This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I recently caught the last part of television interview with two climate scientists here in Australia. I was interested to hear them both ridicule the climate sceptics who "clearly do not understand the basic physics laws of thermodynamics". Unfortunately they did not elaborate on this, but at least got my attention.
As usual there is no opportunity to question these assertions at the time, so can someone please enlighten me with:
1) What have the climate scientists got wrong with applying these fundamental laws of physics to their theory?
2)If they understand these laws, on what grounds do they conventionally defend themselves against accusations of abusing them?
Answering your questions:-
1) AGW climate scientists do NOT use, or apply, any of the fundamental laws of physics; especially, they do not use the all important laws of Thermodynamics. If they did, they would not have a Theory. --- More correctly, they could have a Hypothesis, which is not supported by these laws.
2) Whether they understand these laws is a moot point, all we know is that their main defence tactic is to call on the 'opinion' of consensus science, which has nothing to do with the physical laws. Therefore, they do not actually have a hypothesis, let alone a theory; these are genuine scientific terms, which can Only be debated with reference to the Laws of Physics. --- In the television interview you quoted, here you see the very typical use of AGW spurious defence tactics: attack, the best form of defence is Attack, especially when defending quasi religious beliefs.
Climate Is Thermodynamics in action, Weather Is Thermodynamics in action, given the immense energy flows the system is handling, small wonder it gives a little 'squeak' now and then. --- Trace gases have about as much effect on this colossus of a 'Heat Engine' as a cloud of midges on a summer evening.
Read this guest essay by Willis Essenbach: brilliant!
Trust this brings some enlightenment, David
For some time it has been the AGW cry of consensus and the rest of the world saying science isn't about consensus, you can't vote physical laws into existence.
It now begins to appear that the AGW camp is beginning to accept that argument.... now that the numbers game is going against them.
Once the balance of numbers is overwhelmingly against them and there is a "consensus" that believes AGW is a scam, that's when their epiphany will be complete.
Sans a consensus argument they must move on to some other tactic and this is one of them.
thankyou for your response, also the link you supplied is a very interesting read.
As for the more recent comment regarding the ABC here in Australia, it is very much an out-post of the BBC.
An example, I recall the airing a couple of years ago of the "Great Global Warmimg Swindle" by a UK film maker. Whatever one thinks of the film, the theme went like this:
1) National newspapers report the ABC has decided after the board met to agree to air the "controversial" documentary.
2)Four weeks later, the ABC air it as part of a studio debate with the ABC host (not impartial) and a panel of sceptics and AGW advocates to discuss after the film.
3) The ABC host prior to airing announces "the following film does not represent the views of the ABC." In case we were in any doubt!
4) Film aired.
5) ABC show an interview (by the host) with the film maker pre-recorded. The host, with a forensic level of investigation attempts to discredit the film maker and even informs the viewer of the past controversial films this man has made for good measure. Host signs off interview with thanks to film maker and "for showing us your film with all its flaws".
6) Studio debate, with host again not impartial.
Contrast this with the ABC interview when Professor Stern visited to publicise his report:
1) ABC interviewer basically takes everything PS says as fact. No hostility, no difficult questions.
It's a bit tricky for most of us in the forum to answer or discuss the question Rob, not living in Australia. But after doing some Googling, I would guess this link gives the transcript for the interview you saw:
It looks like they're claiming that AGW sceptics don't understand the First Law of Thermodynamics, which is basically the principle of energy conservation. But I'm not aware of any AGW sceptic who doesn't agree with the idea of energy conservation.
Thanks for the link Dave. The transcript proves three things:-
1) ABC is just as propagandist as the BBC, i.e. not to be trusted.
2) The Climate Botherers interviewed do not 'choose' to understand, or represent, the Laws of Thermodynamics correctly; otherwise, they would not have used such a woolly expression as, "It's basically that energy is conserved". (If they were discussing real Science, they would at least have said that, 'energy cannot be Destroyed, it can only be Transformed, from one form to another).
3) It was all just 'business as usual'; AGW's proselytising their beliefs. (Just as JMW and I said).
Tut' Dave:- "It's a bit tricky for most of us in the forum to answer or discuss the question Rob, not living in Australia."! --- Numberwatch is Global in its reach, (as unfortunately is AGW crap). Rob Smith's queries were a genuine appeal for clarification on what is undoubtedly the most important Law of the Universe. --- Where else would he turn to, but John's Forum?
(Forgot, correction, spelling, 'Willis Eschenbach' Please, somebody, read his elegant definition, explanation, and proof of the Planetary Thermostat. See if you can deduce what this man's message means for AGW's)
Willy E, as he is sometimes referred to, is naturally enough roundly assassinated by the AGWers who, amongst other things, refer to him as an "amateur".
There was a time when that meant a great deal in the realms of natural philosophy but I believe they mean it in a derogatory manner.
I am having a bit of trouble.
It was all very well when we lived in the era of Global Warming because then we had a situation where nasty old man was causing terrible damage and it would cost a fortune to put right.
But now we have moved on to Climate Change, Abrupt Climate Change and whatever Holdren now calls it.
I notice no one actually refers to man's causing it except when they talk about warming.
So, the concept of climate change was that temperatures can go down as well as up, sideways and presumably upside down. But it is difficult to see how man can be responsible for all, some or any of it when it is so unpredictable or changeable.... but of course, the link was made when we spoke of warming and now the subconcious link remains whatever happens.... its wonderful how propaganda works isn't it?
"Willy E,---AGWers---refer to him as an amateur.---There was a time when that meant a great deal in the realms of natural philosophy".
It still does J. Consider the dictionary definition of the words Natural and Philosophy:-
Natural ( of, existing in, or produced by nature: 'natural science'; ---).
Philosophy ( the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships.)
So, 'Willy E', a self confessed amateur scientist, now gives us a definitive explanation of how the 'Weather Machine' maintains the equilibrium of our Climate. He does so, solely using the Laws of Thermodynamics and empirical observations; consequently, every step of his workings and proofs are Immediately Verifiable by standard scientific procedures.(In my opinion, this one piece of work by Willis Eschenbach heralds the extinction of the AGW movement! From now on, we can only witness their death throes, and they will take everyone who adheres to their dogma down with them, from Presidents to Peasants). --- Yes, I think that 'Willy E' is simply, now, the most important man in the Western World.
The Victorians, I believe, were the first to equate scientific endeavour with the amateur; probably because they realised that once a scientist accepts a paymaster, (rather than a sponsor), his essential innocence is lost, he can no longer properly serve the interests of humanity in the understanding of our universe. --- For me, the greatest accolade the World can bestow on a scientist, is to say that this man, or woman, is a Natural Philosopher.
If memory serves me correctly this explanation, or something very similar, was presented in one of the textbooks we had when I was at grammar school in the late 1960s.
The mechanism makes complete sense from a feed back point of view, the standard AGW models are frankly impossible being tuned to a very narrow stability range with a vastly inadequate gain loop. Interestingly the mechanism is essentially that by which a Stirling engine operates.
Having at one time been, allegedly, expert in thermal imaging I find the continual harping on about CO2 absorption driving AGW more than a little annoying. Within the thermal imaging community it has always been axiomatic that CO2 band transmission falls to essentially zero over path lengths between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 miles depending on altitude, weather conditions and who's measurements you choose to use. Hence all CO2 band radiation is already absorbed within the troposphere so further additions have no effect. If there had been any useful transmission in the CO2 bands the thermal imaging community would be exploiting it. A couple of decades ago I was able to demonstrate, as part of an investigation into inexpensive short range IR systems, that exploiting this part of the spectrum gave sufficient performance gains to allow un-cooled detectors to be used but the effective range proved, in practice, to be marginal for the application.
Thanks for that, Clive.
If I wasn't convinced before that the CO2/GW argument is nonsensical, I certainly am now.
Do you perhaps have any references for the path length of CO2 absorption?
I know that, sooner or later, it's going to crop up in discussion, so it would be nice to have something solid to point to.
I have a note that the 1 1/2 mile figure can be found in Infra Red Systems Engineering by Hudson but a quick skim though my copy hasn't located it. I shall have to find time to sit down and read it properly again. The longer estimate would have been derived from data in either or both the Handbook of Military Infra Red Technology or its multi volume successor The Infra Red Handbook (title?). Most likely the latter given the period when I did the work. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of The Infra Red Handbook so I can't check (worst £50 I ever saved was turning down an offer of the last stand copy about 5 minutes before an exhibition ended!) and the data in my copy of the Handbook of Military Infra Red Technology doesn't look sufficiently familiar. although there is at least one suitable graph from which the extinction co-efficient can be derived and hence absorption path length estimated.
I managed to get a sight of the current Infra Red & EO Handbook but couldn't see any simple statements there. Sorry.
I'll try to source one of those publications - or get a friend to do it for me ;-)