Posted by: graemebird | March 10, 2007

DELTA-JOULES…… THE NECESSARY CONCEPT

From a famous climate scientists blog.

It will be very interesting to see if I’m proved wrong here.

If you alarmists prove me wrong on this then its POSSIBLE that my whole case could be wrong so get to it you fucking commie bastards. It wouldn’t NECESSARILY mean that my case was substantially wrong but it leaves open the possibllity.

Here is the post…. So try and get your heads around it.

And you might track down the right thread when Google has archived the link:

““Please understand. No one is trying to pull a fast one here. When it comes to the greenhouse effect, the ‘burner’ is the surface of the Earth.”

The burner?

You mean the “element”. The “element in the kettle”.

You’ve totally missed the point.

Because we were talking about the DELTA-JOULES. I was talking about the “element in the kettle” that is adding joules resultant upon some sort of change.

Yes I know the long-wave radiation comes off the earths surface.

But thats nothing to do with the ‘element-in-the-kettle-analogy” since the radiation was coming off the earths surface before the industrial revolution.

And we were talking about the effect of various “FORCINGS”

So we add aerosols and CO2.

And CO2 adds DELTA-JOULES….. but where does it add them?

Primarily above the ground… and primarily (surely) in the lower part of the lower troposphere.

The EXTRA aerosols may add a little bit of extra joules in that area also.

But primarily it takes Joules away.

It takes Joules away that would have penetrated deep into the ocean.

So that therefore the DELTA-JOULES we worry about are being reduced in the ocean.

So the element-in-the-kettle is in a different place then where the joules are added in the case of CO2.

But both sides of your profession don’t seem to give a toss about the placement of the DELTA-JOULES.

Is this a Popperian allergy towards induction?

Like you guys are not allowed to get your head around A PRIORI thinking lest you be judged unscientific?

“Both sides acknowledge that energy comes from the sun primarily in the form of shortwave radiation.”

Well not quite.

It comes full-spectrum, all the way up to UVB…. but the UVB gets absorbed in the stratosphere, and I think the long-wave stuff from low-range infrared up makes it to the ocean…….. but you could correct me on that side of it.

“Much of that energy is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and is re emitted as longwave radiation. It is this longwave radiation from the surface of the Earth that energizes (warms) the greenhouse gas molecules.”

Right. So if you add more of these greenhouse gasses WHERE ARE THE EXTRA-JOULES…. THE DELTA-JOULES… being generated?

THATS the placement of the element-in-the-kettle that I’m talking about.

“The source of longwave radiation (the Earth’s surface) does not move around and CO2 is well mixed in the troposphere, so there is no argument about the location of the source of the energy or the location of the gases being energized (heated).”

Right. But we are interested in the DELTA-JOULES. And as well the air is denser the lower it is right? And closer-to the earth right?

So it strikes me as obvious that the vast amount of DELTA-JOULES will be added (by adding extra CO2) in the lower part of the troposphere.

Plus the CO2 molecules nearer the ground GET FIRST DIBS!!!!!

FIRST COME FIRST SERVE.

So there are massively more DELTAL-JOULES being added in the lower troposphere for the following three reasons.

1. The molecules are more dense down there.

2. They are the first to block that small range of Infra-red coming from the ground.

3. They are closer to the ground.

So up high the extra CO2 is thinner, as well as being further away from the ground… ie the heat-source…..

…. So I’m arguing that EXTRA-”FORCING” from CO2 comes primarily in the lower troposphere because of these three facts.

” The arguments lie in the quantitative values of the energy transfers, and, more importantly, the effects these changes have on other Earth/Atmospheric systems, which in turn, impact the quantitative values of the energy transfers”

No thats not true. This deal is not about science. Its about:

1. Hard leftists and

2. non-leftists who are prone to bullshit-momentum.

THATS WHERE THE CONTROVERSY LIES.

All of the prior things I said I’m open to correction. But on this point alone it is you who must get your act together.

“Aerosols and clouds are certainly more stratified in the Earth’s atmosphere and the vertical location of these layers certainly has an effect, but these layers do not equate to the ‘burner’ in the analogy of the kettle on the stove.”

They do for what we are interested in. We are interested in the DELTA-JOULES.

“For that, you would need a more complex analogy in which the kettle contained layers of different materials each with different properties of energy absorption and release.”

Sure. But we seperate the wheat from the chaff in order to find whats important.

“I think what you are arguing about is contained in the debates on clouds, aerosols and precipitation. You are correct in assuming that these unknowns could very well produce effects that outweigh the direct impact of increasing CO2 and the resulting changes in watts/square meter. In fact, both sides are arguing for that very thing, just in opposite directions.””

No no.

I’m saying the WATTS PER METRE SQUARED analyis IS ITSELF in error.

And so both the alarmists and the pro-reason guys are in error on this point.

“When the IPCC talks about the net anthropogenic radiative forcing, they are talking about the direct effect of increasing CO2 and leaving all else the same. It is not very realistic because ‘all else’ does not stay the same”

Thats just a common and invalid objection to A PRIORI analysis. The IPCC screw up in many ways. They probably bugger things up in their sleep. I wouldn’t ‘trust them to sit on the toilet seat the right way round’. But I’ll not fault them for using a bit of A PRIORI in their “thinking”

“.. as you point out, but their argument has to start somewhere and that is where the choose to do it…”

I say this is bad analysis and ought to be dropped.

I say we ought to care about the PLACEMENT of any DELTA-JOULES in the system.

I say both sides are getting this wrong.

Comment by Graeme Bird — March 10, 2007 @ 12:52 am”

(PS. I just checked on the internet and no-one else appears to be using this terminology)

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Delta-Joules&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Advertisements

Responses

  1. good I wanna hear more about the Singularity and Gold Standard. and some more on physics.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: