AuthorTopic: Obsolescence of the Obsolete  (Read 14104 times)

Offline Wyoming

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2012, 05:45:10 PM »
RE,

Well I guess I asked for a giant response as I wrote such a long one myself. 

You misunderstand my point on your warming theory.  The scientific consensus on AGW exists because there are physical descriptions of what should happen in place.  Starting over a 100 years ago various physicists described what should/would happen should greenhouse gases be increased.  Since then there has been a giant volume of data collected, thousands of reports reviewed and published, computer climate models created that verify past climates using inputted real data.  What has been done fits perfectly in all major respects, satisfys the theory and there is no known data being collected which is not properly accounted for.  This is as good as it gets.

Extraordinary claims.  Yours is such because it claims that the above is incorrect.  To be taken seriously one has to start stepping through the process above until your theory explains the data better and proves why they (all of them) have made a mistake.  This is what science does at times and strongly held theories in the past have been proven later to be mistaken.  After all, in a strict sense, Newton got it all wrong you know.  So you have to provide the extraordinary proof.  If you are truly a genius (could well be as you are obviously smart) and have out thought some of the brightest people on the planet you owe it too us all to follow through on it.  Arguing with me about the science won't get us anywhere.  You need to bring it up with Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, et al.  Write it up and send it into Nature or one of the major publications and ask to have Hansen and Schmidt put on the peer review list.  If it passes muster you have come up with a valid idea and research dollars will  flow towards proving you right or wrong.  The above sounds a lot like a nasty snark but it is not.  This is the way it works.  If you are convinced you have an important point you owe it to yourself to push it up the ladder, and the rest of us will truly appreciate a validated new idea that could make an important difference in a critical debate.  If it does not pan out or someone else has already thought of this and it did not pass muster there is no harm done.

I don't recall bringing up ocean acidification (actually I didn't) but it was a long post and I forget what I do sometimes.  This is, of course, solid science at this point and we are in real trouble on that point.  You are certainly correct.  The more CO2 we emit the worse the situation will be.  And it is one that takes millennia to reverse.  This is, of course, part of that peer reviewed stuff I mentioned up above.

My comment on extreme positions was more related to what gets one banned on many of the blogs.  When Tyler or Denniger goes off reservation the last thing that you want to bring to the discussion with them are facts.  Their response tends to be along the lines of; "You want facts!  I'll give you your facts!"  and you are gone.

Maybe we will not try all possible solutions, but it is a big world and will get a lot bigger.  Washington will not be dictating what goes on everywhere in the good ole USA forever (it would be fun to ask you sometime in the future what you think of Queen Sara the 1st and her Consort).  It will be more chaotic elsewhere and who knows what they will do.  Some places post collapse are only suitable for H-G and pre-industrial ag is good in others.  Some places will be abandoned. Phoenix anyone?

I do agree that those of us who live long enough are likely to become much better acquainted with the Horsemen.  Famine and Pestilence perhaps are the early acts.  We are just practicing for War now, nothing serious yet.

Yes I know that you discuss the population issue here.  That is how I first found you.  If I remember correctly Ashvin was screaming at someone.

As I some time ago came to the conclusion that collapse was unavoidable my main interest is in gauging the likely timing and scope.  I have this idea that gauging it has value.  Silly.  I know that others working for the 1%ers, the intell community and defense are hot on it.  For all the money being poured into the Denial camp I am certain that all bets are being hedged.  Not everyone will make it through a bottleneck and it is best to figure out how to manage the process as best one can.  I have no doubt that this is not going to sneak up on them any more than it will sneak up on us.  Do you want to bet against the claim that a much larger percentage of the 1%ers are going to survive what is coming than of the 99%?

Wyo

Offline Wyoming

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2012, 05:51:27 PM »
RE,

Guy has already read a much more detailed critique from me on the We're Done post of his.  I replied on his blog just after he posted it.  Got a lot of grief from his regular commenters.  Fancy that!

Perhaps you could leave the part that was for aglebert and WHD sop they can see it.

Wyo

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38601
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2012, 07:07:11 PM »
I always try to honor a long and well-considered comment with one of similar length.  :icon_mrgreen:  I am NOT a Blogger who is bothered by long comments from the commentariat, even if they are contrarian to my own opinions.  In fact these are what I like the MOST.  They are thought provoking.

Starting over a 100 years ago various physicists described what should/would happen should greenhouse gases be increased.

I really have no argument with models which show Greenhouse Warming resultant from chanigng gas mixture in the atomsphere.  This is very plausible, even likely.

The assumption is made however that the primary source of the Gases is from Fossil Fuel burning, which also may be true, although clathrates melting and increased vulcanism jack a lot of these gases into the atmosphere also.

The problem with AGW is it is a classic case of making a theory fit assumptions.  At the level of the Atmosphere, I really have no problem with AGW.  On its own it probably can cause Climate Changes as various tipping points are hit.  It is at the level of the Oceans that AGW doesn't have a good explanation because it really cannot account for that much Energy Transfer from Atmosphere into Ocean.  It's going in the wrong direction.

Quote
  What has been done fits perfectly in all major respects, satisfys the theory and there is no known data being collected which is not properly accounted for.

I've never seen anything which accounts for the Ocean Heat Content rise of this magnitude, can you point me to the source you are referring to for this?  All the models I have seen account for Atmospheric Changes, not Ocean changes.

Quote
Extraordinary claims.  Yours is such because it claims that the above is incorrect.

Again, it is not so much Incorrect as it is Incomplete.

Quote
To be taken seriously one has to start stepping through the process above until your theory explains the data better and proves why they (all of them) have made a mistake.  This is what science does at times and strongly held theories in the past have been proven later to be mistaken.  After all, in a strict sense, Newton got it all wrong you know.  So you have to provide the extraordinary proof.  If you are truly a genius (could well be as you are obviously smart) and have out thought some of the brightest people on the planet you owe it too us all to follow through on it.  Arguing with me about the science won't get us anywhere.  You need to bring it up with Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, et al.  Write it up and send it into Nature or one of the major publications and ask to have Hansen and Schmidt put on the peer review list.  If it passes muster you have come up with a valid idea and research dollars will  flow towards proving you right or wrong.  The above sounds a lot like a nasty snark but it is not.  This is the way it works.  If you are convinced you have an important point you owe it to yourself to push it up the ladder, and the rest of us will truly appreciate a validated new idea that could make an important difference in a critical debate.  If it does not pan out or someone else has already thought of this and it did not pass muster there is no harm done.

I left the world of Academia more than 30 years ago.  Friends of mine like Eric Lander and Francis Barany continued on with it.  I doubt if I sent in an article it would ever even make it to the desk of Hansen or Schmidt.  Some low level editor would read it and it would go straight into the Wastebasket.

Besides that, it would compromise my Anonymity to do that.  They don't accept Academic Papers from Anons you know. LOL.  I finally made my escape from the Shrinks testing me for my IQ, I don't need that insanity again in my life.  Hopefully some Grad student at MIT will read this stuff and go off with it and win the Nobel Prize.  I'm willing to discuss it with anybody.  It's up on the net for anyone to read, and I will answer best I can any arguments against the theory.  It is UP for "Peer Review" from the entire scientific community, and I do go out and Plug it on other websites where scientists hang out, like Peak Oil.  Plenty of Rock Docs there.

Anyhow, AGW more or less has a lock on the Group Think here, and I doubt this ever gets much traction, even with a Publication in Nature.  In the end, whatever the underlying Causation is, at this point we can't do much about it either way.  We won't turn down the Burners up here on the surface too soon, at least not until all the Big Hardware is down at the bottom of Davey Jones Locker.  Mother Earth will do what she will do, and not even HAARP can counter that kind of power.

In both cases, all we can do is HOPE that the pH Downslope levels out here sometime soon.  The direction it is headed at the moment, if you are not a Tardigrade, you are TOAST.  Or at least your Children will be toast.

Quote
My comment on extreme positions was more related to what gets one banned on many of the blogs.  When Tyler or Denniger goes off reservation the last thing that you want to bring to the discussion with them are facts.  Their response tends to be along the lines of; "You want facts!  I'll give you your facts!"  and you are gone.

Know that one from personal experience with Karl.  :icon_mrgreen:  I challenged him one too many times on the merits of Capitalism, and down came the Guillotine. LOL.

Quote
As I some time ago came to the conclusion that collapse was unavoidable my main interest is in gauging the likely timing and scope.  I have this idea that gauging it has value.  Silly.  I know that others working for the 1%ers, the intell community and defense are hot on it.  For all the money being poured into the Denial camp I am certain that all bets are being hedged.  Not everyone will make it through a bottleneck and it is best to figure out how to manage the process as best one can.  I have no doubt that this is not going to sneak up on them any more than it will sneak up on us.  Do you want to bet against the claim that a much larger percentage of the 1%ers are going to survive what is coming than of the 99%?

The timeline remains the most critical question, because that impacts on the choices you make right now.  If it is a Fast Crash, you need to GTFO of Dodge NOW.  If it's a Long Emergency, if you are still making MONEY inside the system, it may be better to keep going with it a while longer to better Prep Up.  This is a critical dilemma for most people currently aware of the problems.

Do I think the 1% will fare better by Percentage?  That mainly depends on how much Rope is available.  I do know the 1% did NOT do too well by percentage when Robespierre rode into town, nor did they do to well in 7 Days of May in 1917, nor did they do too well when Mao got Rolling on the Purges either.  So far though, the .01% has mostly managed to remain mostly unscathed.  This one is different though.  Nowhere for Capital to go run and hide anymore.  The Capital is in fact all gone, and all the .01% hold now is a lot of Irredeemable Debt.  They will eat each other up, Cannibalism at the very Top.  So overall, I don't think their chances are much better than J6P these days, although in the near term they will be Partying Hearty in the Hamptons for sure.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38601
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2012, 07:12:42 PM »
RE,

Guy has already read a much more detailed critique from me on the We're Done post of his.  I replied on his blog just after he posted it.  Got a lot of grief from his regular commenters.  Fancy that!

No surprise there.  So far, Guy only Plays on his Homefield where the Crowd is Cheering for him.  Perhaps this time he comes out for an Away Game.  We'll see.

Quote
Perhaps you could leave the part that was for aglebert and WHD sop they can see it.

Both AB and WHD are Mod Squadders here, they know how the system works.  They won't miss your post.  Besides, I did leave up a Full Quote of the post in my response to it where I said I was moving it.  Shouldn't be hard for anyone to find.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2012, 09:17:00 PM »
RE,
Quote
I agree with AB that the changing gas mix in the atmosphere can prevent Heat from escaping and that could and probably does contribute to the atmospheric warming. It does not explain how the atmosphere which has both a much lower mass and lower heat capacity than the Oceans manages to raise their Heat content by an order of magnitude, especially when average atmospheric temperature has only increased by 1-2 degrees.
I agree and I delieve the explanation is not from conduction of atmospheric heat to the ocean. I never believed that. The photon PetaWatts incoming from the sun, as you well know, are not converted into heat until they hit something. The first thing they hit is the atmosphere which is peanuts compared to the ocean as a photon barrier. The atmosphere, because it has decreased O3 or however you want to chemically express the Ozone dance up there (which lowers photon frequency and used to keep a lot more of that heat away from earth by radiating it back into space as well as lowering our UV exposure) has been severely weakened by human industrialization. So now more photons are coming in with higher energy signatures. We've got increased CO2 but that is in parts per million! That isn't slowing the photons down much despite the fact that it does cause some atmospheric warming. Most of those photons with a higher energy signature slam into the ocean and the land and instantly turn into heat if they are not reflected properly. The reflected photons have a lower energy signature of which a lot is IR. The photon heat transfer into the ocean is absorbed by the high specific heat ocean water which is then very slow to release it for the same "high specific heat" reason. Meanwhile the CO2 NOW comes into real play because the low energy IR is trapped by it and accelerates atmospheric warming as it bounces up and down until it peters out. So let me make myself clear. The high energy photons, not the atmosphere, is what is warming the oceans (just look at the heat transfer of photon energies of full spectrum light on H2O and you will see what I mean - specific heat is not going to prevent photon heat absorption). The oceans are giving up some of the heat they get into the atmosphere at night. The ocean supplied heat coupled with the low energy IR that bounces around the newly insulated atmosphere are what is heating the atmosphere (this, of course doesn't even count internal combustion engine heat that nobody wants to talk about). I always claimed it was the sun, not the atmosphere, that is heating the oceans. The acidification is a side phenomenon unrealted to the heat trapped in the atmosphere but to the interaction of increased CO2 with the oceans. If, for example, we had such a hot core that the average Earth surface temperature (oceans included) was 100oF (it is now about 70o) without ice caps and only 150 ppm of CO2, the water vapor in the atmosphere would heat the atmosphere just as much or more without the ocean acidification phenomenon. In that case solar radiation would probably barely make it to the oceans because water vapor's high specific heat physical property would cause most of the solar energy to be absorbed. The atmosphere would be a steamy hell and no ice age would come because, regardless of the fact that the solar radiation wasn't making to the surface, the core heated surface and the atmospheric water vapor's specific heat would prevent it. That MAY be in our future but I believe that was part of an ancient earth.

