmosphere. So this is a non issue.[quote name=”D o u g  C”]water gas molecules take up 1% and 4% of all the air molecules in the surrounding atmosphere. [/quote]Not possible. You are ignorant of Water’s hydrogen bond and polarity. How can you claim to be a physicist?
    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]
    The only difference then between relatively dry air and moist air is the percentage of these water gas molecules.
    [/quote]Uh, guess again. Water is not a “normal” gas at ambient temperatures (look it up, this too is an implication of water’s hydrogen bond). Avogadro’s Law is applicable to normal gasses, only. How can you be a college educated physicist and not know that?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”][b]solvingtornadoes[/b] asked [i]”Why come to a discussion group if you can’t/won’t discuss anything?[/i]

    Well, I ask you, why butt in on a discussion which you obviously haven’t even read, and which is about a letter to an Australian Government minister relating to the greenhouse hoax science which we are discussing and the relevance of the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube. It seems all you read was the word “vortex” and then jumped on your hobby horse talking about vortices in stirred air associated with hurricanes and tornadoes, and promoting your book. What did you do? Google the word “vortex” I suppose.[/quote]

    Well, considering your propagandistic practice of repeating the same mantra over and over and freekin over again, I think I can be excused for not having noticed that you do occasionally have an original thought. Frankly, up until this post I wasn’t sure you weren’t a bot.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    And there is still one very simple way to refute your hypothesis.

    Take two tall insulated columns filled with two different gases with two different specific heats. Remove the insulation from the bottom of the columns and put them into a thermal reservoir (say at 300 K).

    10 km up, the two columns would have two different temperatures (according to you). Dry air would be about 100 K cooler = 200 K. Hydrogen would only be about 10 K cooler (it has much higher Cp) = 290 K

    Scrap off a small bit of insulation 10 km up on the two coulums. Connect a heat engine between the 290 K H2 and the 200 K air. The heat engine will start to run. Since (according to you) the gases naturally equilibrate at these two temperatures, there will always be a temperature differential between the two columns, and the heat engine will run forever.

    Your interpretation of the 2nd Law leads to a violation of the 2nd Law. Therefore your interpretation cannot be correct.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug Says:
    [quote]Tim Folkerts made an assertive claim that “Even a very small flow of heat (less than a mW/m^2) is sufficient to set up a lapse of -g/Cp.”

    This is totally incorrect and I’m confident he cannot explain it with valid physics, bearing in mind that all tropospheres have some radiating molecules and radiation would easily emit energy faster than 1 mW/m^2.[/quote]

    Some interesting points here.

    1) if we ignore radiation, then thermal conduction alone would be
    k ΔT/Δx
    where k ~ 0.02 W/m*K and ΔT/Δx = lapse rate = ~ 0.01 K/m, which gives

    [0.02 W/m*K] * [0.01 K/m] = 0.0002 W/m^2 = 0.2 mW/m^2

    In this case, no more than ~ 0.2 mW/m^2 will start convection.

    2) With radiation, it becomes MUCH more complicated (depending on the gases & particle present, their densities, their emissivities & their temperatures). And yes, Doug, you are right that the heat flow could significantly higher before convection would start in this case. Back-of-the-envelop estimates put suggest that near earth’s surface the value would be on the order of 1 W/m^2.

    3) The specific case of Uranus is rather interesting. With a very thin, very cold upper atmosphere, there cannot be much radiative transfer from one part of the atmosphere to another part of the atmosphere. Also, the lapse rate on Uranus is much smaller than on earth, so the radiative and conductive heat flows will be smaller. In any case, there are simpler explanations for the temperature profile than your re-interpretation of the 2nd Law.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug Says:
    [quote]Tim Folkerts still likes to try to modify the Second Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that it says heat never transfers from anything cooler to anything warmer. But the law doesn’t say that. The second law says thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve.[/quote]

    If you really want to get to the core of the second law, then you should say that entropy (which can be expressed as S = – k Σ [p_i ln(p-i)] ) will tend to increase.

    There are numerous corollaries:
    * systems tend toward thermodynamic equilibrium
    * there is no engine more efficient than a Carnot Cycle
    * heat never spontaneously flows from cool to warm

    Your version and my version are BOTH acceptable ways of saying this. I was emphasizing the “heat” version (and “net flow”) since many people mistakenly think that NO energy can go from warm to cool.

    Apparently you are not one of them, so I salute you there. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is an absolute Law.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [b]solvingtornadoes[/b] has some ideas about tornado formation which are controversial to say the least, but may be correct in some ways, I really haven’t looked into it.

    He would do well, however, to check out the molecular weights (such as [url]here[/url]) for

    Nitrogen, N2 28.0134
    Oxygen, O2 31.9988
    Water Vapor – Steam, H2O 18.02

    When water evaporates the water gas molecules (which are invisible) take up usually between 1% and 4% of all the air molecules in the surrounding atmosphere. The only difference then between relatively dry air and moist air is the percentage of these water gas molecules.

    Now, it is a fiction that moist air passes through dry air, because all that happens is that there is diffusion of the water gas molecules and, they being lighter than nitrogen and oxygen molecules, will rise to form clouds. Most of us are aware that this happens, I suggest. Of course there can be other reasons for their rising such as in tornadoes, but that’s another matter.

