This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment,recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the “not rearing pigs” business. In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy. I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven’t reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this? My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is
- until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about
£2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don’t rear? I am also considering the “not milking cows” business, so please send any information you have on that too..
Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)? In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦ C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f ) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Here is a paper which attempted to refute the claim of the authors from the paper above, but if one reads it (ie, the following), it is not a refutation at all, just an alternative derivation that agrees with the prior notion that greenhouse effect exists.
Abstract
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed. “
No greenhouse effect at all? So … the atmosphere doesn’t heat up? All the heat radiated at the earth’s surface escapes into space? That seems … doubtful.
Title #1 ): Falsi fication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Gerlich & Tscheuschner – 2007/update 2009)
Why is it qualified with “Within The Frame Of Physics”
From the second:
A simple infrared-absorbing atmospheric layer is added to these models, and it is proved that the temperature
constraint is easily violated, as is shown by the observational data for Earth.
Hmmm, scientists predict that sea levels will raise 1.4m and there is clear evidence that the Antarctic is shedding ice.
And I thought it was all a hoax?
mickey, the key word there is “predict”.
They use computer models for their ‘predictions’ – models that predicted that the warming would continue increasing until 2030, and yet it’s been cooling for the last decade. If they’re already getting it wrong now, why should we trust their predictions for the future?
Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference–an annual gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change –Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.
Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.
But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?
My point is they cannot. It’s true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.“
However, some authors and filmmakers have argued that the greenhouse effect hypothesis is not based on an error, but clearly is a kind of a scientific fraud.
Five examples:
• As early as 1990 the Australian movie entitled “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” showed that the case for the greenhouse effect rests on four pillars:
1. the factual evidence, i.e. the climate records, that supposedly suggest that a global warming has been observed and is exceptional;
2. the assumption that carbon dioxide is the cause of these changes;
This is nonsense. The “greenhouse effect hypothesis”, basically, is that the earth is warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere, because the atmosphere “traps” heat that would otherwise be radiated out into space. The greenhouse effect itself does not require that the earth become steadily warmer year-by-year. Furthermore, everyone at the IPCC will tell you that there are (at least) three greenhouse gasses: methane, CO2, and water vapour. AFAIK, water vapour has the greatest abundance and also the greatest effect.
No greenhouse effect at all? So … the atmosphere doesn’t heat up? All the heat radiated at the earth’s surface escapes into space? That seems … doubtful.
Repton, it may seem so, but it’s true.
Check out the graphs on THIS SITE. I can’t display pics here, but this is the accompanying text –
The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
You can see in the graphs (‘Graph C’) the actual data cause the graph to slope in entirely the opposite direction of the IPCC computer predictions.
3.3.5 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 1 (1995)
“The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lets the radiation of the Sun, whose max- imum lies in the visible light, go through completely, while on the other hand it absorbs a part of the heat radiation emitted by the Earth into space because of its larger wavelength. This leads to higher near-surface air temperatures.”
Disproof: [...] The second statement is falsified by referring to a counterexample known to every housewife: The water pot on the stove. Without water filled in, the bottom of the pot will soon become glowing red. Water is an excellent absorber of infrared radiation. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the pot will be substantially colder.
Firstly, they don’t give any reference for “Anonymous 1 (1995)”. So I’ve no idea where that quote comes from.
Secondly, wtf? If you put a pot of water on the stove, the element will heat the pot (because the element has a higher temperature), and the pot will then heat the water. Water has a high specific heat capacity, and so will heat more slowly than the empty pot. When the water starts to boil, it will stop increasing in temperature, and heat from the element (via the pot) will transform water into steam. How on earth does that refute the greenhouse effect?
With what has happen recently in Australian it important for anyone opposed the Emissions Trading Scam to come to this meeting and support to a party opposed to NZ exporting jobs, coal to be burned in China and money to third world countries that will likely end up in the hands of corrupt rulers.
PUBLIC MEETING
John Boscawen, ACT’s spokesperson on Climate Change, invites you to a Public Meeting to discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme.
New Zealanders will all be poorer. Power, petrol and food
will all go up in price.
Come and find out;
• Why the ETS will see many low and middle income families struggle
• Why many feel the scientific consensus is crumbling and dispute the fact that the
science is settled
• Why it will be more difficult for our export businesses and farmers to compete
• Why ACT’s offer to support National in delaying Labour’s ETS was ignored
Where: Royal Akarana Yacht Club,
10 Tamaki Drive, Okahu Bay, Auckland
“..We thought it was one of the Earth’s last remaining regions of stable ice.
Now it seems the East Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass since 2006 ..
.. and could become a significant source of sea level rise, according to data from gravity-measuring satellites.
Previous studies have suggested that the ice sheet was either stable or even gaining ice mass.
Now satellite measurements analysed by Jianli Chen of the Center for Space Research at the University of Texas at Austin and his colleagues ..
.. suggest that the East Antarctic ice sheet is losing at least 5 billion tonnes of mass each year.
“This paper provides the most accurate measurements to date of the current rate of mass loss from Antarctica,” says Eric Steig, a glaciologist at the University of Washington in Seattle..”
“..Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, a conservative-leaning political blog ..
.. officially announced his break with the right in a post on Monday evening.
Johnson is co-founder of Pajamas Media, and Little Green Footballs has been named one of the top 100 most popular blogs.
Succinctly titled “Why I Parted Ways With The Right,” Johnson’s post argues against the fanaticism of politicians like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan ..
.. as well as the conservative blogosphere ..
.. (”Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories ..
..(see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)”).
He also cites the “anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam ..
.. into support for fascism, violence, and genocide.”
He concludes:
‘..The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.
..I won’t be going over the cliff with them..”
whoar..!..eh..?
he has ’seen the light’..!
hallelujah..!..hallelujah..!
he has seen the light/ripped the scales from his eyes..
1. Light from the sun passes through the atmosphere without heating it much. This should be obvious.. if visible light couldn’t pass through air unhindered, the world would be quite different.
2. This light hits the earth, which is not transparent to visible light, and thus absorbs the energy and heats up.
3. As it warms during the day, the earth radiates energy in the infrared range.
4. This radiation heads back out towards space. Some of it gets to space and is lost to us.
5. Some of the infrared radiation hits CO2 molecules, water vapour, or other greenhouse gasses, and is absorbed.
6. These molecules heat up a little, and bang into other molecules, heating them a little.
7. They also reradiate some energy as infrared. Some goes out to space, some goes back towards the earth.
8. The net result is that the earth is a lot warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.
I mean, seriously, guys. You can argue against anthropogenic climate change, you can argue about the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations, but arguing that the greenhouse effect itself is a myth? That’s serious crank territory.
But MICKEY Al Gore predicted the sea level would rise 67 metres in 10 years time………Who to believe?
I wouldn’t believe anyone spreading this sort of claim. It all came from one erroneous article, and of course conspiracy bloggers grabbed it and ran without doing any simple fact checking. The correct 6-7 meters would have been good ammunition, instead they made themselves look sillier than Gore.
” What of the content of your email . . .?”
Harawira: “I’d rather not go into that, Barry [Sooper]”
So this incredible fiasco and saga ends with an apology to two swear words, but nothing else, apparently NOT the intention of the email.
Repton, the amount of CO2 in ‘greenhouse gas’ is negligible though.
According to the National Centre for Policy Analysis, “greenhouse gas” makes up only 1-2% of Earth’s total atmosphere.
Of that 1 or 2%, water vapor makes up 95%, and CO2 about 3.62%
Of that 3.62% of CO2, humans cause only 3.4%
So, in our atmosphere in total the amount of human caused CO2 gas is 0.28%
(Their PDF – link above – has some very clear pie charts that show the amounts).
If we humans disappeared tomorrow totally I don’t think it would make a huge difference.
Water is the main component of greenhouse gas, but you can’t tax water, so CO2 is the element that is targeted.
Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.
Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.
Of course, I believe it’s less than that, if it has any effect at all…
Repton, did you read the referenced papers or all you did was reading physics forums ? Try and understand the fundamental physics described in the papers before you can present an arguments. Geez, someone like you who trumps peer review and dismiss non-peer review online discussion, now turned around and champions non-peer review online discussion.
Learn about black-body radiation. Learn about non-equilibrium complex systems , the authors didn’t mention it directly, but that’s exactly what they mean, because in reality, climate system is complex and all complex systems don’t stay at equilibrium. IPCC models are based on equilibrium. I said read and then critique. Have you read the derivation of Title #2 ? Can you tell me where was the refutation in that paper?
Associate Local Government Minister John Carter is being attacked by the Green Party over accusations he changed a Government bill to help out a constituent.
The party has laid a formal complaint with the Speaker, because Mr Carter inserted clauses into a Reserves Bill that would allow Opua boatbuilder Doug Schmuck to use a public reserve as a slipway for his business.
Greens co-leader Russel Norman says the clauses were introduced in secret at select committee and not made known to the public, despite the fact some people have long opposed the businessman’s plans.
“Nobody ever told because it wasn’t in the original bill, it got snuck into the bill in select committee. That’s totally unacceptable process in Parliament – to sneak clauses into public bills in secret that benefit one individual at the expense of the community.”
Dr Norman says it is not the way a Government Minister, or any MP, should make law.