Wyoming,
I've written an article that I gave to RE recently that addresses the global human population and how it relates to carbon footprint. I point out that ants have a higher biomass than humans but they don't have a carbon footprint problem. If the problem we have is carbon footprint, then we need to look at who has the biggest footprint, rather than viewing this issue with such a scattergun approach as radical population reduction. What makes you think that will solve the problem? Do you think 500 million humans are going to give up mining, heavy industry, corporate jets, huge militaries and so on after they got rid of 6.5 billion? RE will let you know when it is published.

As to scientific peer review being a contact sport where only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth gets through and they are the final arbiter of what is, or is not, true, I disagree. There is every bit as much politics, statistical population gaming and all sorts of assorted tricks out there to obtain grant money and "sing for the reagents and instrumentation supper" as there is in any petty corporate bureaucracy involved with budget fights. Scientists simply do not have the money for the instrumentation they need to do good science. Those that provide that money get the truth and then gag the scientists involved in the study with nondisclosure agreements.  A sanitized version that doesn't step on corporate toes is what makes it to the public. I know of several of examples of how the game is rigged to shitcan truth from the FDA drug trial protocols that lock out any new drug that can't pay 4 million dollars to stifle natural medicine for big pharma to the very same FDA ramrodding dangerous drugs for big pharma to ACTUAL rocket science. Believing in the purity, integrity and credibility of the modern scientific community is tantamount to religious faith. I wish it weren't so. I suggest you google scientific investigation scandals, fraud, plagiarized doctoral thesis, corporate funding percentages in universities and military funding as well. Finally, I wish to add that your faith in the good will of the scientific community does not reflect its history in the late 19th and all of the 20th century. It's uncomfortable to accept that but, if you do the research (I'm not talking tinfoil stuff either), your faith won't simply be shaken, you will find that the overwhelming majority of scientific breaktroughs has come in spite of peer review, not because of it. The top is ossified. The history proves that the ideas for innovation have come from amateurs, not the high priesthood. I do not share your faith.
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38601
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2012, 10:02:39 PM »
RE,
Quote
I agree with AB that the changing gas mix in the atmosphere can prevent Heat from escaping and that could and probably does contribute to the atmospheric warming. It does not explain how the atmosphere which has both a much lower mass and lower heat capacity than the Oceans manages to raise their Heat content by an order of magnitude, especially when average atmospheric temperature has only increased by 1-2 degrees.
I agree and I delieve the explanation is not from conduction of atmospheric heat to the ocean. I never believed that. The photon PetaWatts incoming from the sun, as you well know, are not converted into heat until they hit something. The first thing they hit is the atmosphere which is peanuts compared to the ocean as a photon barrier. The atmosphere, because it has decreased O3 or however you want to chemically express the Ozone dance up there (which lowers photon frequency and used to keep a lot more of that heat away from earth by radiating it back into space as well as lowering our UV exposure) has been severely weakened by human industrialization. So now more photons are coming in with higher energy signatures. We've got increased CO2 but that is in parts per million! That isn't slowing the photons down much despite the fact that it does cause some atmospheric warming. Most of those photons with a higher energy signature slam into the ocean and the land and instantly turn into heat if they are not reflected properly. The reflected photons have a lower energy signature of which a lot is IR. The photon heat transfer into the ocean is absorbed by the high specific heat ocean water which is then very slow to release it for the same "high specific heat" reason. Meanwhile the CO2 NOW comes into real play because the low energy IR is trapped by it and accelerates atmospheric warming as it bounces up and down until it peters out. So let me make myself clear. The high energy photons, not the atmosphere, is what is warming the oceans (just look at the heat transfer of photon energies of full spectrum light on H2O and you will see what I mean - specific heat is not going to prevent photon heat absorption). The oceans are giving up some of the heat they get into the atmosphere at night. The ocean supplied heat coupled with the low energy IR that bounces around the newly insulated atmosphere are what is heating the atmosphere (this, of course doesn't even count internal combustion engine heat that nobody wants to talk about). I always claimed it was the sun, not the atmosphere, that is heating the oceans. The acidification is a side phenomenon unrealted to the heat trapped in the atmosphere but to the interaction of increased CO2 with the oceans. If, for example, we had such a hot core that the average Earth surface temperature (oceans included) was 100oF (it is now about 70o) without ice caps and only 150 ppm of CO2, the water vapor in the atmosphere would heat the atmosphere just as much or more without the ocean acidification phenomenon. In that case solar radiation would probably barely make it to the oceans because water vapor's high specific heat physical property would cause most of the solar energy to be absorbed. The atmosphere would be a steamy hell and no ice age would come because, regardless of the fact that the solar radiation wasn't making to the surface, the core heated surface and the atmospheric water vapor's specific heat would prevent it. That MAY be in our future but I believe that was part of an ancient earth.

IMHO, that is a farily convoluted theory overall.

The total number of photons of any energy impacting the earth has not changed THAT much, and in fact the Sun is producing less of them lately than in the past.  If it was direct conduction from photnic energy, with all the various gases in the atmosphere that could absorb such energy, their Temperature would have to rise ExTREMELY, eveniffewofthem are hitby the photons. You cannot heat up the Oceans to this extent without simultaneously heating the atmosphere to a MUCH larger extent on a Temperature level,simply because the heat Capacity of the atmospher is so much LESS than the Ocean.  That much energy coming from ABOVE would COOK the atmosphere in NO TIME, and that is not occurring.  EvenTrapped and Bouncing around ther adiation in various forms could only maybe change total absorption by double, and again, that would change the Temp of the Atmosphere MUCH more than the Oceans because of the lower Heat Capacity.  Any number of Photons reflecting off the Ocean surface that could Raise its temp by 1 Degree would haveenough energy to raise atmospheric Temp by 1000 degrees.  The atmospheresimply has no ability to handle so much energy without a massive Temp rise, because it does not have the Heat Capacity the Oceans do.

This HAS to come from the Bottom UP, not the Top DOWN.  Any theory which uses photonic emissons as the Energy source has to account for the fact that as they pass through the atmosphere, they would Heat It Up, to MUCH greater degree than they heat the Oceans.  You cannot escape that fact of life.  Only if the Heat comes from the Bottom UP can you explain such a massive increase in Ocean Heat Content while the Atmospheric Temp Rise remains relatively small.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2012, 11:46:43 PM »
Quote
You cannot heat up the Oceans to this extent without simultaneously heating the atmosphere to a MUCH larger extent on a Temperature level,simply because the heat Capacity of the atmosphere is so much LESS than the Ocean.
Think about that. The atmosphere is a much less dense medium, the ocean is a massive heat sink and is not real happy about giving up that heat to the atmosphere because of it's specific heat physical property. The atmosphere, on the other hand, is a lousy heat sink. It's very happy to give off heat IF it can radiate it out to space. I agree that the atmosphere is NOT heating the oceans. I remember when I studied SCUBA diving how we were told the onshore and offshore breezes on beaches were controlled mostly by the time of day. In the morning the land would heat up quick but the water at 9:00 A:M or so was quite cool in comparison so the land rising thermals would cause the wind to blow from the sea onto the land. Around sunset the breeze dies and the land begins to cool quickly so the breeze blows towards the sea and you get more bug bites.
Quote
The sea has a greater heat capacity than land and can therefore absorb more heat than the land, so the surface of the sea warms up more slowly than the land's surface.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_breeze

Surely you don't believe the photons are losing most of their energy to the atmosphere before they hit the ocean and land. RE, it's not the atmosphere that causes heat differentials in onshore and offshore winds; it's the photon energy  converted to HEAT when the photons smack the land and the sea that does the trick. The atmosphere is then heated by them both. It is just bad physics to say photon energies in the light spectrum are being overwhelmingly absorbed by the atmosphere. It's not convoluted, RE, it's weather. Prior to the high CO2 levels we have today, the IR heat from low energy photon signatures bouncing off the land and earth was exiting the earth with greater ease. The day, night rhythm of photon on/off impact on the oceans combined with the fact that our ozone layer kept more UV from getting to the oceans in the first place, was enough to avoid global warming. Now we have insulation and the greenhouse. Now it will run away because it will build up steadily. Four hundred ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and all the other atmospheric gases below the ozone layer DO NOT convert UV to IR; both the land and the oceans do that but since the Earth is two thirds covered with water, that UV is going mostly into that water (and staying there longer than on land because of water's specific heat) and the IR is going into the air. They didn't invent sunblock because of IR caused sunburns. The human body is mostly water. When the UV smacks us, it turns into heat that causes cancer. Some of it is reflected away as IR but the main energy is deposited in  our watery tissues in the form of burning heat.

Don't believe a word I say. Just perform this experiment:
Take a  square foot of thin plate glass and put a super thin layer of the weakest strength sunblock you have on to it. Take an identical piece of glass and put it over a measured amount of water in a pot with unheated and unlit sides. Put the glass with sunblock over a duplicate of the first pot with the same amount of water (give the water the same Na Cl concentration as the ocean if you want to be more realistic). After ensuring the water temperature is identical in both pots, put them out in the sun and measure and record the water and the air temperature in each pot each hour for at least 4 hours (a 24 hour period would be best). The glass should not have a perfect seal but should restrict heat exchange from outside air as much as possible for realism (the pots should be shielded from wind).

If your hypothesis is correct, the water temperature in both pots will not vary significantly because the atmosphere is the one being heated by the incoming photons and, because of water's specific heat, the less dense medium of the air cannot affect the water temperature. If my hypothesis is correct, the reduced UV barrier (no sunblock) will get you a significant water temperature increase from photon energy exchange even though the photons hitting the pots have gone through most of the Earth's atmosphere before hitting the glass or the water. Notice I am have not mentioned CO2  but our atmosphere is at nearly 400ppm so the air in your pots reflects present reality.

During this experiment, ensure that the pot sides and bottom are not being heated so as to simulate a lack of core heat.

What have you got to lose?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 12:00:26 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38601
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2012, 12:17:12 AM »

Surely you don't believe the photons are losing most of their energy to the atmosphere before they hit the ocean and land. RE, it's not the atmosphere that causes heat differentials in onshore and offshore winds; it's the photon energy  converted to HEAT when the photons smack the land and the sea that does the trick.

Actually I do buy the idea that any radiated Energy of the Sun passing through the Atmosphere is going to imcrease Temperature in any molecule it contacts.  They won't lose MOST of their energy this way, because since Gaseous Molecules are spread thinly, not many get hit.  Nevertheless, those that DO Get Hit would have  to rise in Heat a LOT. Low Heat Capacity of course.

No model I am aware of allows for high energy to pass through a Gas without Heating it up.  If it is enough to heat up the Oceans to  a full order of magnitude above what they were 20 years ago, the atmospheric consequences would be far greater than they are Toomuch Heat capacity difference. .Its NOT  coming from the Top Down AB.  It is coming from the Bottom UP.

RE
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 12:19:53 AM by RE »
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2012, 12:40:49 AM »
Sorry RE, you can't have it both ways. The atmosphere is a lousy heat sink. The distance between the molecules is VAST compared with the distance between the molecules in water. I've GOT you there, bro!

You know UV makes it to the surface, despite all those gaseous molecules that happen to get sideswiped on the way down. I'm going to do some research on photon energy gradients according to their position above the planet from just before they strike the upper atmosphere all the way down and get back to you. About a year ago I did some research on photon energies from radionuclides and those fuckers can really put out some tissue destroying photon energy because (alpha and beta particles aside) gamma ray photons do not all just pass through tissue; they compton scatter and scatter all the way down the energy spectrum to IR. On the way they smash a lot of enzyme clockwork and DNA but that's another subject. I say this to you so you will know I didn't just get off the boat as far as an understanding of the VERY different energy signatures of photons in the full spectrum of sunlight.

