This is perfectly normal for Bay Waberts as this ice it this year's production from the arctic moving south.

As I looked at my window last night and could hardly see the waters of False Creek because of the blizzard of Al Gore snowflakes.

Please Al . . bring on some warming, we need it. The 30cm of snow in Nanaimo last night needs to be balanced out with a reciprocal blast of your famous GhG warming.

Please Al, please ?

As Gord said, this is the norm Kate.

But according to the gospel of the Church of Climatology, Al Gore being the Nobel Priest, we are not supposed to be seeing "normal" are we...

Well, here in Edmonton, we didn't just get a spring snowstorm. This is dollar for donuts a winter snowstorm! -8 for a high, snow, wind equals near blizzard conditions here. I can't tell if it's January or April.

I tried my best this winter with unnecessary idling and everything else I could do to pump out more of the CO2. I am sorry but it seems as though I failed miserably in reaching my objective of a warmer climate.

I feel for you folks out west......... I really do........ Baawwhhaaaa!!!

17 and sunny along the coast today as we worked on our paintball field's new speedball field.

Oooh!! Highs of 25 yesterday and today in Northern Ontario! Great gardening weather!
...I know we'll pay!

My son called from Quebec (on a field trip), he's spending all his money on bottled water(and maple syrup for Mom)it's so hot there. The only one who likes this cold weather we are getting in Edmonton is my dog.

Summer, last year in Edmonton was 5 weeks, that's right, 5 weeks. That was July plus 1 week in August.

Gee, it looks beautiful out my window in Edmonton,
like a Christmas-card snowfall. Ahh, Christmas in
April, I should write a song. Or go here:

www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008519.html#c264154

And on a Saturday night too. How cozy.

AW. C'mon Vit. It is nice,I will admit,but I can't help thinking how the KyotoKultists say that this snowstorm in April is not proof that MMGW is a fake,but that one day in August with a high temp .005 above the record DOES prove that MMGW is the gospel! Think I'll head out and get some good pics of the Canada geese slipsliding their way across the pond(natural) down the road.

Sounder wasn't kidding when he said summer was only 5 weeks in Edmonton last year. I recall that the first frost occurred just outside of Edmonton on the 10th of August. A date I can remember easily because it was our 22nd anniversary.

God it's cold and raw here in St. John's today. Worst April in the 30 years I have lived here.

We really don't want Al Gore. We've enough to do with that other creep Paul Watson.

Normal high this day in Kelowna .. about 17C

Today's high .. about 5C

Frost predicted next few nights - go long cherries, apples, appracotes

Six inches of snow on mid Vancouver Island this morning. Power lines pulled down by snow laden trees. Warmer it ain't. Try the coldest for thisty seven years if you will.

Does Kate have such a terrible grasp on climate change that any day it's unseasonably cold we're going to see a "GOTCHA HAHA STUPID SCIENTISTS!" post?

Protip: "Global Warming" refers to average global temperatures, over a long period of time... it doesn't mean that every single day anywhere in Canada is going to be +30C .

It seems to me that the seasons have shifted by about a month to the ???. Summer until October and winter until end of April early May. Didn't the earth shift on it's axis a few years ago by about 20 degrees or so. Would that account for the change??

Wikipedia's Zealots

"The thought police at the supposedly independent site are fervently enforcing the climate orthodoxy", Lawrence Solomon (Financial Post)

[Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.] LS

Ahaww, Houston, we have a problem. Our school kids may be brainwashed if they refer to Wickedpedia.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=2

we trian in all weather...........

If David Jacuzzi can cite every warm day, Kate can cite every cold day. It's in the Charter.

get with da program you bunch of maroons. it aint global warming anymore, Al Gore and Dr. Mengele Suzuki call it Climate Change. It can go up , down sideways, rain , dry , puke , it doesnt matter as long as its not the same as the day before or the year before. a few taxes, a few climate change deniers in jail for "right think" and it will be all fixed.

meanwhile Gore sits in his mansion and Dr. Dave Fruitfly sits on Kitsalano beach in his 7 million dollar eco-cottage and make pilgramages to the eco-shack on Quadra island.

Oh, so she's no better than the evil, environut moonbats.

gotcha ron.

=)

I nominate Samuel for our official SDA troll. He's so darned smart while we are all so darned dumb and just look at his really cool "protips".

Keep your head up your ass Samuel, you pathetic liberals have nothing to say that adds to any conversation other than parroting Steffi the Imbecile. Here at 4500 feet in southern Alberta we have 2 feet of snow today, we had 2 feet of snow here in 1960 also on this date, OH my I must do like a liberal light my hair on fire and run screaming into the night that the end is near. No I will pour a scotch and turn up that wonder called my boiler that runs on nat gas and enjoy a movie on my big screen, the joys of working hard and having money, suck it up you stupid liberal morons in mommys apartment waiting for the end.

Protip: Not everyone who believes the scientific consensus on global warming/climate change is a liberal.

As a card carrying conservative and a petroleum geologist by occupation -- I'm really getting a kick out of you guys jumping all over me for being a hippie liberal.

=)

"It seems to me that the seasons have shifted by about a month to the ???. Summer until October and winter until end of April early May. Didn't the earth shift on it's axis a few years ago by about 20 degrees or so. Would that account for the change??"

Combine a strong La Nina and a prolonged Solar Minimum and this is what you get. A colder and longer winter. Don't expect this summer to be a hot one either. It should be below average.

Yes, Samuel is crashing and burning rather intensely over at the Taylor thread too. Rather fascinating though, at least from the perspective of an armchair anthropologist, especially considering those of whom are criticizing him who don't even understand what his problem is.

Oh well, back to the weather, and I've got today's SDA LNR in the can on that subject, if only Kate opens a Reader Tips.

Samuel" ""Global Warming" refers to average global temperatures, over a long period of time... it doesn't mean that every single day anywhere in Canada is going to be +30C." This comment is a cop-out. Everyone knows that it is not the day to day or even an odd year re temperatures, but at some point there is a tie between actual temperatures and evidence of global warming. The "warmists" themselves are relying on yearly temperatures to prove their point. Now, I am willing to concede that a lack of temperature increase for 10 years (I think that is now the case) proves nothing over the long term -- but then a 1 degree rise over the last century really also proves nothing. I think in the end what we have is a situation of temperatures going up . . . and then down . . .up . . . and down. I guess that's the horror of "climate change". At this point I have given up on any reasonable arguments influencing this debate one way or the other. It isn't even about temperatures anymore -- it's all about emotion.

Vitruvius

You find it fascinating that people with little technical knowledge of an issue criticize someone who has knowledge of that issue, and that someone challenges their ill-conceived notions?

Pretty normal reaction, I'd say.

I fully expect to "crash and burn" trying to explain the some of the finer points of climate change to people like "bartinsky".

=)

Not at all Samuel. You are intelligent. You, like others of us, have some knowledge in the field. You would be a fine addition to a considered, civil discussion, if you choose to do that. But you don't. You choose to be a knob, socially speaking of course. You spray around gratuitous invectives like pole-cat in heat, and then demand respect.

It doesn't work that way, son. The regulars round these parts have been commenting here for years. They know each other. This is a social phenomenon. If anyone tries to just come waltzing in here and be an aszhole, they will be ridiculed.

Round these parts, son, you have to earn the priviledge to be an aszhole, and you're going about it the wrong way.

well samuel according to your enviroguru du jour, you will indeed crash and burn sooner rather than later. too bad I was just starting to warm up to you.

And to be clear, Sameul, I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of other knobs around too. You're new in these parts. I've challenged you to be reasonable once, and now twice. The ball is in your court. Will you be reasonable?

The "warmist community" has a history of trying to link isolated weather events and their warming theology. Remember when Hurricane Katrina had to be caused by global warming, if not by George Bush himself? The lack of hurricanes last year in the U.S. kind of blew that notion out of the water, but they will use any weather event to push the agenda. The recent breakup of a small part of Western Antarctica was a case in point.

Oops, I spelt your name wrong in my last comment, Samuel, sorry about that.

Vitruvius

I agree, I'm sure I would fit in better with people on this site if I sugarcoated my words.

Unfortunately, I believe in talking straight with people. Like any other public website, there is a staggering amount of ignorance on display -- nowhere more so than the subject of science. There's not enough time in the day to point all of it out, let alone doing so without hurting people's "feelings".

It seems to me that too many people refuse to consider the science, when its so much easier to stick theirhead in the sand and blame those damn liberals!

I guess that it pains me to see people with a political agenda, and no understanding of the science -- attacking the science! I recognize that not everyone falls into that category, but it seems that people like yourself (an understanding of the science, questioning the science) are in the vast minority.

samuel, this is the science I believe. Read it and Weep
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/03/state-of-global-warming-today.html

Correct and agreed, Samuel, there is a staggering amount of ignorance on display in the public sphere, and there is not enough time in the day to point all of it out, so why spend all day trying to point it out? Moreover, very few people are seriously stupid, ignorance of a topic you know something about is not a sign of their stupidity, it is an invitation for you to try to help educate them.

But one can't do that if one starts off by insulting them, sugarcoating doesn't enter into it. The first thing you said to me, Samuel, in our history here at SDA, was that my analysis was sophomoric. Yet that particular analysis actually bears the coveted "SDA / John Cross" seal of approval (modulo the molar weight of CO2 error, which has now been corrected):

www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008056.html#c243220

If one wants to convice others about things one thinks are important, then one must spend most of one's time being reasonable, in order to earn the trust of those who will question one's matters of importance that they think may be unreasonable.

If one runs around being unreasonable all the time, then when something one considers important comes up, people will just think one's crazy. It's basically a variant of the Boy Who Cried Wolf problem, a very old problem indeed. And don't forget the sage words of Oscar Wilde, who said, "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you".

in a nutshell..don't go runnin around like a chicken with it's head cut off fer cryin out loud we're just trying to have a conversation here.

The world has been warmer before now and much colder than it is now . .There was ice a mile thick where I'm sitting right now and I dug up a perfectly fossilised palm tree, trunk , nuts , branches and roots in a hill in Redcliff, Alberta .It wasn't my fault things changed then either.

Vitruvius

I have no idea who this John Cross is, and why he's considered the authority on the subject of ACC around here, but I maintain that that calculation is sophomoric.

The Calculation

The portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03. The portion of green-house gasses that is CO2 is about 1% or 0.01. Thus, the portion of green-house gasses that is human produced CO2 is about 0.03% or 0.0003. The heat trapping effectiveness of CO2 compared to the average of green-house gasses is about 10% or 0.10. Thus, the portion of the green-house gas effect caused by human CO2 is about 0.003% or 0.00003 or 30 millionths. The portion of human-produced CO2 vapor that comes from Canada is about 2% or 0.02. Thus, the portion of green-house gas effects caused by Canadian-produced CO2 is about 0.00006% or 0.0000006 or 0.6 millionths.

Flaw #1

You claim that The portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03

while Mr. Cross claims Keep in mind that the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is about 30%.

I'd probably estimate this at slightly higher, but I'll agree with the authority here. That's 10x. Your figure is wildly incorrect.

Flaw #2 I don't know where you're finding the figure that CO2 accounts for 1% of total GHGs. This is incorrect.

I'd also suggest that your figure pertaining of the trapping effectiveness is also on the very low side.

The last figure seems to be about right, so I'll give you a 1.75 out of 4 on the calculation.

That's 0.4375 or 43.75%.

cantuc

I agree, it's a dynamic system and anyone who tells you that we can "stop global warming" or "climate change" is either ignorant or a liar. The question in my mind is whether or not we're giving good old mother nature a kick in the pants, greatly accelerating the inevitable... if so, is it worth the effort or even a realistic goal to put the brakes on this acceleration? -- or should we just keep a close eye on it and prepare for and try to mitigate the effects. (Bye Bye Florida!)

You commented 14 times in this thread ~ tinyurl.com/3utrjk ~ Samuel, in which said thread John Cross, who is a knowledgeable and honourable man, commented 5 times, significantly and reasonably, while you were busy calling someone a whore, and you have no idea who he is? Are you paying any attention at all, son? This is Small Dead Animals you know, not the Samuel show. Furthermore, condescension is a fine art, as I mentioned before; abuse of the rhetorical form can lead to ridicule, although I will admit, such misbehaviour can on occasion be a useful target for droll wit.

Well folks, it looks like it's been another day. Best wishes, thanks Kate, 'night all.

don't go Vitru. I'm scared to be alone with this sameul

Seems like a reasonable fellow. I still have no idea who he is or why he's considered the authority on ACC around here.

=)

Good night.

*slides over*

Sooooooo kelly, can I buy you a drink?

;)

Relax, Kelly, none of us are with each other, we're all just virtual phenomena (modulo those commenters who actually know each other, of course). Besides, virtually speaking, I'm sleeping in the pipe bearth on the starboard quarter, let me know if that slimy operator becomes a problem. Otherwise, there's some great pulp fiction here, for everyone's enjoyment:

sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2007/09/dashiell-hammett.html

I'm a reasonable fellow too. gin & tonic thanks

There's Beefeaters and Tanquery in the port locker, Kelly, I hope one of them will do, and if I'm not mistaken, there's a bottle of port too (in the port locker, of course), so pace the pipe berth, I'll join you, and Perry, Paul, and Della, in the fo'c's'le, if that's ok. A good bowl of pipe tobacco in the invigorating air of this Christmas in April weather always beats a pipe berth.

(You know, I've got this queasy feeling that Kate's about to smack us upside the head for getting carried way off topic here, so I'm going to sign off and head for the open sea. Sorry if our fun has crossed the line, Kate.)

if yer headin to the strait pf georgia..wave!

Samuel said: "Unfortunately, I believe in talking straight with people. Like any other public website, there is a staggering amount of ignorance on display -- nowhere more so than the subject of science."

As a biologist with 40 years of experience, so do I. If you truly are a petroleum geologist, and have actually learned some science, you'll understand that the number one problem about the current debate about climate change is: we don't have the ability to measure global changes in temperature as fine as +/- 1 deg C. The thermodynamic equilibrium of the planet is far to large a variable array for our real time sensory capability. We don't even have adequate baselines to measure "normal" variability, let alone supranormal. At best, we can catalogue anecdotes, which make for interesting documentaries, but hardly qualifies as a definitive statement for predictive climate analysis.

Samuel: Environment Canada quotes the IPCC report as stating that the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is less than 5%, with the remainder being from natural sources.

Environment Canada also states that in 2002, Canada's contribution of CO2 was 2.4%.

What is the source of your "estimate" that more than 30% is from human sources?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I sit here in awe struck revulsion that there are still dogma-conditioned automatons out there that will reflexively chatter the mantras of AGW/GHG theological virtue every time there is evidence pointing to the fraud of AGW panic or the mistakes and unreliability of anthropic-effectuated climate science.

Yes there's weather...good and bad and it has trends...but we didn't make it so we can't unmake it.

What IS it you climate doomers want so badly to be true?....a climatic dooms day for the human race? An catastrophic end to western Technology/culture/economy? Is your Luddite hatred for human progress so deeply seated that if AGW is proven out to be a fraud you will prey for an asteroid?

Careful, Eyeore. That 2.4% by Canada is 2.4% of the 5%, correct? Otherwise samuel might interpret that to mean that Canada supplied HALF of the 5% you are referring to, which 5% is over a much longer period of time.

Always be clear in how you phase things. I know from experience: once a leftist misinterprets what you said, THAT is the interpretation, not what you actually meant.

So I read all the comments here this morning. With some experienced science types argueing who's numbers are correct. For me I get my weather by going outside. But only for an hour today. Why ? There is 6" of snow where gravel was just Friday. Whew, and to think I was going to convert my tractor's implement from the snow plow back to the mower. One more pushing of snow. -13 right now on the ranch.

I am no science guy. But for what it's worth. The Dippers and Liberals dont really know or care what the science say's. They are only going to be happy when Canadians $$$$ are going to China, India et al. NO matter the plan to curb GHG's or pollution, if we are'nt sending billions, taxing billions then all bets are off. No plan will be good enough for the environuts. IMHO.

Sheesh, I even got what I wanted to say, Wrong. More coffee! But I hope you see my point, Eeyore.

Samuel: I would respectfully suggest that you not assume ignorance here. (We all know what assuming does, right?)

For instance, Vitruvius is very knowledgeable, as is John Cross, as are many others here. For a long list, check out Kate's post about SDA readers and what we do for a living.

Heck, some of us might even be meteorologists and know that predicating climate forecasts on forecast models that use finite differencing schemes to approximate differentials (for merely one example) is not science--it's science fiction.

Some of us might know that real science is never "settled", in direct contradiction to what some "leading personalities" say, and that questioning and pointing out weaknesses in science is a good thing.

Some of us might know about how temperatures being measured are deeply flawed. Some of us might have pointed this all out again and again to the loud "lalalalalala" fingers-in-ears of many.

Some of us might have gotten that Kate's postings about Y2Kyoto are more about the hypocrisy of "it's a record-setting hot day--global warming!" by positing its diametric opposite.

But then again, what do I know. I'm just ignorant. And a little drunk from the Tanqueray (thanks, Vit!)

Proof there is God, Samuel, nothing more. And this God hates liars and theiveing liberals. Every time these snakes like Gore and Suzuki scream out about global warming, well God sits backs laughs and says watch this, Wham a big dump of snow and 20 below on April 20, I'm lovin it, still in front of my big screen, now sipping a morning coffee as I look out over 3 foot drifts of global warming. Funny how the very people that believe vehemently in evolution don't evolve themselves, ie liberals.

And Vitruvius, I meant no disrespect for your modeling work. What I meant was this: that while models are useful tools, we must remember that a model solution is an answer, not the answer. As you well know, with chaotic systems, you tweak the input a little bit (measurement error) and over time, your answer looks nothing like the answer you got with the previous model run.

Don't get me wrong. Less pollution? Absolutely. Technological innovation to develop new power sources in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels? Definitely.

Destroying the Canadian economy because models suggest that we might be causing a tiny bit of warming and even so, other, much-more-emitting countries are exempt from reducing carbon emissions, thereby rendering our reductions meaningless? Not a chance.

when it comes to climate man will mitigate nothing. the clomate will change, warmer or cooler whether human beings are here or not. keep our water clean and all will be ok.

Thanks, Otter. Good advice...be precise. And don't make a spelling or grammatical mistake, or they'll jump on that to as a way to discredit what you say.

I just get frustrated when folks like Samuel and Hugger/Greg speak condescendingly about our sophomoric analyses while spouting unsubstantiated BS themselves. By the way, do you suppose they are just sockpuppets...Glen/Hugger sounds suspiciously like "Andrew"?

No wonder "Global Warming" is blasphemy to the zealots making big bucks on the sham. A proof is a proof and when it's proven, it's a good proof, or something like that there....