Did anyone see the court of inquiry on the death of the two Aussie brothers killed by falling ice off the fox glacier . Apparently the signs had to many words in English and not enough signs showing falling ice on Aussie dickheads. For fuck sake they even had some poor sap saying that maybe there where to many words. Stop making excuses for dumb arse idiots, I don’t wish to sound uncharitable but these two bobs and those that wish to make excuses for their actions should be told to fuck off.
Yes, that was pathetic. It is a common problem at tourist sites, the Chasm at Milford is another example, people ignore signs, symbols, fences, they ignore guides, they simply do as they please. And if there was nothing at all to warn them you’d still have to be nuts to stand under a glacial face.
Is anyone slightly annoyed that Harawira in ‘apologising’ says he can’t be racist because that requires power of a majority group, and because he is a minority, ergo: he can not be racist – presumably ever?
What the NZ Hooerald web site reports of Harawira is:
He defined racism as “the power to impose your racial views on the rest of society.
“Given that I don’t have that power as an individual member of Parliament, it’s kind of difficult to assume that my comments are racist.”
This carefully prevents Harawira from linking bro-partheid with apartheid.
It’s an extremely narrow definition of racism. Under Harawira’s definition, only the most powerful ethnic group (usually the largest) can be racist. Maori, Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Middle-Eastern refugees, and other non-white Europeans cannot by definition be racist in white-majority NZ. Not even if they ban whites and members of other ethnic groups from their beaches, or refuse to carry them in their cabs, rent them houses, or serve them in shops and other businesses.
Obviously Harawira is talking garbage – again. It’s ugly, too.
How can National accept this bigot in its coalition?
Authorities in several countries investigate VAT tax fraud stemming from the Danish CO2 quota register
Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel’, reports Ekstra Bladet newspaper.
Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries.
Denmark’s quota register, which the Energy Agency within the Climate and Energy Ministry administers, is the largest in the world in terms of personal quota registrations. It is much easier to register here than in other countries, where it can take up to three months to be approved.
Ekstra Bladet reporters have found examples of people using false addresses and companies that are in liquidation, which haven’t been removed from the register.
One of the cases, which stems from the Danish register, involves fraud of more than 8 billion kroner. This case, in which nine people have been arrested, is being investigated in England.
The market for CO2 trade has exploded in recent years and is worth an estimated 675 billion kroner ($US98 billion) globally
It’s not about the climate. It’s about the money… ours becoming someone else’s.
As regards climate change, I do pay my respects to the human survival instinct, of which there is no stronger demonstration than a capitalist with his balls in a (financial) vice.
When insurance companies do what insurance companies do, and look into future scenarios, the scenario of non-mitigated climate change is not a pretty picture – for them.
I wonder if that is why 192 countries are sending their leaders and/or delegations to Hopenhagen?
This is a joint report of Allianz SE and World Wildlife Fund for Nature.
You need to click on the link at the end of the article to download a PDF version of the final report.
But here’s the guts: they project a 0.7m sea level rise will put at risk about $US7.5 TRILLION domestic US assets – houses, businesses, etc…and that’s just the US! I wonder how much that would weigh in gold?
And today we heard the new projections are for double that sea level rise by the end of this century (with luck, my daughter and grandchildren will be around for that – so I have an investment to protect). I suggest that the “assets at risk” will not just double with the doubling of the projected sea level; surely, although I am no actuary, the risk will rise exponentially.
I wonder how many of the denialists around here carry some form of insurance?
I wonder if they have asked their insurance agent just how seriously their insurance company is taking climate change?
So ‘they project’ based on :-
(a) shonky discredited science
(b) desire to sell more insurance
(c) both of the above.
My guess is (c).
Tell you what Luc. For a cool $100,000 per year I’ll insure your home, content and lives from an asteroid strike. I’ll have my agent draw up the contract forthwith. Add an extra $200,000 and I’ll include meteor strikes and elephants.
I’ve had the ‘oh shit moment’. I do now believe the earth is warming and it is man made.
According to thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of how much of the energy of a system is potentially available to do work and how much of it is potentially manifest as heat. Therefore, since the earth is warming there must be too much energy available to manifest as heat, thus not enough of the energy is available to do work. So to stop the warming we need more energy put to work and less will manifest as heat.
Therefore it would seem the appropriate course of action would actually be to send lazy dole bludgers to labour camps (he he the irony) until the IPCC let us know the earth is cooling.
Christ Falafulufisi, putting aside the legitimacy (or otherwise) of climate change for a moment, that first article is pathetic. Its excessively verbose, largely irrelevant, and in several cases incorrect: You could probably boil down everything they say in its 115 pages to 5-10 pages, if you pulled out all the fluff. A large section of it is spent nitpicking various dictionaries.