    Note that the word “diffusion” (as used above) is not the same as “diffusion of kinetic energy” which is a heat transfer mechanism. Nor should the advection process (whereby water gas rises) be confused with convective heat transfer. Unfortunately the terms convection, diffusion and advection, used in physics to relate to heat transfer mechanisms, also have other common uses such as above, and this can lead to confusion.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [b]solvingtornadoes[/b] asked [i]”Why come to a discussion group if you can’t/won’t discuss anything?[/i]

    Well, I ask you, why butt in on a discussion which you obviously haven’t even read, and which is about a letter to an Australian Government minister relating to the greenhouse hoax science which we are discussing and the relevance of the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube. It seems all you read was the word “vortex” and then jumped on your hobby horse talking about vortices in stirred air associated with hurricanes and tornadoes, and promoting your book. What did you do? Google the word “vortex” I suppose.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Look forward everyone to the next blunder by Tim Folkerts. If I miss seeing it, here or on any blog, email me at earth-climate@outlook.com – Doug

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    In a comment above Tim Folkerts made an assertive claim that “Even a very small flow of heat (less than a mW/m^2) is sufficient to set up a lapse of -g/Cp.”

    This is totally incorrect and I’m confident he cannot explain it with valid physics, bearing in mind that all tropospheres have some radiating molecules and radiation would easily emit energy faster than 1 mW/m^2.

    As I’ve have asked (without response) is it just a pure fluke that the Uranus troposphere reduces over 350Km at the right [i]-g/Cp [/i]rate from a temperature of 320K at its nominal base to just under 60K at TOA which is where the temperature is determined by radiative balance? How does it “know” it should be 320K at the base? What will happen in a few billion years – will it have cooled at the base of the Uranus troposphere, assuming the Sun hasn’t cooled significantly?

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Regarding the Ranque-Hilsch [b]vortex tube[/b], the air that is following a helical path down the tube develops the equivalent of a gravitational field about 10^6 to 10^7 g acting upon it, or, alternatively, you could have a sealed cylinder and rotate it very quickly, also developing centrifugal force. Either way, the force field (effectively far greater gravity) shows us how gravity forces a thermal gradient to evolve, as the Second Law explains will happen because the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has maximum entropy and is thus isentropic with a thermal gradient.

    It’s not hard to understand if you imagine layers of molecules which all have the same KE in each horizontal plane, but slightly less in higher planes than lower planes.

    By the way, you can’t stop all molecular motion as that would violate the third law of thermodynamics.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    This is how absurd the old 20th century paradigm of greenhouse radiative forcing gets. They claim that you can work out Earth’s surface temperature by adding together the radiative flux from both the Sun and the colder atmosphere, and then bunging this total value into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and out pops your answer 287K or 288K. Well it might well do if you fiddle the back radiation and then use the emissivity value instead of the absorptivity.

    But there’s absolutely no physics to support the calculations. When you consider that about 70% of the surface is a thin transparent water layer, it is obvious that the solar radiation which mostly (like over 99%) passes through this layer into the thermocline is not what is determining the temperature of that thin surface layer. In fact the mean temperature of the thermocline is obviously less, and the mean temperature of all the ocean water is less again.

    Oh, and the back radiation doesn’t even enter the surface layer – it just raises electrons between quantum energy states momentarily, and then those electrons immediately emit another photon which climatologists think is energy coming from the kinetic energy in the surface molecules, but it’s only electro-magnetic energy from the back radiation being thrown back in their red faces.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [b]Tim Folkerts[/b] still likes to try to modify the Second Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that it says heat never transfers from anything cooler to anything warmer. But the law doesn’t say that. The second law says thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve.

    A “temperature inversion” (in the strict sense) means that the temperature at the higher altitude is above what it would be if the thermal gradient were equal to the so-called environmental (or effective) lapse rate, that is the thermal gradient which would occur at thermodynamic equilibrium. Meteorologists know this, and know that downward convection occurs when there is a temperature inversion, even though it may be from a slightly cooler to slightly warmer region.

    When there is a temperature inversion in the morning on Venus, thermal energy absorbed from insolation in the upper troposphere disturbs the thermodynamic equilibrium, and so the troposphere does what the Second Law says it will, namely approach thermodynamic equilibrium again. This leads to downward convection, because all convection is away from the new source of energy if that new source disturbed a previous state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    So this is the answer to the Venus dilemma as to how sufficient energy gets into its surface to raise its temperature from 732K to 737K.

    Tim Folkerts is totally unable to explain this Venus surface heating with his old 20th century paradigm of greenhouse radiative forcing, because that paradigm is completely false and never worked on Earth either. In Tim’s article on TallBloke he made enormous errors regarding radiative flux supposedly raising the temperature of Earth’s surface. Well, 70% of that surface is a very thin, very transparent layer of water. In contrast, a black or grey body does not transmit any radiation by definition – just another bit of physics which Tim likes to alter apparently to suits his objective of protecting his interests in maintaining the carbon dioxide hoax.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Earlier this month some twit made significant changes to the Wikipedia item on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, even claiming that density “evens out” without qualifying that statement and noting the obvious inapplicability in a gravitational field.

    Perhaps these modifications were still awaiting checks when I read it, but the whole thing did revert back to the earlier version soon after I also entered corrections to that twit’s garbage, and left it reading as [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/christy-emanuel-have-a-conversation-on-climate-change/#comment-108626]here[/url].

    I confirm however, that I am far happier with the earlier version to which it has rightly returned and my corrections are not needed, except for one I added over a year ago.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    You can’t explain vortices unless you can first explain the molecular basis for structure in the atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]you can wait to read the comprehensive coverage of the new 21st century paradigm in my book [/quote]Why come to a discussion group if you can’t/won’t discuss anything?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Dang .. those should have been BOLD inside the quote in the last post, not a second level of quotes.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug # 25 says:
    [quote]”Sure, a spinning vortex tube may never quite reach the state of thermodynamic equilibrium”[/quote]

    Doug #8 says
    [quote]Equilibrium means a state of balance. In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there are [quote]no net flows of matter[/quote] or of [quote]energy[/quote], no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or [b]driving forces[/b]), within the system.[/quote]

    The vortex tube has HUGE flows of matter driven by HUGE forces, resulting in continuous flows of energy out the two ends.
    According to Doug #35, this is very close to equilibrium.
    According to Doug #8, this is very far from equilibrium.

    I think I will leave it to Doug #25 and Doug #8 to hash this one out. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    I wonder if Dougy Cotton received a similar response from Greg Hunt as I did QUOTE:

    To: Pete Ridley … Sent: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:09 Subject: RE: Cotton Spinning Science

    Many thanks and I will consider carefully, greg

    UNQUOTE.

    If Greg Hunt follows up on my E-mail comments as carefully as he claims then I doubt that will have much interest in Dougy Cotton’s letter and self-published book but I don’t expect that he will pay much attention to either Dougy or me. After all, he is a politician.

    In my opinion Dougy’s book will have no more impact that did John O’Sullivan’s “Slayers” book “Slaying th eSky Dragon .. ” which has been scorned by well-respected sceptics of the CACC hypothesis.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [b]Tim Folkerts[/b] doesn’t even understand that I am talking about how the Second Law of Thermodynamics describes the all-pervading process whereby entropy never decreases and a state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached. You can’t throw aside the Second Law – it won’t go away Tim.

    None of you seems to understand that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a gravitational field must have a gravito-thermal gradient, cooler at the top, just like air in a vortex tube cools to around 220K at the “top” of its pseudo gravitational field.

    Sure, a spinning vortex tube may never quite reach the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, but it certainly gets close to it and the thermal gradient between its inner tube and outer tube clearly demonstrates a huge difference of about 250 degrees. But this is not surprising when you understand that in about 5mm of air (originally at room temperature) there is a force of between 10^6g and 10^7g, so let’s say 5 x 10^6g. So calculations of the expected temperature gradient give …

    (Effective g-force) / specific heat =

    5 x 10^6 * 9.8 / 1.0 K/Km

    which is about 5 x 10^7 K/Km

    So now bring that down from 1Km to 5mm, there being 10^6 mm in 1Km we get an expected temperature difference of ,,

    … wait for it …

    5(5 x 10^7) / 10^6 = 250 degrees

    [b]The gravito-thermal effect is a reality, whether you are all comfortable with it or not.[/b]

    You cannot possibly explain what happens on Venus and Uranus if you think, like Roy Spencer, that isothermal conditions would apply in the absence of either radiating gases or upward convection from a hot surface.

    [b]Solvingtornadoes[/b] can stick to his tornadoes on this planet, but there’s no evaporation of oceans on Venus or Uranus. And, in any event, I have proved elsewhere that latent heat release is not what reduces the thermal gradient – it is inter-molecular radiation which has a temperature levelling effect, working against the gravity effect. That’s why carbon dioxide causes lower surface temperatures on Venus and methane reduces the [i]-g/Cp [/i]gradient on Uranus by about 5% in magnitude.

    All these matters have been extensively discussed on a thread in Lucia’s blackboard and I suggest you spend some time studying my comments starting [url=http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/the-fullness-of-time-doug-cotton-comments-unveiled/#comment-127182]here[/url] or even from the top.

    Or you can wait to read the comprehensive coverage of the new 21st century paradigm in my book [i]”Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all”[/i] from Amazon and Barnes & Noble late April.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    In comment #2 Dougy Cotton again promoted his about-to-be self-published book and boasted about his letter to Greg Hunt. To provide some balance I have just E-mailed the following warning to Greg Hunt QUOTE:

    Hi Mr. Hunt,

    I understand that Dougy Cotton recently sent you the appended letter but to save your office valuable time I suggest that you first take a look at the facts about Dougy Cotton presented in the article “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd” sub-section 3.14 Member (??) Douglas Jeffrey Cotton (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html). After that you can draw your own conclusions about his claim regarding ” .. extensive research .. and .. knowledge and understanding of the physics of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics .. “. My recommendation is that you seek advice from recognised scientists who are sceptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis rather than pay attention to self-publishing novices.