Samuel: Since my name has been invoked let me throw in some comments. I believe that Vitruvius brings me up since I am one of the regular “trolls” here on the topic of climate science. I comment on the science involved but as I have said many times here I am an engineer and have no official connection to any type climate analysis (I have written a few things which you can find on the net if anyone is silly enough to look).

You are correct there is a large number of uninformed people on this site who repeat the same discredited arguments. In addition there are a number of individuals who are not worth responding to as well as a number who tend to insult before they reason. That is true for almost any site, but where you and I post against the standard belief we probably feel it more than others. I have a collection of particularly creative insults thrown at me and one detailed psychoanalysis (all based on my posts of course).

However there are a number of thoughtful people who, while they will make as strong an argument as they can, can be convinced if you present a strong enough case. In analyzing their arguments I usually come to a better understanding of my own position, and - sometime - come to accept I have been wrong.

There is also a group on here who appreciate reasoned arguments reasonably presented and I have been defended by some of these people at times when others have insulted me and I think that that shows a true open mind attitude in this area. Heading up that list is Vitruvius (but there are a number of others). While I do not agree with everything he says, I do think his posts and analysis are interesting, reasoned and show that he is willing to spend time researching his arguments (he did a model of the cost of solar power a while back which I thought was fairly solid).

In regards to your posts, while I perhaps would not phrase the comments the same way as you do, I tend to agree with much of what you said. For example, I think that we both understand the flaw in the “you can’t transfer heat from a cooler body to a warmer one” argument. I did at one point explain this in great detail to ol hoss who then said that because I used wiki (to back up a point about infrared radiation) my whole argument was wrong and it was not worthwhile arguing with me.

I also note that your post at 3:13 gave me the best laugh I have had in a while (I am coming off a long and frantic project so not much time for fun recently, but just last week we got the hydraulics working so it is all down hill from here).

Best,
John

Eeyore: You said Samuel: Environment Canada quotes the IPCC report as stating that the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is less than 5%, with the remainder being from natural sources.

This is flat out wrong in the context of the total human contribution to the atmosphere (it may be correct of an annual contribution). Do you have a reference for it?

Thanks,
John

So Samuel, being a petroleum geologist makes you a climate expert eh? So obviously you can read but so can everyone else on this blog. The question is what do you read and what do you choose to believe. Climb down off your high horse! Your "expert" interpretation of what you have read doesn't make it the unassailable 'gospel' (according to that wellknown scientist Gore) 'truth'! You are just one more voice and opinion like the rest of us. The big difference is in this community you are allowed to speak, in yours we aren't. Think about it!

Vitruvius: My favourite line from Dashiell Hammett is:

I was reading a sign high on the wall behind the bar:

ONLY GENUINE PRE-WAR AMERICAN AND BRITISH WHISKEYS SERVED HERE

I was trying to count how many lies could be found in those nine words, and had reached four, with promise of more …

Damn, I have read nothing for the last few years except technical stuff! This summer I should pull out some old paperbacks!

Thanks for the idea.
John

Samuel, a petroleum question, if I may: your opinion on the availability of the 200 Billion barrels of oil in the Bakken Oil field?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Record warm temperatures on the East Coast this past Friday.

As echoed above, in many parts of the East Coast you can have clear water one day and pack ice the next. Sometimes in the same day. It's a tidal/wind thing that maybe land lubbers don't know about.

Were you trying to indicate that this was misleading, or intentionally misleading Kate? Most people who have any miles on them know that many try to push their own agenda. Even a good deal of the MSM, and MANY blog operators.

One other thing that was mentioned in another recent thread was the claim that we have not lost one single bit of land mass to rising oceans. As I work on my 6th decade, I can say with some authority that this is not true. Just yards from where I live there are examples.

Building lot's of waterfront property that are no longer there. They weren't included in the seawalls we built in the 60's and 70's and they have vanished. Gone, poof..like a politician's promises.

So where did they go? Erosion you say. Ok, well how is it that the insidious ocean keeps getting farther and farther up and the waterline closer so that it can continue to erode more and more land if it's not rising?

Now, my part of the Ocean, Me Ocean I fondly refer to it as, did not come with a dipstick, so I can't check it like the oil in my car, so I am left to ponder the answer. Here is an excerpt from a web post on the subject.

"Since the end of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, sea level has risen by over 120 meters.

* Geological data suggests that global average sea level may have risen at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr over the last 3000 years.
* However, tide gauge data indicate that the global rate of sea level rise during the 20th century was 1 to 2 mm/yr.

Along relatively flat coastlines, such as those of the Atlantic, or coastlines bordering fertile, highly populated river deltas, a 1 mm rise in sea level causes a shoreline retreat of about 1.5 meters. We are already seeing evidence of shoreline retreat in the U.S.:

* Along the marshy Gulf Coast of Florida, the effects of sea level rise can be observed in the number of dead cabbage palms at the seaward edge of the salt marsh.
* Along the Atlantic Coast of the USA, erosion is narrowing beaches and washing out vacation houses. As sea level rises and coastal communities continue to grow and pump water from aquifers, salt water intrusion into groundwater will become a greater problem.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html

Any thoughts?

Hugger

Yes, John...I believe it is an annual figure. Just as I believe that Vitruvius' calculation of Canada's contribution was on an annual basis. The reference is: ec.gc.ca/climate/4th_Report_on_CC_e.pdf

I do not believe it is possible to assume that the rise in CO2 levels in the last 100 years is solely due to man's activities. You would have to assume that the natural contribution is steady...and that would be a HUGE assumption.

Again, since CO2 levels have fluctuated in the past when man was not around...

Eeyore: If that is an annual value, then sure. My off the top of my head 30% was a total amount and Samuel seems to think it is more than 30% so I will have to check it out.

In regards to the C)2 increase, I can agree with you for the last 100 years. However we are able to attribute all the CO2 increase to humans for the period of time when we have good records that show that we produce more CO2 then is ending up in the atmosphere (perhaps the last 50 years).

Regards,
John

Lies, damned lies and statistics, John. I'm not gonna lose one millisecond of sleep over this silliness, regardless of your bank account theory.

Go into any university and be taught what the FACTS are...clear, unambiguous FACTS...about ANY subject you want. Then wait 10 years and be amazed at all of the FACTS that turned out NOT to be facts after all.

I'll lay money on a bet that 10 years from now, the average global temperatures will NOT be higher than they were in 2002. Do you live in Ontario and want to take me up on the bet? Eeyore_1693@hotmail.com and we can find a place/time to firm up our bet (but my wife won't let me put anything more than $100 on it).

I think that we both understand the flaw in the “you can’t transfer heat from a cooler body to a warmer one” argument.

Well then perhaps one of you could graciously explain to the rest of us what exactly this flaw is.

With apologies to Vitruvious,John C,lookout,etc. I have just been informed of why we here in the Hinterlands (central/southern SK/AB/BC) are getting this wonderful global warming snowfall. According to my betterhalf,it seems I PO'd Gaia and her high priests,the Goracle/Dr Fruitfly by having the audacity to actually put the blockheater cords to our vehicles away under the hoods this Friday(April 18)and stating we shouldn't need them again until Hallowe'en,thereby exacting this revenge.
Ummmmmmmm.....makes as much sense to me as anything else out there that makes conclusions on the climate based on 20 years of so-so readings.

Its freezing in the West where GHG emissions are the highest. GHG is causing global cooling; cut them back!!

One can, Pd, transfer heat from the less hot to the more
hot by doing work ~ for example by using a refrigerator.

Except John Cross maintains heat can be transferred from from the less hot to the more hot with no work added. In effect, perpetual motion.

If only he would use his expertise to design a refrigerator with that feature.

The key is that there can not be a net transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one. However every object above absolute zero emits thermal radiation. If an object is in the way it will receive that thermal radiation. The thermal radiation does not know if the object that emits is warmer than the object that receives, it just goes from point A to point B.

Now, next question, what is the consequence of this.

Regards,
John

Oh, and could someone explain this to ol hoss since the last time I went through it he didn't accept it.

Don't be silly, Hoss. A couple of other quick points: John, re 10:24, you are not a troll at all, at least by any reasonable definition of the word that I know of. And Johann, re 9:32, I see your modeling point and raise you this quote from the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper (sorry John ;-) "It should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science."

It's John Cross who's silly to suggest the cooler atmosphere can heat the warmer earth.

EEyore, I am currently setting up a bet at Long Bets which should be public in a week or so. After that I might be interested in your bet.

While there are some things that do change, I am willing to back my bank account theory with my bank account. ;-)

Regards,
John

Hmm, I don't recall John ever saying that, Hoss, do you have a link?

Vitruvius: this all falls out of a discussion I had with ol hoss back in this thread (at the risk of being called obsessive) http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007137.html

I agree completely that a cooler body can not warm up a warmer body, but it can add heat to a warmer body.

Regards,
John

I agree completely that a cooler body can not warm up a warmer body, but it can add heat to a warmer body.

See how idiotic that is? To add heat to something is to make it warmer. duh

No it is not idiotic, Hoss. John is correct. Your mental model is oversimplified.

By the way, from Slashdot: "Professor Edward N. Lorenz, who discovered in 1961 that subtle changes in the initial conditions of a weather simulation program could cause very large differences in its results, died of cancer Wednesday at the age of 90. The contributions of the father of chaos theory, who discovered the Lorenz Attractor, are best summarized by the wording of the Kyoto Prize in 1991 which noted that his discovery of chaos theory 'profoundly influenced a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton.'"

greetings from the left coast. april snow on vancouver island 6.4 centimeters by 11 a m april 19 last time we had snow like that was 1955 on 14 april with 5.1 centimeters most snow in april since 1940. big story is from nanaimo they had 24 centimeters april 19. previous record was 1981, april 12 with 4.9 centimeters. our tempertures are several degrees below average for this time of year. better get out in the driveway and start up that s u v and let 'er idle take that screwsooki.
Bubba

Educated idiots.

Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.

Consider this analogy, Hoss. Say I transfer two dollars of money (heat is the transfer, money is the energy) to you, as you transfer one dollar of money to me. Money flows (heat transfers) both ways, but only one of us gets net richer (more energy). The net energy transfer depends on which heat (energy flow) is higher. Heat is a measure of energy in transit, it is never possesed by a body. Hot is a measure of temperature, which is related to the internal energy (potential and kinetic) and enthalpy of a body. Heat is not the same as net energy transferred, energy is not the same as temperature. Remember, if we're going to use words to do physics, we have to use the words as defined by physics.

Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.

What part of "cannot" do you not understand?

Interesting analogy, Vitruvius, using transfer of cash in the AGW discussion; as one of the precepts of Kyoto was the transfer of carbon credits into cash (not to mention the curtailing of personal liberty by big government), it's probably apt. Or a Freudian slip, maybe.

I find it fascinating that the global warming jihadists huff that "you can't use localized cold weather as a contra argument to AGW", yet they are the same numb-bots shrieking hysterically that AGW caused hurricane Katrina, and the spate of hurricanes that were to follow in 2005.

Oops, that didn't happen. Forget that point, please. Also forget it for 2006, too, thanksverymuch. As the great Lileks observed (paraphrased), "Who would have thought that the path massive tropical storms could have been diverted by the signing of international treaties".

Thus, localized weather phenomena are only acceptable in the AGW debate IFF they support the astonishingly arrogant theory that mankind is somehow powerful enough to affect global weather patterns and climate trending. Ecco! Q.E.D. (sort of).

Although I myself am only a mere mechanical engineer, I hereby promise to take the AGW hype more seriously when:

(i) Somebody is able to prove any facet of it via laboratory experimentation (sorry, Charlie: software models don't "prove" anything)

(ii) The leading proponents of AGW are not individuals who stand to gain fabulously by the mindless acceptance of the theory, and by the economic-destruction plans required thereof (e.g., Gore, Strong, GE, the UN, governments, government-funded scientist shills, ad infinitum...)

(iii) Those same proponents of AGW actually begin to modify their lives to lead by example. That is, Scamzuki will eschew his two multi-million dollar homes in favor of a dinky little bungalow that's "the same size or smaller than what his grandparents owned", the Goreacle puts his 20-room mansion up for sale in exchange for something smaller that doesn't burn 20x the average US family's electrical usage (and dumps his "carbon credit" trading business, also), or that maurice strong divests himself of all chinese business interests and returns to live in a modest 2-bedroom townhome with postage-sized back yard in Etobicoke.

Ahh, well. At least I can dream, eh?

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Heat, Ol Hoss, cannot pass at all! Neither can work. Only energy can pass. Heat and work are measures of the passage of energy. The measure of the passage of energy does not itself pass. Net energy transfer is always from the heater to the heatee +/- from the worker to the workee (heat and work being the only two measures of the transfer energy). Heat is not the same as hot (at least, not in physics; heat is a path function, hot is a point function).

Now to be clear, Ol Hoss, I know what you mean, and we all use that terminology colloquially, it's just that when you get down to the nitty gritty details, the nitty gritty details matter, and in particular they matter once non-thermodynamic factors like electro-magnetic absorption spectra come up in the various atmospheric energy retention conjectures, theories, and models. Which is why (unless I'm mistaken) John wants to make the finer point.

Perhaps I can summarize it this way, Ol Hoss. In a purely thermodynamic system, the net argument can be factored out because it always adds up in practice, and your (mine, and everybody elses) simplified model works. However, once one adds non-thermodynamic considerations, such as electro-magnetic effects and chemical reactions, one has to (ahem) do more bookkeeping ;-)

You still haven't shown that the cooler atmosphere can add heat to the warmer earth. All you have is some disjointed theory in support of perpetual motion.

Nobody has said a cooler atmosphere can warm the earth, Hoss. As long as Sol is shining on us, perptual motion doesn't enter into it. But it's not just the temperature of the atmosphere and the earth that matter, you have to account for radiative energy transfers between differing substances.

Let's return to the transferring dollars between each other analogy, Hoss. Now say we're molecules of the same substance, and we're at the same temperature, and so we're throwing photons of a particular frequency at each other. Depending on what substance we are molecules of, our ability to catch those photons (and so absorb their energy) depends on their frequency, that is, our temperature. However, since we're the same substance at the same temperature, it all nets out to a steady state.

But if we're molecules of different substances, then we will not necessarily have the same ability to catch each other's photons, depending on their frequency (our starting temperature). If one set of molecules catches more photons it will gain energy relative to the other set of molecules, yet the thermodynamics is still satisfied, because the escaped photons go on to transfer their energy to some other part of the system, such as space.

Our atmosphere, we have noted, contains molecules of multiple substances, all radiating photons, plus the inbound photons from Sol and the rest of the universe, minus the ones were shooting off into space. How these photons interact isn't a matter of thermodynamics, thermodynamics is a model of the macroscopic system, which comes into effect after these photonic considerations are taken into account.

[quote]In regards to the C)2 increase, I can agree with you for the last 100 years. However we are able to attribute all the CO2 increase to humans for the period of time when we have good records that show that we produce more CO2 then is ending up in the atmosphere (perhaps the last 50 years). [/quote]

John Cross posted this statement of wisdom!

Simple Logic:
The "Scale" used by the AGW group to measure Co2 produced does not match the measured Co2 in the atmosphere.

What am I to assume happened to the missing Co2?. I guess I am free to Speculate with an aggressive imagination

A) The Irish fairies come in the middle of the night and are stealing our produced Co2

B) The Missing C02 is the source of those annoying Wet Farts.

Why are we even using a production Scale that does not match or track the Co2 in the Atmosphere?

Nobody has said a cooler atmosphere can warm the earth, Hoss.

Look through this thread, that's what John Cross says.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007137.html

Phillip G.Shaw: I don't follow you when you say "The "Scale" used by the AGW group to measure Co2 produced does not match the measured Co2 in the atmosphere." Are you talking about using gigatonnes of CO2 for production but ppm for concentrations? If so, they are not the same but they do match.

In regards to the missing CO2, it appears to end up dissolved in the oceans.

Regards,
John

Yes of course, Phillip, the scale used to measure CO2 produced does not match the scale used to measure CO2 in the atmosphere, the former being a first derivative of CO2 mass balance with respect to time, the latter being the integral of the former with respect to time. Mass flows (may) accumulate. You may have noticed that the CO2 produced scale is in units of moles per second, while the the total CO2 is measured in moles, which should have been more than enough of a clue that they aren't the same scales. You have to multiply/divide by time.

An' Ol Hoss, I don't come here to argue, I come here to think. I don't usually particularly care what particular phrasing was used in some previous argument, I care about what the words and ideas under consideration mean. And so it is I thank you, Ol Hoss, for challenging me to explain myself. Thanks to your feedback for helping me re-clarify my own understanding of what the words and ideas mean, now that I've had to think about it carefully again in order to not make a fool of myself ;-)

ol hoss: the following is my comment from the thread you linked to. It shows that at the time I was making the same point that Vitruvius has made several times above.

ol hoss: everything at a temperature above absolute zero emits energy. If a body is in the way of this energy it will receive it and thus some warming will be imparted. A cooler body (call it body A) can't warm up another body to a temperature higher than body A's which is the case I think you were referring to.

Regards,
John
Posted by: John Cross at October 1, 2007 10:05 AM

How much contaminates has AL GORE put into the upper atmosphear with his private jets and 4 mpg limo SHUT UP AL GORE IM GETTING TIRED OF YOUR BLASTED BLABBERING SQUAWK SQUAWK

This is the innane comment made by John Cross that Vitruvious apparently agrees with...

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007137.html

But there is another side to the warming caused by CO2 which has nothing to do with saturation. Lets say that the earth’s atmosphere is separated into layers based on their CO2 content (i.e. so much CO2 per layer). As we go up through the layers we eventually reach a point where the radiation from CO2 can escape into space.

Now, if we look at what is happening in the layers below we can see that the bottom one is warming the earth a fair bit. However the next layer also provides energy to warm the earth (albeit it somewhat less than the first since the first is in the way). The same for the third and so on.

With educated idiots such as these two spreading such nonsense it's no wonder this GW idiocy has taken such a hold on the young and impressionable.

Remember, they're talking about energy that's already been given off by the earth being reflected back and "warming" the earth. Then that same energy is once again given off by the earth is reflected back further "warming" the earth ad infinitum.

Educated idiots.

Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body.
Posted by: ol hoss at April 20, 2008 8:12 PM

Sure it can. That's what happens when a guy who is not so hot, hooks up with a gal who is really hot. Warm stuff passes from the colder body to the hotter one.

This is not usually ad infinitum.

Pa...

ol hoss: The statement you quoted is true if you accept that the addition of heat is warming (which is the thermodynamic definition of warming). However using that as an excuse for your argument is transparent since when you brought it up I realized why you were confused and replied with:

"ol hoss: everything at a temperature above absolute zero emits energy. If a body is in the way of this energy it will receive it and thus some warming will be imparted. A cooler body (call it body A) can't warm up another body to a temperature higher than body A's which is the case I think you were referring to."

It is this statement that you spent so much time arguing with. If anyone is interested in reading through that thread this is the point that I made repeatedly. For example I gave you a reference and this was your exact quote in response to it (your comment in bold):

However, the energy lost by emitting infrared heat is regained by absorbing the heat of surrounding objects. For example, a human being, roughly 2 square meter in area, and about 307 kelvins in temperature, continuously radiates about 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, in a room of 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

That's nonsense. The body "receives back" exactly nothing until the body's temp. is lower than it's surroundings.

A cooler body cannot heat a warmer body, period.
Posted by: ol hoss at October 1, 2007 12:24 PM

I do not know if Vitruvius would accept my definition of warming but there is no way your statement above can be considered true.

If you don't like the answers that were given here, ask a physics person to review the thread and see if they agree.

John

Greg: while it is not ad infinitum, if you consider that the actual translation of ad hominem is "against the man", then it may fall under certain strict definitions of ad hominem. But I digress.

Regards,
John

I don't care how many times you say a body "receives back...", a cooler body cannot add heat to a warmer body without added work. Therefore the cooler atmosphere does not add heat to the warmer earth.

The key is that there can not be a net transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one. However every object above absolute zero emits thermal radiation. If an object is in the way it will receive that thermal radiation. The thermal radiation does not know if the object that emits is warmer than the object that receives, it just goes from point A to point B.

Sorry John. But unless you can provide some sort of reference of an instance where this alleged phenonomen has been scientificly observed and quantitatively measured, then I must regard your claim as conjecture. (you are afterall arguing against the 2nd law of thermodynamics) If, by thermal radiation you are referring to IR radiation, then I must point out that IR radiation is subject to wave mechanics analysis. And I would posit that IR radiation from a cooler body would be cancelled out by out of phase radiation emitted by the warmer body before it could hit the warmer body.

However every object above absolute zero emits thermal radiation
I do not believe this to be true. You are again sliding into perpetual motionism. Spectral emissions(of which IR is one) are caused by atoms transitioning from an excited state to a lower energy state. The excess energy appears in the form of photons with characteristic frequencies. For this to all happen, energy must first be applied to the atoms to excite them. Atoms that are in their lowest energy state thus do not produce spectral emissions.

If I may, the "flaw" in your thinking seems to be that you place an inordinate significance on radiative energy transfer. I would maintain that the predominant mechanism is convection (ie energy transfer through molecular collision) Think in terms of how a vacuum flask works - and how it wouldn't work at all if radiative transfer was the prime mechanism of heat transfer.

Pd: OK, a couple of comments in reply. First, there is nothing in what I said that would violate the second law and using what I have described you can not make a perpetual motion machine.

In regards to the idea of radiative heat transfer, how about a page from MIT - they are usually pretty good at physics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node136.html

Read through it and you can see that energy is indeed transfered from a cooler body to a warmer one (but more energy is transfered from a warmer one to a cooler one). If you find equation 19..3 you will see an equation for net heat transfer. Note that it involves the 4th power of both objects. If your argument was true - that the incoming radiation from the cold object was canceled by the out of phase radiation from the hot object then it would not matter what the temperature of the cold object was and there would only be a need for the hot temperature in the equation.

In regards to every object above absolute zero emitting thermal radiation, I would ask you to look up something called Wien's Law. As you can see, it is temperature dependent and as long as T > 0 then there will be electromagnetic radiation emitted.

I am not sure what your final statement is in reference to. Certainly radiation is the only significant way that the earth loses energy so I think it is important.

Regards,
John

Read through it and you can see that energy is indeed transfered from a cooler body to a warmer one (but more energy is transfered from a warmer one to a cooler one). If you find equation 19..3 you will see an equation for net heat transfer.

Wonderful, there's a mathmatical equation. But that wasn't the question. You need to provide examples of this being observed and measured in the atmosphere. (In relation to the different layers you talk about) Until you provide proof, you're just blowing smoke.

1. First, there is nothing in what I said that would violate the second law

How about:
I agree completely that a cooler body can not warm up a warmer body, but it can add heat to a warmer body.

2. The MIT paper says nothing to support your contention that heat can be transfered to a warmer body. Nor does it refute my contention regarding wave cancellation since it only deals with a single photon emitted from one surface. And if you look at equation 19.3, a quick glance will tell you that if T2 > T1, the result is going to produce a negative heat transfer qnet. In violation of the second law.

3.The Wien displacement law defines the relationship between temperature and radiation wavelength for BLACK BODIES. It does not apply to our discussion. And to suggest that atoms will radiate down to absolute zero with no external energy input is akin to perpetual motion.

4. Certainly radiation is the only significant way that the earth loses energy so I think it is important.
Please provide proof.

1) I have said (many times) that there can be no net heat transfered. If there is no net heat transfer then the second law is not violated.

2) OK, then this one gives it for objects, not photons:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
So that takes care of your cancellation argument. Now, in this equation instead of having T1 and T2, we are having Th (T hot) and Tc (T cold). Your argument is akin to saying that Tc is hotter than Th, in which case the heat flow is negative.

3) In regards to Wien's law, it does not matter if the object is gray since all that will do is suppress certain frequencies, but it won't change the fact that it emits. However we don't even need to use Wien since the Stefan–Boltzmann can be used for grey bodies (see the link above) and it gives the total emissions.

4) Do you accept that space is essentially a vacuum? If so then then only way energy can leave is through radiation.

Ol Hoss and Pd ~ look at the equation John provides in his reference:

                4    4
    q = ε σ ( Th - Tc ) Ac

It is correct standard physics. It matches, reproducibly, experimental results. That is called science. (1) If the cold did not radiate to the hot, Tc would not be there. It is. (2) If radiation stopped below some temperature, Tc would have a lower limit applied to it. It doesn't. Those arguments are over. It's a simple matter of algebra.

John is also correct that the only way to get energy out of the earth, past the atmosphere, into space, is radiation. The only other options are convection (and there is no fluid in space) and conduction (and there is no conductor in space) and work (and the earth does no work to space, remember, in the physics sense). So that argument's over too.

At some point one simply has to give up trying to explain non-trivial physics to people who can't even keep the signs on their basis vectors sorted out. Perpetual motion? Phase cancellation? My ass.

Well what can I say. I give up . 'Cause everybody knows that thermodynamic process equations trump quantum mechanics. Beaten once again by the "you're too dumb for us to explain it to, so the debate is over" argument. Magical CO2 rains heat back down upon the earth and we're all gonna burn. And that's that!