One bit which really rubbed me the wrong way is where they try to imply the second law of thermodynamics forbids the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
The arguement is something like: Heat cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer body, but greenhouse effect requires heat to be transferred back from the clouds/atmospheric gases (cold) to the earth’s surface (hot).
Where they fuck up monumentally is not understanding that heat flow is an inherently “net” process. A cold body can transfer some energy (say by radiation) which adsorbed by a warmer body, but the warmer body will transfer more energy to be adsorbed by the colder body. Hence the net effect is a heat flow from hot to cold and the laws of thermodynamics are happy.
Ironically they actually state this themselves when nitpicking a physicist who is trying to explain this very point:
Some `sceptics’ state that the greenhouse e ffect cannot work since (according to the second law of thermodynamics) no radiative energy can be transferred from a colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the surface). However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse e ffect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.”
Rahmstorf’s reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”, which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately rede ning the thermodynamic system on the fly.
They are right in as much as you can’t separate the in and out flows of heat and apply the second law of thermodynamics to each of them, you can only apply it to the net flow. However this hoists them on their own petard. If you must also consider the only the net flow of heat, themodynamics is satisfied: The effect of the clouds/greenhouse gases from this point of view is merely to retard the net flow of heat, not reverse it. The net flow of heat is still from the surface (hot) to the atmosphere/clouds (cold).
So In Executive Summary:
I cant believe the editor published this crap.
Paradigm said… Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”,
Paradigm, I said to you to read the papers and obviously you didn’t. Let me ask you. What’s the difference between heat and energy? It is physics 101. If you can’t answer, then don’t waste my time in trying to educate you. Bloody read the papers, study them thoroughly, educate & familiarize yourself with the concepts they addressed, then come back.
Quote from Title #1)
———————-
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation
of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coefficients must be a highly
involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic
interactions mediated by the electromagnetic eld. But it is misleading to visualize a photon
as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things
are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality
or Feynman graph picture.
Did you understand what they say? Physics of the large (huge ensemble), bears little similarities to the laws of the small scale. Emergent behavior thus arises. Where is the thermodynamic law equations in a hurricane ? None, you wouldn’t find that in a hurricane. If you can point me out that someone has incorporated thermodynamic equations into a physics of a hurricane, then that person deserves a Nobel Prize. The reality is, you would find none. WHY? Exactly as the authors have stated clearly. A many-body problem where the collective behavior of the units don’t conform to the laws that govern the units. Do yo follow what I am saying here? Hurricane is an emergent system phenomena.
As I said read, interpret, dig further, then come back. I don’t want to waste time educating you.
Paradigm said…
Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”,
Paradigm, I said to you to read the papers and obviously you didn’t. Let me ask you. What’s the difference between heat and energy? It is physics 101. If you can’t answer, then don’t waste my time in trying to educate you. Bloody read the papers, study them thoroughly, educate & familiarize yourself with the concepts they addressed, then come back.
Quote from Title #1)
———————-
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation
of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coefficients must be a highly
involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic
interactions mediated by the electromagnetic eld. But it is misleading to visualize a photon
as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things
are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality
or Feynman graph picture.
Did you understand what they say? Physics of the large (huge ensemble), bears little similarities to the laws of the small scale. Emergent behavior thus arises. Where is the thermodynamic law equations in a hurricane ? None, you wouldn’t find that in a hurricane. If you can point me out that someone has incorporated thermodynamic equations into a physics of a hurricane, then that person deserves a Nobel Prize. The reality is, you would find none. WHY? Exactly as the authors have stated clearly. A many-body problem where the collective behavior of the units don’t conform to the laws that govern the units. Do yo follow what I am saying here? Hurricane is an emergent system phenomena.
As I said read, interpret, dig further, then come back. I don’t want to waste time educating you.
Falafulufisi, that is one of the most pathetic critiques I have ever seen:
In the first instance I didn’t actually say the term “energy flow”, I merely quoted a section of their report.
In the second instance, (as I presume you are aware) heat is energy flow through nonmechanical means, so I don’t see too much of a problem with them using the term “net energy flow”.
In the third instance, any nonstandard use of nomenclature on the part of the Physicist they decide to nitpick is utterly insignificant compared to the monumental error they make: claiming the second law of thermodynamics disproves global warming.
In the fourth instance, I find it ironic that you try to bag me regarding thermodynamics when they are the ones making the thermodynamic arguement. I merely pointed out they were not applying it correctly. Since you don’t seem to actually take issue with that statement, I take it you agree and accept that the authors don’t understand undergrad physics.
