El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
> We appear to be running out of fossil fuel anyway. All of it that can > be burned will be burned sooner or later. Meanwhile, the AGW- > believing, limousine liberal types should be doing their part by using > more fuel efficient limousines, more fuel efficient private jets and > more energy efficient mansions and heated pools.
Now Now ,just because you're a miser and refuse to turn on your refrigerator at night and you only have a single 15 watt lightbulb in you house (6000 kwh your statement not mine) that doesn't mean every one else wants to live the same way.
On Nov 5, 3:34 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message > news:iLFIm.116796$5n1.54901@attbi_s21... > > So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates? > > Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those > > differences. > > Cat got your tongue?
> It is AGW believers who think they know what causes climate; its up to them > to explain this.
Oriel is not (well, not merely) an AGW skeptic. This had been a question to expose his ignorance of basic physics. It was not expected that (common, garden-variety) AGW skeptics would be on the same level. Your post came as a surprise.
The answer he is looking for, of course, is Venus' heavy atmosphere of carbon dioxide, and Mars' very tenuous atmosphere. That is why Venus is even hotter than its closeness to the Sun would account for.
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 4, 3:48 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: > >>> On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote: > >>>>> "really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables > >>>>> to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all > >>>>> simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a > >>>>> total derivative? > >> Only one of the variables is changing very rapidly indeed. The rate of > >> change of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is high and increasing. We need > >> to buy time by becoming more energy efficient.
> > We appear to be running out of fossil fuel anyway. All of it that can > > be burned will be burned sooner or later. Meanwhile, the AGW-
> Keeping some of it as feedstock for the petrochemicals industry would be > wise. But we have sufficient oil and coal reserves to cause serious > levels of CO2 if burned - in excess of 4x present day values.
> And as fossil fuel gets scarcer we will find more that becomes > economically extractable from more difficult reserves.
Once the energy required to extract a fuel exceeds the amount of energy available from that fuel, there will be no point in using it for fuel, although it might still be economical as a feedstock.
> > believing, limousine liberal types should be doing their part by using > > more fuel efficient limousines, more fuel efficient private jets and > > more energy efficient mansions and heated pools.
> More straw men from fat ugly Americans for a dead planet. > Do you not believe in good stewardship of our planet?
If someone is concerned enough about the planet to worry and complain about CO2 levels, they should be setting a good example. Most European countries emit far more CO2 per capita than most third-world countries. See if you can reduce your carbon footprint down to those levels.
> >>>> Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human > >>>> activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly, > >>>> because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless > >>>> the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is > >>>> *way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's > >>>> carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is > >>>> important. > >>>> If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would > >>>> know that this provided no basis to object to his statements. > >>>> John Savard > >>> Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors, > >>> as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted > >>> for too. > >> You mean albedo. Solar radiance is satellite monitored over the past > >> four decades so you cannot claim that the sun magically got brighter. > >> Even sceptical scientists concede that it is impossible to balance the > >> Earth's energy budget after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.
> >> Atmospheric H2O responds to changes in temperature caused by the input > >> of additional CO2, CH4 and other GHGs.
> > You need more data.
> There is enough scientific evidence already that the situation is clear. > Only the professional deniers for hire pretend otherwise.
Again, you need more data. Gather it on your own dime.
> >> You can still find professional deniers for hire. Some of them have an > >> excellent track record working for tobacco companies to keep people > >> smoking. The tricks of their trade are plausible lies to keep the public > >> from ever understanding the scientific evidence. Sadly the US education > >> system it so horribly broken that it works all too well.
> > The average American certainly understands the economic implications > > of cutting fuel use in the short term, so he must be learning > > something.
> Until the price gets to $6/gallon or higher I somehow doubt it. > Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
Again, reduce your carbon footprint to levels matching those of the average citizen of India, for example.
> >> Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope > >> of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board > >> the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
> > The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
> Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
Europe isn't meeting its goals, and its reductions to date seem to have something to do with closing down old coal-burning plants. Meanwhile, China has been building new coal-burning plants by the week and burns every barrel of oil it can get its hands on.
> >> Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
> > Good.
> But bad for the planet.
Unless you can demonstrate useful "progress" on your own part and that of your country's, then remain silent.
> > We appear to be running out of fossil fuel anyway. All of it that can > > be burned will be burned sooner or later. Meanwhile, the AGW- > > believing, limousine liberal types should be doing their part by using > > more fuel efficient limousines, more fuel efficient private jets and > > more energy efficient mansions and heated pools.
> Now Now ,just because you're a miser and refuse to turn on your > refrigerator at night and you only have a single 15 watt lightbulb in > you house (6000 kwh your statement not mine) that doesn't mean every > one else wants to live the same way.
My last month's bill showed a shade over 400 KwH, down about 14 KwH over the same period last year. I guess since the Earth is still cooling, I didn't have to run the air conditioner as much.
The refrigerator probably takes up 30% of the electricity I use during the cool months. It is relatively new compared to some of my other appliances, but it isn't clear whether the carbon footprint of having a newer one delivered is less than continued use of the existing unit, which would very likely end up being used by someone else anyway. Maybe Zero can come up with a Cars-for-Clunkers-type program for household appliances.
Actually, a single 15 watt CFL might suffice for someone living in a studio apartment, but Uncle Al doesn't want to live that way, and neither do very many of the rest of the Warmingistas. Private jets are more their style. I will continue to turn out lights that I'm not using and continue to look for ways to save energy, as I have done for decades. I will not, however be preached at and lectured to by people who live in glass houses.
wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Nov 5, 7:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> >>>> Copenhagen will be all words and no action. >>> Good. >> But bad for the planet.
> Unless you can demonstrate useful "progress" on your own part and that > of your country's, then remain silent.
Tough. The UK is on target to exceed the CO2 cuts it promised in the Kyoto treaty. My own carbon footprint is down 10% over the past year largely by improvements in loft insulation and energy efficient double glazing. My car averages 55mpg. What's the US fleet average these days?
On Nov 6, 5:24 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The UK is on target to exceed the CO2 cuts it promised in the > Kyoto treaty. My own carbon footprint is down 10% over the past year > largely by improvements in loft insulation and energy efficient double > glazing. My car averages 55mpg. What's the US fleet average these days?
> Regards, > Martin Brown
The UK had it's Kyoto target made before the agreement was ratified. By a fortuitous selection of a high baseline year and the timely discovery of a natural gas reserve. The UK made the switch from coal to natural gas for economic reasons, not any CO2 emissions issue. And now they are having to import natural gas from Russia to keep power plants running. This is not true sustainable progress, only sub optimization.
On Nov 6, 6:24 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 5, 7:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> > >>>> Copenhagen will be all words and no action. > >>> Good. > >> But bad for the planet.
> > Unless you can demonstrate useful "progress" on your own part and that > > of your country's, then remain silent.
> Tough. The UK is on target to exceed the CO2 cuts it promised in the > Kyoto treaty.
If you replace coal with a "cleaner" fuel such as natural gas, all you are doing is forcing someone else, somewhere to burn the coal you would have used, or else they do without. The coal gets burned anyway. IE, no net reduction in CO2.
> My own carbon footprint is down 10% over the past year > largely by improvements in loft insulation and energy efficient double > glazing.
It's taken you THIS long to get around to insulating your dwelling? Think of how much CO2 you were spewing out all of these years!
> My car averages 55mpg.
If you are really concerned about Global Warming, why do you even drive a car? Wouldn't a bicycle serve the same purpose?
> What's the US fleet average these days?
By US fleet average do you mean to include those those Jaguars and Land Rovers that I see rolling around (sometimes) on US roads? The Bentleys, Rolls and Aston Martins use even more fuel, but those are few and far between.
Anyway, my car probably equals or exceeds the UK fleet average. If you have a problem with drivers of large SUVs, whether they live in the US or in the UK, take it up with them.
You got your units wrong. I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more reasonably as thermal energy.
You have asked about energy flux/m^2
Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then "refined".
Better question: what value is assumed in your favourite model?
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Peter Webb wrote: > You got your units wrong. > I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more > reasonably as thermal energy.
> You have asked about energy flux/m^2
> Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. > In AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then > "refined".
So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", if you have no measurement data, Peter?
On Nov 6, 5:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Peter Webb wrote: > > You got your units wrong. > > I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more > > reasonably as thermal energy.
> > You have asked about energy flux/m^2
> > Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. > > In AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then > > "refined".
> So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth > derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", > if you have no measurement data, Peter?
Also, the angular energy induced into the Earth by the receeding moon contributes to tectonics, and earthquakes and volcanoes, volcanoes make a mess of the atmosphere, usually cool it. Ken
Ken S. Tucker wrote: > On Nov 6, 5:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >> So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth >> derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", >> if you have no measurement data, Peter?
> Also, the angular energy induced into the Earth by the receeding > moon contributes to tectonics, and earthquakes and volcanoes, > volcanoes make a mess of the atmosphere, usually cool it. > Ken
Certainly tides are raised and there is friction under the tidal bulges. Those for forces would be greater near the equator than the poles, but I doubt that there is any correlation with the tectonic plate motions. Have you any data, Ken?
> Peter Webb wrote: >> You got your units wrong. >> I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more >> reasonably as thermal energy.
>> You have asked about energy flux/m^2
>> Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In >> AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then >> "refined".
> So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth > derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", > if you have no measurement data, Peter?
Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro newsgroup).
Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat transfer.
AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the trade as "curve fitting".
On Nov 7, 6:03 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > On Nov 6, 5:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: > >> So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth > >> derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", > >> if you have no measurement data, Peter?
> > Also, the angular energy induced into the Earth by the receeding > > moon contributes to tectonics, and earthquakes and volcanoes, > > volcanoes make a mess of the atmosphere, usually cool it. > > Ken
> Certainly tides are raised and there is friction under the tidal > bulges. Those for forces would be greater near the equator than the > poles, but I doubt that there is any correlation with the tectonic > plate motions. Have you any data, Ken?
Crustal evolution is governed by fluid dynamics,specifically differential rotation ,the geological signatures are seen in the fracture zones coming off the Mid Atlantic Ridge -
The common mechanism which binds planetary spherical deviation with the evolution of oceanic crust is the differential rotation occuring in the viscous interior but given the intellectual lightweights that exist today,I hardly expect those who prize intelligence as a human attribute could spot the remarkable Romanche trench existing the the Earth maximum rotational speed and the lag/advance traits of crustal evolution which produces it.
The key to climate,geology and just about every terrestrial science is planetary dynamics and people who try to explain daily rotation through the motion of constellations around Polaris would have no idea about this.
> > Peter Webb wrote: > >> You got your units wrong. > >> I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more > >> reasonably as thermal energy.
> >> You have asked about energy flux/m^2
> >> Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In > >> AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then > >> "refined".
> > So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth > > derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", > > if you have no measurement data, Peter?
> Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many > similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of > Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them > will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro > newsgroup).
> Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep > within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are > heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than > in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
> Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of > the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer > from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat > transfer.
> AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many > datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental > data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick > numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the > trade as "curve fitting".
Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Have you ever looked at the source code for one of the climate models or what data is used in a climate model? Careful how you answer, because your posts show you haven't. Of course that means like oriel, danny,ed and wretchedfossil your posts have no useful opinion
> > > Peter Webb wrote: > > >> You got your units wrong. > > >> I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more > > >> reasonably as thermal energy.
> > >> You have asked about energy flux/m^2
> > >> Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In > > >> AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then > > >> "refined".
> > > So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth > > > derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", > > > if you have no measurement data, Peter?
> > Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many > > similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of > > Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them > > will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro > > newsgroup).
> > Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep > > within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are > > heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than > > in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
> > Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of > > the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer > > from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat > > transfer.
> > AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many > > datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental > > data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick > > numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the > > trade as "curve fitting".
> Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Have you ever looked at > the source code for one of the climate models or what data is used in > a climate model?
Astronomers like good artists,composers or writers pick up on details that others skip over or are oblivious to,it is a talent which many people have but seldom use .
I looked at an eroding sandbank after a rainstorm and liked the idea that differential rotation of the viscous interior eroding incrementally at the crustal plate margins so that people who experience earthquakes are feeling the consequences of planetary rotation in a geological sense.Little point in explaining this further to people who organise the Earth's interior around 'convection cells'.
Careful how you answer, because your posts show you
> haven't. Of course that means like oriel, danny,ed and wretchedfossil > your posts have no useful opinion
Did you hear the one about people who tried to explain daily rotation using the constellations around Polaris ?,who would believe people would believe in such a thing !.
> > > > Peter Webb wrote: > > > >> You got your units wrong. > > > >> I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more > > > >> reasonably as thermal energy.
> > > >> You have asked about energy flux/m^2
> > > >> Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In > > > >> AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then > > > >> "refined".
> > > > So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth > > > > derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", > > > > if you have no measurement data, Peter?
> > > Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many > > > similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of > > > Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them > > > will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro > > > newsgroup).
> > > Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep > > > within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are > > > heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than > > > in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
> > > Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of > > > the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer > > > from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat > > > transfer.
> > > AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many > > > datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental > > > data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick > > > numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the > > > trade as "curve fitting".
> > Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Have you ever looked at > > the source code for one of the climate models or what data is used in > > a climate model?
> Astronomers like good artists,composers or writers pick up on details > that others skip over or are oblivious to,it is a talent which many > people have but seldom use .
> I looked at an eroding sandbank after a rainstorm and liked the idea > that differential rotation of the viscous interior eroding > incrementally at the crustal plate margins so that people who > experience earthquakes are feeling the consequences of planetary > rotation in a geological sense.Little point in explaining this further > to people who organise the Earth's interior around 'convection cells'.
> Careful how you answer, because your posts show you
> > haven't. Of course that means like oriel, danny,ed and wretchedfossil > > your posts have no useful opinion
> Did you hear the one about people who tried to explain daily rotation > using the constellations around Polaris ?,who would believe people > would believe in such a thing !.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I would be very interested in your explanation of why the contellations appear to rotate around Polaris with such a regular motion.
> > > > > Peter Webb wrote: > > > > >> You got your units wrong. > > > > >> I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more > > > > >> reasonably as thermal energy.
> > > > >> You have asked about energy flux/m^2
> > > > >> Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In > > > > >> AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then > > > > >> "refined".
> > > > > So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth > > > > > derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", > > > > > if you have no measurement data, Peter?
> > > > Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many > > > > similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of > > > > Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them > > > > will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro > > > > newsgroup).
> > > > Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep > > > > within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are > > > > heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than > > > > in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
> > > > Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of > > > > the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer > > > > from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat > > > > transfer.
> > > > AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many > > > > datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental > > > > data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick > > > > numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the > > > > trade as "curve fitting".
> > > Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Have you ever looked at > > > the source code for one of the climate models or what data is used in > > > a climate model?
> > Astronomers like good artists,composers or writers pick up on details > > that others skip over or are oblivious to,it is a talent which many > > people have but seldom use .
> > I looked at an eroding sandbank after a rainstorm and liked the idea > > that differential rotation of the viscous interior eroding > > incrementally at the crustal plate margins so that people who > > experience earthquakes are feeling the consequences of planetary > > rotation in a geological sense.Little point in explaining this further > > to people who organise the Earth's interior around 'convection cells'.
> > Careful how you answer, because your posts show you
> > > haven't. Of course that means like oriel, danny,ed and wretchedfossil > > > your posts have no useful opinion
> > Did you hear the one about people who tried to explain daily rotation > > using the constellations around Polaris ?,who would believe people > > would believe in such a thing !.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I would be very interested in your explanation of why the > contellations appear to rotate around Polaris with such a regular > motion.
The references for the Earth's annual/orbital cycle is contained in the return of a star in 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes while daily/ rotation cycle is referenced to the Sun -
" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy." Huygens
The creation of the average 24 hour day in tandem with the 365/366 day calendar system then sets the framework for the equatorial coordinate system where a star returns constantly in 'sidereal time',in other words,it is based on calendar timekeeping averages and not raw daily rotational and orbital planetary dynamics behind the creation of the timekeeping averages themselves.This may be slightly intricate but by no means difficult but I will repeat it - the raw astronomical cycles provide the references for timekeeping averages which in turn provide the framework for the Ra/Dec convenience that you call 'sidereal time'.
When scientist predicts the date of the next solar eclipse ,they will be doing so based on the calendar system and the timekeeping averages which constitute Ra/Dec,this indicates how useful the system is without falling for the trap that it explains planetary dynamics ,however,the attempt to use the system to determine rotation in 23 hours 56 minutes leads to explaining the orbital cycle in 365 days for 3 years and 366 days for the fourth year and men are not supposed to entertain such a dumb approach as this,certainly I do not wish to explain it further.
The Earth's rotation can be explained and expressed as an isolated fact - at the equator,the Earth turns through 1669.8 km representing 15 degrees/1 hour and an entire 40,075 km equatorial circumference representing 360 degrees/24 hours Call me a madman for believing this but physical geometry and geography makes it an absolute certainty.
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message > news:t04Jm.124235$la3.85084@attbi_s22... >> Peter Webb wrote: >>> You got your units wrong. >>> I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more >>> reasonably as thermal energy.
>>> You have asked about energy flux/m^2
>>> Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to >>> measure. In AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable >>> which is then "refined".
>> So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth >> derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", >> if you have no measurement data, Peter?
He is clueless. And the claim is total bullshit.
> Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many > similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" > of Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of > them will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an > astro newsgroup).
Massive stars with hotter cores have the CNO cycle running and providing roughly half the energy when T>2x10^7K (see for example Harwitt - Astrophysical Concepts) and it is very sensitive to temperature compared to the PP chain which becomes viable at T>5x10^6.
It is C12 by the way that catalyses fusion in massive stars. You are clueless.
> Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration > deep within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that > these are heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are > much higher than in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
This is about as completely wrong as it is possible to be. There are pretty good models for the distribution of the elements between the various layers of the Earth and initial abundances available from the undifferentiated meteoritic material. Only "Creation Science" sites would claim otherwise and they are packed with outright lies.
Uranium is insoluble in the nickel-iron core of the Earth and is preferentially concentrated in the Earths crust. See for example:
Your "Dittohead Science" will not cut it here. Heavy metals has a chemical meaning rather than simply the density of the material. There is plenty of lead in the Earths crust and it is a similarly heavy metal. The annoying thing about uranium is that although it is a relatively common element at 2ppm in the crust good quality uranium ores are rare.
And potassium is another important source of radioactive heating inside the Earth. Plutonium is neglible now its half life is too short.
> Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature > of the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat > transfer from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric > heat transfer.
The total amount of heat flux through the ground is between 30 and 50TW depending on whose measurements you believe. This represents about 0.3W/m^2 internal heat escaping compared to ~1000W/m^2 incident solar radiation and the 1.5W/m^2 (and increasing) GHG forcing.
> AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many > datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental > data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they > pick numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in > the trade as "curve fitting".
The models are good enough to show the consequences of business as usual. They will never be exact. And we would be very suspicious of any models that could not sensibly model historical data.
> > Peter Webb wrote: > >> You got your units wrong. > >> I said "heat", which could be interpreted as temperature but more > >> reasonably as thermal energy.
> >> You have asked about energy flux/m^2
> >> Short answer is, nobody knows exactly, extremely difficult to measure. In > >> AGW theories this is usually wrapped in a free variable which is then > >> "refined".
> > So why did you write, "A significant part of the earth's warmth > > derives from radioactive decay of heavy metals in the earth's core", > > if you have no measurement data, Peter?
> Don't blame me, blame geologists. Or don't. Astrophysicists have many > similar situations - most astrophysicists believe a "significant part" of > Hydrogen fusion in large old stars is catalysed through C16, none of them > will tell you how much (I use this as an example because it is an astro > newsgroup).
> Geologists have no models for the Pu, Th and U isotopic concentration deep > within the earth, and hence the heat generated. They know that these are > heavy metals, and therefore suspect the concentrations are much higher than > in the crust as (umm) heavy things sink.
> Of course, if you wanted to accurately predict the surface temperature of > the earth, you would need to know the amount of warming due to heat transfer > from deep underground, just as you need to know the atmospheric heat > transfer.
> AGW models suffer hugely from this problem (unknown data) with many > datasets. They haven't got anything vaguely resembling good experimental > data on this, so they do the same as with many other unknowns - they pick > numbers which make the models predict past data correctly, known in the > trade as "curve fitting".
Just as a passing note you might want to look at the Vtables for any of the grib datasets used in numerical models. There you find that both soil temperature (typically down to 200 cm) and soil moisture (again down to 200cm) measurements. Are you that stupid that you think that you are the only person that has thought that soil temperature and moisture might play a role in the quality of the forecast? There is no curve fitting going on you're just not smart enough to understand the math and physics
> The references for the Earth's annual/orbital cycle is contained in > the return of a star in 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes while daily/ > rotation cycle is referenced to the Sun -
Gerald, you've been corrected before. Try to get it right.
FROM DIRECT OBSERVATION
The Sidereal Year (fixed star to fixed star) is 365d 06h 09m 10s The Tropical Year (equinox to equinox) is 365d 05h 48m 45.19s The Anomalistic Year (perihelion to perihelion) is 365d 06h 13m 53s
On Nov 9, 12:21 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The references for the Earth's annual/orbital cycle is contained in > > the return of a star in 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes while daily/ > > rotation cycle is referenced to the Sun -
> Gerald, you've been corrected before. Try to get it right.
> FROM DIRECT OBSERVATION
> The Sidereal Year (fixed star to fixed star) is 365d 06h 09m 10s > The Tropical Year (equinox to equinox) is 365d 05h 48m 45.19s > The Anomalistic Year (perihelion to perihelion) is 365d 06h 13m 53s
The specific way a planet orbits a star is in itself fascinating,not just the variable speed and the elliptical geometry but the actual details behind the dynamic itself which can actually be seen directly using the power of modern imaging -
The attempt to explain planetary dynamics using 'sidereal time' is the Berlin wall of astronomy,it encases all observations in a celestial sphere where credence is given to the rotation of the constellations around Polaris for both diurnal rotation and orbital motion and amounts to the worst excesses of cause and effect applied to observations.The 'predictive' nature of Ra/Dec forms the basis of the empirical approach to astronomy and specifically planetary dynamics and solar system structure and from what I have seen,proponents of this approach would rather believe in 'time travel' than accept that at the core of the gravitational precepts originating with Newton in attempting to link terrestrial ballistics with planetary dynamics using 'predictions',is the worst possible conclusion -
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical..." Flamsteed
In short,trying to model planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages and clocks is equivalent to modelling climate using only a single criteria,it goes against intelligence let alone scientific principles.
You cannot imagine what it feels like to encounter people willing to distance themselves from astronomy and its outriggers like timekeeping when so much can be done with today's technology and observational tools but as long as the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec stands as basis for explaining planetary dynamics,this intellectual Berlin wall will continue to wreck havoc on cause and effect or the simple enjoyment of the connection between planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects in terms of climate,geology,biology and related topics.
> You cannot imagine what it feels like to encounter people willing to > distance themselves from astronomy and its outriggers like timekeeping > when so much can be done with today's technology and observational > tools but as long as the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec stands as > basis for explaining planetary dynamics,this intellectual Berlin wall > will continue to wreck havoc on cause and effect or the simple > enjoyment of the connection between planetary dynamics and terrestrial > effects in terms of climate,geology,biology and related topics.
Tear down that wall, Gerald and get yourself some mathematics and physics education. Don't stay a prisoner behind your wall!
On Nov 9, 5:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > You cannot imagine what it feels like to encounter people willing to > > distance themselves from astronomy and its outriggers like timekeeping > > when so much can be done with today's technology and observational > > tools but as long as the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec stands as > > basis for explaining planetary dynamics,this intellectual Berlin wall > > will continue to wreck havoc on cause and effect or the simple > > enjoyment of the connection between planetary dynamics and terrestrial > > effects in terms of climate,geology,biology and related topics.
> Tear down that wall, Gerald and get yourself some mathematics and > physics education. Don't stay a prisoner behind your wall!
You are perfectly entitled to consider me a madman for believing that the Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees per hour amounting to 1669.8 km at the Equator and 40,075 km in 24 hours but where does that leave all those who are attached to a nonsensical value that cannot express basic planetary facts of rotation and shape.
The sickening cowardice is far more painful to deal with than your attachment to that silly 'sidereal time' view of planetary dynamics insofar as most people already know the relationship between time and planetary geometry organised around its rotational characteristics -
The Ra/Dec system from which you and your colleagues draw ridiculous conclusions is a wonderful calendar based convenience,nothing more or less but as a basis for planetary dynamics it becomes catastrophic and is rightly an intellectual Berlin wall encasing astronomy in so much junk.A society which builds ideas on a flat Earth idea,and the 'sidereal time' idea is exactly that, can no longer be considered a functioning civilisation and if all the damage modelling financial markets and climate is not enough to call attention to the 'predictive' empirical approach which began with Flamsteed modelling planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages and expanded on by Newton then the fight and excitement of science is gone entirely.
On Nov 8, 10:02 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are perfectly entitled to consider me a madman for believing that > the Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees per hour amounting to 1669.8 > km at the Equator and 40,075 km in 24 hours but where does that leave > all those who are attached to a nonsensical value that cannot express > basic planetary facts of rotation and shape.
You know that the 24 hour solar day is only a calendrical average.
You know there is no external reference for the 24 hour day.
But the 23 hour 56 minute and 4 second rotational period does have an external reference - the stars - and it is regular, following the time meted out by mechanical clocks. So we start from it to make the motions of the Earth and other bodies simpler to understand, and this simplification worked, letting us connect the pieces and very accurately predict the motions of celestial bodies.
Why condemn what works better than what you are proposing ever could?
|
