Cheap Chinese Solar Panels Spark An EU Civil War | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Europe is learning the hard way that calling something green doesn’t exempt it from economic realities.Twitter / AZCat89: "No patience for #climate ...
"No patience forHow the Climate Campaign Plans to Get Its Groove Back | Power Line#climate skeptics"? Like these other#science "skeptics":#Copernicus#Galileo#Newton#Einstein? http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/302537-obama-has-no-patience-for-climate-skeptics …
The interesting part will be to see whether climate orthodoxy proposes a new, and theoretically more plausible, GHG emissions reduction target and timetable, like a 50 percent cut by the year 2060. I doubt it. Hatred of “fossil fuels” is the categorical imperative of modern environmentalism, and it long predates the arrival of global warming as an issue. The original complaint was that that hydrocarbons produced too much conventional air pollution, but once we solved that problem global warming became the fallback position. Nothing will deter environmentalists from this wisp—certainly not facts or progress. I’m betting they’ll stick with the previous 80 by 50 target. But if they come in with a different one, I’ll do the math to figure out what year in the past it will take the U.S. back to: I’ll bet it will still be something like 1925. Stay tuned.Climate change means death to most native California fish, says study
Extinction looms for 82 percentColorado Getting A Climate Change Czar « CBS Denver
• “Replaced by alien fishes, such as carp, largemouth bass, fathead minnows and green sunfish”
Not everyone is sold on the idea, and Republicans who opposed the bill expressed skepticism that climate change is human caused.
Rep. Bob Rankin, R-Carbondale, called the bill a political statement and the position symbolic.
Posts
2 comments:
Did anybody expect them to say anything but the fish will go extinct? They could not possibly have said anything else because that was the object of the study. IT's always bad for the good stuff and good for the bad stuff.
If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Dr Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which said heat only transfers from hot to cold - a "law" which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium "spontaneously evolves" and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.
Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total accessible energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.
When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.
This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus - or that at the surface of Earth.
The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.
The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.
The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.
See the paper on Principia Scientific International in their PROM menu and easily found in searches: "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" "Douglas Cotton" or from my website linked to my name here.
Post a Comment