Thursday, 24 March 2016

Regardless of what you wankers may think... Salby is correct

New comment on your post "Murry Salby ha ha ha"
Author: Leah Salby 

Regardless of what you wankers may think... Salby is correct. He has studied the subject for over 40 years.

For 40 years from now Salby will be correct in his study. Go back to when the world was flat. Think about that.

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

PROOF of GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT using Second Law of Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Gases

A new comment on the post "Le Hansen nouveau est re-arrive"

Author: Physics Shows What is Correct

<b>PROOF of GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT using Second Law of Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Gases.</b>

In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

Now, for the numbers to be equal we note that the effect of gravity creates a slightly greater than 50% chance that net downward motion will occur during and also between molecular collisions. This means that there must be a higher density below the plane and a lower one above. So this explains how the density gradient evolves as a result of maximum entropy production (that is, dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials) in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And, for the temperatures to be equal, this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. <b>Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.*</b>

<b>Hence the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.</b>

Hence James Hansen and others are mistaken in thinking that temperatures at the base of planetary tropospheres (and in any solid surfaces there) are primarily determined by radiation of any form reaching that region.

* <a HREF="" rel="nofollow">Second law of thermodynamics</a>: <i>In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.</i>

Friday, 4 March 2016

Protecting Protectionism and Other Economic Inefficiencies

CIP invoked me in response to The WTO Just Ruled Against India’s Booming Solar Program?; I came.

I said:

So, you do think you're hard enough :-). Since you've quoted no facts, you won't insist on references in return.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are examples of nascent industries being protected by tariffs; but I'm pretty sure that most such "examples" aren't real; and that most tariffs imposed are imposed for stupid reasons, whatever pols may say or have said. its just too tempting for people. Most tariffs are just there to protect privileged and powerful incumbents; not for the good of the people.
Which is why your "nations are usually run not for the benefit of everyone, but for the benefit of elites" is so odd; its the elites that benefit from protectionism. As, I think, Smith warned you. So why are you in favour?
"might benefit more by damaging a rival" - is that a reference to dumping? Again, i think that's more imaginary that generally noticed; its more of a rallying cry for protectionist.
The correct tariff rate is zero. The good news: the correct strategy for all countries is to set this unilaterally; there is no need to wait for cooperation.

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

What’s Wrong with Wikipedia?

Heartland are sad. I asked them if they needed any help:

Hi. I thought I really ought to show up and tweak you a bit, it would be a shame not to.
Are there any aspects of wiki policy that you'd like clarified?

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

I have studied the IPCC AR's in great detail and this is why I know for a fact that they are wrong

A new comment on the post "Economist watch: Cruz denies climate change"
Author: co2isnotevil


FYI, I have studied the IPCC AR's in great detail and this is why I know for a fact that they are wrong. The mechanism established by the IPCC to determine the sensitivity is seriously flawed.  We can start with the ambiguity in defining forcing, where 1 W/m^2 of post albedo incremental solar input power is considered 1 W/m^2 of forcing, while a 1 W/m^2 instantaneous increase in surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere is also considered forcing.  The later assumes that all power absorbed by the atmosphere is returned to the surface to warm it, as the an entire W/m^2 of solar forcing does, while the data clearly tells us that about half of atmospheric absorption by GHG's and clouds ultimately escapes into space and has no warming effect on the surface.  Otherwise, clouds would not emit any power into space.

At the very least, you must concede that the sensitivity of an ideal black/gray body is given by the slope of the SB relationship, which is quantified as 1/(4*e*o*T^3), where e is the emissivity (.62 for a gray body representation of Earth and 1.0 for an ideal black body), o is the SB constant and T is the temperature of that body.  To achieve a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2, e must be only 0.23.  Given planet emissions of 239 W/m^2, this requires the surface to be emitting over 1039 W/m^2 of Planck radiation which corresponds to a temperature close to the boiling point of water.  Obviously, this is not the case, so the only other possibility is that the T^3 dependence of sensitivity on T must be about T^3.23 since e and o are otherwise known.

Please answer this question:
What physics do you propose can change the dependency of the sensitivity on temperature from T^3 to T^3.23, bearing in mind that this also requires that the radiant emissions of the surface go as T^4.23, rather than the T^4 otherwise dictated by the laws of physics?  Please be specific and cite the precise physical law or laws.  Arguments to authority are insufficient to establish this much deviation from first principles physics which is basically all you have done in #68 and others.

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

Consensus climate science obsesses over superfluous complexity

A new comment on the post "Economist watch: Cruz denies climate change"
Author: co2isnotevil
and then ...,

I understand the basics just fine.  One of the basic laws of physics is that the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW is immutable.  Consensus climate science obsesses over superfluous complexity which gets in the way of understanding that the only effects this complexity can have is to 1) vary the effective emissivity (currently 0.62) and 2) vary the albedo (currently 0.30).  The SB sensitivity (what you seem to refer to as the Planck sensitivity) is completely deterministic and a function of temperature and emissivity given by, 1/(4*o*e*T^3), where 'o' is the SB constant (5.67E-8 W/m^2 per K^4) and 'e' is the equivalent emissivity (measured to be 0.62).

As an exercise, you should try to find some combination of albedo and emissivity that results in the claimed sensitivity.  Such a combination that fits the data simply doesn't exist unless the surface temperature is only 176K or the effective emissivity is only about 0.23, neither of which is consistent with the data.

Another exercise you can do is start with an ideal gray body whose emissivity is 0.62 (which maps to the data extraordinarily well) and morph it in a way that the power to temperature relationship is as measured while the sensitivity is as high as claimed.  Again, you will never be able to do this because the claimed sensitivity is impossibly high.

The idea that the SB law is mutable arises from Schlesinger's broken feedback analysis where he incorrectly positions the SB law as the open loop gain in order to convert surface emissions (the power output of the modeled system) into a temperature output and presumes that positive feedback to result in a temperature dependence slower than T^4 and negative feedback makes the temperature dependence faster than T^4.  This is absolutely incorrect and the only effects feedback, the lapse rate and any other climate system attribute can have is to increase or decrease the effective emissivity or albedo while the T^4 relationship remains intact.

Unless you can show first principles physics that overrides the T^4 relationship between power density and temperature, every argument you make is unsupportable by the laws of physics.


Cutting comments that are demonstrably true just because you don't like the consequence is completely unprofessional

A new comment on the post "Economist watch: Cruz denies climate change"

Author: co2isnotevil

Cutting comments that are demonstrably true just because you don't like the consequence is completely unprofessional.  It tells me that the truth is so scary to you that you can't help but deny it.  The reason it's so scary is because the political implications are so incredibly devastating to the Democratic party and anyone with strong ties to the left simply can't handle the truth, especially those on the green bandwagon.  Scientists should rise above this and decouple politics from the consequences of the scientific method.  Unfortunately, climate science doesn't accept the results of the scientific method when they dispute the narrative.

The consensus denies the applicability of the SB LAW to the radiative balance of the planet,  denies the applicability of COE relative to available feedback power and denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics relative to the net effect of the planet's water evaporation/condensation driven heat engine that manifests weather.  Moreover; the consensus denies the obvious conflict of interest at the IPCC which became the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science.  Meanwhile they call people like me deniers, yet can't cite a single law of physics that we are supposed to be denying.  Apparently, the consensus does not understand the difference between denial and dispute.  I certainly dispute the conclusions of the IPCC, especially the high sensitivity it claims, but I deny no physical laws.

At this point you have two options.

1) You can remain part of the problem and be crushed as the house of cards you call climate science collapses around you.

2) You can rise above the politics, come to grips with the actual science, enable a constructive discussion and be a hero by mitigating the political damage of the truth to your political party.

Unfortunately, I suspect you will choose option 1) and will bet any amount of money that you will eventually wish you chose otherwise.  If you should choose option 2) I will be more than happy to help you.