    For months now Dougy Cotton has been promoting his self-published book and his version of science, frequently on the pseudo-science blog Principia Scientific International owned and run by an out-of-work high-school art teacher, John O’Sullivan. His most recent offering is at http://www.principia-scientific.org/newly-released-letters-expose-aussie-government-minister-in-climate-fraud.html#comment-4965 where he boasts about his letter to you.

    UNQUOTE.

    I doubt if Hunt’s office will pay much attention to either letter but I’m sure that won’t deter Dougy or me from trying to get our messages across.

    Dougy Cotton was at one time a valued member of this pseudo-science blog owned by John O’Sullivan but is now persona non grata. Anyone interested in learning facts about PSI, PSI Acumen Ltd. and its owner John O’Sullivan can find lots on my blog Global Political Shenanigans, especially in articles:
    – “SpotlightON –PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html)
    – “SpotlightON – PSI Acumen Ltd” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html)
    – “Curriculum Vitae for John O’Sullivan (2010)” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html)
    and related articles.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]The Second Law of Thermodynamics says a state of thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve with maximum entropy. Such a state must have no unbalanced energy potentials. Hence, in the absence of phase change . . .[/quote]
    My book, which will be coming out in June, will also have a “phase change.” And it will explain the origins of Vortices (atmospheric structure). And from this will come an understanding of how mixing is achieved in the troposphere, which will be tied into the how and why of storms on this planet. I’ll give you a hint. The specific element that produces the phase change is water vapor. And the ability to produce this (yet to be discovered) phase is the hydrogen bond.

    You are right that there is a phase change involved. But this is common knowledge. I don’t think there is much chance at all that you will identify the specific phase change that is involved with vortices. The only other hint I’ll give you is that this hidden phase of water is associated with a form of agitation that is only possible along wind shear boundaries. Try to think about what happens to droplets/clusters of H2O molecules along a windshear boundary. (Study the hydrogen bond.)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”D o u g  C”]I have done detailed calculations on the vortex tube, which develops a force of about 10^6 g and has a radius of about 6mm.[/quote]Oh, so now you are a self-declared expert on Vortex Tubes? And you have secret calculations. Can you tell us what you consider to be the molecular composition of Vortex tubes? Or is that your special secret?

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug — two last points for you to ponder.

    1) Why do you keep trying to use highly NON-equilibrium conditions (planetary atmospheres, vortex tubes, … ) to support your hypothesis about equilibrium conditions? None of the experiments you mention provide evidence regarding the theoretical results that you started with.

    2) Consider two blocks of metal, one at 300 K and one at 310 K. The blocks are put into contact — atoms from each jostle against atoms from the other. Since there is a large spread in speeds and energies, sometimes an above-average-energy atom from the “cool” block hits a below-average-energy atom from the “warm” block. This will transfer energy from the “cool” block to the “warm” block.

    Such transfers are NOT prohibited by the 2nd Law. The only prohibition is that we never see a NET transfer from the cool block to the warm block. There will always be MORE transfers from the warm block to the cool block than vice versa, but there WILL be transfers the other direction. The “forward-conduction” will be greater than the “back-conduction”, with the NET thermal conduction being from warm to cool.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Sorry – some text got moved. The last two paragraphs should read …

    So I’m still waiting for anyone anywhere in the world to explain the increase in the Venus temperature without assuming the validity of the gravito-thermal process and the downward convection which restores thermodynamic equilibrium.

    And there a several more questions, like the sensitivity to water vapour, which leaves the lukes and warmists high and dry. Oh, and why is the core of the Moon so hot after all these years?

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Nope. The Second Law governs all these things and you won’t make it go away, as lukes and warmists try to do with their garbage about “net” radiation. Radiation is a one-way independent process and thermal energy is not always transferred from source to target, as Prof Johnson also explains in the cited reference in my March 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” in the Publications menu here.

    I have done detailed calculations on the vortex tube, which develops a force of about 10^6 g and has a radius of about 6mm. These details gel very accurately with the observed data, a fact which warrants my research being in Wikipedia as I may be the first in the world to explain how it is the gravito-thermal gradient that explains the observations. You come up with a better explanation.

    Yes, I have my bit of fun with William Connelly who’s given me a special post on his blog. There are often improvements required in Wikipedia, but of course if they don’t sit well with the warmists, young William sees to it that they are modified. I’ve still managed a few corrections that have stuck on Wiki, but if I use my name WIlliam is straight onto it regardless.

    The gravito-thermal effect has also been demonstrated convincingly in over 850 meticulous experiments by I’m sure you know who, even if he got his physics wrong and incorrectly multiplied by degrees of freedom.

    So I’m still waiting for anyone anywhere in the world to explain the increase in the Venus temperature without assuming which restores thermodynamic equilibrium.

    And there a several more questions, like the sensitivity to water vapour, which leaves the lukes and warmists high and dry. Oh, and why is the core of the Moon so hot after all these years?the validity of the gravito-thermal process and the downward convection

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]I gotta hand it to you Doug. It takes a lot of chutzpah to edit Wikipedia yourself (with no references), and then quote your own edits as if they were some neutral source of knowledge.

    I note that you also tried editing the entry for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Fortunately people pay attention to that article, and other editors quickly “undid good faith but misinformed and unsourced edit”.[/quote]

    Doug uses 2nd law as a hammer. And when your only tool is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail.

    If only there was some way to prevent him (or buy him off)from ever using the phrase, “2nd Law of thermodynamics.” This might force him to explain whatever the hell it is that has gotten his knickers in a twist.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    I gotta hand it to you Doug. It takes a lot of chutzpah to edit Wikipedia yourself (with no references), and then quote your own edits as if they were some neutral source of knowledge.

    I note that you also tried editing the entry for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Fortunately people pay attention to that article, and other editors quickly “undid good faith but misinformed and unsourced edit”.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [i]”This is about the simplest, most intuitive, most irrefutable argument I can come up with … “
    [/i]

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics says a state of thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve with maximum entropy. Such a state must have no unbalanced energy potentials. Hence, in the absence of phase change or chemical reactions, the mean sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy must be homogeneous for all thin horizontal layers. Otherwise, any layer with more or less mean (PE+KE) energy per molecule would cause there to be unbalanced energy potentials. If there are unbalanced energy potentials then, by definition, the state is not that of maximum entropy. Hence, even in a tall sealed perfectly insulated cylinder of a gas the gravito-thermal effect will evolve spontaneously as a direct result of the propensity to attain maximum entropy, which is stated will happen in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Hence there will be a garvito-thermal gradient and a vertical isothermal column in a gravitational field would not be the state of maximum entropy.

    Hence there will always be a propensity to move away from isothermal conditions in any planet’s troposphere and, in reality, no planet ever gets anywhere near to having such, because convection (being diffusion and advection away from a new source of kinetic energy) ensures that the thermal gradient forms and is maintained.

    [b]Footnote:[/b] The gravito-thermal effect has been proven to exist in centrifugal force experiments with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube]Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube[/url] and you can read, and I quote with my bold:

    [i]”There are different explanations for the effect and there is debate on which explanation is best or correct. However, the most probable explanation is the [b]gravito-thermal effect [/b]which yields a temperature gradient of -g/Cp (where Cp is specific heat) and such calculations give results of the same order of magnitude as the observations.” [/i]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Tim Folkerts thinks “conduction” in air (meaning diffusion) and radiation from the water vapour would not be enough to keep the surface cooling in the early pre-dawn hours, even though it cooled far faster by conduction, diffusion and radiation even while the Sun was still shining in the afternoon. Need I say more?

    Well I will anyway. He is oblivious of the fact that for Uranus there is no convincing evidence of internal energy generation or cooling of the 5,000K core which is only 55% the mass of Earth and should have had plenty of time to cool right down. His nonsense about a trickle of energy flow maintaining the gradient is simply not proven.

    And why is the Uranus core at just the right temperature to ensure the overall gradient through thousands of kilometres of atmosphere is indeed what we calculate, and gets down to the 60K radiating temperature at just the right altitude near TOA? Is that a fluke TF? Come back in a few billion years and will it be only, say 3,000K with the wrong gradient?

    He still talks nonsense about molecules not having enough energy. They have energy proportional to their temperature, so, as I said, even those near the tropopause still have about half the energy of those at the base of the troposphere if the temperature at the top is roughly half that at the base.

    Funny how he thinks a totally different mechanism forms the thermal gradient (aka lapse rate) on Uranus compared with that on Earth. Perhaps that’s because Uranus has no solar radiation or surface at the base of its nominal troposphere, so he has to dream up some other explanation off the top of his head. We can see he gave it barely a few minutes’ thought, even though scientists have been puzzled by Uranus for many years. Smart cookie is our TK.

    Now I’d like to see him explain how the Venus surface actually rises in temperature by 5 degrees (from about 732K to 737K) over the course of its 4-month-long day. That would need 450W/m^2 of extra radiative flux from the Sun just to account for the difference between 732K and 737K, but only about 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation reaches the Venus surface.

    Then of course he has no real world data to show that the sensitivity to water vapour is about 10 degrees for each 1%, so he thinks a dry region with 1% water vapour would only have its temperature raised by 10 degrees, whereas a moist region with 4% WV would have its temperature raised by 40 degrees and thus be 30 degrees hotter than the dry region at similar altitude and latitude.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote]A molecule would have to lose virtually all its energy and get to the equivalent of zero K … for it not to have enough kinetic energy to travel upwards by the mean free path of air molecules, which is about 68 nanometres.[/quote]
    So many problems ….

    You seem to be admitting that your argument relies on the MFP being very short. But you are claiming that your result is the theoretical equilibrium condition. As such, it should be true whether the MFP is 68 nm or 68 mm or 68 km.

    In any case, you are still wrong. NO MATTER WHAT THE MFP, If you start with N particles at some altitude h with an average kinetic energy K, some number ΔN will not have enough energy to get to some altitude h+Δh. The N-ΔN particles that DO get higher started an average above K (we have self-selected particles with above average KE). They will lose some of that extra kinetic energy as they rise.

