Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Jostemikk, februar 22, 2012, 18:06:08 PM
Sitat fra: Josik på mai 11, 2013, 01:08:14 AMSitat fra: Jostemikk på mai 11, 2013, 00:36:47 AMEnkelte ganger skjer ting som øker pågangsmotet og troen på at det har en hensikt å henge i klimastroppen.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på mai 11, 2013, 00:36:47 AMEnkelte ganger skjer ting som øker pågangsmotet og troen på at det har en hensikt å henge i klimastroppen.
Sitat fra: Obelix på mai 11, 2013, 01:16:43 AMJeg slang meg på jeg og, i debatten hos han Spencer...
SitatJosik says: May 10, 2013 at 7:58 PM CoRev; In science there is no demand that one have to show/prove another and/or better theory, while falcifying an existing theory.Let's start with the "greenhouse-effect" and the "backradiation" that apparently can further cool a cold object and thereby warm a warmer object.Can you give me some empirical evidence of this effect? If no, you may better listen to some who can explain why this "effect" is impossible.On the other hand, if someone can explain to me, and show how this apparet effect is possible, I am very interested. I live in a cold place and can make millions if someone can explain how a cold environment can heat my house without the use of a heatpump.
SitatYou [Roy Spencer] say that "their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called "greenhouse gases" that emit thermal infrared radiation downward." This is not correct Roy. Of course there is plenty of back radiation coming down from the atmosphere to the surface. But "thermal energy" in physics is basically kinetic energy in atoms and molecules. It is not electro-magnetic energy in radiation. That electro-magnetic energy has to be converted to thermal energy in a target before we can observe a transfer of heat. So thermal energy in the source is converted to electromagnetic energy in the radiation, and then back to thermal energy if and only if the target is cooler than the source of spontaneous emission. That's physics Roy.
SitatBaa Humbug says: May 2, 2013 at 8:50 am I'm a big fan of Topher videos, alas this particular venture epitomises why us sceptics have not and can not win the AGW debate for decades to come. (Does everybody realise that the resurgence of the alarmists side is a mere El Nino away?)Firstly, we fight too cleanly and honourably, like in old John Wayne movies. Reality is so much different. Secondly, so long as we concede that AGW exists and the debate is a matter of degree, then the debate will last for as long as it takes for that degree to be narrowed down. That will be a life time or more away. In the meantime, the other side has annexed our universities, our institutions, our political parties and even the upper echelons of some of our biggest companies. Now they're after primary and pre-schools. Good luck winning any debate whatsoever when these kids become voting adults.
Sitat fra: seoto på mai 11, 2013, 19:05:13 PMEn tanke dukker opp oftere og oftere: Det vil være mye enklere og behageligere å la seg flyte med i den store strømmen og nyte det som er igjen av livet. Glemme alle løgner, alt bedrag, all urettferdighet, all undertrykkelse, glemme alle som lider i verden i dag, for det er jo egentlig ikke mye man får gjort. Og bare la de som vil kontrollere våre liv til det minste hårstrå få fortsette sitt arbeid, og håpe man er død før det blir for ille. Hver og en får ta vare på seg selv.
SitatThe death of global warming (the movement, not the phenomenon) has some important political and cultural consequences in the United States that I'll be blogging on down the road. Basically, Sarah Palin 1, Al Gore zip. The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked 'science' to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank. Don't think this won't have consequences; we'll be exploring them together as the days go by.
SitatIn other words, without the "greenhouse effect", there would be no decrease in atmospheric temperature with height, and no convection. The existence of weather thus depends upon the greenhouse effect to destabilize the atmosphere.
SitatRoy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: May 11, 2013 at 6:17 AM [...]Since you, like the Slayers, persist in this nonsense, you can now take your cult science elsewhere.
Sitat fra: Obelix på mai 12, 2013, 12:36:51 PMKanskje Dr. Roy bør snakke ut om sine problemer hos Dr. Phil???
Sitat fra: Amateur2 på mai 12, 2013, 16:21:02 PMSitat fra: Obelix på mai 12, 2013, 12:36:51 PMKanskje Dr. Roy bør snakke ut om sine problemer hos Dr. Phil???Nå har vel Dr. Roy også et noe spesielt forhold til naturen generelt i og med at han avviser evolusjon ....Da er det nok atskillig lettere å gripe til pseudofysiske forklaringer i andre sammenhenger også ...
SitatRoy Spencer is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama Huntsville who may be the world's most important scientist. He has discovered scientific insights and theories that cast great doubt on global warming doctrine.
SitatGordon Robertson says: May 12, 2013 at 9:29 AM Roy....I support your views on warming based on your satellite data but it's tough to listen to you produce thought experiments to back your theory that heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.Your theory on heat transfer contradicts the 2nd law as well as the work of Clausius, who wrote the law. If you read his treatise on heat, he states clearly that infrared can travel between bodies of different temperatures but that heat can only be transferred between the same bodies from warm to cold. You are confusing infrared with heat. Infrared is electromagnetic energy whereas heat is a measure of the potential for work done by atoms and molecules in a substance as it's temperature increases. The warmer they get, the more average kinetic energy they acquire and the more potential they have for work. That is heat and you cannot pick it up and move it. You can blow atoms and molecules around in a gas and move the heat as excited atoms and molecules, but their higher energy states wont do anything till they contact your skin and affect it's atoms and molecules.You can only transfer heat and one way is through infrared radiation. In the article above you talk about energy, and you are talking about infrared energy, not heat. When a GHG molecule intercepts IR, it's energy level is increased and it begins to vibrate, causing a tiny amount of heat. However, that molecule must remain in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings and cannot hold onto the heat for long. If it's acquired heat causes it to radiate IR, it will do so at a lower energy and in a restricted frequency band due to the atmosphere being cooler. Only some of that energy will radiate downward. There is no way there is enough IR to cause any appreciable warming, and although Lindzen talks about the greenhouse effect he agrees that the max warming from a doubling of CO2 will be a fraction of a degree C.A very complex problem involving infrared transmission through the atmosphere, that would require Feynman diagrams, has been reduced to Boltzmann's equations. They were designed for stellar atmospheres, which approximate the blackbodies they were meant to emulate, not the sparsely populated GHGs in our atmosphere. It is simply not possible for heat to be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it. Any IR reaching the surface from GHGs, cloud, or water vapour, does not have the intensity to affect the atoms/molecules that make up the surface since they are already at a higher energy level than the incoming IR. It is also not possible for a rare gas like ACO2 to intercept enough IR, and re-transmit it to the surface, so as to create the positive feedback programmed into models. You have admitted that most surface energy escapes to space, bypassing the GHGs.I have no interest in models and theories, give me hard data. Show me how the humungous flux field radiated from the surface is intercepted by ACO2, which accounts for 0.0001% of atmospheric gases (IPCC), and back-radiated in sufficient quantity to raise the surface temperature through a positive feedback mechanism. You talk about Trenberth-Kiehle. They have as much back-radiation as outgoing IR, a ludicrous assumption. Please...put away your calculator, your models and your thought experiments. Thermodynamics has been established since the 1850s and it is in no danger from your thought experiments and models.