Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Analysis: Solar radiation & cloud cover control the temperature in Sweden



Repost from The Climate Scam site, showing the remarkable correlation between solar radiation (modulated by clouds) and temperature in Sweden (google translation from Swedish).


The weather gods control the temperature in Sweden


Commenters have noted that the solar radiation in Sweden has increased while the temperature has risen. SMHI has published measurements of global radiation / insolation here . 

Summer temperatures and solar radiation as line graphs
Figure 7 - The summer temperature and solar radiation as line graphs
Annual solar radiation from SMHI and temperature from ECMWF.  The lines show the average values ​​for the towns of Kiruna, Luleå, Umeå, Östersund, Karlstad, Stockholm, Visby and Lund
Figure 1 - annual solar radiation from SMHI and temperature from ECMWF (ERA-Interim). The lines show the average values ​​for the towns of Kiruna, Luleå, Umeå, Östersund, Karlstad, Stockholm, Visby and Lund, 1983 - 2013
In the figure above you can see that on a yearly basis seems higher insolation give higher temperatures, but there are also large variations which must be explained in other ways. One must remember that it is not only the sun that affect our temperature. It will also large amounts of energy to us here in Sweden by the winds. To get a better picture of the situation goes, I therefore over to analyzing the data on seasonal basis (summer, fall, winter, spring) instead.

Why has solar radiation increased?

A hypothesis why solar radiation has increased is that the amount of aerosols have declined recently after having increased during the 1950-70's. This explanation fits very well into växthuseffekts hypothesis because it can not explain why the temperature dropped during the 1950-70 centuries otherwise.
But solar radiation is also affected very much by the amount of clouds. From ECMWF (ERA-Interim), one can get access to the amount of clouds that have been calculated in the same way as you do when you make weather forecasts. These values ​​should therefore be free from the influence of aerosols. Below are the solar radiation as a function of the proportion of clouds for the four seasons (click the figures for larger size).
scatter_irradiance_cloud_summerSolar radiation vs Rain
scatter_irradiance_cloud_winterscatter_irradiance_cloud_spring
Figure 2 - Solar radiation as a function of cloudy 1983-2013. The points show the average values ​​for the towns of Kiruna, Luleå, Umeå, Östersund, Karlstad, Stockholm, Visby and Lund.
For summer and spring seems to be a very strong connection between rain and solar radiation.Less cloud gives more sun. The relationship is somewhat weaker for the fall, but winter seems ratio should be the opposite. More clouds giving more "sun". The explanation for this is probably that even the long-wave radiation from the clouds measured. And during the winter when the sun's rays are weak, the radiation from the clouds to break through in the statistics.
I asked a question SMHI which wavelengths included in the measurement and got the following response:
Most of this energy is in the wavelength range 300-4000 nm and distributed roughly 8 percent in the ultraviolet (UV), 48 percent in the visible and 44 percent in the near-infrared (IR) portion of the spectrum outside the Earth's atmosphere. "
The conclusion from this simple exercise is that there seems to be a strong link between cloud cover and solar radiation and therefore ought aerosol hypothesis could be written off. It has atleast not critical. It is thus that the weather patterns have changed and it has given us more sun.

Does increased insolation provide higher temperatures?

Let's look at how the temperature has been affected by solar radiation. Below are the four seasons with the temperature as a function of solar radiation.
scatter_irradiance_temp_summerscatter_irradiance_temp_autumn
scatter_irradiance_temp_winterscatter_irradiance_temp_spring
Figure 3 As temperature as a function of solar radiation 1983-2013.
There seem to be a strong link between solar radiation and temperature during the summer.But this access seems to be missing for the other seasons.
The handyman can also figure out the "climate sensitivity" from summer figure, and one can then validate whether the IPCC 4 W / m2 at doubling of carbon dioxide could provide several degrees higher temperature.
From ECMWF can also get values ​​for wind at 10 m height. Below are the temperature as a function of the southern and western wind:
scatter_wind_south_temp_summerscatter_wind_south_temp_autumn
scatter_wind_south_temp_winterscatter_wind_south_temp_spring
Figure 4 As temperature as a function of the southerly wind 1983-2013.
scatter_wind_west_temp_summerscatter_wind_west_temp_autumn
scatter_wind_west_temp_winterscatter_wind_west_temp_spring
Figure 5 As temperature as a function of the westerly wind 1983-2013.
Here there seems to be a link between southerly winds and temperatures for autumn and winter. There also seems to be a link between the western wind and spring temperature. But perhaps many factors that affect spring temperature being unable to find any strong determining factor.
An example of how the southerly wind has increased during the winter are shown below.
Winter temperatures and the southerly wind
Figure 6 - Winter temperatures and the southerly wind
It is thus not surprising that we get "bad" winters if the wind blows from the south and not from the north. And this is not something we can blame the carbon dioxide.

Conclusions

Solar radiation in Sweden has increased since the early 1980s. Maybe it has increased even earlier but I have no good measurements prior period. The increased solar radiation appears to be strongly linked to reduced cloud cover. It is thus needed no aerosol hypothesis to explain the increased solar radiation.
The increased summer temperatures in Sweden seems to be strongly linked to the increased solar radiation. Autumn and vårtemperaturerna other hand, is linked to the increased southerly wind. The picture is somewhat more complicated for spring, but the increased westerly wind seems to have a meaning.
We can thus explain most of the increased temperature in Sweden to changing weather patterns. If the carbon dioxide level has a bearing on the temperature this meaning is much smaller than the natural variation.
I have only shown a selection of all graphs I have developed. If you want to watch more graphs, there is a zip file here .
Update 2015-01-20 9:00:
On "Sunglasses" request show me this character how well the summer temperature and solar radiation are similar
Summer temperatures and solar radiation as line graphs
Figure 7 - The summer temperature and solar radiation as line graphs

The Atmosphere is Not a 'Blanket' & Does Not “Pile Heat”

Re-Posted  

What is Insulation, And what Does it Do?

People (well, the climate alarmists) don’t seem to understand what “insulation” is. They think that it means that it makes heat “pile up” inside the source of heat, or in the medium between the insulation and source of heat, so that the source of heat and/or the medium will get hotter than the source of heat and power input.
There is no such thing as “heat pile up”. This is a non-existent concept. You can think of it, like you can think of a unicorn, but it doesn’t exist.  Heat does not pile up, it readily and freely flows into whatever is around it.
Insulation is something that only works in a gaseous environment – it is all about a gaseous environment. Insulation, a blanket, a greenhouse, all work the same way, and that way is preventing convective cooling and air circulation.  Insulation in the form of a blanket, a sweater, a greenhouse enclosure, home insulation, etc., is about reducing and eliminating convective cooling, i.e. the loss of warm air.  A blanket, or insulation, etc., is about doing the opposite of what the atmosphere does!
In your house, insulation helps prevent the furnace-heated air from escaping your house and being replaced with cold air from outside. It doesn’t make the furnace burn hotter.  In your water heater, it helps the water retain its temperature after it has been heated.  It doesn’t make the water hotter than the heater.
You can wrap a heat source with as much insulation as you want.  All that will happen is that the insulation will reach the temperature of the heat source, and the heat source will not rise in temperature.  Insulation is just matter, just material like anything else.  When exposed to heat, it will warm, and will conduct that heat outward via diffusion.

Free Energy

People have claimed that if you have a heating element inside a mug of coffee, that if you then wrap the mug in insulation, the coffee and heating element will get hotter and hotter and hotter, because of “heat pile up”.
Rather, the insulation would simply help keep the mug from cooling once the power is removed from the heating element, otherwise, the insulation will simply attain the temperature of the heating element, if left long enough.
Imagine if we could heat coffee, i.e. water, this way? You just wrap enough insulation, and then a heating element at 60C inside the water can cause the water to boil because of “heat pile up” in the water due to the insulation around it!
This violates all of thermodynamics.  We’ve been trying to do stuff like that for hundreds of years. The discovery of the laws of thermodynamics are the result of those attempts.
Same with the steel greenhouse. The claim is that if you keep on adding shells, the inner sphere will get hotter and hotter by a multiple of the number of shells.
If the steel greenhouse worked that way, then you could power a steam engine and get more work out than you put it. You could layer a few shells around the inner source, make the inner source multiple times hotter than the tiny input at the centre, then flood it with water and have instant explosive steam generation. Then repeat over and over. They found back in the 1700’s and 1800’s that reality didn’t work this way.

Diffusive & Radiative Transfer are not Opposite Thermodynamics

If you add a new layer of steel physically directly touching an internally heated sphere, this new layer will simply heat to the temperature supplied from the interior sphere.  In fact, the new layer will be a little cooler because it will have a larger surface area than the original sphere.
The interior won’t get hotter because it heats a new layer of steel on top of it.  In this case you have the diffusion transfer equation, which similarly has a differential of hot and cold terms describing the heat flow, as does the radiation transfer equation, and we all understand that heat does not physically diffuse from cold to hot and that physical contact between a cold object and warm object does not make the warmer object warmer still.
Visually, think of it as in the following diagrams (read the captions please):
t0
Initial configuration. There is a heated element (left, yellow rectangle) with constant power input thus holding a constant temperature. There is also a passive, unheated, cold object being brought in (right, blue square).
diffusive
The passive block is brought into physical contact with the powered heat source. Heat begins transferring via diffusive (conduction) heat transfer from the powered source (rectangle) to the passive block (square) and raises the temperature of the passive block. At 3 sequential times, the temperature of the passive block is equilibrating to equal the temperature of the heat source. Neither the block nor the heat source can become hotter than the original temperature of the heat source, since there is no additional power being supplied to the heat source.
Putting a vacuum gap between the objects does not invert the laws of thermodynamics!!
radiative
With a vacuum gap in between the source of heat and the passive block, radiation transfers heat from the heat source to the passive block and the block rises in temperature to that of the heat source. The heat energy then continues conducting through the block to its other side: this is how and why energy is conserved without the passive block “back-heating” the source.
Insulation, the passive block, does not cause “heat pile up”.  Heat transfers one way only, and cold does not lead to hot becoming hotter still because it is being heated up.
The atmosphere is not a blanket. The atmosphere does not have heat piling up inside it.  And we’re not wrapping the atmosphere in insulation. And adding “insulating cream” to coffee does not make the coffee have a higher final temperature than what it is heated with, etc.
There is no radiative climate science greenhouse effect.  The entire field of climate science is a scandal which exploits the lack of knowledge of the Laws of Thermodynamics in the general populace, and even in the scientific community itself.  Climate science, as based on its radiative greenhouse effect and its “heat pile up” postulate, is founded on an entirely irrational and non-existent premise, as we see the result of for example in the last post.  The foundation of its ontology is wrong, the foundation of its physics is non-existent, thus, none of its alarmist claims which are directly based on that false ontology can be correct.  The alarmism is directly dependent upon that false ontology.  Hence, alarmism is false, along with much of the rest of the field of climate science itself.

Climate Pseudoscience Thermodynamics

The following diagram is how climate science thinks of heat flow and thermodynamics, and all others who subscribe to “steel greenhouse” ideas and the climate science radiative greenhouse effect:
climate thermo
Top: A passive cold object (blue, square) is brought near a heat source (rectangle, yellow). Middle: As the passive cold object is warmed by the heat source, it presents back-resistance to heat flow from the source of heat. Bottom: This requires the source of heat to heat up some more so that it can continue sending heat energy to the passive object.
There’s no end to this process – it results in a constant runaway mutual heating that never ends.  Think of that: mutual heating!  There is no mutual heating.  Heat is only one way, fellas.
Don’t you think we would have noticed that all we needed to do to make a source of heat hotter still was to simply to bring something cold nearby?  Well, we’ve tried to notice that, we’ve spent hundreds of years trying to notice that.  The discovery of the Laws of Thermodynamics have been the result.  There is no such thing as back-resistance to heat flow.
We have the mathematics of heat flow.  We know how it works, we know why it works.  It has been known for around 200 years.  The differential equations of heat flow and conservation of energy simply do not do what is claimed by the climate science radiative greenhouse effect.  Look at the diagrams above, and think about it.

Friday, January 2, 2015

Why Earth is a closed thermodynamic system that must obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Some have claimed that the Earth is not defined by thermodynamics as a physically "closed system," alleging upon this false assumption that the Second Law of Thermodynamics [which is applicable to closed or isolated systems only] somehow doesn't apply to the atmosphere/greenhouse gases/total Earth climate system including the surface, atmosphere, and oceans. 

We have refuted this claim in several prior posts ranging from Why the AGW 'Hot Spot' Won't Happen (2010) all the way up to the recent series of posts on the greenhouse equation, including the post Maxwell's Demon proves why cold gases cannot make hot bodies hotter

This incorrect assumption that Earth is defined as an "open system" and not a physically "closed system" is often utilized by AGW proponents to claim that the atmosphere or Earth can rightfully violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, such as by decreasing total entropy, transferring heat from cold to hot [which requires an impossible decrease of total entropy], warming of the surface from -18C to +15C by greenhouse gases such as CO2 (radiating at a very, very cold peak radiating temperature of -80C), and various other physical absurdities. 

While individual components of the Earth may be considered by definition an open physical system (where highly-localized decreases of entropy may intermittently occur), the Earth's climate system including land, oceans, and atmosphere in total are considered to be a closed thermodynamic system, for which the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies and requires total system entropy to always increase. 


Thus, the claim that greenhouse gases may violate the 2nd law to transfer heat from their very cold radiating temperatures (ranging from -80C to -18C) to warm the much warmer Earth surface by an additional 33C is absurd and physically false. Instead, the tropospheric 33C temperature gradient ["the greenhouse effect"] above and below the center of mass of the atmosphere (at ~5100 meters altitude) is maintained by the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius gravito-thermal "greenhouse effect," as described in the recent series of posts, and is completely insensitive to changes in man-made CO2 levels. 

The physical boundary conditions of Earth's thermodynamic closed system range from the bottom of the oceans up to the top of the atmosphere at the edge of space. There is effectively no exchange of mass across any of these boundary conditions, therefore by physical definition, the total Earth system including climate system is considered a closed system which must obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 

Note the only true "isolated system" in the universe is by definition the universe itself, thus Earth is part of the isolated system of the Universe, and the "closed systems" of the Milky Way, solar system, and Earth itself. Any claims that since the universe is technically the only physically "isolated system" in existence, therefore the 2nd law of thermodynamics may be violated in total for the Earth itself, are equally absurd. 

Thermodynamic types of systems as applied to the Earth are described in this excerpt from The Physical Environment: an Introduction to Physical Geography by Michael Ritter, PhD.:


Types of systems

Systems can be classified as open, closed, or isolated. Open systems allow energy and mass to pass across the system boundary.  A closed system allows energy but not mass across its system boundary. An isolated system allows neither mass or energy to pass across the system boundary.

Open Systems


The ocean is an example of an open system. The ocean is a component of the hydrosphere and the ocean surface represents the interface between the hydrosphere and the atmosphere that lies above. Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the ocean. The absorbed energy evaporates water from the ocean. As water vapor (mass) enters the atmosphere it carries with it the heat used to evaporate the water (called latent heat) and raises the air's humidity. If the humidity is high enough, condensation occurs, latent heat is released, and clouds are created. Continued condensation creates precipitation (mass) that falls back into the ocean. Hence, energy and heat (solar radiation, latent heat) as well as mass (water vapor and precipitation) passes across the boundary between the atmosphere and hydrosphere. All of the "spheres" of the earth system are considered open systems because energy and mass is exchanged between them.


Closed Systems

Earth as a closed system
The earth system as a whole is a closed system. The boundary of the earth system is the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually no mass is exchanged between the Earth system and the rest of the universe (except for an occasional meteorite). However, energy in the form of solar radiation passes from the Sun, through the atmosphere to the surface. Earth in turn emits radiation back out to space across the system boundary. Hence, energy passes across Earth's system boundary, but not mass, making it a closed system.
The interface between systems is not always easy to identify, others more so. The interface between the hydrosphere and lithosphere at a shoreline is easy to recognize as a definite planar boundary between a solid and fluid. The interface between the atmosphere and hydrosphere is less easy to discern as the hydrosphere comprises both liquid water of the surface and water held in the air.

And by this engineering brief:


What is a Thermodynamic System?


written by: Haresh Khemani • edited by: Swagatam • updated: 5/4/2010

The term thermodynamic system is used frequently in the subject of thermodynamics. Let us see what thermodynamic system is and its various types.

Introduction

The word system is very commonly used in thermodynamics; let us know what it is. Certain quantity of matter or the space which is under thermodynamic study or analysis is called as system. Let us say for example we are studying the engine of the vehicle, in this case engine is called as the system. Similarly, the other examples of system can be complete refrigerator, air-conditioner, washing machine, heat exchange, a utensil with hot water etc.

Now, let us suppose that we have to analyze the performance of engine in different conditions. Here, we will feed the engine with fuels of different grades and load it with different loads to find out its efficiency. We will also find its performance during idling, acceleration, varying speed, slow speed and high speed. A thorough analysis of the engine is carried out; hence it is called as system.

The system is covered by the boundary and the area beyond the boundary is called as universe or surroundings. The boundary of the system can be fixed or it can be movable. Between the system and surrounding the exchange of mass or energy or both can occur.

Types of Thermodynamic Systems

There are three mains types of system: open system, closed system and isolated system. All these have been described below:


1) Open system: The system in which the transfer of mass as well as energy can take place across its boundary is called as an open system. Our previous example of engine is an open system. In this case we provide fuel to engine and it produces power which is given out, thus there is exchange of mass as well as energy. The engine also emits heat which is exchanged with the surroundings. The other example of open system is boiling water in an open vessel, where transfer of heat as well as mass in the form of steam takes place between the vessel and surrounding.

2) Closed system: The system in which the transfer of energy takes place across its boundary with the surrounding, but no transfer of mass takes place is called as closed system. The closed system is fixed mass system. The fluid like air or gas being compressed in the piston and cylinder arrangement is an example of the closed system. In this case the mass of the gas remains constant but it can get heated or cooled. Another example is the water being heated in the closed vessel, where water will get heated but its mass will remain same.

3) Isolated system: The system in which neither the transfer of mass nor that of energy takes place across its boundary with the surroundings is called as isolated system. For example if the piston and cylinder arrangement in which the fluid like air or gas is being compressed or expanded is insulated it becomes isolated system. Here there will neither transfer of mass nor that of energy. Similarly hot water, coffee or tea kept in the thermos flask is closed system. However, if we pour this fluid in a cup, it becomes an open system.

Related Reading

What is Thermodynamics

First law of Thermodynamics

Second law of Thermodynamics

Third law of Thermodynamics

Zeroth law of Thermodynamics

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics - Part 1

And by this overview of Thermodynamics Laws and Systems


http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/rtirado/Ch%2015%20The%20Laws%20of%20Thermodynamics.pdf 

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Acidification-gate?: NOAA accused of 'pHraud' by hiding data showing oceans have not "acidified" over past century


Reposted from Watts Up With That, NOAA scientists have "fraudulently" hidden ocean pH data showing no evidence of ocean acidification over the past 104 years, a

“…startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.”
Could these lies of omission and commission by NOAA scientists be the beginning of the end of "Acidification-gate"?


Prior posts on ocean "acidification," including why a warming ocean will not "acidify" due to increased outgassing of CO2 with temperature.


Touchy Feely Science – one chart suggests there’s a ‘pHraud’ in omitting Ocean Acidification data in Congressional testimony


Willis Eschenbach tips me to a story by Marita Noon, titled:
What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud?
I’ve reproduced portions of it here, with a link to the full article. The graph with ALL the data is compelling.


“Ocean acidification” (OA) is receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the global warming/climate change narrative is built.
The science and engineering website Quest, recently posted: “Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, we have been mining and burning coal, oil and natural gas for energy and transportation. These processes release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It is well established that the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere is a major cause of global warming. However, the increase in CO2 is also causing changes to the chemistry of the ocean. The ocean absorbs some of the excess atmospheric CO2, which causes what scientists call ocean acidification. And ocean acidification could have major impacts on marine life.”
Within the Quest text is a link to a chart by Dr. Richard A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Feely’s climate-crisis views are widely used to support the narrative.
hitimeseries2_med
Feely’s four-page report: Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy, offered on the NOAA website, contains a similar chart. This chart, titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” begins at 1850. Feely testified before Congress in 2010—using the same data that shows a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The December edition of the scientific journal Nature Climate Change features commentary titled: “Lessons learned from ocean acidification research.”
However, an inquisitive graduate student presented me with a very different “lesson” on OA research.
Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.” Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there is real world data. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.
Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising as instrumental ocean pH data has been measured for more than 100 years since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. He went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart beginning in 1850 lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.
Wallace sent Bard an email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th century.” Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.”  Sabine concludes the email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.
In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:
“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.
“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).
Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”
In his last email exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the email string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.
Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”
MWAcompilationOfGlobalOcean_pHJan82014
Regarding the chart in question, Wallace concludes: “Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”
“In whose professional world,” Wallace asks, “is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also to not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”

Thursday, December 18, 2014

San Francisco Chronicle: "Global-warming true believers are in denial"

Global-warming true believers are in denial

By Debra J. SaundersSan Francisco Chronicle columnist
December 18, 2014 9:08am 

I have a theory as to why Americans don’t worry all that much about global warming: High-profile purveyors of climate change don’t push for reductions in greenhouse gases so much as focus on berating people who do not agree with their opinions. They call themselves champions of “the science” — yet focus on ideology more than tangible results.
Their language is downright evangelical. Recently, science guy Bill Nye joined other experts who objected to the media’s use of the term “climate skeptic.” They released a statement that concluded, “Please stop using the word 'skeptic’ to describe deniers.” Deniers? Like Judas?
Why, they even hear voices from science. “Science has spoken,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently proclaimed. Some men think God talks to them; others hear Science.
Back to my original point: San Francisco liberal plutocrat Tom Steyer has called climate change “the defining issue of our generation.” He told the Hill, “Really, what we’re trying to do is to make a point that people who make good decisions on this should be rewarded, and people should be aware that if they do the wrong thing, the American voters are watching and they will be punished.”
You would assume from the above statement that Steyer wants to punish businesses or people who emit a super-size share of greenhouse gases. But no, Steyer’s big push for 2014 was to spend some $73 million to defeat Republicans who support the Keystone XL pipeline. But stopping Keystone won’t reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels by one drop. It simply will make it harder to tap into Canadian tar-sands oil.
On Monday, state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said he plans on introducing a measure to require that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System sell off any coal-related investments. In recent years, demands for disinvestment have visited universities. In May, Stanford voted to forgo investments in coal mining. Student groups have been pushing for Harvard and the University of California to dump fossil-fuel assets as well. It’s a good sign that those efforts have not prevailed at either institution. It’s a bad sign that de León has found a new soft target — CalPERS.
The problem, Harvard Professor Robert N. Stavins wrote for the Wall Street Journal, is: “Symbolic actions often substitute for truly effective actions by allowing us to fool ourselves into thinking we are doing something meaningful about a problem when we are not.” Disinvestment also does nothing to reduce energy use.
Matt Dempsey of Oil Sands Fact Check sees disinvestment as the new environmental talking point for 2016 races. It requires no visible personal sacrifice — while feeding activists’ sense of self-righteousness. Its emptiness is part of the allure. De León even told reporters that he’d write a bill that in no way “hurts investment strategies.”
Then there are the conferences — Kyoto, Copenhagen, Rio de Janeiro. The venues for Earth summits would make for a great episode of “Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?” The scions of science ought to get acquainted with Skype. If the future of the planet is at stake, shouldn’t the champions of science at least look as if they’re trying to curb their emissions?
Debra J. Saunders is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Maxwell's Demon proves why cold gases cannot make hot bodies hotter

