Posted by: graemebird | September 11, 2008

Painstakingly Integrating The Implications Of Basic Science.

Check this from the wiki:

Charles’s law says “when a gas is compressed, temperature is raised”. There are three possible relationships between temperature and pressure in a volume of gas undergoing compression:

  • Isothermal – gas remains at constant temperature throughout the process. In this cycle, internal energy is removed from the system as heat at the same rate that it is added by the mechanical work of compression. Isothermal compression or expansion is favored by a large heat exchanging surface, a small gas volume, or a long time scale (i.e., a small power level). With practical devices, isothermal compression is usually not attainable. For example, even a bicycle tire-pump gets hot during use.
  • Adiabatic – In this process there is no heat transfer to or from the system, and all supplied work is added to the internal energy of the gas, resulting in increases of temperature and pressure. Theoretical temperature rise is T2 = T1·Rc((k-1)/k)), with T1 and T2 in degrees Rankine or kelvins, and k = ratio of specific heats (approximately 1.4 for air). The rise in air and temperature ratio means compression does not follow a simple pressure to volume ratio. This is less efficient, but quick. Adiabatic compression or expansion is favored by good insulation, a large gas volume, or a short time scale (i.e., a high power level). In practice there will always be a certain amount of heat flow, as to make a perfect adiabatic system would require perfect heat insulation of all parts of a machine.
  • Polytropic – This assumes that heat may enter or leave the system, and that input shaft work can appear as both increased pressure (usually useful work) and increased temperature above adiabatic (usually losses due to cycle efficiency). Cycle efficiency is then the ratio of temperature rise at theoretical 100 percent (adiabatic) vs. actual (polytropic).  

 

 

Pretty basic stuff hey? Well why isn’t this sort of gas law fundamental to the assumptions of this greenhouse racket? It turns out that surface gas pressure is far more important than increases in the composition of non-water-vapour greenhouse gasses when contemplating this entire racket. So why don’t we hear about air pressure at the surface when we listen to our research-grant-whores? Or why is air pressure just some add-on and not central to their models?

I was only put onto this by Alan Siddons. And then these considerations were reinforced by these really brilliant guys that Dr Marohasy has given a bit of space to. Guys like cohenite, Hissink, Barry Moore, Alan Siddons et al.

Siddons has a way of wording things in very stark terms. One piece he wrote made it sound like he was violating the idea of the conservation of energy. And we have trained up a whole swag of idiot-leftists to jump on the first thing that doesn’t sound right to them and use it to dismiss the entirety of the points the guys is making. In fact Siddons was doing no such thing but it took me awhile to get a bit of a handle on what he was saying.

Charlie Munger is Warren Buffets right-hand-man. He says that he likes to look at things in terms of many small models. I agree with this. If a big integrated model comes about almost by accident well thats fine and dandy. But one doesn’t want to force this eventuality and we ought to be using more than one angle or model to describe what we think is going on.

A problem develops when even the smarter blokes are suffering a little bit from the CURSE OF THE LONE PARADIGM.  So even the smarter blokes who have rejected the failed ruling paradigm can be a little bit extremist when they find a better one.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You climb up a mountain in the tropics and the air temperature gets lower and this is mostly due simply to less compression. You pump air into a tank and that air will heat up but than that will mean that the heat energy will start to become lost from your tank and into the surrounding atmosphere. Since thermal energy travels from higher to lower temperatures.  So that when you let the air out, if it has a lot of water vapour in it, your equipment can get iced up. Since now the air that has lost that heat energy is expanded and will, when expanded, manifest a much lower temperature. One needs to split up in ones mind and for analysis the seperate but related concept of joules, thermal energy and temperature. One problem with always thinking of watts-per-square metres is that this focus becomes a set of blinkers that blocks everything else out of your view of whats going on.

Now how much of all this is included in that basic model of watts-per-square-metre? This watts per square metre business is pure crankery. Its just one sliver of the reality of this complex earth.  So in their world they have a planet twice as far from the sun, noon all the time, its a flat earth, but in this otherworldly flat-earth compression means nothing. Well at least in their ridiculous models. And yet you only need to walk up that tropical mountain to know that it means something.

Now I’ll link to a much-pilloried study that was linked and previewed by Dr Marohasy. Her name may be suffering a bit from its close resemblance to the evil Dr Moriati. This link is to do with the changes to the orbit of the moon around the earth. And how that would effect temperature. I haven’t bought the e-book yet but will do so in a while.

Now we have basically all been trained to look at such a thesis as pure voodoo. The author sees the effect of the moons orbit on air-pressure up North (if I read him rightly) makes a big difference. And of course it does and will do, if you are taking into account matters as I’ve described them above. But we are taught to think DENIALIST…..CYCLE-CRANK…… BURN HIM.

And yet its obvious he’s right and that air PRESSURE in specific areas where the water is often on the verge of freezing and behind where the glacier front is. And air pressure will also make a terrific difference to the moons interaction with the great ocean conveyer.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003356.html

I see this as a very valuable thread. I think I did a pretty good job defending this bloke and explaining to people just what this climate science is all about. And its where I first got interested in reading everything that Barry Moore has to say. Climate science is not about supercomputers and isn’t likely to be about that level of computation any time soon. Its more about sorting the more important CYCLES from the ones that are less important. In my view the most important consideration when trying to keep us from getting locked into a major glacial period is our economic dynamism and the health and lack of obstruction to the great ocean conveyer. Particularly the gulf stream part of it. But its easy to see how other influences can be more important in the short run or could develop into a situation where a glacial period was locked in by further resistance to oceanic circulation.

The gravitational cycles are called the Primary Forcing Mechanism for Climate (PFM), and act like a magnet by pulling the atmosphere’s high pressure systems northward or southward by as much as 3 or 4 degrees of latitude from their normal seasonal positions, and thus causing long-term shifts in the location of atmospheric high pressure systems.”

This will make a very big difference and obviously so. If you were in an ice age or trying to avoid one you would presumably want the high pressure over the ice front. Or you would want it in such a place as it helped to avoid an ice cap forming over the Sea of Labrador and stuffing up the Gulf Streams circulation or other less well known parts of this circulation. The pull of the moon might even effect magma circulation under a specific part of the ocean where you want to avoid ice obstruction. Who knows? I’ll clearly have a better understanding of where he’s coming from once I’ve read his book.

But the main thing is that we have to just trash all this flat earth science thats out there and the people putting it about. And we may wind up hurting one or two decent human beings while we are “taking out the trash” as Quiggin always says. But thats too bad because we’ve got to let these taxeaters know that we are serious and we aren’t willing to put up with the migration of leftist unreason to the hard sciences.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Hi Graeme,

    The drop in air temp with height, also known as the lapse rate, is included in the theory of CAGW. It has to be or their models couldn’t be tuned to the past and would blow up very quickly when used to generate “future scenarios”, as they say.

    What is truly amazing to me is the assumptions needed to make CAGW work. Both carbon dioxide and water have highly variable concentrations in the lower troposphere. It is only at high altitudes that carbon dioxide becomes “well mixed” and has a nearly uniform spatial concentration. Water apparently never becomes “well mixed”, since I’ve never read or heard this phrase being applied to gas phase water in the atmosphere. Since the EM spectrum seen by the sensors is a function of absorbing species’ concentrations, it seems to me that any radiative balance calculations that ignored this would not model the real atmosphere well.

    Likewise, when people talk of atmopheric aerosols, they rarely, if ever, include water clouds in this discussion even though it is obvious that water clouds are aerosols.

  2. Right. But even if they plug some of this into their supercomputer, the problem is that they are still locked into this watts-per-square metre thinking. Its still blocking their ability to “see” the whole thing.

    Its been like this in economics where the Reisman idea of looking at business-to-business spending and seeing a massive amount of spending deriving from “saving”…. his view of saving being more greatly expanded to include all spending within the business…..

    This just totally opens out your view of the situation.

    It matters what order your more basic model deals with data…. The steps it goes through.

    You see the basic model starts with an assumption about a doubling of CO2… it next moves onto water vapour feedback… completely misunderstanding this because of the focus on instananeous watts…. then it tends to add back the reality after this late stage as mere adjustments. In other words fudge factors.

    From this retarded and blinkered view of the situation, even though they might diligently plug in a whole lot of other calculations into banks of computers, they are nonetheless flying blind.

  3. Graeme,

    This is “central to their models”. It’s generally called “the equation of state”, and is one of the six fundamental (or “primitive”) equations used in constructing the atmospheric component of a GCM.


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: