Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
You global warming/climate change freaks will just love this booklet (as a pdf)....

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

Saul the agitator

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
You global warming/climate change freaks will just love this booklet (as a pdf)....

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

Saul the agitator

---

I have come across this - what do you want to talk about?

---

Mr Clingford,

your SOF name sounds like ''Mr. Clingfilm''. Stay cool mate.

Saul the anarchist

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posted                      

quote:

---

the science didn't look too good either, but I'm sure others can have(and have had) fun with the Skeptics Handbook.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Saul - so lets see if I've got this right. A number of us go away, take the time to look at this link in detail, make quite a few detailed comments on the science of it all and its credibility, almost all of which you ignore and then you post up another link.

In which case I'm wondering if you are taking the piss

---

Hey luigi,

hey, me noa takka the peees offa you !

You can open the booklet as a pdf, or not, its entirely up to you.

You haven't got it right, I posted the link because not all of us may agree with the status quo and/or the lies of Copenhagen and this booklet is simply an ''idiots'' guide for the 'unenlightened ones' who don't have the detailed insight into CC/GW and may want a simple look at a complex issue.

Like I said previously, I will try and look through some of the detailed stuff already posted, and as you're all very clever fellas (or gels) I shall have to go away and look at it and then re-visit the conclusions/views I possess.

Is that OK mate?

Saul the maybe soon to be CC/GW agnostic....

[ 16. December 2009, 15:26: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks guys. My question came from some internal reflection, but it was in part provoked by a recent comment (IRL) from a sceptic. Looks like I gave him a reasonable answer (without really knowing what I was talking about) - and I'll remember the ice-caps!

---

• Radiative flux from the Sun: 1360 W/m²(source)
• Area of the Earth: 51,007,2000 km² (Wikipedia, or type "area of earth" into Google!). NB - only half exposed to sun at any given time.
• power input of solar radiation at top of atmosphere: 1360 * 51E+12 m² / 2 = 3.5E+16 W
• albedo of Earth c. 0.3, so 70% absorbed: 2.45E+16 W
• "heat flux at the core–mantle boundary (CMB) ... is poorly known and estimates range from 2 TW to 10 TW" (source). To be generous, lets assume the larger of these figures (10TW = 1E+13 W), and that 100% of the core-mantle flux ends up at he surface. This is a bit hand-wavey, but I can't find a better figure to hand.
• Ratio of core heating to solar heating = 1E+13 / 2.45E+16 = 0.04%. This is probably on the high side, and represents a contribution of 0.006° Celcius to Earth's average surface temperature.

Or you could take it from this article, which estimates it at 0.03%. I'm really rather pleased with this, as I didn't look it up before working my figure out!

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
I just did a back of an envelope calculation which went as follows:

• Area of the Earth: 51,007,2000 km² (Wikipedia, or type "area of earth" into Google!). NB - only half exposed to sun at any given time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

• "heat flux at the core–mantle boundary (CMB) ... is poorly known and estimates range from 2 TW to 10 TW" (source). To be generous, lets assume the larger of these figures (10TW = 1E+13 W), and that 100% of the core-mantle flux ends up at he surface. This is a bit hand-wavey, but I can't find a better figure to hand.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To calculate the total solar flux, you'd need to take the Earth as a disc (mean r=6371km) area 1.3x10^14 m^2.

I make that 1.8*10^17 W. (Wiki says total insolation is 1.7*10^17 W ).

---

Of course, you're right[1]. Which serves me right for trying to put a hugely vague calculation up where all my knowledgeable co-posters could have at it . Given the a cock-up of that magnitude, I'm impressed I managed only a 30% error[2]!

Note to sceptical onlookers: if you don't peer-review articles, stupid errors can slip in unnoticed.

- Chris.

---
[1] unless someone peeled the earth whilst I wasn't looking.
[2] the error bar on this error figure is left as an exercise to the reader

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
So tell me, AGW, how does Carbon Dioxide which is one and half times heavier than air stay up in the atomosphere accumulating to form a blanket?

---

You have been told. Repeatedly. Ad nauseam.

The same way that nitrogen, argon, oxygen etc all stay up "in the air". Because of convection currents, driven by the rotation of the earth (mainly) causing a heat differential as different areas spin into relative view of the sun.

And as you have been told, repeatedly, ad nauseam, the CO2 does not form a 'blanket' (in the sense that you mean is, that is a floating layer): it increases the CO2 concentration of the air generally, thus increasing the ability of the atmosphere, generally, to trap heat.

---

And as I've mentioned, the 'type' of blanket is irrelevant, although I haven't yet heard one, not one, consistent description of it. So let's just call it the agw blanket.

How does a CO2 molecule with a coefficient of less than 1 trap heat?

quote:

---

qb]Tell me: do you believe kites are all on the ground, all the time, or do you believe rather that they can be held aloft indefinitely by the wind (also known as "convection currents" by those in the know)?

---

Myrhh seems to have accidentally scrolled past this excellent post of mine, so I thought I'd narcissistically quote myself for her benefit. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: In which case, I'll quote you [IntellectByProxy] as well. And, tell you you're wrong. Forget convection, what you're looking for is diffusion. In the absence of any convective influence, in totally still air, a release of CO2 (or, any other gas) would still diffuse through the entire atmosphere reaching uniform concentrations everywhere. Convection simply accelerates the process.

---

quote:

---

And as anyone who knows the Second Law of Thermodynamics would know, diffusion is effectively irreversible - molecules in a gas don't spontaneously form little bubbles of the same chemical which would float or sink according to the density of the bubble cf the surrounding gas. You can try experiments at home to prove it. The easiest would be with water and food colouring; take a large glass with a lot of water in it and a smaller glass (such as a shot glass) with water and a good dollop of food colouring. Carefully lower the shot glass into the large glass (careful, you don't want to create too much convection), and watch the food colouring slowly diffuse through the large glass. Notice that no matter how long you wait, the relatively large colouring molecules do not concentrate at the bottom of the glass. If you wanted to do the same with CO2 and air you'd need equipment to measure the concentrations of gas at different locations in the glass (and you'll need a bottle rather than open glass, of course) which makes it much more complex an experiment. The physics of the food colouring is the same though.

---

quote:

---

Radiation that leaves and enters the atmosphere must move through several layers. A little of it gets trapped in each one when CO2 or another greenhouse gas absorbs some of its energy; that energy may be radiated back to the ground or, in some cases, used to speed up the surrounding air molecules, causing more collisions and, thus, a slight warming of the layer in which they sit. A fraction of that energy shifts to higher layers and, when they become thin and cold enough, escapes into space.

It stands to reason then that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere should allow the upper layers to absorb more of it. This means that the energy would have to move up higher still in order to escape into space. Because these layers are particularly cold, they don’t radiate heat upwards as effectively and, therefore, a lot of that surplus energy moves back to the surface – resulting in the planet taking in more energy than it emits.[/qb]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go see a mining engineer to explain it to you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Forget convection, what you're looking for is diffusion. In the absence of any convective influence, in totally still air, a release of CO2 (or, any other gas) would still diffuse through the entire atmosphere reaching uniform concentrations everywhere. Convection simply accelerates the process.

And as anyone who knows the Second Law of Thermodynamics would know, diffusion is effectively irreversible [snip]

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go see a mining engineer to explain it to you.

---

I've a degree in geology, which included units in mining and civil engineering. Will that do?

Alan is right. You're wrong. I'll refer you to this page on kinetic theory ( here ), which explains that the molecules which make up a gas are in constant motion even at room temperature.

It's what makes gases have pressure.

---

quote:

---

The other gas that had to be watched for was carbon dioxide, which in contrast with methane, which being lighter than air collects in the roof, is heavier and thus pools on the floor. So that if you were getting down to cut the starting slot in the bottom of the coal seam, you might just drop into a pool. It was called choke damp – though that was also the name given to carbon monoxide, which could also seep out of the coal. All these gases are colorless and odorless so that without some form of detection (the canary for example, or using a candle as a test) they can lurk to catch the unsuspecting. More on Early Coal Mining

---

quote:

---

UPDATE!

The scientists caught by ClimateGate may have influence over New Scientist. From Watts Up (Thanks Anthony).

In comments, Keith Minto points out the New Scientist is listed in the Climategate emails

See: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=796&filename=1179416790.txt

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: More Rubbish
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!

New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point, including the HS! (Hockey Stick)New Scientist becomes Non Scientist

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Once upon a time there was a man who thought he was dead. This guy firmly believed he was dead, even though he was a living, normally–functioning human being. Well, his wife persuaded him to visit a psychiatrist, who tried in vain to convince him that he was in fact alive.

Finally, the psychiatrist hit upon a plan. He showed the man medical reports and scientific evidence that dead men do not bleed. After thoroughly convincing the man that dead men do not bleed, the psychiatrist took out a pin and pricked the man’s finger. When the man saw the drop of blood trickle down his finger, his eyes bugged out. "Ha!" he cried, "Dead men do bleed after all!"

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Global Warming Predictions Invalidated

A new study in the journal Science has just shown that all of the climate modeling results of the past are erroneous. The IPCC's modeling cronies have just been told that the figures used for greenhouse gas forcings are incorrect, meaning none of the model results from prior IPCC reports can be considered valid. What has caused climate scientists' assumptions to go awry? Short lived aerosol particles in the atmosphere changing how greenhouse gases react in previously unsuspected ways. The result is another devastating blow to the climate catastrophists' computer generated apocalyptic fantasies.

...

Models are only as good as the information they are built on. GCM consist of dozens of equations written to reflect how liquids and gases, driven by energy from the Sun, move about the planet. If the coefficients used in those equations to represent the impact of various GHG and aerosols are in error, then the equations are wrong—they do not represent physical reality. If the equations are wrong then the models can not be right. Furthermore, when climate modelers tweak their playthings to match previous periods of climate variation, a practice called backcasting, they are actually proving that even an incorrect model can be made to match an arbitrary set of test data.

Since the parameters contained in the models are incorrect they should not match the test data. Tuning models to do so means that the GCM used to predict future conditions are actually incorrect models, improperly tuned! Little wonder no model managed to predict the current halt in global warming. And even if they had it would have been a blind pig finding an acorn—an incorrect prediction that just happened to match what took place in the real world. The fundamental conclusion is simple, no climate model prediction from the past thirty years can be trusted.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical Global Warming Predictions Invalidated

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And as anyone who knows the Second Law of Thermodynamics would know, diffusion is effectively irreversible [snip]

---

I side with IBP on this one. If diffusion were irreversible in the manner you suggest, Alan, it seems to me that gas centrifuges would not be of much use in the enrichment of uranium.

---

quote:

---

I think that in a column of still air, relative concentrations would vary gradually with altitude, with heavier constitutents more favored below and lighter constituents more favored above - though distinct layers with oil/water-like boundaries would not form.

---

Posted                      

• quantum mechanics - atoms have quantised energy levels, they cannot just lose a little bit of energy each time they hit something, any the losses and gains are in pre-determined quanta;
• vacuum physics - the atoms are moving in a vacuum, so there is no friction;
• elastic collisions - the collisions are perfectly elastic, or perfectly transfer energy from one atom to another with no loss;
• constant energy input - there is a great big heat source in the sky that is constantly adding energy to the system, otherwise the kinetic energy would gradually diffuse to all atoms in the system and everything would end up at the same temperature, a couple of degrees above absolute zero (-273 degrees centigrade).

Posted                       

quote:

---

Luigi,

it seems to me, I may be wrong, that you don't want to hear the ''other side''? Now I need to be fair too and see ''your side''. I will try and do this.

---

quote:

---

But if you have 30 minutes or so do watch it; IMO it is a fair and balanced view, especially where the stats. for cooling/warming are concerned and the CO2 debate.

---

quote:

---

Also the whole climate change thing beast has developed into a massive cultural/political movement so its gone far beyond just scientific academia now; I think you'd accept that last point too wouldn't you?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

The other gas that had to be watched for was carbon dioxide, which in contrast with methane, which being lighter than air collects in the roof, is heavier and thus pools on the floor. So that if you were getting down to cut the starting slot in the bottom of the coal seam, you might just drop into a pool. It was called choke damp – though that was also the name given to carbon monoxide, which could also seep out of the coal. All these gases are colorless and odorless so that without some form of detection (the canary for example, or using a candle as a test) they can lurk to catch the unsuspecting. More on Early Coal Mining

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go see a mining engineer to explain it to you.

---

I've a degree in geology...Alan is right. You're wrong.

---

Proves my point, the scientists backing the AGW failed hypothesis have zilch basic understanding, even in their own fields.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

1. No personal attacks

We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person. The statement, "View X is stupid," is acceptable. The statement, "Person X is stupid," is not.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Believe me, I really appreciate how great the provocation is, but please take the personal stuff to the Hell thread.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And as anyone who knows the Second Law of Thermodynamics would know, diffusion is effectively irreversible [snip]

---

I side with IBP on this one. If diffusion were irreversible in the manner you suggest, Alan, it seems to me that gas centrifuges would not be of much use in the enrichment of uranium.

---

OK, I'll qualify that statement. To reverse diffusion would require a reduction in the entropy of the gas, and thus would take work (increasing entropy elsewhere). Centrifuges do a lot of work seperating out uranium hexaflouride gases by mass. And, of course, industrial production of CO2 uses a considerable amount of work in compressors and condensors and other systems to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. They do this because if you take a flask of air the CO2 will not just collect at the bottom; it won't even be more concentrated at the bottom.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think that in a column of still air, relative concentrations would vary gradually with altitude, with heavier constitutents more favored below and lighter constituents more favored above - though distinct layers with oil/water-like boundaries would not form.

---

In the atmosphere overall, yes there is a slight gravitional force on molecules. Gravity keeps the atmosphere close to the surface, but yes lighter molecules will be marginally less bound and slightly more abundent in the higher (much less dense) atmosphere. The molecular kinetic energy of the denser lower atmosphere (which is still about 100km thick as you noted) is more than enough to swamp that gravitational effect though.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, that helped! Presumably this is her? A self-employed publicist and popular science entertainer? Admittedly with a science degree (in Microbiology, no less), but no evidence of practice. Plus some links with the petrochemical industry.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What the denialiasers need is not a handful of friends with degrees, but to develop a genuine sense of skepticism and start thinking reflectively about what they are reading, instead of scanning Google or Wikipedia like a gullible sponge and absorbing all the bollocks and ignoring all the rest.

This nonsense about CO2 sinking out of the atmosphere is a perfect illustration. No-one who was thinking critically could believe it for more than a few minutes. The way to be cured of it is not to trust the right scientists, it is to start using common sense.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, that helped! Presumably this is her? A self-employed publicist and popular science entertainer? Admittedly with a science degree (in Microbiology, no less), but no evidence of practice. Plus some links with the petrochemical industry.

---

Hey, I've studied microbiology. And I worked for an oil company for fourteen years. And I think I talk sense sometimes...

More seriously, I'm not sure that using credentialism to debunk pseudoscience is very effective. Partly because there is always at least one nutter with lots of degrees in the right subjects who is talking nonsense, and someone predisposed to believe nonsense will pick that up and ignore the sense.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
17.12.09.

The Daily telegraph reports that: ''Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming''

Here is the link...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate- scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/


Saul

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
sanityman

I hadn't heard of Dunning-Kruger before. You learn something new every day. I particularly liked this quote

quote:

---

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

---

---

Thanks - only found it recently myself. Of course, used indiscriminately it's just another ad hominem, but it helps explain why 80% of drivers rate themselves as above average . That quote made me think of "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."

Cheers,

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot