Saturday, October 16, 2010 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Some climate insanity for the weekend

While most people with at least traces of rational thinking or common sense have largely seen through the nonsense of "climate disruption", the AGW crusaders reacted in a simple way: they began to write bigger insanities than ever before, hoping that the low-to-nonexistent quality of their arguments can be compensated by their "intensity".

A couple of fresh examples:



Global warming flattens skyscrapers

New Scientist has figured out some new science: "Earth is starting to crumble under the strain of climate change." (This is a quote.)

Cities such as Seattle are going to be completely flattened soon. How does the Earth achieve this modest goal? It's simple. Climate change is, first of all, detonating the volcanoes above such cities, Kate Ravilious professionally explains. Once the volcanoes explode because of the 0.013 °C warming per year or so, they destroy all the skylines, too. No kidding. ;-)




Americans fail because they can distinguish Sun and Earth

Canada's CBC reported the results of a Yale poll about the Americans' "knowledge" about climate change. See some details at the ACG blog. One of the insights that the Americans were expected to know, and this is a quote from CBC, was that:

"The greenhouse effect involves the trapping of the sun's heat by gases in the earth's atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane."
You know, the greenhouse gases are important because they trap the heat of the Sun, not the Earth. So the nations who live in the stratosphere are most threatened. That was their new kind of science. No wonder that most Americans failed in such a poll. If you choose Yale University and your IQ is outside the politically correct interval 0-70, you will fail, too. Before these arrogant people try to measure the knowledge of the Americans, shouldn't they first try to realize that they're among the biggest imbeciles in the country?

Tasmania runs backward in time

The people of Tasmania were showed the magic of climate modeling. They had to be advised by Sean Carroll because they think that even in the macroscopic world, you can simply run time backwards:
"When the new resolution was developed, the model was run backwards to 1960 and the output compared against known local temperatures and rainfall."
Holy cow. The atmosphere is full of heat transfer - and other irreversible processes. Heat always goes from a warmer body to a cooler body and this process is irreversible. Every time it happens, the information gets lost. If you find a cool cup of soup on the kitchen table, you may try to run anything backwards but you won't be able to retrodict when the soup was warm. This information got lost. Predicting how the soup will be cooled is possible, but retrodicting how and when it was "uncool" is not possible. The further you go, the more impossible it becomes. If you substitute the current conditions to the equations and if you run the equations backwards, the temperature differences etc. will inevitably exponentially increase. If they won't, the equations are wrong.

Physical systems evolve to maximize the entropy. In the absence of external perturbations, it means that all the kinetic energy gets ultimately divided to the chaotic thermal energy and macroscopic motion stops. Only periodic external perturbations - that haven't yet diminished because the "friction" terms are small (e.g. orbiting of the Earth around the Sun) - are able to cause periodic perturbations on the Earth.

The internal processes on the Earth are mostly irreversible macroscopic processes that destroy the information within a short time, and can't be just "run backward" by 50 years even if you knew how to run them "forward". The differential equations controlling any realistic model have lots of "friction" terms containing the first time derivatives that dissipate the energy and prevent us from making retrodictions.

Retrodicting the past is completely different from predicting the future and in macroscopic systems, it's de facto impossible - something that the people behind those "models" are completely unaware of. Those people obviously don't understand anything about macroscopic classical physics (and be sure that all other portions of physics are more difficult).

AGW crusaders are complete hacks.

Old people cure global warming

Fast Company explains that the old people don't usually drive Prius but their lower CO2 emissions are good to fight global warming, although old people are not quite as good as dead people. The message is that if the nations can't kill themselves, they should at least try to get as old as possible. ;-)

Andrew Dessler has seen a smoker

In Virginia, "Prof" Andrew Dessler has seen something unbelievable: a smoker of cigarettes. He may even have seen Richard Lindzen with his own eyes. That has been quite a breakthrough because throughout his life, Mr Dessler has only met politically correct heavy smokers of marijuana.

So Mr Dessler learned that Richard Lindzen is actually walking the walk, too. :-) He described his shocking new experience as follows:
“Prior to this talk, Lindzen was outside smoking,” Dessler said motioning to Lindzen. “But not everyone wants to take that risk. This is just like climate change. Some of us aren’t willing to take that risk, but he is.”
As in the Nude Socialist story at the top, a volcano could have collapsed onto the cigarette. It's risky.

If it's "just like climate change", I suppose that next time, they plan to physically prevent Richard Lindzen - and billions of other smokers in the world - from smoking outside and they will force them to buy some carbon credits and nicotine credits.

Via Marc Morano and Willie Soon

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (1) :


reader Brian G Valentine said...

As long as I am here, now, perhaps I might inquire your readers here, Dr Motl.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner have concluded that the “greenhouse” effect is impossible, based on the argument that “greenhouse” gases supposedly “trap” heat in the troposphere, so that the troposphere warms, whilst the stratosphere cools. Since the atmosphere certainly conducts heat through the tropopause, this implies that heat transferred by the “greenhouse” effect from the cooler stratosphere to the warmer troposphere – without expending work.

This is absolute violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and anyone who claims otherwise has no clue about what the second law says.

Why then has the “greenhouse” idea persisted for so long? I suppose it is just a refusal of the mind to step back and look at the larger picture. If ANYONE has a SERIOUS counter-argument to this, I would welcome hearing it.

(Please, the following are not serious counter-arguments: The second law does not apply to the Earth because it is not adiabatic, the time sequence over which this happens is not the same (takes to long to conduct heat relative to the warming of the tropopause), the pV work of the atmosphere compensates for the heat transfer. We do not observe average atmospheric pressure rising at sea level.)