In the fifth instance I understand what the above paragraph means. I also understand it to be entirely irrelevant to the point I am arguing: that the authors do not understand basic thermodynamics. I suggest you read up to where I was quoting from, instead of quoting an irrelevant section from the introduction.
In the sixth instance I maintain that the paper is extremely verbose and poorly ordered – and I challenge you to, as (presumably a professional academic) tell me you honestly think it is a concise and well written paper which doesn’t just pad itself out by copying equations out of an undergrad physics textbook.
In the seventh instance I suggest you dump the ad-hominem. It does nothing to help convince people of the points you are failing to make. What’s next, accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of being a “white motherfucker”? Because as I recall it didn’t improve the credibiility of the last guy who said it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Hmmm, scientists predict that sea levels will raise 1.4m and there is clear evidence that the Antarctic is shedding ice.
And I thought it was all a hoax?
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment,recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the “not rearing pigs” business. In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy. I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven’t reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this? My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is
- until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about
£2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don’t rear? I am also considering the “not milking cows” business, so please send any information you have on that too..
Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)? In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Greenhouse effect is bullshit.
Abstract:
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦ C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f ) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Title #1 ): Falsi fication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Gerlich & Tscheuschner – 2007/update 2009)
Here is a paper which attempted to refute the claim of the authors from the paper above, but if one reads it (ie, the following), it is not a refutation at all, just an alternative derivation that agrees with the prior notion that greenhouse effect exists.
Abstract
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed. “
Title #2 : Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (Ralph Smith – 2008)
For warmists here, just read the bloody papers, before you repeat what others say on the internet.
A Proud Denier Funded By Oil Companies (Yeeha!!!)
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
No greenhouse effect at all? So … the atmosphere doesn’t heat up? All the heat radiated at the earth’s surface escapes into space? That seems … doubtful.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Title #1 ): Falsi fication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Gerlich & Tscheuschner – 2007/update 2009)
Why is it qualified with “Within The Frame Of Physics”
From the second:
A simple infrared-absorbing atmospheric layer is added to these models, and it is proved that the temperature
constraint is easily violated, as is shown by the observational data for Earth.
What does that mean?
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
mickey, the key word there is “predict”.
They use computer models for their ‘predictions’ – models that predicted that the warming would continue increasing until 2030, and yet it’s been cooling for the last decade. If they’re already getting it wrong now, why should we trust their predictions for the future?
Source
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
@Falafulu Fisi: ok, quoting from that paper:
This is nonsense. The “greenhouse effect hypothesis”, basically, is that the earth is warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere, because the atmosphere “traps” heat that would otherwise be radiated out into space. The greenhouse effect itself does not require that the earth become steadily warmer year-by-year. Furthermore, everyone at the IPCC will tell you that there are (at least) three greenhouse gasses: methane, CO2, and water vapour. AFAIK, water vapour has the greatest abundance and also the greatest effect.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Yeah seems a bit odd, from a physics forum:
A heat pump? NO, they have the concept of the greenhouse effect reversed. It does not produce heat, it slows the dissipation of heat to space.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-300667.html
That’s what i thought it did.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Repton, it may seem so, but it’s true.
Check out the graphs on THIS SITE. I can’t display pics here, but this is the accompanying text –
You can see in the graphs (‘Graph C’) the actual data cause the graph to slope in entirely the opposite direction of the IPCC computer predictions.
I know which I’d trust.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Fletch, the Emperor has no cloths and Mickysavage has no brain.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
@FF: More quoting:
Firstly, they don’t give any reference for “Anonymous 1 (1995)”. So I’ve no idea where that quote comes from.
Secondly, wtf? If you put a pot of water on the stove, the element will heat the pot (because the element has a higher temperature), and the pot will then heat the water. Water has a high specific heat capacity, and so will heat more slowly than the empty pot. When the water starts to boil, it will stop increasing in temperature, and heat from the element (via the pot) will transform water into steam. How on earth does that refute the greenhouse effect?
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
With what has happen recently in Australian it important for anyone opposed the Emissions Trading Scam to come to this meeting and support to a party opposed to NZ exporting jobs, coal to be burned in China and money to third world countries that will likely end up in the hands of corrupt rulers.
PUBLIC MEETING
John Boscawen, ACT’s spokesperson on Climate Change, invites you to a Public Meeting to discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme.
New Zealanders will all be poorer. Power, petrol and food
will all go up in price.
Come and find out;
• Why the ETS will see many low and middle income families struggle
• Why many feel the scientific consensus is crumbling and dispute the fact that the
science is settled
• Why it will be more difficult for our export businesses and farmers to compete
• Why ACT’s offer to support National in delaying Labour’s ETS was ignored
Where: Royal Akarana Yacht Club,
10 Tamaki Drive, Okahu Bay, Auckland
When: Monday 7 December, 7.30 pm
For more information
email karen.bridgman@parliament.govt.nz
or call 09 531 5531
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
i think the point is that the antarctic ice alarms aren’t from computor-models..but are observed by sattelites..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/worlds-last-bastion-of-stable-ice-now-thawing/
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Better go a buy yourself some flippers and a long snorkel then.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
didyahear the one about the prominent rightwing blogger..who has ‘turned’ on you all..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/rightwing-blogger-breaks-with-the-righthe-also-cites-the-anti-islamic-bigotry-that-goes-far-beyond-simply-criticizing-radical-islam-into-support-for-fascism-violence-and-genocide/
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Here’s a description I have read:
1. Light from the sun passes through the atmosphere without heating it much. This should be obvious.. if visible light couldn’t pass through air unhindered, the world would be quite different.
2. This light hits the earth, which is not transparent to visible light, and thus absorbs the energy and heats up.
3. As it warms during the day, the earth radiates energy in the infrared range.
4. This radiation heads back out towards space. Some of it gets to space and is lost to us.
5. Some of the infrared radiation hits CO2 molecules, water vapour, or other greenhouse gasses, and is absorbed.
6. These molecules heat up a little, and bang into other molecules, heating them a little.
7. They also reradiate some energy as infrared. Some goes out to space, some goes back towards the earth.
8. The net result is that the earth is a lot warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.
I mean, seriously, guys. You can argue against anthropogenic climate change, you can argue about the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations, but arguing that the greenhouse effect itself is a myth? That’s serious crank territory.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
But MICKEY Al Gore predicted the sea level would rise 67 metres in 10 years time………Who to believe?
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
backster..if the antarctic ice-shelf continues to melt..
there will be serious sea-level rises..
fact..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
anyway..!..we are all fucked..!
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/what-happens-next-a-timeline-for-civilizational-collapse/
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I wouldn’t believe anyone spreading this sort of claim. It all came from one erroneous article, and of course conspiracy bloggers grabbed it and ran without doing any simple fact checking. The correct 6-7 meters would have been good ammunition, instead they made themselves look sillier than Gore.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/correction_gore_did_not_predic.html
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
PRIME news
” What of the content of your email . . .?”
Harawira: “I’d rather not go into that, Barry [Sooper]”
So this incredible fiasco and saga ends with an apology to two swear words, but nothing else, apparently NOT the intention of the email.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I agree Pete, so when Gore states that the sun’s temp. is Millions of degrees, is that an erroneous article too?
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Phil Jones stands down
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/01/climate-change-scientist-steps-down
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Depends on whether he meant the surface or the core Matt. Have you got a reference to what he actually said?
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Repton, the amount of CO2 in ‘greenhouse gas’ is negligible though.
According to the National Centre for Policy Analysis, “greenhouse gas” makes up only 1-2% of Earth’s total atmosphere.
Of that 1 or 2%, water vapor makes up 95%, and CO2 about 3.62%
Of that 3.62% of CO2, humans cause only 3.4%
So, in our atmosphere in total the amount of human caused CO2 gas is 0.28%
(Their PDF – link above – has some very clear pie charts that show the amounts).
If we humans disappeared tomorrow totally I don’t think it would make a huge difference.
Water is the main component of greenhouse gas, but you can’t tax water, so CO2 is the element that is targeted.
Now Al Gore admits in a new book that CO2 only accounts for 40% of climate change.
Of course, I believe it’s less than that, if it has any effect at all…
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Repton, did you read the referenced papers or all you did was reading physics forums ? Try and understand the fundamental physics described in the papers before you can present an arguments. Geez, someone like you who trumps peer review and dismiss non-peer review online discussion, now turned around and champions non-peer review online discussion.
Learn about black-body radiation. Learn about non-equilibrium complex systems , the authors didn’t mention it directly, but that’s exactly what they mean, because in reality, climate system is complex and all complex systems don’t stay at equilibrium. IPCC models are based on equilibrium. I said read and then critique. Have you read the derivation of Title #2 ? Can you tell me where was the refutation in that paper?
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
More National Scummy politics its seems.
Minister accused of sneaky bill change
Wednesday, 2, Dec, 2009 1:30PM
Associate Local Government Minister John Carter is being attacked by the Green Party over accusations he changed a Government bill to help out a constituent.
The party has laid a formal complaint with the Speaker, because Mr Carter inserted clauses into a Reserves Bill that would allow Opua boatbuilder Doug Schmuck to use a public reserve as a slipway for his business.
Greens co-leader Russel Norman says the clauses were introduced in secret at select committee and not made known to the public, despite the fact some people have long opposed the businessman’s plans.
“Nobody ever told because it wasn’t in the original bill, it got snuck into the bill in select committee. That’s totally unacceptable process in Parliament – to sneak clauses into public bills in secret that benefit one individual at the expense of the community.”
Dr Norman says it is not the way a Government Minister, or any MP, should make law.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Did anyone see the court of inquiry on the death of the two Aussie brothers killed by falling ice off the fox glacier . Apparently the signs had to many words in English and not enough signs showing falling ice on Aussie dickheads. For fuck sake they even had some poor sap saying that maybe there where to many words. Stop making excuses for dumb arse idiots, I don’t wish to sound uncharitable but these two bobs and those that wish to make excuses for their actions should be told to fuck off.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
yes..jones stood down..(temporarily)..while the university investigates..
another development is that other climate-scientists are now putting their raw data online..
so that’s a good thing..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/scientist-at-centre-of-leaked-climate-emails-stands-downpending-an-independant-reviewother-scientists-post-data-onlineto-be-more-transparent/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Look phool has linked his blog again! Oh well, some things do not change.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Yes, that was pathetic. It is a common problem at tourist sites, the Chasm at Milford is another example, people ignore signs, symbols, fences, they ignore guides, they simply do as they please. And if there was nothing at all to warn them you’d still have to be nuts to stand under a glacial face.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Is anyone slightly annoyed that Harawira in ‘apologising’ says he can’t be racist because that requires power of a majority group, and because he is a minority, ergo: he can not be racist – presumably ever?
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Is this what happened to PhXXX, the unmentionable poster, now just a ghost to most of us?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6691992/Skunk-linked-to-huge-increase-in-risk-of-psychotic-disease.html
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Further to Yvette’s 8.16 post…
What the NZ Hooerald web site reports of Harawira is:
This carefully prevents Harawira from linking bro-partheid with apartheid.
It’s an extremely narrow definition of racism. Under Harawira’s definition, only the most powerful ethnic group (usually the largest) can be racist. Maori, Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Middle-Eastern refugees, and other non-white Europeans cannot by definition be racist in white-majority NZ. Not even if they ban whites and members of other ethnic groups from their beaches, or refuse to carry them in their cabs, rent them houses, or serve them in shops and other businesses.
Obviously Harawira is talking garbage – again. It’s ugly, too.
How can National accept this bigot in its coalition?
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Matt, when Al Gore said the temperature of the interior of the earth is millions of degrees, is that erroneous also?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/al-gore-earths-interior-extremely-hot-several-million-degrees
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
So Nice Mr. Key is going to go to Crappenhagen after all. Cue celebrations from the usual anti-Western leftards and, of course, TV3 News.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Carbon fraudsters are starting to appear… in Climatehagen no less: Denmark rife with CO2 fraud.
It’s not about the climate. It’s about the money… ours becoming someone else’s.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
As regards climate change, I do pay my respects to the human survival instinct, of which there is no stronger demonstration than a capitalist with his balls in a (financial) vice.
When insurance companies do what insurance companies do, and look into future scenarios, the scenario of non-mitigated climate change is not a pretty picture – for them.
I wonder if that is why 192 countries are sending their leaders and/or delegations to Hopenhagen?
This is a joint report of Allianz SE and World Wildlife Fund for Nature.
You need to click on the link at the end of the article to download a PDF version of the final report.
But here’s the guts: they project a 0.7m sea level rise will put at risk about $US7.5 TRILLION domestic US assets – houses, businesses, etc…and that’s just the US! I wonder how much that would weigh in gold?
And today we heard the new projections are for double that sea level rise by the end of this century (with luck, my daughter and grandchildren will be around for that – so I have an investment to protect). I suggest that the “assets at risk” will not just double with the doubling of the projected sea level; surely, although I am no actuary, the risk will rise exponentially.
I wonder how many of the denialists around here carry some form of insurance?
I wonder if they have asked their insurance agent just how seriously their insurance company is taking climate change?
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
What’s the matter Hurf
Are you feeling, um, the heat?
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
So ‘they project’ based on :-
(a) shonky discredited science
(b) desire to sell more insurance
(c) both of the above.
My guess is (c).
Tell you what Luc. For a cool $100,000 per year I’ll insure your home, content and lives from an asteroid strike. I’ll have my agent draw up the contract forthwith. Add an extra $200,000 and I’ll include meteor strikes and elephants.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
gettaffed
think
voice…
wilderness…
The good news is all lost souls can be saved!
(where is Kris K when you need him? Bible study again?
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
I’ve had the ‘oh shit moment’. I do now believe the earth is warming and it is man made.
According to thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of how much of the energy of a system is potentially available to do work and how much of it is potentially manifest as heat. Therefore, since the earth is warming there must be too much energy available to manifest as heat, thus not enough of the energy is available to do work. So to stop the warming we need more energy put to work and less will manifest as heat.
Therefore it would seem the appropriate course of action would actually be to send lazy dole bludgers to labour camps (he he the irony) until the IPCC let us know the earth is cooling.
A happy ending is in sight after all!
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 am
Christ Falafulufisi, putting aside the legitimacy (or otherwise) of climate change for a moment, that first article is pathetic. Its excessively verbose, largely irrelevant, and in several cases incorrect: You could probably boil down everything they say in its 115 pages to 5-10 pages, if you pulled out all the fluff. A large section of it is spent nitpicking various dictionaries.
One bit which really rubbed me the wrong way is where they try to imply the second law of thermodynamics forbids the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
The arguement is something like: Heat cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer body, but greenhouse effect requires heat to be transferred back from the clouds/atmospheric gases (cold) to the earth’s surface (hot).
Where they fuck up monumentally is not understanding that heat flow is an inherently “net” process. A cold body can transfer some energy (say by radiation) which adsorbed by a warmer body, but the warmer body will transfer more energy to be adsorbed by the colder body. Hence the net effect is a heat flow from hot to cold and the laws of thermodynamics are happy.
Ironically they actually state this themselves when nitpicking a physicist who is trying to explain this very point:
They are right in as much as you can’t separate the in and out flows of heat and apply the second law of thermodynamics to each of them, you can only apply it to the net flow. However this hoists them on their own petard. If you must also consider the only the net flow of heat, themodynamics is satisfied: The effect of the clouds/greenhouse gases from this point of view is merely to retard the net flow of heat, not reverse it. The net flow of heat is still from the surface (hot) to the atmosphere/clouds (cold).
So In Executive Summary:
I cant believe the editor published this crap.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 am
Paradigm said…
Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”,
Paradigm, I said to you to read the papers and obviously you didn’t. Let me ask you. What’s the difference between heat and energy? It is physics 101. If you can’t answer, then don’t waste my time in trying to educate you. Bloody read the papers, study them thoroughly, educate & familiarize yourself with the concepts they addressed, then come back.
Quote from Title #1)
———————-
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation
of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coefficients must be a highly
involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic
interactions mediated by the electromagnetic eld. But it is misleading to visualize a photon
as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things
are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality
or Feynman graph picture.
Did you understand what they say? Physics of the large (huge ensemble), bears little similarities to the laws of the small scale. Emergent behavior thus arises. Where is the thermodynamic law equations in a hurricane ? None, you wouldn’t find that in a hurricane. If you can point me out that someone has incorporated thermodynamic equations into a physics of a hurricane, then that person deserves a Nobel Prize. The reality is, you would find none. WHY? Exactly as the authors have stated clearly. A many-body problem where the collective behavior of the units don’t conform to the laws that govern the units. Do yo follow what I am saying here? Hurricane is an emergent system phenomena.
As I said read, interpret, dig further, then come back. I don’t want to waste time educating you.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
I am also posting this to the new general debate…
Falafulufisi, that is one of the most pathetic critiques I have ever seen:
In the first instance I didn’t actually say the term “energy flow”, I merely quoted a section of their report.
In the second instance, (as I presume you are aware) heat is energy flow through nonmechanical means, so I don’t see too much of a problem with them using the term “net energy flow”.
In the third instance, any nonstandard use of nomenclature on the part of the Physicist they decide to nitpick is utterly insignificant compared to the monumental error they make: claiming the second law of thermodynamics disproves global warming.
In the fourth instance, I find it ironic that you try to bag me regarding thermodynamics when they are the ones making the thermodynamic arguement. I merely pointed out they were not applying it correctly. Since you don’t seem to actually take issue with that statement, I take it you agree and accept that the authors don’t understand undergrad physics.
In the fifth instance I understand what the above paragraph means. I also understand it to be entirely irrelevant to the point I am arguing: that the authors do not understand basic thermodynamics. I suggest you read up to where I was quoting from, instead of quoting an irrelevant section from the introduction.
In the sixth instance I maintain that the paper is extremely verbose and poorly ordered – and I challenge you to, as (presumably a professional academic) tell me you honestly think it is a concise and well written paper which doesn’t just pad itself out by copying equations out of an undergrad physics textbook.
In the seventh instance I suggest you dump the ad-hominem. It does nothing to help convince people of the points you are failing to make. What’s next, accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of being a “white motherfucker”? Because as I recall it didn’t improve the credibiility of the last guy who said it.