I'll get back to you. All I ask is that you preserve your objectivity. :icon_mrgreen:
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38601
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2012, 01:31:57 AM »

I'll get back to you. All I ask is that you preserve your objectivity. :icon_mrgreen:


I will remain Objective on this question.  However, radiation of any sort distributes uniformly, so passing through the atmosphere without substantially increasing the energy of gaseous molecules on the way down seem unlikely to me.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline roamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 892
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2012, 07:28:45 AM »
RE,
In this article you wonder where some of the doomers drift off too.  Speaking for myself I simply found that the amount of info to keep up on here exceeds what my day to day time allowances are.  Additionally no one around me friends ect ever wants to talk about this stuff, so it is a solo hobby of mine and as such gets dull and just distances me from anyone around me.   For a while I was "in between" jobs and doom was addictively fun, now I find it is something that I have to be much more careful about as I need to save what little brain processing power I have for my vocation.

I can say though that I feel I've hedged my bets as well as possible based on the doom i've read and as a positive result am able to go about my life with much less anxiety.  I've prepared in the face of uncertainty as well as able, and now will deal with events as they come or perhaps as they do not come.

Also I wanted to say that you forget one other futuristic path that might become possible.  I'll piggyback off of John Micheal Greer and call it the ecotechnic future.  He envisions this as a distance post industrial future where key industrial technologies have been integrated with modest renewable energy sources to provide something a bit more bountiful, durable and less labor intensive than the 19th century agrarian past.  I'll go out on a limb of optimism and say that I think this ecotechnic future is potentially closer than he envisions.  The more I examine industrialism the less brittle i actually think that it is, the science it has developed, the iron and raw resources that have been extracted above ground are all going to ensure that however things wind down it will not look like any option directly from the past.  There are technical solutions to the bulk of the doom and they could even be implemented rapidly, any dieoff, or great war is purely the result of sentience malfunctions in humans.




Offline Wyoming

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2012, 11:10:05 AM »
RE

You will find in depth discussions on Ocean heat content and all aspects of AGW and the topics related to it at the following sites:  You may be familiar with them, but considering how much you write I wonder where you would find time to read.  One reason I don't comment a huge amount is that I first read all the blogs and articles I am interested first every day before I write anything.

http://www.realclimate.org/  There is a Start Here section on the upper left and a search function that will find more than one wants to read.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/  This site also has a background section and you can search for topics.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/

These sites are run by PhD Physicists who specialize in AGW topics.  Many of them are among the most well known in the field.  The voume of links from these sites is overwhelming.

I also read all of Hansen's papers and many others that I find as links in articles.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/  this blog covers many topics but it frequently has links leading to the actual papers being discussed.  Joe Romm runs it and, while he is a Physics PhD from the MIT he is one of the folks I consider left-wing cornucopian's in that he wants a BAU solution implemented that I don't believe is possible in the real world.  But it is a great news service anyway.

I never go to the Denier blogs as I get to read the critiques of their stuff on the other's where they point out the errors.  Plus when I read their crap I want to exercise my 2nd amendment rights.

While I don't think that folks similar to you and I can materially add to the scientific debate as we are not well educated enough in math and physics (at least I am not) nor are we in a position to perform leading edge research.  Others have those positions and they need to take care of them for the rest of us. 

Where I think that folks who have a sound understanding of science, history, human nature, and most especially a depth of experience in the Real World can really add value is in taking the academic type output like the Limits to Growth works (2052 by Randers being the most recent) or the solutions promoted by people like Joe Romm (the Wedges approach) and analyzing them with a more practical pragmatic perspective.  It is pretty clear, to me anyway, that they are too steeped in the ether (as is common to the Ivory Tower types) to understand how the real world will tromp all over their ideas. 

A blog which had a good set of such people working together could provide a more realistic assessment of what was going to happen and when than they seem capable of doing.  That is what really interests me.  It is the critical question at this point I think.  When is it most likely to fall apart.  The base answer to that question determines all subsequent actions.  Without some confidence in when there is no rational choice of actions.

Wyo

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38601
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2012, 11:30:32 AM »
WY, I did not ask you for a list of websites, I asked for a specific reference which resolves the problem of heat transfer from atmosphere to ocean rather than the other direction.  How does a low mass, low heat capacity gas transfer so much heat to a high mass, high heat capacity liquid without itself being hotter than hell?


I also read all of Hansen's papers and many others that I find as links in articles.

If you have read all those articles, surely you can point me to the one where this problem is resolved.  You made the claim in a prior post that ALL the major questions regarding AGW hafe been resolved, and you said so with authority.  You accuse me of not providing evidence, when I actually put up all the Graphs corroborating my theory.  You are not providing any evidence to back up your claims.  A list of websites is not evidence.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38601
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2012, 12:02:45 PM »
For a while I was "in between" jobs and doom was addictively fun, now I find it is something that I have to be much more careful about as I need to save what little brain processing power I have for my vocation.

One thing for sure, Demographically speaking the folks who tend to spend the most time on these boards are either Unemployed or Retired.  It's a pretty time consuming Hobby for sure.

I am employed, but over the summer few hours and otherwise when school is in session I still spend 3-4 hours every night on it.  Obviously anybody married with kids could not do that, Divorce would follow shortly.  LOL.

Quote
I can say though that I feel I've hedged my bets as well as possible based on the doom i've read and as a positive result am able to go about my life with much less anxiety.  I've prepared in the face of uncertainty as well as able, and now will deal with events as they come or perhaps as they do not come.

Can I ask what your Hedges are?  Remote Doomstead?  Bugout Machine?

Quote
Also I wanted to say that you forget one other futuristic path that might become possible.  I'll piggyback off of John Micheal Greer and call it the ecotechnic future.  He envisions this as a distance post industrial future where key industrial technologies have been integrated with modest renewable energy sources to provide something a bit more bountiful, durable and less labor intensive than the 19th century agrarian past.  I'll go out on a limb of optimism and say that I think this ecotechnic future is potentially closer than he envisions.  The more I examine industrialism the less brittle i actually think that it is, the science it has developed, the iron and raw resources that have been extracted above ground are all going to ensure that however things wind down it will not look like any option directly from the past.  There are technical solutions to the bulk of the doom and they could even be implemented rapidly, any dieoff, or great war is purely the result of sentience malfunctions in humans.

On my Optimistic Days which come once or twice a year I consider such a thing as a possible outcome.  :icon_mrgreen:  Unfortunately most days I think the spin down will come too rapidly for these types of solutions to be organized up and implemented.  Again, my sense is that our last chance to reorganize up was in the 60s-70s with the Back to the Land Movement.  However, instead of admitting they were pursuing an unsustainable paradigm, the Industrialists Openned Up the Credit Spigot to Full On and ran the tank dry with a 40 year long Keg Party.  Mom's Living Room is now littered with plastic cups and hung over partiers covered in their own vomit and the last Keg is about empty.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Wyoming

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2012, 12:20:43 PM »
RE

Is this the place where folks tend to disappear on you?

I would rather have had a response to this part of my post:

Quote
  Where I think that folks who have a sound understanding of science, history, human nature, and most especially a depth of experience in the Real World can really add value is in taking the academic type output like the Limits to Growth works (2052 by Randers being the most recent) or the solutions promoted by people like Joe Romm (the Wedges approach) and analyzing them with a more practical pragmatic perspective.  It is pretty clear, to me anyway, that they are too steeped in the ether (as is common to the Ivory Tower types) to understand how the real world will tromp all over their ideas. 

A blog which had a good set of such people working together could provide a more realistic assessment of what was going to happen and when than they seem capable of doing.  That is what really interests me.  It is the critical question at this point I think.  When is it most likely to fall apart.  The base answer to that question determines all subsequent actions.  Without some confidence in when there is no rational choice of actions.


Like I said earlier I will not sit and argue the physics.  There are folks working on this that are much more expert than us and I read their work and what other experts conclude (or disagree) about it.  The following hopefully will address the topic sufficiently.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Wyo

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
263 Views
Last post September 13, 2016, 11:14:51 PM
by RE
0 Replies
473 Views
Last post May 21, 2017, 02:03:50 AM
by RE
0 Replies
108 Views
Last post January 17, 2019, 01:31:58 PM
by azozeo