The real topic of this debate is whether CO2 is heating up the planet. I reject this presumption because I have yet to see the mechanism quantified, let alone proven. Is there bidirectional energy transfer between hot and cold? I don't know. But thermodynamic heat transfer equations merely quantify the exchange - they do not define the mechanism. (and if there was no Tc component, then there would be no temperature gradient, so what heat transfer would you be calculating? And this is your proof?) I simply introduced the possibility that the radiated photons may never reach the warmer body.

I whole heartedly agree that the only way energy can escape our atmosphere is via radiation. But I would also contend that a considerable amount of energy is expended within the atmosphere doing work in the form of moving molecules around.

I'm trying to understand the mechanism but to be convinced, I need to understand it at the atomic level. I realize that you consider the argument closed, but perhaps you could find it within yourself to pull your pompous head out of your pompous ass and explain the following:

1. why is IR radiation not subject to phase cancellation or alternatively, what happens when photons collide?

2. for a molecule in a non-excited state, where does the energy come from to drive the radiation process?

3.where does wind get its energy from?

Please keep your answers simple. I'm kinda dumb.

Beaten once again by the "you're too dumb for us to explain it to, so the debate is over" argument.

It's the old elitist statement that really means they don't understand it well enough to explain it. That's why Vitruvius is getting all huffy.

The Earth is constantly losing matter to space. It caries heat with it. But I don't expect it to amount to a relatively great deal of energy. Just saying.

Pd: There are a number of issues raised by your questions and statements. In regards to the net radiative heat transfer equation, it is a standard equation that can be found in any university physics text or on line in a number of places. The derivation of it is fairly simple and if you go through it you can see where the trems come from. I will see if I can dig out a better reference from my old heat transfer text (it is at home).

The point about the equation is that obviously there is an effect from Tc. The object at Th will radiate a certain amount of energy and this amount does not change based on the temperature of the objects around it (it can’t know the temperature of other objects). You ask what would happen if there was no Tc component, then Tc is 0 in the equation and you would get the radiation from Th in a vacuum. In fact, this is the basis of the equation!

You also say "But I would also contend that a considerable amount of energy is expended within the atmosphere" I don't know about this. The energy will change forms in the atmosphere but unless you are changing energy to matter, I don't see how it can be expended. For example condensation is critical to driving hurricanes, but the power is not expended only changed to wind. The wind energy can drive waves, but again not expended. The wave energy can transform energy into internal friction, sound and even potential (if it moves sand up a beach). Etc. Etc.

In regards to your questions,

1. why is IR radiation not subject to phase cancellation or alternatively, what happens when photons collide?

According to classic quantum mechanics photons do not cancel. Here is a quick reference for that exact question.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae480.cfm

2. for a molecule in a non-excited state, where does the energy come from to drive the radiation process?

If the object is above absolute zero then there is thermal energy. This thermal energy drives the emission. As the object emits it will continue to cool down and come asymptotically close to absolute zero.

3.where does wind get its energy from?

From pressure gradients in the earth’s atmosphere. As I discussed above, there is no question that there are other factors driving weather (and climate too for that matter).

To be clear, Pd, I too doubt that man-made CO2 has a significant effect on total atomspheric energy, I doubt that models accumuluated out of independent bits of physics, chemistry, assumptions, estimates, and hand-waving, to the scale of so-called climate models, are valuable (considering initial conditions, numerical analysis limitations, convergence considerations, and the opportunity for political opportunism), and I don't think we should be spending piles of money on stuff we don't understand.

I that sense I disagree with John, and we have discussed that at some length. In addition, John and I do agree that even if it all adds up, then the effect is only on the order of two to three degrees over the next century, the effects will not be anywhere near as catastrophic as the doom-mongers prophesize, and may even be beneficial, and most importantly, again, we have time to be careful on expenditures of the proposed magnitude. (At least, this is my recollection, I do not wish to attempt to speak for John.)

Nevertheless, when someone says the equivalent of F = m a and someone else says "prove it", I don't think the party of the second part is being reasonable in any way at all. If one says that if Ti is less than Tj, giving a negative q, that violates some law, oblivious to the fact that since Ac is a vector quantity, negative q just means it goes the other way, I feel frustrated by the degree of difficulty of trying to teach physics in blog comments.

But, truth be told, I'm probably just not a very good teacher. If asked to explain I will try, but if proof is demanded in a rhetorical context where it is not dialectically appropriate, I have a bad habit of getting a bit too snarky. Sorry if I was a bit too snarky in that last comment.

then the effect is only on the order of two to three degrees over the next century, the effects will not be anywhere near as catastrophic as the doom-mongers prophesize, and may even be beneficial, and most importantly, again, we have time to be careful on expenditures of the proposed magnitude.

Vitruvius at April 22, 2008 6:18 PM

Some thoughts to consider on the above. Humans are prone to procrastination and when it comes to change versus acceptance of status quo, it can take more extreme measures/urging to bring about change within the range of time desired.Especially in the realm of spending their money. Also, shock value is widely employed . Just look at the blogosphere. Look at this site.

Think about a civil law suit. If you want $300,000 you ask for a million. If you want something to happen in 50 yrs, you say 20. Then maybe, it will come to pass in 75. The question is, do we have 75 years? We would all prefer that, but do we?

I commend you, John Cross and Samuel for taking time to present your information and for having the patience to present it in varying forms including layman's language as much as possible.

I have found these discussions to be not only informative, but representative of the spirit of seeking and sharing knowledge.

Hugger

Thanks John

To be clear, I was never challenging the thermo equations (nor did I at anytime request anybody to prove the laws of physics to me!). My point of contention was whether there was bidirectional energy transfer. All in all, it's a moot point, since the net transfer is all that matters and we're nit-picking over details.

I still have a problem with the "all radiating all the time" concept. (ie, do you propse that a CO2 molecule trapped in an ice core for millions of years is still radiating energy?) This flies in the face of my understanding of spectral emissions. I'd appreciate any links that you might have that discuss molecular thermal energy.

Finally, I think we've narrowed down what topic we should be debating: that of convection vs radiative energy transfer. You seem to think that radiative transfer is the more important component (the only thing that I did ask for proof of). I say convection - although I admit at this point I'm relying on "gut feel" and I cannot offer definitive proof, but I am open to yours.In any case a discussion of the concepts should provide the type of "scientific debate" that you have claimed to be looking for.

Since this thread is due to fall off the edge of the active blogosphere (a time domain function), perhaps we can continue on a future Y2Kyoto posting.