James Clerk Maxwell is arguably the greatest physicist of all time on the topics of heat and radiation, and also perhaps the first to state in 1872 that Earth's temperature gradients and greenhouse effect are due to mass/gravity/pressure, rather than an effect of radiation from any infrared-active gases. 

Maxwell devised a simple and well-known thought experiment now called Maxwell's Demon, to prove why cold gases (such as the atmosphere at -18C on average), cannot make warmer gases or bodies (such as the Earth surface at +15C average) any warmer in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. 


The 2nd law of thermodynamics states disorder (called entropy) of any system (such as Earth's atmosphere) must always increase, and for any heat transfer to occcur from cold gases or bodies to warmer gases or bodies would result in an impossible decrease of entropy forbidden by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


So, the next time someone claims a cold gas/body can make a warm body warmer, ask them for their solution to Maxwell's demon first:



Schematic of Maxwell's demon
Note: Maxwell along with his contemporaries and famous physicists including Clausius and Carnot (formally an engineer) all three agreed with each other in their writings that what is called today the 'greenhouse effect' was due only to the mass/gravity/pressure of the atmosphere, not radiation from gases. 

From Wikipedia entry on Maxwell's demon:


In the philosophy of thermal and statistical physicsMaxwell's demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell to "show that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only a statistical certainty".[1] It demonstrates Maxwell's point by hypothetically describing how to violate the Second Law: a container of gas molecules at equilibrium is divided into two parts by an insulated wall, with a door that can be opened and closed by what came to be called "Maxwell's demon". The demon opens the door to allow only the faster than average molecules to flow through to a favored side of the chamber, and only the slower than average molecules to the other side, causing the favored side to gradually heat up while the other side cools down, thus decreasing entropy.



The second law of thermodynamics ensures (through statistical probability) that two bodies of different temperature, when brought into contact with each other and isolated from the rest of the Universe, will evolve to a thermodynamic equilibrium in which both bodies have approximately the same temperature.[6] The second law is also expressed as the assertion that in an isolated systementropy never decreases.[6]
Maxwell conceived a thought experiment as a way of furthering the understanding of the second law. His description of the experiment is as follows:[6][7]
... if we conceive of a being whose faculties are so sharpened that he can follow every molecule in its course, such a being, whose attributes are as essentially finite as our own, would be able to do what is impossible to us. For we have seen that molecules in a vessel full of air at uniform temperature are moving with velocities by no means uniform, though the mean velocity of any great number of them, arbitrarily selected, is almost exactly uniform. Now let us suppose that such a vessel is divided into two portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole, and that a being, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower molecules to pass from B to A. He will thus, without expenditure of work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.




Schematic figure of Maxwell's demon
In other words, Maxwell imagines one container divided into two parts, A andB.[8][6] Both parts are filled with the same gas at equal temperatures and placed next to each other. Observing the molecules on both sides, an imaginary demonguards a trapdoor between the two parts. When a faster-than-average molecule from A flies towards the trapdoor, the demon opens it, and the molecule will fly from A to B. Likewise, when a slower-than-average molecule from B flies towards the trapdoor, the demon will let it pass from B to A

The average speed of the molecules in B will have increased while in A they will have slowed down on average. Since average molecular speed corresponds to temperature, the temperature decreases in Aand increases in B, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. A heat engine operating between the thermal reservoirs A andB could extract useful work from this temperature difference.


The demon must allow molecules to pass in both directions in order to produce only a temperature difference; one-way passage only of faster-than-average molecules from A to B will cause higher temperature and pressure to develop on the B side.

Note cooling is not the new warming, and slowing of cooling is still cooling, not warming.