    [SIDE NOTE: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am suggesting that ΔN = N and that NONE of the particles make it Δh higher. This shows yet another fundamental misunderstanding you have. The smaller Δh, the smaller ΔN & ΔK. But there will ALWAYS be some fraction ΔN that is too slow to get Δh higher, without any need for the gas as a whole to be close to 0 K.
    ]

    The only question is “how does the loss of KE affect the final average KE once it is Δh higher”. I suggest that the initial KE of K+ΔK among those particles that actually manage to get Δh higher will decrease by exactly ΔK as it rises, and ends up with K. No one can hand-wave their way thru the detailed calculations required. But if you want to show the details of the calculations that relate Δh, ΔK, and ΔN, go for it. [i][Yeah … I didn’t think so.] [/i]

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    Doug, much of what you write is immaterial to my point about your mistaken ideas. Try to focus on my point, rather than going off on strawman tangents.

    [quote]
    explain the gradient (also close to -g/Cp in the nominal Uranus troposphere.
    [/quote
    Even a very small flow of heat (less than a mW/m^2) is sufficient to set up a lapse of -g/Cp. Such a heat flow is the norm for planets (both from ‘geothermal’ energy flow and from sunlight being absorbed relatively deep within an atmosphere). So a lapse rate is the norm for the atmosphere for any planet (or moon). And — to be extra clear — this is NOT an equilibrium condition since there is active heat flow upward thru the system.

    [quote]… explaining why the thermal gradient still exists when, as is well known, upward convection from the Earth’s surface stops[/quote]
    When the heat flow up thru the atmosphere is larger than a mW/m^2 (ie anytime during the day) the lapse rate will form.

    During those early morning hours you mention, there is no longer heating of the surface and convection stops. This does not mean that the lapse rate will magically disappear. Since convection has stopped, then CONDUCTION (and radiation) will take over. But we know that air is an incredibly good insulator. It would take MUCH more than 12 hours for conduction to equilibrate a column of gas several km tall.

    So during the day, there is a VERY STRONG driver creating the lapse rate. During the night there is a VERY WEAK driver trying to bring the atmosphere to uniform temperature. The net result is that lapse rate will not disappear at night (merely diminish slightly). (Local cooling of the surface can set up an inversion, but let’s not go there, since this is ALL immaterial to the ).

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    So, Tim, water vapour does about 25 degrees or so of that “33 degrees of warmin” does it?

    Let’s say a global mean of 2.5% of water vapour raises temperatures 25 degrees, and so the sensitivity to water vapour is about 10 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere. Right? Wrong, Tim. Real world evidence in the study below is that there is a negative correlation between temperature and precipitation. Water vapour cools, Tim, and so does carbon dioxide (for the same reason) but only by about 0.1 degree.

    [b]TABLE OF TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL DATA FOR 15 TROPICAL CITIES
    [/b]
    City, Country/State, Continent, Altitude, Maximum, Minimum, Rainfall, Adj* Max, Adj Min

    01: Manaus, Brazil, SA, 39m, 27.3, 18.7, 238.7, 23.4, 14.8
    02: Goiania, Brazil, SA, 749m, 30.1, 19.5, 209.6, 31.1, 20.5
    03: Kadoma, Zimbabwe, AF, 1160m, 28.6, 17.7, 183.2, 32.5, 21.6
    04: Halls Creek, Western Australia, AU, 422m, 36.6, 24.4, 164.9, 35.4, 23.2
    05: Charters Towers, Queensland, AU, 336m, 33.5, 22.4, 164.7, 31.7, 20.6
    06: Pedro Juan Caballero, Paraguay, SA, 563m, 29.9, 20.4, 160.4, 29.6, 20.1
    07: Mariscal Jose Felix Estigarribia, Paraguay, SA, 151m, 35.4, 22.9, 129.3, 32.0, 19.5
    08: Mount Isa, Queensland, AU, 356m, 36.4, 23.7, 117.3, 34.6, 21.9
    09: Francistown, Botswana, AF, 1001m, 30.8, 18.9, 115.5, 33.8, 21.9
    10: Maun, Botswana, AF, 943m, 32.2, 19.8, 109.4, 34.8, 22.4
    11: Ghanzi, Botswana, AF, 1100m, 32.4, 19.3, 104, 36.4, 23.3
    12: Longreach, Queensland, AU, 193m, 37.1, 23.3, 73.0, 33.8, 20.0
    13: Beitbridge, Zimbabwe, AF, 456m, 33.5, 21.9, 56.8, 32.3, 20.7,
    14: Paraburdoo, Western Australia, AU, 389m, 41.2, 26.0, 51.4, 39.5, 24.3
    15: Alice Springs, Northern Territory, AU, 545m, 36.9, 21.8, 39.9, 36.5, 21.4
    * At 600m: for 01 to 05 use gradient 7C/Km, 06 to 10 use 7.5C/Km, 11 to 15 use 8C/Km

    [b]Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures[/b]

    Wet (01-05): 30.8°C 20.1°C
    Medium (06-10): 33.0°C 21.2°C
    Dry (11-15): 35.7°C 21.9°C

    Now try to answers my questions about the pre-dawn “lapse rate” still existing when convection stops and no more heat transfer happens from the warmer lower regions to the cooler upper regions. Then answer the questions about Venus and Uranus and I’ll tear your answers to shreds.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    [url=http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/tim-folkerts-simple-argument-supporting-a-radiative-greenhouse-effect/]Tim Folkert’s garbage on Tallbloke’s Talkshop[/url] is worth the laugh repeating …

    [i]This is about the simplest, most intuitive, most irrefutable argument I can come up with for why gases like CO2 and H20 in the atmosphere (“greenhouse gases”) must warm the surface.[/i]

    Even though we know (from the original NASA net energy diagrams) that the atmosphere only absorbs about 19% of incident solar radiation, and a further 15% of the original solar energy flux on its way back up from the surface, and thus has an average absorptivity of about 0.17, TF claims in his simplistic explanation that its emissivity is 1.0.

    I could go on for over 20 pages about what he wrote, but I’ve done that (more or less) in my book. Mind you, I did stick to the IPCC version, not the simplistic Folkert’s version which is similar to what the IPCC itself rejected in the 1990’s for lack of evidence.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Tim Folkerts writes: [i]”But molecules that actual get up to that higher altitude are necessarily ones that started with above average KE”[/i]

    [b]Garbage[/b]. After each collision the two molecules involved tend towards having equal KE and, in any event, the direction in which they start out has nothing to do with their kinetic energy.

    A molecule would have to lose virtually all its energy and get to the equivalent of zero K (violating the third law of thermodynamics) for it not to have enough kinetic energy to travel upwards by the mean free path of air molecules, which is about 68 nanometres. In fact, even molecules near TOA still have about half the energy of those near the surface. So, if any molecule near the surface somehow avoided all collisions, it could get to the tropopause and well beyond.

    All this has been discussed on Lucia’s Blackboard (in the obvious thread) and Neal J. King (SkS team member) was rubbished about the same “idea” that you put forward, TF.

    What would you like to put up next? I know you’re a beggar for punishment and your understanding of the physics of radiative transfer and thermodynamics is limited and mistaken, so I’m happy to expose this here, as I have on other blogs. PSI needs to know you’re like a pigeon playing chess: no matter how good I am, the pigeon knocks over the pieces, drops crap all over the board and struts around appearing victorious.

    Maybe you could start by explaining why the thermal gradient still exists when, as is well known, upward convection from the Earth’s surface stops in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours. Then explain the gradient (also close to [i]-g/Cp[/i] in the nominal Uranus troposphere. Then explain how the required extra 450 W/m^2 needed to raise the Venus surface from 732K to 737K gets into its surface, when only 20W/m^2 of incident solar radiation gets through its atmosphere where carbon dioxide has absorbed most of it – on its way in.

    Also, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution strictly only applies in a horizontal plane only, and each horizontal plane has its own mean energy per molecule, but those means reduce as altitude increases. The physical evidence is everywhere. There is, however, no loss of generality in modelling molecules with equal KE at any given altitude, as you would be able to calculate with statistical mechanics correctly applied.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    [quote](5) If (2) applies and noting (4) it follows that when any given molecule is about to collide with another, its own kinetic energy must be equal to that of the target molecule so that no net change occurs in the collision.[/quote]
    True on average (but of course not true for specific molecules in specific collisions –> MB distribution).

    [quote](6) Hence, for any pair of molecules at different heights (or altitudes) the difference in gravitational potential energy must be offset by an equal and opposite difference in kinetic energy, thus maintaining a homogeneous sum (KE+PE) for all molecules.[/quote]

    Good try, but not right. From 5 we know that when a molecule from a lower altitude collides with a molecule at a higher altitude, they will indeed have the same average KE (ie be the same temperature). But molecules that actual get up to that higher altitude are necessarily ones that started with above average KE (because the ones with low KE at the lower altitude would not have the speed to get that high before gravity pulled them back downward). But they lose some of that extra KE on the way up. It turns out these two factors exactly counteract each other!

    The FEW that actually get to a high enough altitude to collide will have the SAME average KE at the top (ie the same temperature) as the MANY that started at the lower altitude (ie the temperature remains constant).

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    PROOF of EXISTENCE of the GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT

    (1) The second law of thermodynamics states that “the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium— a state depending on the maximum entropy.”

    (2) “In thermodynamics, a thermodynamic system is in thermodynamic equilibrium when it is in thermal equilibrium, mechanical equilibrium, radiative equilibrium, and chemical equilibrium. Equilibrium means a state of balance. In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there are no net flows of matter or of energy, no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces), within the system. A system that is in thermodynamic equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings.”

    (3) When, in the absence of phase change, chemical reaction or inter-molecular radiation, a gas has reached thermodynamic equilibrium, then there will be no net change in the distribution of energy on a macro scale.

    (4) In such circumstances described in (3) for every molecular movement between collisions, any change in gravitational potential energy must be countered by an opposite change in kinetic energy.

    (5) If (2) applies and noting (4) it follows that when any given molecule is about to collide with another, its own kinetic energy must be equal to that of the target molecule so that no net change occurs in the collision.

    (6) Hence, for any pair of molecules at different heights (or altitudes) the difference in gravitational potential energy must be offset by an equal and opposite difference in kinetic energy, thus maintaining a homogeneous sum (KE+PE) for all molecules.

    (7) Thus, because temperature is a function only of the mean KE per molecule, and because PE varies so must KE vary, causing a thermal gradient throughout the whole system,

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    I also posted this letter today by registered mail and it answers your question …

    24 March, 2014

    The Hon Greg Hunt
    PO Box 274
    Hastings Vic 3915

    Sir

    Take notice of the content of the text of my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” the text of which is attached and which will be available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble by late April and advertised in Australian media. See review below.*

    Take notice also of the Open Letter to yourself on the Principia Scientific International website, but note that I am not a member of that organisation.

    Take notice also of three consecutive comments written by myself from here.**
    Please supply valid evidence based on sound physics to support your climate policy.

    Douglas J. Cotton, B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin

    6 Duncan Place
    North Rocks NSW 2151
    Phone: 0298733300
    http://earth-climate.com and http://climate-change-theory.com

    * Review of my book …

    Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures. Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.

    John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

    ** http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/the-next-great-famineor-age-of-abundance/#comment-108970

  • Avatar

    Plchampness

    |

    Doug,

    I assume that you book is self published. I am interested in buying a copy and trying to be better informed about Thermodynamics. Please advise here where we can obtain copies.

  • Avatar

    Plchampness

    |

    Yes, Hunt is very bad. Tony Burke was very very very bad.

    Greg Hunt has a special responsibilty to inform himself about AGW, given his portfolio and not to rely solely on the one sided view of climate experts appointed by the previous government.

  • Avatar

    tom harley

    |

    Hunt, despite his shortcomings, is a thousand percent better than his totally useless predecessor, Tony Burke, a warmist to the nth degree.

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    How can any Australian trust Greg Hunt?

    Last year he was asked a simple question on national TV – “Do you believe carbon dioxides is pollution?”

    He would not give a simple answer to that question.

    Greg Hunt lacks common sense. He knows his lungs and bloodstream contain carbon dioxide. He knows the beer and soft drinks we drink contain lots of carbon dioxide. He knows that no ill effects arise from all this carbon dioxide. He also knows carbon dioxide is essential for photosynthesis… it’s a plant food.

    Yet despite knowing all this, Greg Hunt could not, or would not, answer that simple question put to him by saying, “Of course carbon dioxide is not pollution.”

    And to think that this man is Australia’s Environment Minister. Actually, he is acting like a clown!

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Copy of today’s letter to PM of Australia

    (copy of text of my book attached)

    The Hon Tony Abbott
    PO Box 450
    Manly, NSW, 2095

    Sir

    I write on a very serious matter, namely the now proven fact, based on sound 21st century physics, that all the carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is doing nothing but having a minuscule cooling effect estimated to be less than 0.1 degree.

    I have carried out extensive research on this matter, and speak from my knowledge and understanding of the physics of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics.

    Because of this, the Australian government should firstly circulate leading physicists with my material and ask for any attempted rebuttals, to which I would expect right of reply. It is doubtful that any of them have the background in this very specialised field of atmospheric physics that I have, so some may be mistaken.

    I would be willing to address parliamentarians and/or participate in a senate enquiry.

    I anticipate that, if genuine science prevails, it will be the inevitable conclusion that all policies based on the fictitious propaganda promulgated by the International Panel on Climate Change will be withdrawn or revised accordingly.

    It is my hope that Australia will lead the world in this matter.

    Yours faithfully

    Douglas J. Cotton

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C

    |

    Don’t worry – I’ll be seeing that Hunt gets a copy of my book.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a simplistic rule that heat always transfers from warmer to cooler regions if there is a temperature difference.

    In the early pre-dawn hours the lower troposphere still exhibits the expected thermal gradient, but meteorologists know that convection stops. Yes energy flow stops even though there is warmer air at lower altitudes. That is because there is thermodynamic equilibrium, and when we have thermodynamic equilibrium – well, you can look up in Wikipedia all the conditions and things that happen.

    The real Second Law of Thermodynamics takes quite a bit of understanding and many hours, maybe years of study. Climatologists have absolutely no understanding of it, as I can detect from my decades of helping students understand physics.

    To understand it you have to really understand entropy for starters. Then you have to really understand thermodynamic equilibrium and all the other states, such as mechanical equilibrium, thermal equilibrium etc which the Second Law embraces. That is why, for example, you cannot disregard gravity and gravitational potential energy when determining the state of maximum entropy attainable by an isolated system.

    If you want to stay in the mid-19th century when much of this physics was not widely understood, and if you want to imagine, for example, that radiative heat transfer does not obey the Second Law, then all I can say is that you must live in a strange and isolated planet, because you sure can’t answer my questions about other planets with your climatology paradigm.

    When you truly understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics then, and only then, will you start to understand how it explains the so-called lapse rate and how the pre-determined thermal profile supports surface temperatures everywhere, not back radiation from a cooler atmosphere. Thus you will understand why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.

    My book on all this will be available late April and widely advertised in Australia. I will send you the text if you email me.

Comments are closed