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.

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.

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 effect 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 effect, 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.

A happy ending is in sight after all!

think

voice…

wilderness…

The good news is all lost souls can be saved!

(where is Kris K when you need him? Bible study again?

…they project… [blah blah, alarm, scare, think-of-the-kids-and-polar-bears, blah blah]

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.

Are you feeling, um, the heat?

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?

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.

I agree Pete, so when Gore states that the sun’s temp. is Millions of degrees, is that an erroneous article too?

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

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?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6691992/Skunk-linked-to-huge-increase-in-risk-of-psychotic-disease.html

Did anyone see the court of inquiry on the death

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.

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)

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.

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?